Yes, the avatar is much more recent. 15 years of the same thing is a little long for just trolling.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
Yes, the avatar is much more recent. 15 years of the same thing is a little long for just trolling.
It also supports evolution. The insects of 100 million years ago are different from the insects of today. The insects of 200 million different from both.
We have the sort of fossils predicted by evolutionary theory.
The earliest vertebrates go back to the Cambrian. that's when animals first started developing cartilage and bone. We don't have earlier fossils because there was so little to fossilize.
Which window is that? If you mean the Cambrian, it was over 80 million years that these various body plans appear in the fossil record.
False. Beings with already-establish body plans maintainthem, as evolution predicts, but those without boay plans occasionally develop novel plans in the intervening time.
Again, the fish of 300 million years ago look little like today's fish.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WITHOUT QUESTION OR DOUBT!
Why is evolution so popular and accepted by so many as the only explanation for life on earth? One reason is that it is the orthodox view taught in schools and universities, and woe betide you if you dare to express any doubts. Behe states: “Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe.” He adds: “To understand both the success of Darwinism as orthodoxy and its failure as science at the molecular level, we have to examine the textbooks that are used to teach aspiring scientists.”
“If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. .*.*. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
“I MYSELF am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” Those were the words of British broadcaster and writer Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-90) in lectures he gave at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He added: “I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example.”
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...and then you can add this!
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2*Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
Such lack of evidence causes T.*H.*Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr.*Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.
Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2*Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
Such lack of evidence causes T.*H.*Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr.*Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.
Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...and then you can add this!
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2*Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
Such lack of evidence causes T.*H.*Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr.*Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.
Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2*Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
Such lack of evidence causes T.*H.*Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr.*Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.
Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”
MVP
Well-Known Member
London underground mosquito says hi again.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Whats the point in bringing these old quotes, some of them from dudes deceased 50 years ago as some kind of reliable arguments? Behe is a joke and been dismissed from any law court he was involved. Even his own university disagrees with his views. This single discussion is enough to laugh and admire how Behe is destroyed by real scientist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bFQLpUfwx7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bFQLpUfwx7M
MVP
Well-Known Member
All of these dudes from Discovery institute is a fraud trying to cover their true intentions behind "science".
A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
Behe is the guy who said, under oath at a deposition, that astrology is a form of science.
Zulu
Well-Known Member
I'm simply answering your questions!!!
You ask me a question and want me to explain it as it is explained by modern theory of evolution...
Feel free to constantly use the same diction to undermine the answers you expressed you want to hear!!
Just relize I'm not here mocking your beliefs, but just sharing my knowledge of evolution as I have studied and taught itthe past ten years!!!
Founded on the evidence those events left behind, actually.
Yes, we have.
Not a part of evolutionary theory.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I've simplified the different beliefs on origins:
From molecule to man by genetic mutation
We also have kinds were designed "whole cloth" in different periods (creationism)
I don't have to choose another theory to see that gradual spontaneous generation doesn't fit what we are seeing.
What the different fields of science are saying about the Darwinism:
Information theory: chance with or without necessity is incapable of CSI
Biochemisty: biological systems are irreducibly complex
Genetics: "Microevolution" involves a decline in genetic information.
"Macroevolution" requires an increase in genetic information.
Paleontogy: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’"
From molecule to man by genetic mutation
by an intelligent force (ID)
or
by spontaneous generation
or
by spontaneous generation
gradual (Darwinism)
not gradual (Punctuated Equilibrium-to match the fossil record)
not gradual (Punctuated Equilibrium-to match the fossil record)
We also have kinds were designed "whole cloth" in different periods (creationism)
I don't have to choose another theory to see that gradual spontaneous generation doesn't fit what we are seeing.
What the different fields of science are saying about the Darwinism:
Information theory: chance with or without necessity is incapable of CSI
Biochemisty: biological systems are irreducibly complex
Genetics: "Microevolution" involves a decline in genetic information.
"Macroevolution" requires an increase in genetic information.
Paleontogy: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’"
Last edited: