Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a Religious Issue
Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 303 (202610)
04-26-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Arkansas Banana Boy
04-26-2005 12:11 PM


Re: Okay, I'll bite
"So what does driving a used car have to do with evolution?'
Do you believe in evolution, that is macroevolution? That we get better and better over time. You know we started out as a molecule evolved into a man? That non-living organisms evolved into LIVING organisms? That life arose from nothing? The pen and paper wrote the book? It's all the same junk! Do you believe in macroevolution?
"As to the rest of your post...If you pick a topic, propose it, and it gets accepted then we can talk."
I did several times and NO ONE has answered it yet. Why?
Here it is again:
How did the Universe and everything get here? Choose one
A.) The Universe got here accidentally.
B.) The Universe got here supernaturally.
C.) The Universe has always been here.
D.) The Universe is not here.
-------------------------
"Until then I'll try to keep my liberal soul destroying to a minimum."
LOL (and sorry too), hey man you can do, believe anything you want. I don't care. God GAVE you a free will to do that. You do have a free will right? Just remember there are consequences for those free will decisions, beliefs, etc...
God gave you enough rope to hang yourself or save yourself. It's your choice. It's a personal decision where you want to spend eternity. God is ALL about ABSOLUTES. And that is something that man/woman and this world can't stand! God is about Heaven/Hell, good/evil, clean/unclean, righteous/unrighteous....you get the point I hope. This world and the scientific (and I used that term very loosely) community believe in no absolutes. That's ridiculous. If you believe that then that's an absolute! Get it? Man, I hope and pray so....because it's not my neck....it's yours.
The worse part is that going to heaven and living forever with the Creator is so easy. God made it so easy for you/world. God doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) in Hell. It is NOT God's will for you to be cast into outer darkness/Hell forever. If you end up there it is 100% your fault! God's will for your life is to enter into heaven (free gift) paid by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross and to live and reign with Him forever. The question is will YOU accept/receive that free gift? The decision is 100% in YOUR hands. God doesn't force anyone to accept or recieve it. He stands at the door and knocks. Will you let Him in? If not, then it's 100% YOUR fault because of one 5 letter word....PRIDE. Will you choose LIFE or death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-26-2005 12:11 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by CK, posted 04-26-2005 12:48 PM Jman267 has replied
 Message 79 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-26-2005 12:53 PM Jman267 has not replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 303 (202612)
04-26-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dan Carroll
04-26-2005 12:20 PM


PLEASE!
Hey bud, you aren't going to offend me. I'll prolly get a good laugh at it too. So go ahead pick your poision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-26-2005 12:20 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 78 of 303 (202614)
04-26-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jman267
04-26-2005 12:41 PM


Re: Okay, I'll bite
What on earth gave you the idea that evolution had anything to do with things getting "better and better"?
As for proposing your topic - it needs to be done in the "new Topics" forums - NOT as part of an on-going posts. This is the system that WE the members have agreed is the best - it stops people starting all sorts of nonsense topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 12:41 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:26 PM CK has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 303 (202618)
04-26-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jman267
04-26-2005 12:41 PM


proposed new topics
Go to forums and post under 'propsed new topics' for a topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 12:41 PM Jman267 has not replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 303 (202626)
04-26-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Chiroptera
04-26-2005 12:29 PM


