Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is wrong, is Creation right?
MPW
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 64 (82046)
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


If evolution is wrong, is Creation correct? Or is there a theory that we haven't come up with? By the way I'm new here, I'm 15 years old and a scientist. No, I don't work in a labratory. You see the definition of science is basically knowledge. More specifically knowledge gained by study, experimentation, etc. Check any dictionary. So 'scientist' can thus be defined as a person in pursuit of knowledge, thats me! So, with that said, I will ask the question this forum section discusses: Is it science? If evolution is true, everything MUST be explained by science, which is impossible. If Creation is true, God is the inventor of science and anything can be explained. So, is evolution scientific? To define "scientific" I mean something that we can observe, test, and demonstrate at any time. Evolution is divided into six groups: (you've probably heard this before, but its worth it)
1.Cosmic evolution. The origin of time space and matter. (The big bang)
2.Chemical evolution. The evolving of higher elements from the two gasses that the big ang produced; hydrogen and helium.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution. No one has ever seen a star form.
4.Organic evolution. Life evolving from non-living matter. This has never been observed.
5.Macro-evolution. The changing of one kind of animal to another. This has never been oberved.
6.Micro-evolution. Variation within kind. i.e. A wolf to a coyote to a poodle...still dogs. This one has been observed and happens all the time.
I actually wouldn't call that evolution, rather, variation.
So evolution, the first five meanings anway, is not scientific, it is not observable, testable, or demonstratable. As for creation, it does not need to rely on science for everything, it relies on the creator of science. However, God likes order, so he made a set of scientific laws we can trust. But I have just disproven the common belief that creation is religious and evolution is science. Evolution is just as much a religion as creation, and takes more faith to believe in my opinion. Now if you want to believe the theory thats fine. But I just don't want our tax dollars being used to teach only one of these religions in our public schools. In conclusion, I believe that it is logically and scientifically possible to prove that God exists. Don't think so? I'll try that in another thread another day....
Thanks,
Mike.
edit: only spelling corrections!
[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-01-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:03 PM MPW has not replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 10:15 PM MPW has replied
 Message 4 by Asgara, posted 02-01-2004 10:30 PM MPW has replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2004 11:38 PM MPW has not replied
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 02-02-2004 7:41 AM MPW has replied
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 9:21 AM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 64 (82047)
02-01-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


Sorry, I noticed after typing furiously that the topic does not match the rest of my post. Oh well, reply to either of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (82050)
02-01-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-01-2004 10:15 PM


How do you do those quotes? Oh, well, I'll use (lots of) quotation marks.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution is a strictly biological theory that explains species diversity on Earth, and that's it. The rest of your list encompasses cosmology, geology, and organic chemistry. These are not biological sciences.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Cosmic, Stellar, chemical, and organic evolution MUST I repeat MUST be addressed for evolution to be a theory of origins!!!! Otherwise you might as well throw the whole theory in the garbage! Evolution is NOT strictly biology, I don't know where you come up with that.
You don't want to address those subjects (Cosmic, Stellar, chemical, and organic evolution) because you know they are NOT scientific.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""There's several errors here that betray your standing as a "scientist."
Firstly, there's no such thing as "kinds". Kinds is not a functional category of living things. There's no way to tell if any two given animals are in the same or different kinds. "Kinds" is not a term scientists use in biology because it has no meaning.
Therefore it's inaccurate to draw a distinction between micro and macro-evolution, and the reason is simple: It's like trying to draw a distinction between walking to the store (micro-walking) and walking to the next town (macro-walking.) There's no difference because it's the same process occuring for different time periods."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''"""
The first paragrapg is irrelevant to the discussion. Now with KINDS I mean the dog kind, the cat kind the horse kind and the monkey kind. No, I do not know the fine line between some of them, that would be a good area of study. I'm not done exploring here on earth yet!! And your example of micro walking to the store is completely off the wall, it does NOT compare to evolution. Your magic ingredient is time. But there is a limit! Animals can change and vary and adapt but they can NEVER be something else! A banana will not change to a caterpillar if you give it trillians of years. A bug will become resistant to a pesticide, but never to an axe!
It has never been observed, and it is completely unreasonable. Actually, sitting here thinking about it, I know where the line is between micro and macro which further disproves your walking to another city example! Variation within "kinds" is using the genetic information ALREADY PRESENT in the gene code. This information can be scrambled, but we have NEVER observed any NEW information being added. You can lose genetic info, but never gain any. A fish could never get lungs.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""What you've disproven is that you're motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Instead you've proven that you're all too willing to post already-refuted Hovind-esque nonsense to further a preconcieved religous agenda. You're not the first 15-year-old creationist to post this stuff. Maybe you'll be the first to be able to defend it, but I doubt it. I predict - because that's what scientists do, make predictions from data - that you'll post maybe 20 times and then abandon the board and all your arguments.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Tell me one thing that has been refuted that Hovind teaches.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Huh, funny. I believe that it's possible to prove that an all-powerful, benevolent Godas that described in the Bible doesn't exist, and moreover, have done so in several threads. By all means, let us discuss. """""""""""""""""""""""""""
I didn't say an "all-powerful, benevolent God" I said just God! An all-powerful, benevolent God is next and yes, it requires faith. But its easier to believe "In the beginning God" than "In the begginning dirt". Too late now, I'll start another thread sometime this week.
Mike.
[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 02-01-2004 10:56 PM MPW has not replied
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 11:20 PM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 64 (82052)
02-01-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Asgara
02-01-2004 10:30 PM


Sorry, I posted without seeing your post.... This is the first I have heard of evolution being only living things. Evolution is a theor of origins. I mean, where did we come from anyway? Is there a new theory about that? As for being dogmatic, beats me, I'm just writing what I think and TRYING to be polite.. We are talking about SCIENCE Evolution has never been demonstrated or observed. Nothing has ever been added to any gene code that we've seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Asgara, posted 02-01-2004 10:30 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 11:31 PM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 64 (82098)
02-02-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
02-02-2004 7:41 AM


HoLD IT WAIT A MINUTE! This is NOT FAIR! I go to bed late (10:00) And get up at 7:00 in the morning and theres so much posted it would take me millions of years to ansser to! Creation vs. evolution, it lookks like mee against an army...I guess thats your strategy.
I will try to do my best to answer some of this before I start some school, although this IS school in my opinion....
crashfrog, your bacteria example, very nice, but guess what ITS STILL A BACTERIA! it didn't change from a one-celled to a two-celled creature. It didn't become a fish. Oh and whoever said fish have been found with lungs, if thats true, all it would mean is ITS A FISH WITH LUNGS! Not evolution. Now if you had the fish in a tank and it bred itself into a frog, then we would have evidence. Oh, but you need TIME... its never been proven.
Now as for MUTATIONS and I have 50-100 of them, like I said, the gene code is always scrambled, but nothing new is ever added. Show me one example of new info being added. There is none, the leading scientifific leaders have admitted this. I can have a shorter nose, but never a nose on my leg. theres a LIMIT to the changes WITHIN the gene code. Plus, mutations are almost never beneficial. And if a mutation WAS beneficial, it wouldn't be passed on to his kid, right? Lets say a cow gets 5 legs. It doesn't help, he can't walk any better, but we get more meat hehe. So if he is bred, will any of his kids be born with 5 legs? Or 4 1/2? You BELIEVE that a monkey can turn into a human, you have no PROOF. Its not SCIENCE.
And Ned, where has the Bible been proven wrong? As my first post stated, since God is the creator of science, he is not bound by the laws of it.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""In fact it would be possible for both to be correct. Some god
or other poofed the universe into being, dumped a few dozen
microbes on a planet or two, and then let his/her/its universal
rules run riot -- with evolution (as we understand it in a
biological sense) operating to diversify the extant critters.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ok, but what a dumb God. What is he thinking? Is he smarter than us? If he can make time, space, matter, and life he's gotta be smarter than us, right? So heres this super smart God, up there, but all e does is play with his stars that he made? And God HAS to be good! We see good and evil in this world, where is it coming from? We have seen things happen that prove the supernatural. Like witches have really been able to talk to the dead right? that is not science. That is supernatural. I will explain that when I start the Can we prove God? thread.
"""""""""""""Except that no-one I know accepts the theory of evolution as
correct simply because that's what they have been told."""""""""""""""""
Um, almost every kid in public school....
""""""""""""""""""Allowing tha you might be using the term 'kind' very loosely"""""""""""""
I already explained that, the gene code can change, but nothing can be added, at least not what we've seen.
"""""""""""""""""I thought you weren't allowed to teach any religions in US schools
(I assume you are from the US please say so if you are not).
Evolution is not, in any case, religous in nature.""""""""""""""""""
By the way, you CAN teach religion in public schools here in the USA.
Tha teacher cannot try to convert the students to be a buhdist or whatever. You can teach ABOUT any religion, some schools now have a Bible study program. Its that the school boards are afraid of being sued....
And evolution is believed, not science. If you don't wanna call that religion, fine. Call it whatever you want, its still not science.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""''Evolution is observable, testable and demonstrable -- as someone pointed out with an experimental description"""""""""""""""""""""
Already,talked about that, its still a BACTERIA. Thats scrambled genetic code, not added info. this bacteria will never grow wings and fly no matter how much time you give it.
"""""""""""""""""""""""You stated that for something to be scientifically acceptable
it must be 'observable, testable, or demonstratable' ...
please apply any one of those to a proof of God (I assume you mean
the christian god ... but any god will do)."""""""""""""""""""""
Like I said, later when I'm through with this thread. We will have to discuss it...if its not scientific, I can at lest explain it through logic and reasoning.
Thats all the time I have for now.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 02-02-2004 7:41 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 10:34 AM MPW has not replied
 Message 29 by RRoman, posted 02-02-2004 11:37 AM MPW has replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 64 (82100)
02-02-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
02-02-2004 9:47 AM


Ok, sorry, as I was writing, another 5 or 6 posts appeared, about these ape men...when you find a bone in the dirt...all you know is IT DIED!! You do NOT know if it had any kids, how it walked, etc. You cannot rely on fossils, theres no date stamped on them. What is alive today? Thats what we can look at. Plus why did some apes turn to humans and others stay perfect apes? Explain that one. There is an entire book on neanderthals... run a search.. It was an ordinary man thet had arthritus and was hunched. If you find a fossil and the man, ape is bent over, how do you know if he's coming up, or going down?
Ok and as for Hovind, he may have a couple things where he's worng , everybody does, but a good %95 of what he says is true and relevant..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 9:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 10:38 AM MPW has not replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 10:45 AM MPW has not replied
 Message 27 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 11:23 AM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 64 (82123)
02-02-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RRoman
02-02-2004 11:37 AM


A lot more here to discuss. I'd like to scream ONE AT A TIME!
Oh well. First: "define info"
Genetic information is information in the gene code. Does that make sense? New information would be EXACTLY the same as NEW INFORMATION.
Like I can have shorter ears and a longer nose than my father, thats the same info. But I will NEVER grow wings and fly away because that
is NEW INFORMATION. I'm kinda young and can't really quote a lot of scientific babble, but what I'm writing is real easy to understand.
It seems like the number one argument for the evolutionists is "define kind". I stated that scrambling of the gene code is micro, new information is macro; never been observed. Stephen Gould, Charles Darwin, they ALL admit this. If you want quotes I can find them. Someone said anything Hovind comes up with is wrong. Sounds like a BIG predjudice to me. As I said, besides a couple of small arguments that MAY be false, the big picture of what he teaches is CORRECT. Prove me wrong. I don't care what a bunch of anti-hovinders post on a website, lets go through the seminar and point out what is NOT scientific. I also heard, "you only want to examine one point in time" Wait a minute WERE YOU THERE when the animals evolved??? Did you observe it? You haven't tested it or demonstrated that a frog can change to a dinosaur. Why doesn't it happen today? You show a 3-year old a wolf a chiwawa (however thats spelled) a poodle and a dingo and a bacteria and ask which is not like the others? Most of my arguments were dodged and never answered. THERE IS A LIMIT TO CHANGE! The genetic info present in a dog can only do SO MANY THINGS. Nothing can get better. Everything goes down the tubes given time. Evolution is not possible in a closed universe. I will repeat THERE IS A LIMIT! We have seen those bacteria do who knows what but we've never seen them grow wings or new legs and eyes. This argument hasn't been answered either, are mutations passed down to the next generation???? ( I gave the cow example)
""""""""""""""""This excuse is acceptable in a chatroom, not in an internet discussion forum where you usually have plenty of time (sometimes even several days) to answer. Besides, this isn't even a very active forum."""""""""""""""'
You are right, I shouldn't be complaining about that, its just that I'm outnumbered...never mind I said anything there....sorry.
"""""""""""""""""""""Ahh yes, the old clumping together of an entire kingdom into a single "kind," while still claiming that Homo ergaster, sapiens and erectus are easily distiguished."""""""""""""""
Ok, I will repeat THERE IS A LIMIT!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""''Ignoring you misunderstamding of multicellularity for a moment, does that mean that if I show you a case where an unicellular organism evolved into a multicellular one you will accept "macro-evolution"? I, for one, rather doubt it, but I will post the abstract here anyway, if only as a reference for the other posters:"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ok, I have no clue what you're talking about, so I'll drop that one.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Conclusion Number 2:
Those individuals who happen to have traits that make them better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce (and potentially pass on those traits) than those who have traits that are less well suited to the environment. This phenomenon is called natural selection.
