YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #9 :today’s science is tomorrow’s superstition haven`t you got that a little bit ass backwards? "weak. So are you agreeing then, that the Bible, thus far, has never been proved wrong?" indeed a good many points RE: "The Bible" have been proven wrong! and since the word Bible comes from the word "Biblia" meaning Many Books, I can see how your type get around this argument, and it`s ceratinly NOT by Logic as we understand it to be, it`s more a lesson in semantics, and not a game that many of us are likely to play! if you want genuine answers, then ask SPECIFIC Questions, else your just wasting everyones time including your own think about it a little
NavajoEverclear Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 made the entire universe last tuesday i like this religion, i will incorporate it into my life. Dan, if you have faith, don't worry about proof. Would you still have faith if you KNEW all science pointed against your beliefs? If you quickly agree to this, then say BUT-- I CAN proove it----- maybe the values you think drive you to say such things are not as solid as your consciously aware of. What are your reason's for the beliefs you hold? There is a reason for everything (i think), reason is very important. By the way, to what extent do you believe that evolutionary theory is false? (evolution is pretty complicated (not in function, but in our capability to identify all factors and stuff) so to absolutely discredit every part of it is illogical.
danmoore80 Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 I would agree that to discredit evolution completely would be incorrect. I do believe in a form of "evolution" as it is stated scientifically, and that is microevolution. Microevolution has been proven on many occasion, and I do not have a problem with that. I dont' really like the name, because it has "evoluiton" in it, but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, Macroevoluiton has no grounds. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am just stating a scientific fact. And for those who say "there is evidence of Macroevolution" look at Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer for proof of such. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 What about all the evidence for macroevolution? There is TONS of evidence. All the fossils. All the organisms that are obviously related to other organisms (so close but yet so far) that they could NOT possibly do it themselves. They must be related somehow.
danmoore80 Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Find and quote any reputable scientist that claims "there are fossils that prove macroevolution"
Skye Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Find a philosopher to say that proof exists without arbitrary axioms.
NavajoEverclear Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Do you still have your faith if macroevolution has evidence? Well it does, it's just denial to say not. I don't fully believe in it because of the beliefs i was raised with and i have reasons for deciding keep them (thus have made my OWN beliefs, well as before i had different reasons for belief). Um, here i realize there is no point in this dialouge so nevermind.
Radical Edward Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 danmoore80 said in post # :Find and quote any reputable scientist that claims "there are fossils that prove macroevolution" science does not do proof like that. However many scientists would agree that the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. There are a number of transitional series which are very clear.
JaKiri Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Oh, and don't say 'Why aren't there any transitionary organisms!' because ALL organisms are transitionary organisms. It's not like it was a bird and then POOF! it's a fish or something.
atinymonkey Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Why do these people insist on focusing so much of their free time picking apart theories that they don't understand in the vague hope people will suddenly stop believing what they are taught in school and just believe in the contents of there own particular doctrine? Isn't that just a little creepy? Why don't they focus some effort into substanciating there doctrines without referring to 'random theory AF0311'? That's just screaming 'I've got deep emotional conflicts with my own belief system, someone please help me!' .
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Well said. I couldn't say it better myself.
Rasori Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 I don't know how this got from wherever it was to here, but my posts seem to lead to insanity quickly...
Guest Meatros Posted February 5, 2004 Posted February 5, 2004 danmoore80 said in post # :I would agree that to discredit evolution completely would be incorrect. I do believe in a form of "evolution" as it is stated scientifically, and that is microevolution. Microevolution has been proven on many occasion, and I do not have a problem with that. I dont' really like the name, because it has "evoluiton" in it, but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, Macroevoluiton has no grounds. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am just stating a scientific fact. And for those who say "there is evidence of Macroevolution" look at Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer for proof of such. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k Did...did... you just site Kent Hovind? .... :lame: Your credibility, if you have any, has now gone straight to zero.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 5, 2004 Posted February 5, 2004 I think Mr Hovind is not regarded highly around here.
mooeypoo Posted February 29, 2004 Posted February 29, 2004 Will I look like a *complete* idiot if i ask you to tell me who taht man and why he's not credible?
MishMish Posted March 1, 2004 Posted March 1, 2004 I do not spend much listening to creationists and had to look him up. Do that, and then decide for yourself if the assessment is warranted
mooeypoo Posted March 1, 2004 Posted March 1, 2004 Well I will do that out of curiousity, but if he's having anything to do with creationism I don't REALLY think I have to actually look him up to form a general opinion.... thanks, though.
MishMish Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 Mooey: "Well I will do that out of curiousity, but if he's having anything to do with creationism I don't REALLY think I have to actually look him up to form a general opinion" And you're going to take my word on it? The name was unfamiliar to me, to be fair went to his web site, but did not take me long and doubt it would waste much of your time
Hades Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 its insecure people like that doctor who believe that fossils we uncover are just a small selection of gods pottery. occums razor my friend, when the japanese bombed pearl harbor, we knew they wanted war, not to exchange pleasantries. if we take a brief look at the most obvious answer, if evolution exists in any form, thus it should be evolution on a planetary scale. Gods 'creations' were perfect in design; wouldnt that mean they could not evolve if they were perfect?
mooeypoo Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 I said i'll look it up, I didn't say i'm going to thrash the person because what you said, give me a TINSY BIT of credit here. I also said that *if he does have anything to do with creationism* (stress the IF HE DOES part) i don't need to REALLY look it up -- I meant I can just know how valid his "scientific" opinions are. and Hades - I don't really see what oyu mean here. If god created hiumanity with the option to evolve (which is a fair statement) it's copmletely irrelevant, because it gives me only the tautological answer of "because thats what happened, BECAUSE!!" and nothing more. If god really created humanity and then "left it alone" to see what happens, you can also call him The Big Bang and explain it by using scientifical thinking. ~moo
MishMish Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :I said i'll look it up, I didn't say i'm going to thrash the person because what you said, give me a TINSY BIT of credit here. I also said that *if he does have anything to do with creationism* (stress the IF HE DOES part) i don't need to REALLY look it up -- I meant I can just know how valid his "scientific" opinions are. Snipped out the part that seems to apply to me I am giving you credit, if it's me you were addressing, or would not have suggested you look him up yourself. But the phrasing above was ambiguous and I went with the meaning that occurred to me, which was the more rhetorical, and so felt should restate the suggestion
mooeypoo Posted March 2, 2004 Posted March 2, 2004 Yeah I got that,I'm sorry about the phrasing, it was late at night and I (appearantly) didn't phrase myself right. You're right, it wasn't my intentions though.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now