Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 191
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Evolution is not PROVEN

    *EDIT*

    The thread is nearly 10 years old. What is written in the op would not be written by me now. At one time, I was a Creationist.

    I subscribe to theistic evolution, particularly of that of the Biologos.org variety.

    The BioLogos view holds that both Scripture and modern science reveal God’s truth, and that these truths are not in competition with one another. While there are varying views within the BioLogos community of how to reconcile the truths of science and Scripture on particular issues (for example with regards to a historical Adam1), we believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. BioLogos accepts the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and common ancestry, including the common ancestry of humans.

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post506339

    /*EDIT*




    *note* This thread is primarily to be used as a reference. It is not intended to disprove evolution, nor to prove creationism. It merely serves the purpose as a resource to be used to refute the unsupported claim that "all true scientists believe in evolution".

    It seems that many people here have an erroneous view on what evolution is and what its limits are. It seems as if many people believe it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and it is the only possibility.

    Evolutionists aren't even certain it is true. For those who are ABSOLUTELY certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt sure that it is true and the only possibility, consider what the real experts say about the matter.

    Below are quotes from TOP scientists around the world. The * denotes they are/were evolutionists. Which you'll find to be almost all of them.

    "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

    "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

    "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

    "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

    " `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

    "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

    "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

    "One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

    "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

    "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

    "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

    "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

    "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

    "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

    " `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

    "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

    "I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

    "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

    "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

    "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

    "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

    "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

    "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

    "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

    "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

    "The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

    "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

    "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

    "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

    "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

    "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

    "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

    "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

    "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

    "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

    "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

    -------------------------------

    But why all the confusion from these "advocates" of evolution (see the quotes below)? It's quite simple. Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory. You won't see these statements and findings in your textbooks and museums. The ACTUAL beliefs of our top scientists are put aside.

    Evolution (like Creation) is a complicated theory that is ever changing. There are numerous problems with it, as almost all scientists would agree with. So to claim that it has been proven, or is the only way, merely shows one's lack of knowledge about the issue. You may believe in it, which is fine, but to claim that it is definitely what has happened is claiming something which is not proveable (at this time anyway).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; February 25th, 2013 at 09:53 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution is not PROVEN

    Now, for those insisting that no "real scientist" believes in Creation, I have another eye opener for you. MANY actually do, and you will recognize many from the following list (which is not comprehensive, and it contains leading scientists of the past as well as present). Many of which are considered to be "fathers" of their specialty:

    Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

    Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

    Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

    Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

    Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

    Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

    Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

    Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

    Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

    David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

    Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

    Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

    Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

    Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

    Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

    Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

    Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

    Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

    Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

    Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

    John Grebe (chemist)

    Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

    William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

    George F. Howe (botanist)

    D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

    James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

    Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

    John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

    Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

    Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

    Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

    Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

    Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

    Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

    James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

    Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

    Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

    Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

    Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

    Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

    Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

    William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

    John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

    Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

    Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

    James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

    Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

    George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

    Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

    William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

    Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)

    Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

    Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

    A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)

    A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

    John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)


    Now, the point of all this, is not to show that evolution is false, nor to show that Creationism is true. It's to show that the idea that evolution is clearly true and creation must be dismissed on grounds that it is unscientific, is an incredibly ignorant claim. Perhaps this will make someone consider the possibility, that there just might be some validity to another possibility, and the popular "obvious" choice, may not be so obvious and clear after all.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution is not PROVEN

    Micro evolution (which would be germs and such?) has been proven IIRC but macro evolution (where an Ape evolves into a human) hasnt. Evolutuion needs a smoking gun like that for it to be proven.

    Also, there has never been a fossil, or anything found past the 6000 year mark in terms of radio carbon dating. This goes on to show that the theory of the earth being millions of years old is simply untrue.

  4. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution is not PROVEN

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    Micro evolution (which would be germs and such?) has been proven IIRC but macro evolution (where an Ape evolves into a human) hasnt. Evolutuion needs a smoking gun like that for it to be proven.

    Also, there has never been a fossil, or anything found past the 6000 year mark in terms of radio carbon dating. This goes on to show that the theory of the earth being millions of years old is simply untrue.
    re: microevolution, yes I don't know of any scientist who does not believe its validity. Macroevolution, as you have pointed out, is the true issue at the center of debate.