Conclusion Number 3:
Since those individuals in a population who are best suited to their environment will pass on more traits (on average) than those who are less suited to their environment, the population’s heritable makeup will inevitably change over time. Advantageous traits will tend to become more common, while disadvantageous traits will tend to become less common. This phenomenon is called evolution.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''
Guess what, I agree. If there are black squirrels and gray squirrels and the trees are black, the more "advantageous" ones (the black ones) will camofluage and the gray ones will be eliminted. Sure. Again, THERE IS A LIMIT! A squirrel will never have purple fur, even if the trees are purple! The gene code only allows for black, white and everything in between, so they can change WITHIN that but not outside of it i. e. purple fur. Don't tell me I'm not making sense I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.
Mike

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RRoman, posted 02-02-2004 11:37 AM RRoman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by MPW, posted 02-02-2004 12:28 PM MPW has not replied
 Message 32 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 12:32 PM MPW has replied
 Message 34 by :æ:, posted 02-02-2004 12:58 PM MPW has replied
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 1:12 PM MPW has replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 64 (82124)
02-02-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by MPW
02-02-2004 12:25 PM


One more thing, mainly for laughs, if your brain is the result of chemicals getting all mixed up (a single cell of it is actually more complex than the space shuttle) how can you trust your thinking process??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by MPW, posted 02-02-2004 12:25 PM MPW has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 02-02-2004 1:08 PM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 64 (82127)
02-02-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dan Carroll
02-02-2004 12:32 PM


Do you realize that in defining the word "information", you used the word "information" four times?
Doesn't anyone know what that means? Look in a dictionary. Define any word. When I am typing, I'm using tons of words, why do I have to define THAT one? Every scientist should have a dictionary handy.
Information, they say the dna in one segment of the human body could be written in 40,000 books, as INFORMATION. It contains the stuff the body needs for where to grow what. Why do peoples arms always grow out from their shoulders? Its because of genetic INFORMATION.
What I said is that he doesn't even have a basic understanding of high school biology. His own statements bear this out. So why would he be at all qualified to speak on evolution?
You like to say this, but give me a few statements that show he doesn't have an understanding for high school biology! Call him up and give him a high school test of biology, and he will prove your statement false.
Then what's the deal with red squirrels?
That wasn't a smart statement, I was only giving an example. I wasn't giving you the actaul facts. That was a theoretical example.
And to prove my point, the red squirrel was created red, and if two red squirrels were taken and bred billions of times, they could be orange, red, or brown, because thats all the same color more or less pigment. But they will NEVER become black if all the trees are black, proving that there is a LIMIT. Unless of course the first two squirrels had it in the gene code to possibly be black. To express the point even better, they would NEVER grow wings right?
At least that kind of change has never been observed, showing that its not SCIENCE.
{Edited to use the shaded quote boxes, instead of having the quotes enclosed in long strings of (") markes. MPW - I SUGGEST you adopt this methodology. - Adminnemooseus}
Sorry, Adminnemooseus, I didn't know how... I guess that proves I'm dumb and have no knowlege of science, lol. I will from now on
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-02-2004]
[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 12:32 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by :æ:, posted 02-02-2004 1:05 PM MPW has not replied
 Message 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 1:14 PM MPW has not replied
 Message 41 by Loudmouth, posted 02-02-2004 1:28 PM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 64 (82139)
02-02-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by :æ:
02-02-2004 12:58 PM


