Science is hampered by our inability to: 1) recognize crucial data/evidence, and 2) interpret the data/evidence. Science progresses similarly to evolution - via little steps and the occasional large one. When we make a discovery that doesn't make sense, that may mean we just took a large step and we don't yet know where that discovery falls. In the mean time, science continues to make smaller, less significant discoveries along many paths until one day, one little discovery illuminates the path to the larger one. Then voila, we can finally understand what that mess was all about!
In the past, we had limited knowledge and understanding of the world around us, so for you to bring up past scientific mistakes in the hope of decimating science, is just plain wrong and a strawman of immense proportion. Today, science moves at a faster pace, but this only means more and more discoveries we can't explain. Eventually, given time, we will.
Glen Rose, Texas has already been refuted many times over by others and I don't have the time nor the inclination to do it here. Suffice it to say that dinosaurs and humans never lived together. This has been confirmed a thousand times by REAL scientists in geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology. Besides, those footprints are about as real as Pam Anderson's BBs.
As for looking at all sciences, obviously you are seriously undeducated when it comes to the evidence supporting evolution and an old earth. All the natural sciences agree on this one point and all evidence found to date by REAL scientists confirms this reality on a daily basis.
If you are looking for scientific evidence to back up Creationism, you will be looking for a very long time. There exists no such evidence.
BTW, gay people have been going to church for a lot longer than you see to think. Since the very beginning of Christianity itself.
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-08-2003]
What is your point? Could you pick some part of the site that is relavant. Show what logic leads to a problem for the ToE from there?
I think this ties back to this post of yours:
They have found a prehistoric fish 12 years ago, they looked exactly the same.. Now if we evolved as they would have us believe, then why does a fish that scientist TOLD us was extinct, get nabbed in a net, and it is the mirror image of what is was like 65 million years ago...Hmmmmmmm!!!
However, there is no "mirror image" fish. If there was it would not disprove the ToE (though a species surviving that long would be a big surprise). If I can guess which one you are talking about your 12 years is out by a factor of 5.
Since this seems to be the whole of your "evidence" you might want to work on it a bit more.
That is both your facts AND you logic AND your knowledge of evolutionary theory are wrong.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-08-2003]
Oh, you are just too cute for your britches....liked the site...Mr. Man... However, if You haven`t gotten the point by now, Why are you even talking to me??? Are you bored??? You are wasting my time and I yours... I did not come to this forum to be berated by some dufus and his little buddies...If you don`t like my opinion that is your right.. However, I don`t think that ANYONE OF YOU, HAVE BOTHERED TO EVEN TRY TO PROVE YOUR POINTS..Did you??? You just took it upon yourself to be the forum police and belittle me.. Which is fine.. It just proves my point.. Scientists are full of it.. All mouth and No action... Hmmmmph... SO where is your proof????????????????????????? I thought so...You have none...Get a life..
You just took it upon yourself to be the forum police and belittle me.. Which is fine.. It just proves my point.. Scientists are full of it.. All mouth and No action... Hmmmmph... SO where is your proof????????????????????????? I thought so...You have none...Get a life..
Actually, you belittle yourself by acting like a child. If you want evidence go to www.pubmed.com and enter a search for evolution. Right now I'm counting 134,000+ primary literature hits. For a synopsis of certain evidence, you could go to www.talkorigins.org. There, this is my evidence, where is yours? I hope you aren't pinning your hopes on a fish previously thought to be extinct.
1= You are the one making the claims Jantoo, you really need to support what you are saying instead of empty statements..
A= No offense here, but not one of you have given me a shred of evidence to back up anything you are saying, But you DEMAND it from me.. Why Is that???? All I have here is a bunch of folks who jumped on my theories and beliefs and person.. That is the complete arguement I am getting from this group.. What a idiot I appear to be.. Hmmmm....
2=You couldn`t even come up with a debate. B= Asgara is the one who jumped in and had nothing to say when Asgara got there..
3=I have no need to back up what I say. C= I didn`t come here and ask you all for any credentials or proof. That is directly from you folks.. You are the ones who started that.. I came trying to find facts.. Thanks alot for all the help you all extended. You are such a smart warm group of folks. I demanded nothing from you, until you started hammering on me..
4=WHY NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH BEFORE YOU ACT LIKE YOU`RE, ALL THAT AND THEN SOME D= I did not ask anyone to do my research. I told them to do their own research. like I am trying to do..
5=I HAVE MY DEGREE, E= I also have a couple degrees...EWWWWW!!! Wanna be my friend??? OH AND,, guess what??? I am an Ordained Minister..
6= Maybe, you should so (sic) a little more DIGGING INTO FACTS F= Oh my goodness, a typo, Obviously, I`m an idiot.. That`s science.. Surely you know what a fact is.. Do I need to email you a dictionary???
7= I can back up my words... Can you????? Try using Google, They are sure TO CONNECT YOU WITH THIS INFO. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE WORLD WIDE...HMMMM.. SUCH A SMALL WORLD YOU ALL LIVE IN.. G= Google is an excellent search engine and the internet if full of information. All I said was, I would not do the research for you all.. You believe whatever you want to.. I AM TRYING TO DO MY OWN RESEARCH...And, not only do I use the internet, but all the other wonderful resourses out there. And you have to dispute a fact (?) in order to deem what is scientifically correct. You must look into ALL aspects of whatever you are researching. I would have thought you would know that.. And if I am wrong, or right, I am still looking and seeking.... I am so sick of you most (highly educated) people thinking that you are the bee`s knee`s.. You are not the only ones who went to college.. HellOOOOOO!!!! So big deal you went to college.. Who didn`t??? WOW, I`m Impressed.....Get over it already..
However, if You haven`t gotten the point by now, Why are you even talking to me???
What point? You haven't made a point yet.
All I've gotten from you so far is that somehow some kinda "prehistoric fish" is somehow or other connected to the creation vs evolution debate. What fish and how it is connected to the debate?
Bored? No - I don't believe in bored. In fact, I'm here because this is fun! So far you've prattled on without getting to any specifics and now are getting all hostile because someone asks what appear to me to be reasonable questions. That I find rather amusing (it may be that I'm easily amused )
This seems to be an approach that someone who hasn't a clue how to deal with the debate might use. Let's see if that proves to be true in this case (and certainly not for the first time).
As for where is the proof, you might try reading over some of the threads where this has already been discussed. Since the very large majority of all scientists accept the various aspects of what goes into the debate (age of earth, evolution's occurance, new-Darwinism as explanation, no global flood) it is the job of the new outsider who wants to turn over physics, geology and biology to come up with something.
If you don't want to try to do that or can't then you will be ignored.
We are back to you ignoring me.. That is twice you`ve threatened to ignore me... Why don`t You start, first???? I came here seeking information and all I got was a bunch of insults and garbage.. Again, I thank this group, for all the help you have extended to the first time visitor.. I told you up front, my beliefs.. And not ONE of you people even bothered to extend me a welcome or offer any relevent information at all.. Again, Why???? Where do you get off acting like you are so much better than the rest of the general population??? We are all seeking knowledge, and you have to learn from somewhere. I did NOT get that in this group.. I did not ask for your credentials. I did not ask what kind of scholars you are. All I did was seek some info...I presented myself and you all went for the throat.. WOW!!!!
I hadn't noticed that you've ever done anything to deserve nasty, Rei.
I'm pretty sure that out new, temporary visitor just doesn't like people who know more than he does. That apparently is enough to deserve nasty remarks that he thinks somehow contributes to his proving his points.
I suggest that you look over the welcome that others have gotten. Ninja Monkey and Sonic for example. They both believe (d) as you do but they were a little less dogmatic. Since you seem to be getting a somewhat different welcome you might wonder why.
I'll start ignoring you when you stop being so much fun.
It is so nice of you to take up for your friend . I applaud your loyalty. However Mr. Nice guy sent me a site for 2 year olds. Trying to be helpful, I suppose... I think NOT. He was being a butthead... And he gets Butthead reactions...
Well, then why use such a ridiculing tone? You're complaining about the way you're being treated, but they tone of your very first post here was "scientists are STOO-PID!" As far as we're concerned, you started it. If you wanted civil conversation then you should have started out civil. But you started out ridiculing people, so we ridiculed you. And predictably, you run to momma yelling "they hit me back!"
They are no more than correct the *religious* folk..
To the contrary, science has proven itself to be significantly more accurate in determining what is so than religion. They are more correct than the religious folk.
Why stop with one scientic field and just accept their TRUTHS... To debate this you need ALL scientific proofs... And, there ARE so many of them..
That could be true. On the other hand not every scientific "proof" is valid. Some are fallacious, like the "proofs" offered by organizations like ICR and Answers in Genesis, or by shysters like Kent Hovind or Phillip Johnson.
So, no. I'm not going to universally accept all statements that have the veneer of science, without question. I'll question everything. And the only thing that stands up to my questioning in this context is the theory of evolution. Creationism just doesn't hold up.
So, I believe in God, Thus I go to Heaven. And If There is no God or Heaven,,,, Then ok, I was duped..((NO BIG DEAL HUH??)) BUT, WHAT IF THERE IS???? HMMMM, I THINK I`LL TAKE THE DUPED PATH... I can`t find anything in Hell that interests me.. REAL OR NOT...
Ah, yes. Pascal's Wager. But it's a bigger wager than you think. How do you know that Allah isn't the real god? He's going to be pissed as hell if you worship the wrong god, and will send atheists to hell, anyway. The same is true of all the other gods you forgot to mention. How do you know you're not supposed to believe in them? For all you know, you're damned anyway.
I suggest you think this out a little farther. The rationale you've used to believe in God works for all gods, so if you reject other gods, you're being logically inconsistent.
By the way, Science has NOT provided proof, that there is no God or Hell or Heaven, either.....
True. But there's no evidence for all that. Me, I try not to bother worrying about things there's no evidence for.