Re: If it's easy answer then why didn't you answer it?
"I don't know. I don't know how the universe began, or even if the universe had a beginning. Right now, our current knowledge of the laws of science are only valid after ten-to-the-minus-forty of a second after time zero. In fact, we only assume that there was a beginning by extrapolating the current expansion of the universe backwards, and since we cannot even know for sure what the universe was like before that time, this extrapolation may not even be valid. We cannot be sure what the very beginning was like, and there may not even have been a beginning."
Nothing you just said was scientific at all. This is a forum for creation vs evolution and when CONFRONTED with the facts, truth, or science you run and hide and try to throw in big words to make yourself look good. Absolutely ridiculous and all because of PRIDE. Everything you stated was conjecture, opinion or hypothesizing. There was no ABSOLUTES in anything you said. Like I said, the world hates absolutes! And, God is all about absolutes!
"or even if the universe had a beginning"
Man, are you serious? You don't know the universe had a beginning? So, you're saying we are not here? That's why people are in the insane asylum. That's ridiculous! Did you have a beginning? Did your car, your home, your clothes have a beginning? Of course they did. Why can't you answer the question? The answer is simple. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that NOTHING is either being created or destroyed. That means it had a beginning. That means it already here. That means it was created! Man, evolutionists know absolutely nothing about true science. Why is that?
"our current knowledge of the laws of science are only valid after ten-to-the-minus-forty of a second after time zero. In fact, we only assume that there was a beginning by extrapolating the current expansion of the universe backwards, and since we cannot even know for sure what the universe was like before that time, this extrapolation may not even be valid."
Wrong, that is not science and don't be calling it science. Science is observable, testable and provable. That is NOT science. Science is the First Law of Thermo which negates everything you just said!
"We cannot be sure what the very beginning was like, and there may not even have been a beginning."
We didn't have a beginning? Then how does nothing evolve into everything? That's faith. That's religion. That's not science and don't be calling it science. And, if we didn't have a beginning then are you saying you are not here? Nuts!! Plain nuts man!! I told ya before that if you mess with God and His creation through unbelief He will ABSOLUTELY mess with you! The proof is in the pudding.
ANd, we do know what the beginning was like. You just have NOT taken the time to read an AV1611 (BIBLE). And, you have NOT searched for the TRUTH with all your heart.
"So, I don't know how the universe began, or if it began. No one does. And no one may ever know.'
So I take it your choice was D? It has to be. Since you say we had no beginning which means we aren't really here. Nuts!
It obviously began because we are here! So, you're wrong and not scientific. You gave your opinion. That's not science, its a belief and you accept it by faith. It's your religion. Don't be calling it science!
And, we do know how we got here! "In the beginning God created" (Gen 1:1).....got it? There's only one scientific answer of the 4 options.
And, if we don't know how we got here then how is that SCIENCE? That is not science. That is your belief and opinion. Science is provable, testable, observable, demonstratable. Don't be calling it science. It is NOT science. Evolution is a religion. Plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 12:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 1:14 PM Jman267 has replied
 Message 82 by AdminNosy, posted 04-26-2005 1:15 PM Jman267 has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 303 (202633)
04-26-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jman267
04-26-2005 1:04 PM


Take it easy!
Calm down, Jman. Surely we can have a rational discussion about this, eh?
We don't know whether the universe had a beginning. It may have always existed. We don't yet know.
Now it probably had a beginning, meaning that if we extrapolate the current expansion of the universe backwards, we eventually get to a situation where, as all the matter is crowded into a single point -- that would be the "beginning'. Unfortunately, as we run the movie backwards, so to speak, the universe becomes smaller, hence it becomes denser, hence it becomes hotter. There comes a time when the universe is so dense and so hot that our current understanding of the laws of physics are no longer valid, and we cannot make any definite determination of how the universe behaved. Surely, scientists are currently working on this question, trying to improve our understanding the laws of physics, but as yet we cannot know what was happening before this time with any certainty. So, maybe continued extrapolation backwards is unwarranted. Maybe the universe always existed; maybe it never had a beginning.
So, maybe the universe always existed. Then, there is no point about talking about a beginning.
Or, maybe the universe did have a beginning. But as yet no one really understands what the nature of this beginning really is.
So: I don't know. I don't know whether the universe had a beginning. If it did have a beginning, I don't know how it began.
I don't know. That is a valid answer to the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:04 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:49 PM Chiroptera has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 82 of 303 (202635)
04-26-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jman267
04-26-2005 1:04 PM


Defining terms and supporting your assertions
Since the point of this thread is whether something is a 'religion' or not it seems appropriate that you define how one would distinguish a religion from some other view point or way of considering the world.
When you have clarified that then it is suggested that you support you claim that "evolution" (which you also seem to have a rather non-standard definition of) meets the criteria of your definition.
Continuing to post as you have with the tone that you have used will result in a 24 hour suspension to start with. There will not be any more warnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:04 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 2:14 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 303 (202642)
04-26-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by CK
04-26-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Okay, I'll bite
"What on earth gave you the idea that evolution had anything to do with things getting "better and better"?"
What? Are you kidding me? That's exactly what macroevolution or true vertical evolution teaches, believes and states. Molecule to man, puddle to pond, amoeba to whatever. That is exactly what is taught in our public schools as FACT and SCIENCE and it is not FACT nor SCIENCE. It is lies, opinions and conjecture.
So, what you are saying is that you don't believe things are getting better and better? If so, then how can you believe in evolution (if that is your belief)?
How did nonliving organisms evolve into living organisms then? How did a star evolve from hydrogen, how did a man evolve from an ape? That's macroevolution/true vertical evolution and is exactly the definition of "getting better and better". We are not evolving we are devolving. That is science. It's called the 2nd Law of Thermo.... Why is evolution being taught in our schools as FACT, why do you believe in it(if that's your belief)? It is not FACT, it is opinion, its a belief, its accepted on faith, its a religion.
And, maybe you are getting evolution confused. There are many types of evolution and only one of them is true. See that's what lieing evolutionists like the NEA do to confuse people and confuse little kids. Nothing but the devil man!
Microevolution is true. But, its not evolution. It's BIBLE. Dogs are always dogs even tho they come in many varieties. That does NOT explain macroevolution or how we got here. You have never seen a dog with wings or half dog/half cat or anything of the sort which would be macroevolution. That's why evolution is a lie. You have absolutely no transitional forms any where on the face of the earth. There are just a few and they are questionable at best. There should be BILLIONS of them, in fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not! If we were to rely strictly on observed evidence, we would have to agree that past evolution has been falsified!
If evolution did not occur in the past and does not occur at present, then it is entirely imaginary and not part of the real world at all. This leaves creation as the answer. Oh no not that! ANything but that! And, this fact is also confirmed by the BEST-PROVED laws of science--the law of conservation in quantity and the law of decay in complexity or the famous First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. End of story. Choose your poison but choose it wisely.
Current scientific evidence against evolutionism:
1.) There is no present evolution; only horizontal variations and extinctions.
2.) There was no past evolution, only ubiquitous gaps between basic kinds of fossils.
3.) There can be no possible evolution since universal laws of conservation and decay now govern all natural processes.
4.) There has been no time period long enough for evolution, for historical records go back only a few thousand years, and the fossil record speaks only of rapid formation.
5.) There is no Biblical evolution (Geneis 1:25;2:1-3; I Cor. 15:38-39).
6.) There could have been no theistic evolution, for death came into the world only when man sinned (Romans 5:12; I Cor. 15:21).
7.) There could have been no pantheistic evolution, for God condemns all who worhsip the creation as its own Creator (Romans 1:20-25).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by CK, posted 04-26-2005 12:48 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Tusko, posted 04-26-2005 3:26 PM Jman267 has not replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 303 (202648)
04-26-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chiroptera
04-26-2005 1:14 PM


Re: Take it easy!
"Calm down, Jman. Surely we can have a rational discussion about this, eh?
We don't know whether the universe had a beginning. It may have always existed. We don't yet know."
I am perfectly calm and you are perfectly wrong. You just changed your answer from D to C. It could NOT have always been here because it would have turned to mush 35 million years ago due to entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics! Everything dies! You're going to die, you're clothes, you're car, the sun is shrinking, etc.....it is headed towards the dust of the ground. That is fact. That is SCIENCE and it's proven by the Second Law of Thermo. So, again, you don't know what you're talking about nor are you scientific. See, like I told you. I don't need a Bible to defeat you. I'll defeat you on your own turf. You are not scientific at all. There is only ONE answer that is scientific out of the four. So, don't be calling it science. It is not science. It's your opinion, belief, and religion. You accept that on faith. I'll stick with science (1st and 2nd Law) and you can stick with your imaginatory beliefs. In reality, I believe the Bible because of science and mathematics, you believe in evolution by faith!
"Surely, scientists are currently working on this question, trying to improve our understanding the laws of physics, but as yet we cannot know what was happening before this time with any certainty. So, maybe continued extrapolation backwards is unwarranted. Maybe the universe always existed; maybe it never had a beginning."
Do you have any clue what Science is? Look up the definition. Your statement is not science and don't be calling it science. It's your religion. It's your belief system. And, I already told you that in order to believe in evolution you have to bypass the BEST-PROVED laws of science that govern all natural processes. And, they are the First and Second Law of Thermo. Case closed. Argument over. I used SCIENCE you have used nothing but your opinion, beliefs and conjecture and then try to call it science. It's not science and don't be calling it science. It's junk science or science falsely so-called (I Timothy 6:20).
"So, maybe the universe always existed"
Can't see Second Law of Thermodynamics.
"So: I don't know. I don't know whether the universe had a beginning. If it did have a beginning, I don't know how it began.
I don't know. That is a valid answer to the question.'
This is ridiculous. You guys cry about this is a forum and stick to the rules but you are NOT being scientific! It is not a valid answer. It's a completely idiotic, invalid scientific answer with ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no science in it whatsoever. You gave me your belief/opinion. Your belief is not scientific. It's your religion. I am not interested in your religion. I am interested in SCIENCE and FACTS. And, by giving your belief/opinion you just made it clear that you are your own god! That's evolution to a capital E! And, that's also BIBLE....Genesis 3:5...ye shall be as gods?
And, I am sorry that you don't know. But I do know based on science and mathematics. I have proven that over and over and over and over and I have gotten no scientific answer whatsoever out of anybody here. I have gotten your beliefs and opinions. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. I am dealing with a bunch of religionists who are their own gods. That's why you believe in evolution. You worship the creature/creation and NOT the Creator. YOu don't want to answer for sins, evilness or anything of the sort. The worse part is that does NOT change the FACT that you will answer one day and you are without excuse (Romans 1:20). End of story!
You'll have a nice day. I am wasting my time here since you don't want to talk about FACTS or science. You want to give me your opinions, conjecture, possibilities (that's not science!)and beliefs. This is not a forum for creation vs. evolution this is a religious forum. Plain and simple. And, how can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing at the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, you believe in a resurrection of all life from nothing! Tsk, tsk.
This message has been edited by Jman267, 04-26-2005 12:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 1:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-26-2005 1:59 PM Jman267 has not replied
 Message 86 by jar, posted 04-26-2005 2:13 PM Jman267 has replied
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 2:17 PM Jman267 has replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 303 (202650)
04-26-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jman267
04-26-2005 1:49 PM