Since you've conceded that selection operates on biological organisms, you've also conceded that information increases. It's just that you don't understand how information is calculated, and so you didn't know that by conceding the former, you've conceded the latter.
To me, that makes NO sense at all. Are you trying to throw me off here? Whatever you were trying to say, INFORMATION HAS NEVER BEEN ADDED TO THE GENE CODE. At least its never been observed. I will look up the references where famous evolutionists have admitted exactly that.
Everything does NOT "go down the tubes" given time. Look at the accelerating improvements in human technology for an obvious falsification of your statement. Surely you won't assert that technology is getting worse, will you
HA HA HA. You have just proved my point. Firstly I did not get that from Hovind's website, I got that from the second law of thermodynamics. (The entropy of the universe is always increasing)
And technology, hehe, proves that it takes INTELLIGENT ENERGY to make something get better!!! Everything goes down the tubes with time
UNLESS energy is added. And not just energy, it must be intelligent, organized energy. We added a bunch of energy to Afghanistan a while back, and we didn't make anything get better.
So your technology example only proves that it takes intelligence to make anything get better. If evolution is true, where did the laws of thermodynamics come from anyway?
And we've never seen Pluto complete an orbit around the sun, yet it is the most reasonable interpretation of the data. That's how science works. Since we've seen the closer planets complete solar orbits ("micro"-orbiting), it is reasonable to infer that the farthest planet has a complete solar orbit as well ("marcro"-orbiting). Your argument seems to insist we shouldn't believe that Pluto can complete its orbit since we've only seen complete orbits for inner planets. But what's there to stop it?
Again, flawed reasoning. Pluto is in orbit. We are talking about impossible changes in animals! Reading your pluto example mmight make sense at first, but if you think, it doesn't compare in the least. We see what pluto is doing now. It likely has gone around the sun, and will go around the sun. But you cannot prove that it has reversed direction 8 times and became purple, than orange, then green, and now blue!! Thats what you are trying to tell me about the animals. We see them dong the same things, cats having cats, dogs having dogs, just like pluto goes around the sun! But ten you try to tell me that they went from a fish to a frog to a dinasour to a bird, thats like saying that pluto has reversed direction 8 times and became purple, than orange, then green, and now blue!!
Again, Your argument is evidence for my theory, not yours.
And I'll repeat again: What is the limit?
Different for every animal. I already gave tons of examples. A bug will beccome resistant to pesticides, but it will never become resistant to my ax no matter how many times I do it. A squirrel will go from black to gray, but never grow wings. theres a limit. Give me any animal and I can explain what it can and can't do, where the limit is.
And to conclude, in response to my saying:Your magic ingredient is time. But there is a limit! Animals can change and vary and adapt but they can NEVER be something else!
crashfrog said:"Says you. Care to provide evidence?"
Look, I don't have to provide evidence that a fish can't change to a frog. Its up to YOU to prove that it CAN or your theory is useless and not science.
Mike
[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by :æ:, posted 02-02-2004 12:58 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 1:30 PM MPW has replied
 Message 47 by Taqless, posted 02-02-2004 1:58 PM MPW has replied
 Message 57 by :æ:, posted 02-02-2004 2:37 PM MPW has replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 64 (82146)
02-02-2004 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by JonF
02-02-2004 1:12 PM


In reply to JonF...
Ah, OK, you mean new abilities. There's lots of examples of that. For example, the ability to digest nylon. Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug.
ITS STILL A BUG! And you'd better believe that digesting nylon already was in the gene code of at least some of the bugs.
You are claiming to know more than the thousands of people who have actualy studied these subjects on the basis of a few biased and ignorant Christian websites.
I am not claiming to know more than anyone. I am simply using common sense and logic. I am not any smarter than any of you, its just I'm right! Are you saying my arguments are irrelevant because of who I am and how uneducated I am and so forth? Address the issues!
Were you there when some Deity created everything? Did you observe it?
At the risk of being obnoxious, are your parents married? Did you observe it?
The idea that some event must be directly observed to be valid science is wrong on so many different levels. Do you thing that a murderer should be convicted only if the murder was observed? Events leave traces, and events that didn't happen don't leave traces, and studying these traces or noting their absence is valid scientific research.
With a murder, we were here BEFORE and AFTER it occured. With evolution, only after. That does not compare. I wasn't there when God created, no. That takes faith. All my argument is is that evolution is not science!
Not prejudice; a rational conclusion based on analysis of the evidence (Kent's published works). Ken's too far out for even most creationsists; as Answers in Genesis says at Maintaining Creationist Integrity
Again, SHOW ME where he has gone wrong. You just like saying this.
Lots of people have claimed there is a limit .. nobody has ever presented any evidence of a limit. Your inability to inmagine how such evolution might take place is evidence of your inability and nothing else.
Inability to imagine, now I'm being personally sent to the nut house? I can imagine the biggest fairy tale you've ever heard, Oh c'mon!
The limit is: Whatever is not in the gene code will not happen. You prove to me that limits do NOT occur! I'll bet you believe that a rock can't change to a stick in 2 seonds. Prove it! PROVE THAT OK?
PROVE THAT A ROCK CANNOT CHANGE TO A TREE IN 2 SECONDS! prove it!
We have never observed it, therefore its not science!
You are not making sense. It apears that you have essentially no knowledge of the science that you are criticising. Your writing is not simple; it's wrong.
My writing is much simpler than yours. And again, you are telling me that I know nothing, the classic "I'm smart, your dumb" attitude"
And all my arguments are no good because I have no knowledge of science! Imagine that.
[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 1:12 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 02-02-2004 2:12 PM MPW has replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 64 (82148)
02-02-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taqless
02-02-2004 1:30 PM


Mike,
Sorry, but this is really annoying: Cut the crap and define kinds!!
Or, provide a link that you are using to define "kinds". Without definitions it is impossible to keep you from doing a "goalpost move".
you: dogs, wolves, coyotes = one kind
you: apples and oranges are different kinds
Drop the word KINDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm talking about genetic info being ADDED, which has never been observed.
all these edits are to put the quotes right...
[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taqless, posted 02-02-2004 1:30 PM Taqless has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 64 (82149)
02-02-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dan Carroll
02-02-2004 1:30 PM


Flying sqirrles of course, were created with wings. My opinion, yes. I can't prove it. But you cannot prove that it came from anything else! Evolution is not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 1:30 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 02-02-2004 2:03 PM MPW has replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 64 (82157)
02-02-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taqless
02-02-2004 1:58 PM


kinds I admit is a wishy washy term. I said genetic info being added which has never been observed. Kind is not a scientific term, but more of a common sense term. Something a 3-year-old can see.
But to satisfy everyone here goes the definitions....
Kind:
1.A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2.A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3.Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
4.A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
5.Archaic. Manner.
I hope thats satisfactory.
Information:
1.Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2.Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news.
3.A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
4.Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
5.Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
I hope this makes everyone happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taqless, posted 02-02-2004 1:58 PM Taqless has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 2:36 PM MPW has not replied

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 64 (82160)
02-02-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Loudmouth
02-02-2004 2:03 PM


Right, evolution is not science, it is believed. Nothing has ever proven Creation wrong either. The topic is "Is it science"? It is not.
Successful with predictions? I'm sure any prediction that evolution made that was correct, creation could have made the same prediction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Loudmouth, posted 02-02-2004 2:03 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by MrHambre, posted 02-02-2004 2:28 PM MPW 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