1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    25 Jan '12 01:262 edits
    A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses
    that have been supported with repeated testing. One definition of a theory
    is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

    A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no
    exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but
    they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is
    to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

    As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The
    closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.


    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

    My summation is that a scientific theory is an accepted educated guess
    by the scientists.


    So the theory of evolution is no more than an educated guess accepted by
    the evolutionists.
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '12 01:49
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A [b]hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses
    that have been supported with repeated testing. One definition of a theory
    is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

    A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no
    exceptions have been f ...[text shortened]... the theory of evolution is no more than an educated guess accepted by
    the evolutionists.[/b]
    Assuming this is an asinine attempt to respond to my saying that science can prove things...

    Science can't prove that a theory or law is true to 100% certainty, that's not how it works.

    Science CAN prove something is false.

    Science progresses by slowly whittling away everything that isn't true so that whatever is
    left is a closer and closer description of reality and is perpetually getting less and less wrong.

    This is why all scientific hypothesis and theories MUST be falsifiable and why creationism isn't
    science because it isn't falsifiable. No god hypothesis is.

    The theory of evolution has been whittled at for 150+years and is thus incredibly true and
    contains only minutest traces of false, and those traces are being hunted and eradicated all
    the time.

    That evolution happens, is true, absolutely and unequivocally. It has been observed, both macro
    micro evolution has been seen and documented.

    The modern theory of evolution contains laws, and facts, and brings them all together into an
    explanatory framework.

    To qualify as theory as your link so correctly states...

    "....A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it..."

    Thus there exists at present absolutely no known fact or piece of evidence that contradicts the
    theory of evolution.... after 150+ years of searching and vast numbers of people gathering evidence.


    Given the total lack of any alternative, the complete absence of any contradictory evidence, the
    power and success of the theory of evolution in making predictions that have been verified, the
    sheer mountains of evidence in support... what else would we teach.


    Evolution is a fact, it's a law, it's a theory, and it's the only possible current scientific explanation for the
    diversity of life on this planet.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    25 Jan '12 01:561 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Assuming this is an asinine attempt to respond to my saying that science can prove things...

    Science can't prove that a theory or law is true to 100% certainty, that's not how it works.

    Science CAN prove something is false.

    Science progresses by slowly whittling away everything that isn't true so that whatever is
    left is a closer and closer de ly possible current scientific explanation for the
    diversity of life on this planet.
    Thanks for quoting the following:

    "....A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it..."

    There is evidence to dispute the theory of evolution, so it may no longer
    really be a theory.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '12 01:581 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So the theory of evolution is no more than an educated guess accepted by
    the evolutionists.
    No a hypothesis is an educated guess.

    A theory must be supported by evidence, it has to be confirmed by strenuous testing.
    It has to make predictions that are then verified.

    The theory of evolution MUST by the definitions in the link you posted be MORE than an
    educated guess.

    Thus your own cited link proves you wrong.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '12 02:021 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Thanks for quoting the following:

    [b]"....A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it..."


    There is evidence to dispute the theory of evolution, so it may no longer
    really be a theory.[/b]
    Really,
    Show me the peer reviewed journal it's been published in.
    Show me the wall to wall news coverage.
    Show me the evidence.


    You can't, because if such evidence existed I would already know about it.

    EDIT: And "because my preacher says so" or "it's says in the bible..." doesn't count.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    25 Jan '12 02:081 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    No a hypothesis is an educated guess.

    A theory must be supported by evidence, it has to be confirmed by strenuous testing.
    It has to make predictions that are then verified.

    The theory of evolution MUST by the definitions in the link you posted be MORE than an
    educated guess.

    Thus your own sited link proves you wrong.
    I said "accepted educated guess'" -- that is, an "accepted hypothesis'.

