|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up.
If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect. Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius. [This message has been edited by Christian1, 02-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
What the offer that we discussed here?
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=48&p=5 If so it is what is known in the trade as spurious.... Just for reference what books on evolution by scientists have you read?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Not that prick Hovind, AGAIN? Tell me, using cytochrome c similiarities, what is the closest organism to humans, according to Hovind? Sorry to everyone else who've seen this before, but this is a favourite of mine. Don't give him any clues!! OK, Hovind aside, give me evidence of 6 day genesis, please, since you claim the bibles been proven over & over. Regarding lack of evidence, how do you explain molecular phylogenies derived from genetic evidences, such as amino acid similarities (see cytochrome c), retroviral insertions, pseudogenes, MITEs, & other transposable elements? I'm pasting this from another post of mine, it was originally in response to Cobra_Snake claiming that the theory of evolution was contrived, & that the evidence was shoehorned in after the theory had been made. This shows the evidence of evolution BEFORE Charles Darwin. (message 20 http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=80&p=2 )
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/buffon2.html Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) Sometimes it is hard to imagine how revolutionary an idea was, especially when that idea is currently accepted as common knowledge. Many such ideas appear simple and are often taught at the elementary school level, yet the simplicity of these ideas belies the complexity involved in their origins.During the eighteenth century, two church doctrines provided sweeping biblical explanations for most questions about biological diversity: Separate Creation, the idea that all creatures have been created independently of one another by God and organized into a hierarchy ("chain of being") with Man occupying the most elevated rank beneath God; and the 6,000 year limit on the age of the planet. It is not the average person who questions two thousand years of dogma, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin, Buffon, in his Historie Naturelle, a 44 volume encyclopedia describing everything known about the natural world, wrestled with the similarities of humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry of Man and apes. Evidence : Morphological similarity between organisms. Heritable traits.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature. Although he did not come up with natural selection, he did discuss ideas that his grandson elaborated on sixty years later, such as how life evolved from a single common ancestor, forming "one living filament". He wrestled with the question of how one species could evolve into another. Although some of his ideas on how evolution might occur are quite close to those of Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin also talked about how competition and sexual selection could cause changes in species: "The final course of this contest among males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propogate the species which should thus be improved". Erasmus Darwin arrived at his conclusions through an "integrative" approach: he used his observations of domesticated animals, the behaviour of wildlife, and he integrated his vast knowledge of many different fields, such as paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy. Evidences : paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite different from that proposed by Darwin, the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same lines of evidence that Darwin was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult. Evidences : Vestigial structures, & embryo developemental structure. We haven’t even reached his nibs, Charlie Darwin yet, & we already have : Morphological similarity between organisms, heritable traits, paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, vestigial structure, and comparative anatomy. All these observations BEFORE Charles Darwin came along with natural selection, & the seed of the modern ToE. Now, what had the bible got at the same period in history? Alleged divine revelation. Charles Darwin based his theory on EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE FIRST, THEORY LATER. The scientific method, no less. It really is intellectually bankrupt to try to claim evolutionary theory is based on pure faith & bias. The theory has had prediction after prediction come true, this is not faith or bias. Now, Christian 1, if you are claiming that the theory of evolution doesn't meet the standard of the scientific method, let's hear it. Please, none of the usual evasive bull, your answer to this should start "The theory of evolution doesn't meet the standards set by the scientific method because................". In summary, to back up your claims, you need to : 1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky. 2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus. 3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method. 4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: Um, using the book of Genesis as evidence that God exists is circular reasoning. Genesis already assumes that God exists.
quote: the fact that you are even using the word "proof" when referring to scientific theories shows your ignorance of science. Science does not deal in "proofs", it deals in evidence. Have a look at the following website to get a good overview of what science is and isn't. Also follow the internal link for Creation "science", to learn why it is pseudoscience.
