11 Dec '05 07:31>
Originally posted by flyUnity🙄
Intelligent design courses
Some all powerful being did it. Right that concludes the course, you can all go home.
Originally posted by yousersIt is relatively rare for scientific theories to be changed wholesale. For example, Newton's theories of gravity have remained relatively unchanged for the last 5 centuries or so. Darwin's theory of evolution is, itself evolving, but has not significantly changed since Darwin penned it in 1859. The revisions that are being made in science are made typically made through technological breakthroughs, such as when we're able to measure things we were previously unable to measure. WHen scientists find new information we assimilate those ideas into our theories to make them stronger. When creationists find new iformation that doesn't fit with their world view, they try to change the world to fit in with their own prejudices.
I disagree. God has created man with the ability conceptualize and reason. Science is a human establishment of reason designed to describe the world that God has created. The laws of science are continously being edited through revolutions, modifications, etc. This is indicative of their inability to describe all things, their imperfection, and their ins ...[text shortened]... d does not care or need to align his word with the current scientific trend, whatever it may be.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour right, you probaly are wasting your time, as I am mine, the point is that this thread was about, the poster was asking why God would do somthing that conflicts with science. I see no conflict, and evolution is more of a belief system, dont believe me? go here to caculate how much faith it takes to believe in evolution
What absolute crap. If you don't realise that evolution is the truth then you simply don't understand it properly.
Creationists always point to systems as they are now and show how unlikely it would be to evolve. However, these systems never evolve prima facie. Take, for example, the eye. Creationist will describe the fantastic sophistication o ...[text shortened]... ou've already made your closed, shrivelled, mind up, and nothing I can tell you will change it.
Originally posted by flyUnityThat post tells everyone who reads it that you have no idea about how evolution actually works. The lumber from space is another tornado in a junk yard analogy. Meaningless and misleading.
Your right, you probaly are wasting your time, as I am mine, the point is that this thread was about, the poster was asking why God would do somthing that conflicts with science. I see no conflict, and evolution is more of a belief system, dont believe me? go here to caculate how much faith it takes to believe in evolution
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs ...[text shortened]... et, it will totaly change at how you look at things, and explain how, and why they are that way.
Originally posted by XanthosNZOk, so you disagree with him. Why don’t you explain how evolution really works and why his argument is meaningless and misleading?
That post tells everyone who reads it that you have no idea about how evolution actually works. The lumber from space is another tornado in a junk yard analogy. Meaningless and misleading.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOne thing you got to get straight, there are two main types of scientist, Evolutionist scientist, and ID scientist, From you post you act like all scientist are not creationist. look it up on the interenet, you will see many creationist scientist, many whom have advanced degrees.
It is relatively rare for scientific theories to be changed wholesale. For example, Newton's theories of gravity have remained relatively unchanged for the last 5 centuries or so. Darwin's theory of evolution is, itself evolving, but has not significantly changed since Darwin penned it in 1859. The revisions that are being made in science are made ...[text shortened]... 't fit with their world view, they try to change the world to fit in with their own prejudices.
Originally posted by XanthosNZOf course I dont know how macro evolution work, even the most educated evolutionist scientist dont know how it works because no one has ever seen any evidence of macro evolution. Sure they got theorys, but no evidence. And btw, adaptive evolution is no evidence!!
That post tells everyone who reads it that you have no idea about how evolution actually works. The lumber from space is another tornado in a junk yard analogy. Meaningless and misleading.
Originally posted by flyUnityOften the degrees creationist scientists have are meaningless for the fields they claim to be experts in or are honorary degrees (read: not worth the paper they are printed on).
One thing you got to get straight, there are two main types of scientist, Evolutionist scientist, and ID scientist, From you post you act like all scientist are not creationist. look it up on the interenet, you will see many creationist scientist, many whom have advanced degrees.
Aslo you note that when they find new information, that they revise their ...[text shortened]... flawed data. According to their data, its impossable for soft tissue to be 70 billion years old
Originally posted by flyUnityI'll agree that not all scientists agree on evolution. Some people find a way to crowbar their religion and a scientific career together. Most scientists are unable to do this, simply because they are unable to take things on faith the way creastionism requires.
One thing you got to get straight, there are two main types of scientist, Evolutionist scientist, and ID scientist, From you post you act like all scientist are not creationist. look it up on the interenet, you will see many creationist scientist, many whom have advanced degrees.
Aslo you note that when they find new information, that they revise their ...[text shortened]... flawed data. According to their data, its impossable for soft tissue to be 70 billion years old
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat's your opinion, however I disagree with you.
Often the degrees creationist scientists have are meaningless for the fields they claim to be experts in or are honorary degrees (read: not worth the paper they are printed on).
Could you please explain how your lumber from space analogy represents evolution in any way? Are you familar with the tornado in the junk-yard building a 747 analogy and how it misrepresents evolution?
Also, try taking some internet courses about English.
Originally posted by flyUnityThe eccentric astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle once famously said that evolution was as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. This saying was gleefully seized upon by creationists, who have promulgated it ever since as "proof" of the impossibility of evolution producing complex, highly ordered forms.*
That's your opinion, however I disagree with you.
My lumber from space analogy went right over your head. I don't got time to explain tonight.
And btw, for your information English is one of my next courses on 06 spring semester. I do suck at it, and typing in a hurry don't help any.
Goodnight 🙂 wow 2:14 am
Originally posted by XanthosNZGood quote, I thought it was an original piece of your own until i read the 'see here for more info' in parentheses!!! Anyhoo, I was going to write a similar rebuttal but couldn't be bothered before... might do it tomorrow, g'night.
The eccentric astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle once famously said that evolution was as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. This saying was gleefully seized upon by creationists, who have promulgated it ever since as "proof" of the impossibility of evolution producing complex, highly ordered forms.*
As will b ...[text shortened]... c idea, and the basic flaws, are the same.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs the self-proclaimed biologist on this forum, I'm sure you'd be able to help me.
I'll agree that not all scientists agree on evolution. Some people find a way to crowbar their religion and a scientific career together. Most scientists are unable to do this, simply because they are unable to take things on faith the way creastionism requires.
I agree that the tissue in the website you cite cannot be 70 billion years old, for ...[text shortened]... hole dropping lumber from space analogy merely shows you didn;t bother to read my original post.
Originally posted by Will EverittErm, that is micro-evolution - a process that most (sensible) creationists fully endorse. Sensible, because it's fully observable in nature. "Natural selection" has been used so much that it seems to be purely an evolutionary term. This is not the case. Wouldn't you expect a creator to instil variation within an animal kind? Natural selection is like nature's quality control, it ensures the survival of the strong and resilient.
I have a few points i would like to raise
You say that science is a human creation but if there was a god and if he created light im sure he would of thought "hmmm what speed do i want light at"(in whatever language he speaks). There are also many other laws such as gravity that he would of had to of made. I belive in science and not religion as it ...[text shortened]... ent more time on the ground would of got more food /more offspring and thus the cycle continues.