    But now there are scientist that have produced evidence against the
    theory of evolution and no longer accept it. So that should reduce
    it to only a hypothesis -- an educated guess


    HalleluYah !!! God's word proves true again. 😏
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '12 02:131 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I said "accepted educated guess'" -- that is, an "accepted hypothesis'.

    But now there are scientist that have produced evidence against the
    theory of evolution and no longer accept it. So that should reduce
    it to only a hypothesis -- [b]an educated guess



    HalleluYah !!! God's word proves true again. 😏[/b]
    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

    "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
    A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence
    accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon.

    One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

    It becomes accepted because it's tested, because there is evidence. Your Link.


    WHAT EVIDENCE?

    You have zero credibility so what evidence is there that evolution isn't true?
    Where is it, why has nobody heard of it, where is it published, why is it not all over the news?

    No such evidence exists is why.

    EDIT: heck to disprove evolution would be an instant Nobel prize which is worth quite a lot of money and a helluva-lot of prestige.
    Everyone would have heard about it if someone had disproven evolution.
    Of course there are countless cranks who CLAIM to have have proof of this that or the other but we don't just take peoples word
    in science, the evidence has to actually stack up.
    Which is where you will fall down.
    I pretty much guarantee whatever it is you a blithering about it has been shot down countless times before, possibly over a century
    ago.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    25 Jan '12 02:30
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

    "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses [b]that have been supported with repeated testing.

    A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence
    accumulates to support a hypothesis, t ...[text shortened]... thering about it has been shot down countless times before, possibly over a century
    ago.
    http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/evol.htm

    GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

    C.S. Lewis showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver). “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”

    "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." (Lord Kelvin)

    "I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler)

    "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

    Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

    "Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule)

    "There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun)

    "Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus)

    "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister)

    "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton)

    Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

    Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

    PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

    "The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)

    "Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)

    "The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)

    "We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)

    "The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)

    "I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)

    "I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)

    "At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)

    "So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

    "In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

    Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

    http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '12 02:36
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/evol.htm

    Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

    Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

    http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
    I said evidence, not a list of people who believe in creation, few if any of which are biologists.

    And the website you link is posting out of date refuted crock.

    Show me a peer reviewed article in a major science journal or shut up.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    25 Jan '12 02:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/evol.htm

    GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

    C.S. Lewis showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver). “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver ...[text shortened]...
    http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html
    So you find 50 nay sayer scientists, but on the other side are uncounted thousands of scientists who find more and more evidence of the truth of evolution so sorry, you will have to do better than find a relative handful who poo poo evolution, fundamentally because they are creationists in a scientific disguise. Tell me how many atheist creationists there are? Are there any non-religious people on that list of yours? Even agnostics? My bet is they are all church going members of some christian sect or other.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    25 Jan '12 02:55
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I said evidence, not a list of people who believe in creation, few if any of which are biologists.

    And the website you link is posting out of date refuted crock.

    Show me a peer reviewed article in a major science journal or shut up.
    Evidence for Creation vs. Evolution
    By Bob Dutko

    The scientific evidence for Creation vs. Evolution can show anyone interested in Christian apologetics that you really can believe in a Biblical Creation, a worldwide flood and the evidence against Evolution according to logic, science and intellectual reasoning.

    One small example of evidence for Creation over Evolution is exposed in something I call the Micro/Macro Deception. One of the dirty little secrets most people don't know is that there are, in fact, 2 types of Evolution – Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution happens all the time and is perfectly Biblical. Macro-evolution is what Darwin claimed, and it never happens. Here comes the deception part. Evolutionists fill our textbooks, news reports and peer review publications with legitimate examples of observed Micro-evolution and no examples of observed Darwinian.....or Macro-evolution. (Because there aren't any) The evolutionists then lump it all together and call it “proof of evolution”. So allow me to prove what I just said is true by explaining in simple terms the difference between Micro and Macro evolution.