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html quote: Your religion is "proved?" Do you think you have "proof" of God's existence, that the Flood occurred, that all animals including humans were specially created, suddenly, by this god that you have proof of? Well, don't keep this amazingly-convincing evidence all to yourself, now. Tell us all about this overwhelming evidence that you are privy to! Now, I am thinking that you believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that it contains no contradictions, am I right? If so, please read on. Please go to message #127 (page 9) in the thread entitled "Is the Bible the Word of God?" In this post, I point out a contradiction between the first three Gospels and John concerning the timing Christ's crucifiction. Please explain how Christ can be crucified after Passover in the first three gospels, but before Passover in John. I will look forward to your response at that thread. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Christian1: Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up. If you have proof of evolution "a scientific experiment, in a complete form with facts and without doubts or other theories" I'm going to tell you where you can get $250,000 for it. Please visit http://www.drdino.com to collect. Those of you who believe in God and Evolution should watch Dr. Hovind's videos which can be found on the "money link" or even read and understand the bible. The mear fact that evolutionists chalk their religion up as being "science" is painfully mistaken, there is no proof or science experiment that supports the theroy of evolution. I've seen the bible proven to be acurate time and time again and untill it is proven wrong, I will continue have my beliefs as a True Christian and creationist. And keep in mind that God created "TIME" as well, proof is spoken in the book of genius. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL...Crazy Kent Hovind is actually reknown for being a major pain in the butt of most creationists worldwide because of his intolerant view of well just about anyone who doesn't agree with him. He's convinced that evolution scientists and paeontologists are actually servants of lucifer and that communism and nazism are all extensions of evolutionary thinking. I have debated many creationists over the last few months and met some who are actually approaching the question of evolution Vs creation from a purely scientific perspective...their science is often very flawed but at least they are making the effort. Hovind proceed by FIRST admiting that he was convinced of the inerant nature of the Bible BEFORE giving any reflection on the question and THEN accumulates evidence which MAY be interpreted as supporting HIS view of things while completely ignoring evidence which would cast some doubts on it. I watched his online seminar,all 14 hours of it TWICE...once to be informed on what evangelical creationists like him propose and the second time purely for its comedy value...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
quote: Please do go back and read my reply. Again you are bashing Dr. Hovind, you are not proving evolution. I know it must make you SOOOOOOO mad to know that when you try to prove evolution, you in turn make your self look like a complete ass when Dr. Hovind reminds you that it is only your belief not a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: You may say ...Evolution is a plastic soap dish - if it please you, but that doesn’t make it a plastic soap dish.Please do not get this mixed up. quote: Proof refers to mathematics. Shall we discuss science instead ?
quote: Proof refers to mathematics. Please do not get this mixed up. and Hovind knows even less about REAL science than you know of spell checkers.
quote: Like Pi = 3 ?You’ll have to show me your work first. How about when Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime ? Matthew, 16:28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew, 23:36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matthew, 24:34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. is THAT ‘proven to be acurate [sic] time and time again’ ? That’s some pretty sloppy standards of accuracy.
quote: and apparently even after it’s proven wrong.
quote: Book of Genius, eh? Written by the same genius that could create a universe, destroy the earth with a global flood but couldn't drive out the valley people because they had chariots of iron? Judges, 1:19And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Makes me wonder what His reaction would be if the valley people had Buicks instead. You're set, buddy. Keep up the denial, it’s working for you. regards, jeff [This message has been edited by Jeff, 02-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Not sure why you're repeating your original assertion instead of responding to the messages. In message 2 Joz pointed out that Hovind's offer has already been discussed in another thread. In message 3 Mark described evidence for evolution. In message 4 Schraf explained that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and pointed you to a website that provides a good overview of what science is. It appears your points have been addressed, not as politely as I would have liked perhaps, but addressed all the same. Have you anything to say in response? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Not sure why you're repeating your original assertion instead of responding to the messages. In message 2 Joz pointed out that Hovind's offer has already been discussed in another thread. In message 3 Mark described evidence for evolution. In message 4 Schraf explained that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and pointed you to a website that provides a good overview of what science is. It appears your points have been addressed, not as politely as I would have liked perhaps, but addressed all the same. Have you anything to say in response? --Percy[/b][/QUOTE] My telling you that Evolution is a religion irritates you? You say that Creation cannot be proven. You say that Evolution can be proven, and yet evolutionist's offer more theories which they "believe" support thier original theory. People discuss Hovind's offer as though it is a fake offer, though as you misunderstand the bible, which I don't fully understand the bible, you misunderstand Hovidn's offer, and twist his words and try to make him look like a fool as he has done to many Evolutionist's in many