1. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11824
    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
  2. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    26 May '05 02:321 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

    I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"

    http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm
    Can't you just paste it?

    ES

    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.

  3. Standard memberjimmyb270
    Top Gun
    Angels 20
    Joined
    27 Aug '03
    Moves
    10619
    26 May '05 08:55
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    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]
    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.
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    26 May '05 10:15
    Originally posted by jimmyb270
    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.
    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.
  5. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    26 May '05 10:51
    Originally posted by Starrman
    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.
    I don't find either one to be a provable scenario. They both sound like theory.

    Creation maybe, but not the simplistic form laid out in the Bible.
  6. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    26 May '05 12:591 edit
    Who wants to have to deal with punching down all these lumps in the pillow.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html


    edit ,,,one example of the use of that site:

    Claim CA100:
    It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

    This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.
    Response:
    Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).
    The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
  7. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11824
    26 May '05 17:06
    Originally posted by Starrman
    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.
    It seems maybe you don't understand the experiments yourself. So, for starters, do you believe that macro evolution is possible?
  8. Standard memberDaemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirateā„¢
    PaTROLLING the forum
    Joined
    01 Dec '04
    Moves
    36332
    26 May '05 22:17
    Originally posted by Starrman
    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.
    I totally agree!

    To me, this whole 'EVOLUTION CRUNCHER' document is written VERY zealously. There's so much venom, anger and spite in it's anti-evolutionism that it reads more like it is 'clutching at straws' than of putting across valid, factual arguements.

    In an ironic way, reading the document has actually strengthened my belief in evolutionary theories!
  9. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    26 May '05 23:48
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    It seems maybe you don't understand the experiments yourself. So, for starters, do you believe that macro evolution is possible?
    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?
  10. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11824
    27 May '05 07:16
    Originally posted by bbarr
    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?
    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?
  11. Standard memberjimmyb270
    Top Gun
    Angels 20
    Joined
    27 Aug '03
    Moves
    10619
    27 May '05 08:14
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    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?
    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 life have anything to do with the theory of evolution - except for the fact that it is where evolution started. Like the starting line in the race of life, it has nothing to do with the actual running.

    All the TOE seeks to explain is how organisms adapt to their environment. That's it. Nothing else. Do you hear me? NOTHING ELSE!!
  12. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11824
    27 May '05 10:231 edit
    Originally posted by jimmyb270
    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!!
    Nor does the creation of life have anything to do with the theory of evolution

    So what was responisble for the creation of life if the TOE does not have anything to do with it???


    - except for the fact that it is where evolution started.


    The fact???

    So what then caused life to "evolve" from non-life, if the TOE does not deal with this issue?

    All the TOE seeks to explain is how organisms adapt to their environment. That's it. Nothing else. Do you hear me? NOTHING ELSE!!

    You are talking about microevolution. I am talking about macroevolution. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

  13. NY
    Joined
    29 Mar '05
    Moves
    1085
    27 May '05 10:31
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

    I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"

    http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm
    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, 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....
  14. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11824
    27 May '05 11:46
    Originally posted by xxxenophobe
    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....
    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 later they found out that the Bible had been right all along. (Isaiah 40:22)
  15. Joined
    30 Dec '04
    Moves
    117906
    27 May '05 12:051 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    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)
    From an online version of KJV:-

    22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

    OK, where in here does it say the Earth isn't flat? As far as I'm aware, circle's are flat. Sphere's are 3 dimensional.

    So confirmation in the Bible that the Earth is flat then?

    Re your original URL, I'll counter it with another, already posted by someone else on this site (can't remember who, sorry!)

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evidence.html

    Are there any like-minded people out there who also believe that evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive? Maybe He just lit the cosmic fuse-wire, and stood back to watch His creation evolve?
Back to Top