    First though, we need to properly understand the word “evolution”. In the literal sense, “evolution” is not a bad word. It merely means “change over time”. We all change over time, so in the strictest literal sense, we “evolve”. Our thinking even “evolves” as we get older. But of course, that's not what the evolutionists mean when they tell us humanity “evolved” from a common ancestor.

    Micro-evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For example, a study of Cane toads in Australia revealed that over a span of 70 years, the toads with longer legs tended to survive because they could run and leap farther and faster, thereby avoiding becoming some animal's lunch. Consequently, the shorter legged toads died out. All of the toads had it within their genetic structure to develop longer legs, so whenever the occasional toad would be born with a dominant “longer leg” gene, he would have an advantage over his brother toads, tend to survive and then pass that dominant gene onto his tadpoles and before you know it, the whole Cane toad population “micro-evolved” longer legs.

    Similarly, if you put some dogs on an island where the climate was too cold for their fur, eventually a dog will be born with a dominant gene for thicker fur and he will survive, pass that gene onto his puppies and over time you will see that the dogs will have “micro-evolved” thicker fur. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time that helped them adapt to the types of food available. In all of these cases with the finches, the toads, the dogs etc., the changes they experienced were already built into their genetic codes. That is critical to remember. At no time did a single piece of new, ADDITIONAL genetic information develop in any of these cases. It was merely a shuffling of EXISTING genetic information. (Remember that, you'll see why soon)

    This “Micro-evolution” is fully accepted by Creation Scientists. It has always been seen as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time. This allows them to adapt to various environmental changes in order to survive. This is the sign of a smart God.Now let's go from "Micro-evolution" to “Macro-evolution”.

    Macro-evolution is what is currently being taught today as the explanation for the origins of humanity. For those Cane toads to “Macro” evolve, they would need to evolve into a completely different species. So here's the dirty little secret the evolutionists don't like talking about. There is no evidence anywhere on the Earth, nor has there ever been any evidence of any animal Macro-evolving into a completely different kind of animal. The finches stayed finches, the toads stayed toads. If the kind of evolution being taught to us now were true, those toads would evolve into non-toads, maybe a bird or possibly eventually a lizard or perhaps a cow someday.

    For this to happen (and here comes another dirty little secret), the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with NEW, ADDITIONAL genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind. That's right. In all of the testing being done in all the laboratories and zoos by scientists worldwide, there has never once been an example of even one animal giving birth to an offspring with new, additional genetic information. Only a shuffling or a duplication of existing genetic information. So if the evolutionists are right, we are forced to believe that for billions of years, life has evolved from amoebas in the oceans all the way up through the food chain, growing and increasing in complexity and design, adding new genetic information generation after generation in millions of species for millions of years, but suddenly today....it stops. Now that we have the modern technology, laboratories, scientists and the cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly (and coincidentally) doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creation.

    What's so dishonest though about this whole debate is that evolutionists fill our textbooks and science journals with “examples” of evolution occurring all the time, but if you read what the actual examples are, you see that they are all the “Micro-evolution” examples from earlier. That's right, 100% of all “proof” of evolution occurring is nothing more than certain features on animals making slight changes in shape or size, but staying the very same kind of animal. Some dolphins may develop longer or shorter fins, but they have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird. The evolutionists know this, and so they point to these genetic adaptations within a species and say “look, evidence for evolution”. It's the Micro/Macro deception. They are hoping that by showing you the ways a horse can genetically develop different breeds of size and shape, you will take that as evidence the horse used to be a whale. Remember, a dolphin developing longer fins is not in any way evidence that dolphins used to, at one time, be non-dolphins. So it is, in my opinion, very dishonest to use examples of commonly accepted micro-evolution as so called evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Macro-evolution.

    You may say “but it takes millions of years for those dogs to evolve into a cow”, but remember, it only takes one day for an animal to be born with new, additional genetic information and since that is required for Evolution to be true, and it supposedly has been happening throughout billions of years of evolution, we should today, still see that happening everyday, yet of all the millions upon millions of animals born worldwide, day after day, week after week, year after year, the percentage of current animals born with new, additional genetic information is 0.0%. It has never once, ever been observed.