of his debates. Hovind's offer simply states to show him proof of evolution as he has shown you proof of creation, and he also shows you proof that evolutionist's hide eveidence of creation or excuse it as inacurate. When I speak to you I don't try to deter you or lie to you, I am simply posting one fact. To add upon it, Evolution, Creation, and Science are three differnt things. Evolution is often mistaken as science, when it can not be proven. If you can't prove it, what makes it science? Creationis't do not claim that Creation is science, Creation is not science it is a religion. Again, Science is what we can observe and test to be true/fact. When you say that God did not create the heavens and the earth, were you there? I know I wasn't, but I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth. The book of God's word said so. Were you there when your car was created? NO? Does that mean in evolved? Do you believe that it evolved? Everything was created by something somewhere. When? Where? I guess, only God knows. He tells you.....in the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I was only pointing out that people had responded to your points, but that you didn't address any of them. Let's take just one:
Schraf already pointed out in message 4 that science is not in the business of proving things, and she provided a link to a website that does a pretty good job of explaining what science does do. How does this different perspective on science affect your argument about evolution as science? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian1:
[b] My telling you that Evolution is a religion irritates you? You say that Creation cannot be proven. You say that Evolution can be proven, and yet evolutionist's offer more theories which they "believe" support thier original theory. People discuss Hovind's offer as though it is a fake offer, though as you misunderstand the bible, which I don't fully understand the bible, you misunderstand Hovidn's offer, and twist his words and try to make him look like a fool as he has done to many Evolutionist's in many of his debates. Hovind's offer simply states to show him proof of evolution as he has shown you proof of creation, and he also shows you proof that evolutionist's hide eveidence of creation or excuse it as inacurate. When I speak to you I don't try to deter you or lie to you, I am simply posting one fact. To add upon it, Evolution, Creation, and Science are three differnt things. Evolution is often mistaken as science, when it can not be proven. If you can't prove it, what makes it science? Creationis't do not claim that Creation is science, Creation is not science it is a religion. Again, Science is what we can observe and test to be true/fact. When you say that God did not create the heavens and the earth, were you there? I know I wasn't, but I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth. The book of God's word said so. Were you there when your car was created? NO? Does that mean in evolved? Do you believe that it evolved? Everything was created by something somewhere. When? Where? I guess, only God knows. He tells you.....in the bible.[/QUOTE] I, & others have asked questions pertaining to your opening statement. For myself, I would like the questions I pose in message 3 answered, specifically : "In summary, to back up your claims, you need to : 1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky. 2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus. 3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method. 4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize." I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all.
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html "Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! " Care to comment? Have you read the replies that people took the time to write? You have had Jeff/Schraf question your use of the word proof, the inerrecy of the bible questioned, your understanding of what science does & doesn't do questioned, & yet here you are again, with the same old bumf. So, instead of surmising how worried & irritated we all are, you might want to respond substantively to people, or we'll just think your full of hot air making baseless assertions, heaven forbid. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
quote: You may say ...Evolution is a plastic soap dish - if it please you, but that doesn’t make it a plastic soap dish.Please do not get this mixed up. [reply]You may say "...that Creation is wrong and that Evolution is right" - if it so pleases you, but that doesn't mean you are right.Please do not get that mixed up. Evolution and Science do not mesh, Science is Evolutions worst nightmare. Evolution is a belief such as Creation. Can you prove that Evolution is acurate, can you prove it with science, please... no more theories about why Evolution is true. Ok next point....... quote: Proof refers to mathematics. Shall we discuss science instead ? [reply] No, Science and Math work hand in hand, hmmmm, was I talking math? I could have sworn I was talking about Evolution, Science, and Creation. This is a phrase used to deter you for the orignal question. Can you prove Evolution with science which what Evolution is claimed to be?.....hmmmmm... next point....
quote: Proof refers to mathematics. Please do not get this mixed up. and Hovind knows even less about REAL science than you know of spell checkers. [reply] My ability to spell is completely irrelivent as evolutionist's abilty to lie become irrelivent to them when they are attempting to prove thier theory is SCIENCE...... next point.... ::tired::
quote: Like Pi = 3 ?You’ll have to show me your work first. [reply] work? God already showed you his work, look around, this didn't just....HAPPEN!! oh yeah, "POOF"....LOL How about when Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime? [reply] which life? not time, don't be confused. Matthew, 16:28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. [reply] some of you will be saved, some will not. hmmmmmmm. mabye? Matthew, 23:36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matthew, 24:34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. is THAT ‘proven to be acurate [sic] time and time again’ ? That’s some pretty sloppy standards of accuracy. [reply] has the second coming happened yet? Which generation is being refered to? The generation of man? The generation of man after the first coming of Christ? hmmmmm.....sloppy?? if you say so.