    Now I'm a conservative Christian, and I used to believe in a young earth. But the more and more I study, I begin to think that the earthy is in fact, very, very old. However, I must admit, I'm more on the fence about the matter.

    A very good science site that supports Creation but also a very old earth is: www.reasons.org
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    Also, there has never been a fossil, or anything found past the 6000 year mark in terms of radio carbon dating. This goes on to show that the theory of the earth being millions of years old is simply untrue.
    Is this true? I thought they did radio carbon-14 dating for dinosours to come up with the numbers they got, and they got more then 6000 years.

    Where did you get that information about the radio carbon dating?
    Do or do not, there is no try. - Master Jedi Yoda
    He's Kermit on acid who happens to carry a big stick when pissed off. Big deal. - Apokalupsis
    Actually, didn't Frank Oz do Bert as well? We're cousins! - Withnail in reference to Bert and Yoda

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude Shibby
    Is this true? I thought they did radio carbon-14 dating for dinosours to come up with the numbers they got, and they got more then 6000 years.

    Where did you get that information about the radio carbon dating?
    Videos from my philosophy class.

    Then there are also articles on answers in genesis.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    Videos from my philosophy class.

    Then there are also articles on answers in genesis.
    I am aware of the Genesis account and how Jews say that we are in the
    28 Heshvan 5764 (http://data.jewishgen.org/wconnect/w...jgsys~josdates)

    But im talking about scientific data like Carbon-14 dating, this video you saw in your philosophy class, was it part of your textbook and if so, they would probably have a website in there somewhere.
    Do or do not, there is no try. - Master Jedi Yoda
    He's Kermit on acid who happens to carry a big stick when pissed off. Big deal. - Apokalupsis
    Actually, didn't Frank Oz do Bert as well? We're cousins! - Withnail in reference to Bert and Yoda

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    We are receiving light and other electromagnetic radiation from stars that are hundreds of thousands of light years away.

    Not to mention observing radionuclides that are millions of years old.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dude Shibby
    I am aware of the Genesis account and how Jews say that we are in the
    28 Heshvan 5764 (http://data.jewishgen.org/wconnect/w...jgsys~josdates)

    But im talking about scientific data like Carbon-14 dating, this video you saw in your philosophy class, was it part of your textbook and if so, they would probably have a website in there somewhere.
    Carbon dating is said to only be able to date up to 50,000 years. The dinosaurs that have been said to have lived millions of years in fact have lived only thousands, and contradictory to the evolutionary theory, they lived with humans.

    See here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../dinosaurs.asp


    Quote Originally Posted by mog
    We are receiving light and other electromagnetic radiation from stars that are hundreds of thousands of light years away.

    Not to mention observing radionuclides that are millions of years old.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp



    Its also said that there was a forest in what is now iraq, where the dinosaurs lived, well, God turned the land into dust, everything died and those dinos compressed into what is now oil, thus, fossil fuel.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is no way I will believe a word written on a site "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE".

    As evidence this mans testimony is fundamentally flawed, especially seeing as he took the sample himself.

    It seems to me Creationists are frantically clutching at straws in the face of science, to the point of claiming that God deliberately made things older so as to make it seem the Earth had a history.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mog
    There is no way I will believe a word written on a site "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE".

    As evidence this mans testimony is fundamentally flawed, especially seeing as he took the sample himself.

    It seems to me Creationists are frantically clutching at straws in the face of science, to the point of claiming that God deliberately made things older so as to make it seem the Earth had a history.

    Then there is no way I would believe a word written in a book by darwin called "ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES" when I believe God did it. where does this get each of us? nowhere.

    What can he possibly do to a sample to make it date differently before he sent it to a lab? He is a retired electrical engineer, not a scientist. I think AiG actually proves to the world that creationists can handle science.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    So everything, and I mean everything happened by chance? The big bang had to have been sparked by something.
    Perhaps it is beyond our intelectual capacity to contemplate, at the moment at least. We are too bound by what we observe in our world. To take an example, think of the shock Einsteins relativistic theories caused, stating that time, one of our most basic concepts, is in fact not constant and can be dilated.

    It is hardly a surprise there a things we can't yet explain. Some find this so disturbing that they invent all powerful beings to explain these things.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    Then there is no way I would believe a word written in a book by darwin called "ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES" when I believe God did it. where does this get each of us? nowhere.

