Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 267 of 402 (474363)
07-07-2008 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
07-07-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Just a note
My question is if they started out 500 million years ago as foraminifera and they are still foraminifera, Why could not everything else have started at a point in the past and continued until today?
Because the evidence shows that some critters changed a great deal while others changed less.
Hominids changed very quickly in relation to, say, sharks. We went from chimp- or ape-like in about six million years, while shark evolved much more slowly.
Sorry, the religious belief in "created kinds" is not supported by the evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:17 PM ICANT has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 290 of 402 (474449)
07-08-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:39 PM


More nonsense
Things that can never be proven, such as the ToE, produces nothing good in the study of biology, and in fact does much harm by convincing many school children and Nobel winners that the ToE is true science, when it is not.
"Things that can never be proven" include the theory of gravity, germ theory, and all other scientific theories.
Your effort to falsely separate the theory of evolution from the rest of science amounts to a falsehood, and has no reality in science.
It may be your religious belief, but then there are some 4,300 extant world religions, most with mutually inconsistent or contradictory beliefs. And they pretty much all believe they and only they are the ones with the TRVTH!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 310 of 402 (474469)
07-08-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:43 PM


This is the Science Forum; do science
Yes, it does rule out evolution as you have defined evolution. The Creator we creationists know created every creature after their own kind, and did not step back and seemingly let this process happen by randomness.
This thread is in the Science Forums section.
Document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."
Not creation "science," but real science please. And don't bother quoting scripture or revelation, as that is not science (quite the opposite, in fact).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:43 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:36 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 319 of 402 (474480)
07-08-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:36 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
Yes, it does rule out evolution as you have defined evolution. The Creator we creationists know created every creature after their own kind, and did not step back and seemingly let this process happen by randomness.
This thread is in the Science Forums section.
Document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."
Not creation "science," but real science please. And don't bother quoting scripture or revelation, as that is not science (quite the opposite, in fact).
That's what this whole debate argument is all about. You feel the ToE model from start-to-finish has been proven to a high degree of accuracy, thereby making it fact, not theory, and I certainly do not!
You offer the fossil record, and bits and pieces of life processes that can be currently observed as your proof. This is certainly not the way most other scientific principles are validated.
Since we are over the 300 message mark, I think the moderators of this forum will put a caboose shortly on this topic.
It's been great chatting with you until they close the topic.
Blessings
Until they do perhaps you could document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:36 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 6:06 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 323 of 402 (474484)
07-08-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 6:06 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
You seem to want scientific documentation for "kinds" created by our Creator that you are unable to scientifically prove by your ToE.
I'm willing to let both stand side by side and let the hearer choose which one they want to believe, but the folk who now rule in our school systems are unwilling to let this happen.
Thankfully, our Declaration of Independence started the choice process correctly, and up until about 1900 the New England Reader was the primary textbook in our schools for teaching school children how to read. Try reading it for yourself sometime and see what's there.
You claimed "kinds" were all there is, so lets see some scientific documentation.
So far you have ducked this challenge twice. I think you have no scientific basis for "kinds" and that it is purely a religious term but you are unwilling to admit it.
It is like most of what you have posted on this thread; belief without substance, claims without evidence, and nonsense compounded upon nonsense.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 6:06 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:37 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 370 of 402 (474592)
07-09-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 9:37 AM


This is the Science Forum; do science
I simply said the "revelation" that our Creator has given us says He created every creature after their own "kind." Yes, this is my religious belief as well.
This is the science forum. In order to keep from violating forum guidelines, aren't you supposed to back up your assertions with science, not religious belief? "Kinds" is strictly a religious term, and has no relevance in science.
Your religious belief is in the speculations of the ToE.
You have no idea what my religious beliefs, if any, might be. You should avoid making a fool of yourself speculating.
If the ToE can be proven to a high degree of accuracy within the time frame in which we live, as are most other scientific proofs, then then you would have a proven evolutionary model that should be taught in every biology classroom.
The same nonsense you have been posting for many pages. It is still wrong.
Of course you "claim" the speculative evolutionary model is a proven scientific model to begin with.
False. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. That has been explained to you a dozen or more times on this thread. You have shown yourself unwilling to learn anything about the science you criticize; one can only conclude that you are here to preach, rather than to engage in a conversation.
So it's the evolutionist who starts with a conclusion, and then works backward to a model that can never be fully proven to any reasonable degree of accuracy.
False again. At least twice. (See tagline.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:37 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:35 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 398 by John 10:10, posted 07-10-2008 12:01 AM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024