quote: and apparently even after it’s proven wrong. [reply] LOL, when has creation been proven to be wrong? When has Evolution been proved to be right? If it was proved right, why does Dr. Hovind still have his $250,000 in his pocket? He also invites to prove him wrong. Who gave you the right to obilish Creation? Where is your proof? If I'm sorry, mabye next time.
quote: Book of Genius, eh? Written by the same genius that could create a universe, destroy the earth with a global flood but couldn't drive out the valley people because they had chariots of iron? Judges, 1:19And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Makes me wonder what His reaction would be if the valley people had Buicks instead. [reply] Did you interperate this as though to say the Lord is weak? Are you assuming that the Lord attepmted to drive them out? After reading more of this chapter, I interperate it as though the Lord with with Judah while Judah was doing this. You're set, buddy. Keep up the denial, it’s working for you. regards, jeff [This message has been edited by Jeff, 02-12-2002] [reply] You are attacking me, and what I say. I still don't see proof. And don't use the bible to try to prove the bible wrong. That will never work!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian1 Inactive Member |
quote: Why do you insist that I prove my belief? When others ask you and other evolutionist's to prove evolution, why is thier answer so incomplete and full of more beliefs? My proof is in the bible, if you want specific proof, ask Dr. Hovind, heh, if you dare or read the bible which others have taken the time to study. Dr. Hovind is much better at specifics than I am. And the bible has already been written. If you don't believe him, the bible, and God, why don't you prove me, Dr. Hovind, and the bible wrong? And I do urge you and other evolutionist's to be truthful and not work around the questions as though they are not there. I would like an answer on if we evolved, why are we not evolving? If it is science, why can't you prove it? Do I need to prove that the Earth is there, here, everywhere? Do I need to prove that we exist? If my beliefs are wrong, why do so many people swear and take the lords name in vein? Who is your lord? I can't rationalize that "we JUST exist" or "evolved from nothing", there had to be something not nothing. If you give nothing, you get nothing, that is a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: quote: So prove it. You made the claim, now back it up. The inerrancy of your bible is in question, see Schrafinators post. If your bible contains errors, then it can not be considered an authority on its own divinity. You are a transmitter, not a reciever, aren't you? As has been pointed out to you more than once, science doesn't "prove" anything. Science makes hypothesis from observations, these hypothesis contains predictions (I won't go into falsifications now), which, in the case of evolution, many have been born out. A prediction of cytochrome c amino acid sequences, for example, would be that it is similar to chimps (based on other anatomical similarities), & that sunflowers would contain dissimmilariteis, & guess what? This is called the scientific method (very basic). Evolutionary theory meets the standard of the scientific method, & is therefore science. Now, I have asked relevant questions pertaining to your opening statement, in message 3 : "In summary, to back up your claims, you need to : "1/ Give me proof of the divine nature of the bible. 6 Day Genesis would be nice. Since it has been "proved over and over and over and over and over and over", it shouldn't be too tricky. 2/ Explain the genetic evidences in a way that fits creation, not the scientific consensus. 3/ Explain why the Theory of Evolution isn't science, & how it doesn't meet the scientific method. 4/ Lastly, since you hold Hovind in such high regard, explain Hovinds ridiculous claims about cytochrome c, & what organism is allegedly closer to humans, instead of a chimpanzee. Giving the reason he makes his conclusions. If you can do this & make sense, you'll get a nobel prize." I'll even make the cytochrome c question easy for you. Hovind claims that sunflowers are more closely related to humans, if cytochrome c similarities are used, & not chimpanzees after all.
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/HovindLie.html "Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer! " Care to comment?" Failure to comment substantively on the points means your engaging in handwaving bluster, making claims, & then avoiding backing them up. I have shown you evolution is science, I've even shown you genetic science that backs up evolution. Here are two papers :
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261 "Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales."
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254 "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences." Now, there's PLENTY more evidence. What is required of you is to explain ALL of these evidences away, in a manner that fits into the so called "creation model". Failure to do so means there is evidence of evolution, & a lot of it. Please spare me your ideas that it must be proven in lab to be science, it doesn't. It has to be backed up with evidence, have predictions be born out, & have potential falsifications. It has all three. The ToE hasn't been proven, nor can it be. It is, however, a scientific theory with a lot of evidence in support of it. Hovind is a fraud, & if you try to answer point 4/ , you will see why. You have been lied to, I'm showing you one example of why you shouldn't waste any more money on him. So, please answer points 1-4 Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024