link to proposed new topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:49 PM Jman267 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 303 (202659)
04-26-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jman267
04-26-2005 1:49 PM


Let's try to deal with your misconceptions, one at a time.
First, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with beginnings, either of Life or the Universe.
Before we go any further we need to deal with that issue.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:49 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 2:25 PM jar has replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 303 (202660)
04-26-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminNosy
04-26-2005 1:15 PM


Re: Defining terms and supporting your assertions
"that you define how one would distinguish a religion from some other view point or way of considering the world"
This is my last one. I have done this already. This is not a science forum. It is a bunch of philosphizing and opinions with no science to back it up.
Definition:
How can 0 + 0 equal life when it does not even equal one?
How can anything come to life if it is dead?
Better yet, can anything come to life of itself when it never was?
If life came from nothing how can something come from nothing? Isn't that faith?
When you have faith don't you have a religion?
There it is plain and simple. If you believe life arose from nothing (evolution, Big Bang and btw the Big Bang Theory is dead and being abandoned by evolutionists) then you accept that on faith. That can NOT be proven SCIENTIFICALLY. It has NEVER been observed, proved or repeated, it has been tested and of course failed millions of times! But you still hold on hope based on your faith. Science is provable, testable, repeatable, observable and demonstratable. And, since you can NOT prove, repeat, or observe life arising from nothing or any form of macroevolution then you MUST accept it on faith. And, if it's by faith then it's a religion. The Law of Biogenesis states that life must have antecedant life. So, therefore your "life arose from nothing" is NOT scientific. It is your belief, it is accepted on faith, it is your religion. Game over!
"When you have clarified that then it is suggested that you support you claim that "evolution" (which you also seem to have a rather non-standard definition of) meets the criteria of your definition."
You have no idead what the definition of evolution is. I know exactly what it is. There is only one part to the 6 types of evolution that is true. That's microevolution or horizontal evolution and that proves absolutely nothing about the origen of life. The other 5 types of evolution (macro, cosmic, chemical,organic, etc..) are not scientific, they are based on faith and your imagination. They are your religion. If you believe you are an animal(evolved from an ape) that's your business and your choice. Don't throw me in there and don't throw my kids (or anyone else's kids for that matter that's communism) in there and STOP wasting my tax dollars to promote your religion!
"Continuing to post as you have with the tone that you have used will result in a 24 hour suspension to start with. There will not be any more warnings."
Oh, no I can't debate with religionists posing as true science believers. Big rip! You no more believe in true science than the easter bunny is real. You are interested in rationalizing your irresponsible, irreverant actions (sins) and calling it science. You are doing nothing but trying to justify your own desire to do whatever you want! (Ye shall be as gods? All over again). It is not science and don't be calling it science! It's your belief and religion. You accept it by faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminNosy, posted 04-26-2005 1:15 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 303 (202663)
04-26-2005 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jman267
04-26-2005 1:49 PM


