25 May '05 19:35>
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?
I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"
http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm
I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"
http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm
Originally posted by dj2beckerCan't you just paste it?
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?
I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"
http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm
Originally posted by PhlabibitYou're joking aren't you? This is dj2becker - his head is too full of other people's thoughts to process any of his own.
Can't you just paste it?
ES
[b]Edit! Paste is a bad idea. How about you read it, and give us insights. If we agree or don't, we can read your link if we feel like it.
[/b]
Originally posted by jimmyb270I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.
You're joking aren't you? This is dj2becker - his head is too full of other people's thoughts to process any of his own.
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't find either one to be a provable scenario. They both sound like theory.
I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.
Originally posted by StarrmanIt seems maybe you don't understand the experiments yourself. So, for starters, do you believe that macro evolution is possible?
I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.
Originally posted by StarrmanI totally agree!
I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have no idea what you mean by 'macroevolution'. If you mean 'evolution resulting in speciation', then I believe in macroevolution. If you mean 'evolution resulting in a change in kind', then I need to know your definition of the term 'kind'. What property or properties must two organisms have in order to belong to the same kind?
It seems maybe you don't understand the experiments yourself. So, for starters, do you believe that macro evolution is possible?
Originally posted by bbarrO.K. Before we get into macroevolution, let me start off at the begining with this question, How do you believe we all got here? Do you believe that Big Bang occured?
I have no idea what you mean by 'macroevolution'. If you mean 'evolution resulting in speciation', then I believe in macroevolution. If you mean 'evolution resulting in a change in kind', then I need to know your definition of the term 'kind'. What property or properties must two organisms have in order to belong to the same kind?
Originally posted by dj2beckerOkay, one last time, pay attention okay, I'm not going to say this again. You ready? Right then
O.K. Before we get into macroevolution, let me start off at the begining with this question, How do you believe we all got here? Do you believe that Big Bang occured?
Originally posted by jimmyb270Nor does the creation of life have anything to do with the theory of evolution
Okay, one last time, pay attention okay, I'm not going to say this again. You ready? Right then
The Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nothing, zip, squat, nada. Completely unrelated.
Nor does the creation of l ...[text shortened]... ironment. That's it. Nothing else. Do you hear me? NOTHING ELSE!!
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhell after reading no more than half of the first article.. i can allready see afew mistakes.. obveously written gy a bible thumper not understanding science... once case in point .. how the universe was created.. "Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.".. one word.. DUH!... scientists dont know YEt what eliments came from.. maby some day but not now.. but never.. sould a scientist refer to some thing as nothing.. thats trash... they know there was some thing.. but what... we dont know yet.. christ... just over 500yrs ago we lerned the frickn world wasnt flat... or did "god" quick fix the flatness problem when some one got to "the edge" that whole site is crap....
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?
I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"
http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm
Originally posted by xxxenophobeSo you believe everything that some scientist tells you? From your own example you gave you should see that they are not always right. The earth is round. But scientists that did not believe in the Bible professed the earth was flat. Only later they found out that the Bible had been right all along. (Isaiah 40:22)
Whell after reading no more than half of the first article.. i can allready see afew mistakes.. obveously written gy a bible thumper not understanding science... once case in point .. how the universe was created.. "Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, ...[text shortened]... d" quick fix the flatness problem when some one got to "the edge" that whole site is crap....
Originally posted by dj2beckerFrom an online version of KJV:-
So you believe everything that some scientist tells you? From your own example you gave you should see that they are not always right. The earth is round. But scientists that did not believe in the Bible professed the earth was flat. Only ...[text shortened]... und out that the Bible had been right all along. (Isaiah 40:22)