- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd you call this "science"?
I've explained this to you countless times. I'll do it once more. Every other bang than the Big Bang happen within the universe. The big Bang, by definition, does not occur within the universe, it is the phenomenon which creates the universe. As cause and effect are properties of this universe, and only operate within the universe, trying to apply them to the Big Bang is non-sensical.
30 Oct 06
I still don't see anyone offering information on how the genetic diversity came about without some significant amount of evolution taking place.
For example, some people have in the past claimed that micro evolution takes place but that one of the following is true, though the statements change over time:
1. No new species can arise.
2. No new organs can appear.
3. No new 'types' or 'kinds' can arise.
4. Natural selection does not take place.
If we take the example of tortoises, I have personally seen a number of different species of tortoise. So either Noah had a pair of each species or statement 1. is false. If Noah had only one pair and all the species developed from that pair then what cause the amazing variations? God? Random chance? Natural selection?
Another question is how did fresh water fish survive the flood?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMicroevolution is scientifically demonstratable and reproducable. The rock-frog-brid-fish-ape-human (whatever) chain has never been demonstrated to be possible.
I still don't see anyone offering information on how the genetic diversity came about without some significant amount of evolution taking place.
For example, some people have in the past claimed that micro evolution takes place but that one of the following is true, though the statements change over time:
1. No new species can arise.
2. No new organs c ance? Natural selection?
Another question is how did fresh water fish survive the flood?
With regards to your question on the fresh water fish:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2becker1. Has it been demonstrated as impossible. (The only criticism presented in the very long "whats wrong with evolution thread" was a 'lack of evidence' claim. Nobody presented conflicting evidence.)
Microevolution is scientifically demonstratable and reproducable. The rock-frog-bird-fish-ape-human (whatever) chain has never been demonstrated to be possible.
2. Are there demonstrable boundaries on what is possible. Suggestions of a 'kind' barrier have been made without any supporting evidence. (The species barrier idea has been refuted without doubt.)
3. The main object of this thread was to look for alternative explanations. So far all I see is more "whats wrong with evolution". Does this mean that the Noah's flood story cannot be investigated scientifically and no evidence other than the Bible can be provided?
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadthen why did you call it a theory?
Yes I do.
[b]also, i don't have my bible with me but if i remember correctly after the flood God made rocks into people. thus, not everyone is descended from Noah. also, Noah was thousands of years ago. quite a lot of generations have passed and thus enormous genetic diversity...
I didn't know that bit about new people from rocks.
But your mentio ...[text shortened]... ing in the failure of the organism. This implies you accept at least some evolutionary theory.[/b]
(sorry-cheap dig, but it's true. it's just a theory but people tend to treat it as a universal truth, so to speak.)
i got the new people from rocks from greek mythology. i have a wierd memory...i must have picked that up when i did ancient greece in school-in p5. when i was 10...
i accept that animals adapt. this has been shown many a time and if you don't beleive that you're probabaly a conspiracy theorist. animals adapting, as i understand it, is not a theory, thus is not incorportated in the theory of evolution.
basically, adaptation has been shown to happen. evolution hasn't. it is a theory. treat it as such.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by geniusPlease look up the definition of the word theory in a scientific context.
then why did you call it a theory?
(sorry-cheap dig, but it's true. it's just a theory but people tend to treat it as a universal truth, so to speak.)
i got the new people from rocks from greek mythology. i have a wierd memory...i must have picked that up when i did ancient greece in school-in p5. when i was 10...
i accept that animals adapt. this ha ...[text shortened]... y, adaptation has been shown to happen. evolution hasn't. it is a theory. treat it as such.
An understanding of adaptation is a significant part of the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution has been shown to happen so is it now fact in your books? (or are you a conspiracy theorist?)
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by geniusGo back to math, science isn't your thing. Evolution is a scientific theory. So is Gravity. And Relativity.
then why did you call it a theory?
(sorry-cheap dig, but it's true. it's just a theory but people tend to treat it as a universal truth, so to speak.)
i got the new people from rocks from greek mythology. i have a wierd memory...i must have picked that up when i did ancient greece in school-in p5. when i was 10...
i accept that animals adapt. this ha ...[text shortened]... y, adaptation has been shown to happen. evolution hasn't. it is a theory. treat it as such.
If it can't be stated as a simple axiom (like say Newton's laws) then it becomes a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it is a guess.
30 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZno, it's not just a guess. instead, it is what is widely perceived to be the best explanation. that doesn't mean it is true.
Go back to math, science isn't your thing. Evolution is a scientific theory. So is Gravity. And Relativity.
If it can't be stated as a simple axiom (like say Newton's laws) then it becomes a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it is a guess.
in maths we deal with proofs. i have books on my reading list that are 50 years old. i have friends who have books that they bought last year which are now out of date. they study biology, physics and the like. scientific theories change. you never know, a body of a 4000 year old man might be dug up tomorrow which will changed everything...
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, and if you have followed the discussion you would know evolution
Does this mean you accept the process as viable assuming that life got started.
does not deal with how life got started, it is only a process. My faith
doesn't even come into play to say that.
Kelly
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe same is true of God, God created the universe.
I've explained this to you countless times. I'll do it once more. Every other bang than the Big Bang happen within the universe. The big Bang, by definition, does not occur within the universe, it is the phenomenon which creates the universe. As cause and effect are properties of this universe, and only operate within the universe, trying to apply them to the Big Bang is non-sensical.
Kelly
30 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayer...no, It was Harry the Hobgoblin...God is just a big lie that he and his mate Sally made up to amuse themselves...they later felt guilty about it and made themselves disappear, the jam sandwich lies half eaten somewhere in the universe though.
The same is true of God, God created the universe.
Kelly
and that is the truth!!...I have faith so it must be 😉 (and it says so in the Hobgobble)