    What can he possibly do to a sample to make it date differently before he sent it to a lab? He is a retired electrical engineer, not a scientist. I think AiG actually proves to the world that creationists can handle science.
    I meant nothing to do with writing off the other sides case as blasphemy. Rather I was saying
    "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"
    reveals a lot. It suggests that these people consider the bible as absolute and irrefutable in its entirity. As such, they have an agenda when considering any kind of scientific evidence. As such, their conclusions cannot be considered impartial. As such, we know anything on that site is not interested in the merits of any other view.

    Charles Darwin on the other hand had no preconceived agenda against religion.


    This electrical engineer could simply have taken the sample from elsewhere.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mog
    I meant nothing to do with writing off the other sides case as blasphemy. Rather I was saying
    "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"
    reveals a lot. It suggests that these people consider the bible as absolute and irrefutable in its entirity. As such, they have an agenda when considering any kind of scientific evidence. As such, their conclusions cannot be considered impartial. As such, we know anything on that site is not interested in the merits of any other view.

    Charles Darwin on the other hand had no preconceived agenda against religion.

    They are a creationist website, of course they are going to show their evidence that tries to refute evolution, I guess that would be considered impartial to you.

    On another note, how do we know that Darwin hated religion or not?

    Thats a bit of epistemology for you.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    They are a creationist website, of course they are going to show their evidence that tries to refute evolution, I guess that would be considered impartial to you.

    On another note, how do we know that Darwin hated religion or not?

    Thats a bit of epistemology for you.
    Don't you realise that these people's very way of life is threatened by this argument? How can any evidence on a site like that be trusted given what is at stake for them?

    Contrast this to independent scientific agencies, to whom religion is irrelevant as they find evidence showing the Earth is millions of years old.

    So you are seriously suggesting that Darwin loathed religion and his whole purpose in writing the book was to discredit religion, the fact the theory successfully explains so much notwithstanding?

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mog
    Don't you realise that these people's very way of life is threatened by this argument? How can any evidence on a site like that be trusted given what is at stake for them?

    Contrast this to independent scientific agencies, to whom religion is irrelevant as they find evidence showing the Earth is millions of years old.

    So you are seriously suggesting that Darwin loathed religion and his whole purpose in writing the book was to discredit religion, the fact the theory successfully explains so much notwithstanding?
    If religion is irrelevant to them, of course they will make a claim of the earth being millions of years old.

    His whole purpose to the book was a theory on the origion of the planet, much like the theory of creation. How do we know that he did not hate religion in his mind?

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    If religion is irrelevant to them, of course they will make a claim of the earth being millions of years old.
    They will make a claim on what the evidence shows. Hence they can be trusted unlike that site.

    Darwin was writing a theory based on observations. He doesn't explicitly say he hates religion, so not reading his work is nothing like refusing to trust content on that site.

  18. #18
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone ever thought about the possibility of theistic evolution? That perhaps God used evolution as the process to get things going?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  19. Likes Michael liked this post
  20. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mog
    They will make a claim on what the evidence shows. Hence they can be trusted unlike that site.

    Darwin was writing a theory based on observations. He doesn't explicitly say he hates religion, so not reading his work is nothing like refusing to trust content on that site.
    Yet there isnt any proof of chance;

    http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=73

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Anyone ever thought about the possibility of theistic evolution? That perhaps God used evolution as the process to get things going?

    I thought about it. Then I remembered that in a debate, a few things happen, conversion, compromise/conform or refution. I consider that to be compromise/conform, and conforming can be very dangerous to your beliefs. for instance (and I am going off topic);
    Liberation theology is a religious group who beleives marxism is possible, and certain bible stories actually conform to the idea (when they are really just twisting scripture around).

    I personally believe God made everything, and didnt need to change it. Unless you could somehow persuade me with some evidence.

  21. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan
    Yet there isnt any proof of chance;

    http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=73
    A feasable conclusion would be that we don't know enough about the conditions in which life occured (if not by God) to replicate them and conduct an experiment, at the moment at least. That these conditions are hard to replicate would explain why on Earth as we know it, life only comes from life. The best experiment will come in the future, when space travel is advanced enough to determine wether life exists on other planets. Mathematically, if there is no God, then these bizarre conditions are bound to have happened elsewhere in the universe.

 

 
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •