|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion. | |||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
I mainly agree with what you are trying to say, except that I disagree with you saying that evolution is a religion. I think that the topic's name is wrong. It should say that evolution is a belief, and creation is a belief. Because if you say that evolution is a religion, what are they worshipping? The mechanism of natural selection? What is creation worshipping? The process of creation? Thus I think that evolution is not a religion, but a belief, just like creation.
Like edge said, I think you've confused belief and religion. Anyway, evolution is a theory for how organisms evolve and change. So I think that if you are talking about creation, you shouldn't compare it to evolution, but abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a belief that organisms came about through natural processes. Creation is a belief that organisms came about through the process of creation by God. Sorry for the nitpicking, just my $0.02 [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Do you understand probability theory either? In that case, most evolutionists don't understand the concept of probability theory either. ('Most' in this case used to indicate the general populace).
quote: Just like the heliocentric model? [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: You're thinking about the wrong thing. The sun being at the center of the solar system has been observed. You can make very accurate predictions with it. Evolution is totally different. It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church. -His book that was condemned in the trial, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", had received the official imprimatur of the church, and had been approved by the official Roman censor, Father Niccolo Riccardi.-Galileo was a personal friend of both major popes that ruled during his lifetime. -The trial represented a brief portion near the end of Galileo’s long and productive life, during which he gained wide fame for his discoveries and his books across Europe, and within the Catholic church. Contrary to popular perceptions, most churchmen, including Pope Urban VIII, were delighted with Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope. Of course, you might then ask why had Galileo been put on trial. -Pope Urban VIII was in a bad mood at the time of the trial. The papacy had gone to his head, and he had spent fortunes on self-aggrandizement. In addition, he was accused of being soft on heretics by not acting stronger against the Reformers. The Thirty Years War was giving him great stress. Galileo’s Dialogue came at a very inopportune time. The pope trusted what others said about it, without reading it himself. He was led to believe, contrary to the facts, that Galileo had double-crossed him by going against explicit orders. These factors tended to make him inflexible against his former friend.--Using information from world's greatest creation scientists from y1k to y2k [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: How can science prove something outside the realm of science? To prove something means that you have control/mastery of it. To be able to prove God exists we must have power over God. Anyway, science deals with physical rules. You can't use the physical to prove something that is spiritual. Its like trying to make complex numbers from only real numbers.
quote: He asked can you prove that what you call "nonsense" is nonsense and you respond by saying again that it is nonsense? [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002] [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: Which of these were close to being a complete fossil? Only Acanthostega has been found to be anything close to a complete fossil. However, this animal appears to be an amphibian, even if it has gills (many current amphibians have gills).
quote: As for whale evolution, what about the skeletal evolution required from terrestrial to aquatic? (how convenient that for Ambulocetus the critical parts are missing, and for Pakicetus they have only have some cheek teeth fragments of the skull and lower jaw). Many of the fossils you named have been dated later than undisputed whales, so the whales existed before these transitional forms. Fossil evidence is historical and so is based on interpretation. How about predictions about the future, not about history (whose transitional evidence is very thin)? [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Taking a look at that site, the picture looks quite different from this one Search (adapted from http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v28.html except the link is now dead). Taking a look at the pictures, they look remarkably similar. ("They" in this case being amphibians and the fossil)
quote: As for a tail fin, I'm sure as you can see that you could then say that those other amphibians had tail fins. Since the fossil has true limbs, it really shouldnt be classified a transitional. How about some incomplete limbs developing or something? As for your correction on Ambulocetus' missing bones, thanks for the correction. However, researching further on this, i found here in an update,
quote: As for your other question,
quote: As for Ambulocetus natans, it has been found in middle Eocene strata in Pakistan by Hans Thewissen,(~40mya)The first true whales found the Archeoceti - the earliest of which are called Pakicetids; found in Pakistan (~50-51 mya, early Eocene). [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Sure, you don't have to believe them. Just watch some TV.
quote: [This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
How about the impact of these limbs on swimming capacity-surely via natural selection it would be selected against, as it would impair their swimming. As for more on the features, in the fish-to-tetrapod series (Ahlberg’s) Acanthostega (9th in the series) has two tetrapod features which are absent in the tenth.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Hi Quetzal, thanks for the info. (TJ didn't make that mistake, I did.) But what about the discoveries of the first true whales Archeoceti (~50-51mya)?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024