    Remember, people can be made to believe just about anything if they are only given part of the evidence, but when ALL of the evidence is presented, the truth has a funny way of coming out. Have you ever wondered why so many evolutionary scientists fight legally to stop school districts from debating the evidence against Evolution? Why all the legal battles to keep evolution from being debated? The fact is there are mountains of scientific evidence for Creation that destroys evolutionary theory and exposes the deception used to promote Evolution.
  12. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    25 Jan '12 03:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evidence for Creation vs. Evolution
    By Bob Dutko

    The scientific evidence for Creation vs. Evolution can show anyone interested in Christian apologetics that you really can believe in a Biblical Creation, a worldwide flood and the evidence against Evolution according to logic, science and intellectual reasoning. [...] The fact is there are mountains of sc ...[text shortened]... Creation that destroys evolutionary theory and exposes the deception used to promote Evolution.
    Bob Dutko is a conservative Christian talk show host in Detroit, Michigan, USA on the Crawford Broadcasting Network. He hosts The Bob Dutko News Hour weekdays from 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm Eastern Time and The Bob Dutko Show weekdays from 1:00 to 4:00 pm. His flagship station is WMUZ. His show can also be heard on KJSL and KLZ. Bob also hosts a one-hour nationally syndicated show Defending the Truth with Bob Dutko airing on various stations nationwide. The national program began in February, 2008, greatly expanding his audience outside of the Detroit metro area. Bob joined WMUZ in the fall of 2000. [wiki]

    also: http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm
  13. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    25 Jan '12 04:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A [b]hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation.

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses
    that have been supported with repeated testing. One definition of a theory
    is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

    A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no
    exceptions have been f ...[text shortened]... the theory of evolution is no more than an educated guess accepted by
    the evolutionists.[/b]
    The theory of evolution is not even an educated guess.......but a deception because simple honest observation denies evolution.

    Actually the science is against evolution.

    Observation 1. life comes from life...not chemicals.

    Observation 2. there are no intermediate links showing the slow change of a species through evolution.........and whatever links have been given to us are but just similarities and not links at all.

    Observation 3. complex living systems do not evolve from non existent living systems spontaneously and without intelligent direction.........and when the planet was supposed to have no life - it was then said to be in a situation of zero living systems.

    Observation 4. everything in this universe is showing us all that it has been designed by a designer..............and teaching that random chance accidents are the cause are absurd/dishonest/foolish.
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    25 Jan '12 04:081 edit
    Originally posted by Dasa
    The theory of evolution is not even an educated guess.......but a deception because simple honest observation denies evolution.

    Actually the science is against evolution.

    Observation 1. life comes from life...not chemicals.

    Observation 2. there are no intermediate links showing the slow change of a species through evolution.........and whatever link ...[text shortened]... ...........and teaching that random chance accidents are the cause are absurd/dishonest/foolish.
    What "reprisals" do you suggest there should be [by a "proper Government"] against those who teach about theory of evolution?
  15. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    25 Jan '12 04:111 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evidence for Creation vs. Evolution
    By Bob Dutko

    The scientific evidence for Creation vs. Evolution can show anyone interested in Christian apologetics that you really can believe in a Biblical Creation, a worldwide flood and the evidence against Evolution according to logic, science and intellectual reasoning.

    One small example of evidence for Creati stroys evolutionary theory and exposes the deception used to promote Evolution.
    Yes...................it is the greatest deception and evolutionist continually use deception to promote.

    If evolutionist actually used science honestly then the science would show the truth.

    The true science has been done - and it is all explained in the book " Forbidden Archeology" which has exposed the complete deception of false science on the matter of evolution.

    To be a defender of evolution theses days is to be thoroughly dishonest/foolish.
Back to Top