Originally posted by Phenoix12
The reason you wont answer me is because you know that I am right you have no facts to disprove me. HAHAHAHAHAHAH 😆Got to Go, when I get back you better have some Rock Hard facts to disprove me.
give a clear indication as to what constitutes a fact
seeing as everything else we have posted i not good enough, what would suffice?
Originally posted by inimalist
Phenoix12: You claim to have real scientific evidence of creation. While I am sure you can produce at a moment's notice links to sites where this propoganda is spewed from, I have a more mechanistic question for you.What constitutes good science to you? Clearly we agree that not all scientists or their work should be listened to all of the time, but what method do you have to determine what is real science and what is not real science?
Originally posted by Phenoix12
http://www.halos.com/
not quite
I am not asking for information on your position, I am asking what would be acceptable to you as fact? what is it about the science that you read that makes you think it is real science?
maybe to ask this in a way that is more relevant to the topic: What would be proof of evolution to you? What facts would convince you?
Originally posted by inimalist
not quiteI am not asking for information on your position, I am asking what would be acceptable to you as fact? what is it about the science that you read that makes you think it is real science?
maybe to ask this in a way that is more relevant to the topic: What would be proof of evolution to you? What facts would convince you?
I think the answer to the question would be NONE. 😉
Originally posted by Phenoix12
Thats only one of my Attacks what about the other one??
+ That dose not disprove me...
Originally posted by Phenoix12
You still haven't answered my question. Are you scared or something???? Or do you know that I am right but don't want to admit it!!!!
Originally posted by AngryManatee
hmm...Oh yeah, Gentry's a hack as well, and has been shown to alter data to suit his "findings"
Edit: Ceationism = Theory, Evolution = Scientific Theory
Also, Gentry's work on "Polonium Haloes" has nothing to do with Evolution and/or disproving Evolution, it's about the formation of the Earth, numskull. A "Young Earth" doesn't disprove Evolution by default.
Let me guess, you'll run and hide again; when your idiocy has been covered by a few pages, you'll come back again "attacking" with the same B.S.?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus Christ.[B]Colossians 1:16-17
[/B]
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
I.E. God did it
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Can someone explain the difference's between transitional forms and Variation amongst a species? How exactly would you be able to tell the difference by observing fossilsized remains of an extinct species?
it depends on if you like Gould or Dawkins
being a supporter of Dawkins myself, I consider the whole idea of "transitional form" is a red herring. The idea of a form being a "transition" between one species or another seems to place these arbitrary "lines" in the fossil record.
Basically, if you don't consider punctuated equilibrium to be as major of a contributor to speciation as Gould does, most speciation can be explained through variance. Basically, certain physical or genetic predispositions that are inhereted through a gene pool will serve as being better adapted in differant environments OR better adapted to certain behaviours. Because of this, variation within a species can cause differant animals to survive equally well in the same environment with differant behaviours dictated by genetic variance. These behaviours can lead to reproductive isolation that, since the behaviours of these organisms is different and thus different genes would be more beneficial based simply on the behaviours, speciation can ocur.
Because they don't want the world to be controlled by religion. I guess they feel that people should live by what ever they want, I really don't known. Hell, I barely have reason to doubt evolution.Okay, why would they lie? Why would so many lie? What is to be gained by "faking" Evolution science?
I just can't see how people base their lives on this type of science when they them selves can't prove any of it. And must rely on scientist to uncover the past and look to the future. If there is reasonable doubt on evolution then ther is reason to doubt it.
I have question, does anyone here, know any one who has uncovered these artifacts and made these theories, or know any astronauts?
Originally posted by Who else?
Because they don't want the world to be controlled by religion. I guess they feel that people should live by what ever they want, I really don't known. Hell, I barely have reason to doubt evolution.I just can't see how people base their lives on this type of science when they them selves can't prove any of it. And must rely on scientist to uncover the past and look to the future. If there is reasonable doubt on evolution then ther is reason to doubt it.
I have question, does anyone here, know any one who has uncovered these artifacts and made these theories, or know any astronauts?
The only doubt on evolution is by Christians who do not like science. Evolution is a fact; the question of how evolution works is what is unknown.
Originally posted by Who else?
Because they don't want the world to be controlled by religion. I guess they feel that people should live by what ever they want, I really don't known. Hell, I barely have reason to doubt evolution.I just can't see how people base their lives on this type of science when they them selves can't prove any of it. And must rely on scientist to uncover the past and look to the future. If there is reasonable doubt on evolution then ther is reason to doubt it.
I have question, does anyone here, know any one who has uncovered these artifacts and made these theories, or know any astronauts?
Or could it be that 'seeking the truth and knowledge' is the driving force? You bring up a good point about "control" though, does science ever state "believe in this or you'll be punished"? No, that is [some] religion's angle; why do you think that is?
Evolutionary science isn't just one guy doing a few hours of research; then writing a book trying to pass it off as fact. It is a collection of many peoples work and it is continually ongoing. The segments that are held up as fact, can be tried and tested over and over again, they're also out there for you to scrutinize if you wish. Define reasonable? Because if you you think a question that can't currently be answered; by default disproves every facet of Evolution, then apply that same logic to religion/God, which can't be tried or tested and rely solely on "faith".
No, I haven't, but I've read books and watched documentaries and the evidence is overwhelming, as noted the evidence can be tried and tested repeatedly to prove it as fact. Have you ever met someone who's talked to God? Was on the Arc? Met Jesus? Spoken with someone in Heaven or Hell?
Originally posted by Robtard
Or could it be that 'seeking the truth and knowledge' is the driving force? You bring up a good point about "control" though, does science ever state "believe in this or you'll be punished"? No, that is [some] religion's angle; why do you think that is?Evolutionary science isn't just one guy doing a few hours of research; then writing a book trying to pass it off as fact. It is a collection of many peoples work and it is continually ongoing. The segments that are held up as fact, can be tried and tested over and over again, they're also out there for you to scrutinize if you wish. Define reasonable? Because if you you think a question that can't currently be answered; by default disproves every facet of Evolution, then apply that same logic to religion/God, which can't be tried or tested and rely solely on "faith".
No, I haven't, but I've read books and watched documentaries and the evidence is overwhelming, as noted the evidence can be tried and tested repeatedly to prove it as fact. Have you ever met someone who's talked to God? Was on the Arc? Met Jesus? Spoken with someone in Heaven or Hell?
cry That was inspiring.
The issue with a young Earth is that it defies the evolutionary timeline. (Did I accidentally quote JIA near-verbatim?)
Has JIA recently thrown around the 'complexity of the eye' or 'did your computer evolve from a a lessor form' bit?
Also, here's a tip, JIA:
Originally posted by FeceMan
Hint: Archaeopteryx is a bird. Tiktaalik's "legs" couldn't possibly support its weight, and the coelacanth was touted just like tiktaalik was...until scientists discovered that its "legs" were, in fact, used to help it swim rather than pull itself along the ocean floor.