What did I do to make you angry?
quote:
I am perfectly calm and you are perfectly wrong.
Merely repeating that you are correct does not make you correct. Correctness and wrongness (is that a word?) are determined by logical reasoning and presentation of relevant facts. So, let us reason together.
-
quote:
It could NOT have always been here because it would have turned to mush 35 million years ago due to entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
I know the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have a Master's degree in physics -- I had to have a pretty good understanding of thermodynamics to get my degree. It is in any upper division college thermodynamics text book. Here is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is impossible to take heat energy from a thermal resevoir and convert it entirely into work; some of the heat energy must be transmitted to a colder thermal resevoir without being converted into work. I don't see the relevance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to whether the universe had or did not have a beginning. Can you explain the relevance?
Here is another version of the Second Law -- it is equivalent to the one that I just gave. It states that there is this numerical quantity called entropy -- in principle, it can be calculated for any thermodynamic system. The Second Law states that no process can decrease the entropy of a closed system. In other words, if you calculate the entropy of a closed system, allow a process to occur, then calculate the entropy again, the second calculation will yield a number that is greater than (or perhaps equal) to the first.
So how does this apply to the universe? If we look at the past, we should see that the universe should have had a lower entropy than at present. Further back in the past, the entropy should have been even lower. So even this version of the Second Law is consistent with a universe that has always existed -- it just says that the further back you go in time, the lower the entropy was.
--
quote:
Your statement is not science and don't be calling it science.
The comment that I made and to which you are commenting is:
Surely, scientists are currently working on this question, trying to improve our understanding the laws of physics, but as yet we cannot know what was happening before this time with any certainty. So, maybe continued extrapolation backwards is unwarranted. Maybe the universe always existed; maybe it never had a beginning.
How is this not scientific? It accurately sums up the current limitations of scientific knowledge. Are you saying that our current understanding of the laws of physics do allow us to extrapolate backwards and understand a universe that has infinitely high density and temperature?
--
quote:
I don't know. That is a valid answer to the question.
...It is not a valid answer.
Why is "I don't know" not a valid answer? Does one have to know everything? Does one have to make up answers?
--
quote:
But I do know based on science and mathematics.
Funny you should mention science and mathematics. I have a Master's degree in physics and have had some research experience in science. I also have a Master's degree in mathematics and am currently working on a PhD dissertation. So I guess I claim to know a lot about science and mathematics, too.
--
quote:
I am wasting my time here since you don't want to talk about FACTS or science.
Well, thanks for letting me have the last word -- that's very noble of you. However, it is too bad that you don't feel like discussing these things further. I am a teacher by profession, and as your misunderstanding of the Second Laws of Thermodynamics shows, there is much that you could learn. I also learn a lot from these exchanges.
But I hope that you are happy wherever you go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 1:49 PM Jman267 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 2:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

Jman267
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 303 (202667)
04-26-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
04-26-2005 2:13 PM


Re: Let's try to deal with your misconceptions, one at a time.
"First, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with beginnings, either of Life or the Universe"
The stupid, unscientific theory of evolution has everything to do with the origin of life. You don't even know what you believe in.
There are 6 parts to evolution which are taught throughout the world and in our public school children and they are effectual lies mixed with some truth:
-Cosmic evolution (Big Bang-origin of matter)
-Chemical evolution (higher chemical)
-Planetary and stellar evolution (origin of the stars)
-Organic evolution (origin of life)
-Macroevolution - animals chaning into new kinds (unobserved)
-Microevolution (variations)
Only one of those is provable, testable, repeatable and scientific--microevolution. That doesn't prove a single cotton picking thing other than it proves the AV1611 (BIBLE). God the Creator said each would produce after its/his kind! Duh, dogs make dogs, cats make cats, and so on. Dogs do NOT make bananas and vice-versa. You may be related to the squirrel but I am not. I know exactly how I got here and it leads all the way back to Noah and then to Adam. It is simple cause and effect. Another SCIENTIFIC law!
There other 5 are just a bunch of religious non-sense and your imagination. They are not scientific. ANd, they are being taught as fact and science. That should concern you if you have kids or are going to have kids. Unless, of coure, you don't care about eternity or the TRUTH. And, if so then that's just plain communism.
And on that note:
Romans 3:4 states: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar!
Boy, aint that the truth. Nothing like a 1611 to shed some light on the "scientific" establishment.
This message has been edited by Jman267, 04-26-2005 01:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 04-26-2005 2:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-26-2005 2:37 PM Jman267 has not replied
 Message 93 by jar, posted 04-26-2005 2:46 PM Jman267 has replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 303 (202670)
04-26-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jman267
04-26-2005 2:25 PM


Not a Hovind reader?
You seem to use the wording he does often.
Account Suspended
Fifth paragraph down... 'Hovind's project for Kevin? "Demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor."'
Of course these kind of phrases (surprised not to see 'dats' and 'cogs' ) spread thru the net and perhaps you got them from another source.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 2:25 PM Jman267 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 04-26-2005 2:41 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024