Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Scientific consensus has been in error more than a few times. There are examples of one person proving a theory despite opposition of the majority. It does not therefore offer much comfort to appeal to this authority.
Damn you're right; the Earth could very well be flat no matter what those newfangled scientific theories say! Try not to fall off the edge, dimwit!
Originally posted by dj2becker 1 - FACTS WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED
It is commonly said that evolution and Creation are both theories. A "theory" has no definite proof in its support, only some evidence favoring it. In this book, we have found that evolution has no evidence supporting it and a ton of facts which destroy it.
But Creation is different. It has a mammoth number of facts ...[text shortened]... go, we find that bees are just like bees today!
Originally posted by no1marauder Damn you're right; the Earth could very well be flat no matter what those newfangled scientific theories say! Try not to fall off the edge, dimwit!
You completely misread what I said. Consensus is not always wrong, of course, but it has been wrong on a disturbingly high number of occasions in the past. Consensus was once that the earth was flat. Few, if any, doubted it. How many potential errors are lurking in today's scientific theories? Are we objective enough to admit that some of them could be wrong? Isn't it a false appeal to authority for someone to say 'most scientists (at least the smart ones) are creationists' (or evolutionists, for that matter)?
Originally posted by Phlabibit Someone wants to yell "Fact! Fact!" about something, you can expect someone is not going to agree. Especially on a topic like Creationism vs. Evolution.
Don't be saying 'psychology' is the reason people shoot down these false statements. I hope there is a God, but I don't need to prove the earth is 6000 years old to do that, and I don't need t ...[text shortened]... l in 6 days. I just think Bees probably evolved and there is lame proof to say otherwise.
ES
So who pollinated the flowers while the bees were evolving?
Originally posted by dj2becker So who pollinated the flowers while the bees were evolving?
The inability of some of these creationists to understand the concept of a dynamically evolving system astounds me!
dj2, the entire process is endogenous. To ask how a specific component at a very early time evolved, accepting as given a specific behavior at a time period much later, is just fatuous.
Originally posted by telerion The inability of some of these creationists to understand the concept of a dynamically evolving system astounds me!
dj2, the entire process is endogenous. To ask how a specific component at a very early time evolved, accepting as given a specific behavior at a time period much later, is just fatuous.
Originally posted by telerion The inability of some of these creationists to understand the concept of a dynamically evolving system astounds me!
dj2, the entire process is endogenous. To ask how a specific component at a very early time evolved, accepting as giv ...[text shortened]... ific behavior at a time period much later, is just fatuous.
The inability of some of these creationists to understand the concept of a dynamically evolving system astounds me!
Dynamically evolving system? You speak as if it is a fact. Would you be so kind as to point out any single shread of evidence which would suggest that an evolving system is possible.
dj2, the entire process is endogenous. To ask how a specific component at a very early time evolved, accepting as given a specific behavior at a time period much later, is just fatuous.
To just blindly assume that the entire process is endogenous is more fatuous. Do you have any evidence to suggest the process ever occured, never mind if it is endogenous.
Originally posted by dj2becker 1 - FACTS WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED
It is commonly said that evolution and Creation are both theories. A "theory" has no definite proof in its support, only some evidence favoring it. In this book, we have found that evolution has no evidence supporting it and a ton of facts which destroy it.
But Creation is different. It has a mammoth number of facts ...[text shortened]... go, we find that bees are just like bees today!
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c24.htm
This is a cut and paste post. I'll make the slight effort of locating an internet post that may or may not answer the question. It's more than dj really deserves for this post.
Originally posted by dj2becker So who pollinated the flowers while the bees were evolving?
I don't know, but other insects or animals or the wind are likely candidates. Bees are really good at pollinating their flowers, but there are many other means of getting pollen around. Pollen's not that hard to transport. Many other plants with pollen do just fine without bees.
i didn't realize you had just copied and pasted this entire post from the web until i got to the end. i think if you are going to quote something you should say so beforehand in a preface, rather than at the end in a coda. if i had stopped reading halfway through (as i probably should have), i would have thought they were your words.
as to t ...[text shortened]... i would be more apt to show an interest and provide some sort of coherent counter-argument.
You're lucky he's citing the source. I went through a lot of trouble to get him to do that. He used to refuse to cite the source. I had to use search engines to find the original posts and then let everyone know this guy was plagiarizing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I don't know, but other insects or animals or the wind are likely candidates. Bees are really good at pollinating their flowers, but there are many other means of getting pollen around. Pollen's not that hard to transport. Many other plants with pollen do just fine without bees.
I am talking about the flowers that need bees for pollination.
26 May '05 05:31
Things evolution could never invent
Back to Top