1 edit
Originally posted by NosracI did not cave.
Don't CAVE Kelly we have more work to do it appears!
So, what do y'all scientists/evolutionist think abou the demise of Pluto?
Did it evolve into non existence?
Who were the 424 that ousted Pluto?
Where were the rest of the scientists?
Where were the rest of the astronomers?
DID THEY GET THE DAY OFF?
WERE THEY DRUNK?
C'mon, you guys are smart!
WH ...[text shortened]... HAT AN ASTEROID CAN BECOME A PLANET????
YEAH, RIGHT, AND i'M GEORGE WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pluto doesn't have anything to do with evolution unless you want
to talk about how reality was changed by redefining how we look at
our solar system.
As far as evolution is concern I didn't move from my position and
no one else did either, so we agree to disagree.
My position is still I do not believe evolution caused life to get more
and more complex over time, to were we could have gone from the
simple cell to where we are today through small change to small
change. I still believe it is only people's faith in evolution that they
can make that claim.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NosracDo you call it a spade, or a shovel? does it make any difference to whether you can dig with it? The argument over the definition of the word planet is one that has been going on for years, and will probably continue for many more.
Don't CAVE Kelly we have more work to do it appears!
So, what do y'all scientists/evolutionist think abou the demise of Pluto?
Did it evolve into non existence?
Who were the 424 that ousted Pluto?
Where were the rest of the scientists?
Where were the rest of the astronomers?
DID THEY GET THE DAY OFF?
WERE THEY DRUNK?
C'mon, you guys are smart!
WH ...[text shortened]... HAT AN ASTEROID CAN BECOME A PLANET????
YEAH, RIGHT, AND i'M GEORGE WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayWe agree to disagree, untill the next evolution argument comes along, Till then, we all slink away into the darkness, to heal our wounds, and sharpen our claws, and wait.
I did not cave.
Pluto doesn't have anything to do with evolution unless you want
to talk about how reality was changed by redefining how we look at
our solar system.
As far as evolution is concern I didn't move from my position and
no one else did either, so we agree to disagree.
My position is still I do not believe evolution caused life to get more ...[text shortened]... I still believe it is only people's faith in evolution that they
can make that claim.
Kelly
😉
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo you admit you are wounded by the massive evidence against evolution: THE BIBLE
We agree to disagree, untill the next evolution argument comes along, Till then, we all slink away into the darkness, to heal our wounds, and sharpen our claws, and wait.
😉
see also: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Y'all may laugh, again, at the website, but I have a small competition for ANYONE wo believes in evolution:
TALK TO KEN HAM AT ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOOSE? i BET HE CAN CHANGE ALL OF YOUR MINDS BEFORE HE'S DONE!
WY? BECAUSE HE'S ARGUED WITH THE BEST EVOLUTIONIST AND GUESS WHAT? THEY LOST. THEY LOST TO CREATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN: THE EVOLUTIONISTS LOST TO [WORD TOO LONG]
Ooops! Held my exclamation key down my accident.
Does that mean I'm evolving into a new being? A human that is taking on a new form that will alter my own writing?
NO WAY
Originally posted by NosracFor every Ken Ham there's a John Stear - http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
So you admit you are wounded by the massive evidence against evolution: THE BIBLE
see also: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Y'all may laugh, again, at the website, but I have a small competition for ANYONE wo believes in evolution:
TALK TO KEN HAM AT ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOOSE? i BET HE CAN CHANGE ALL OF YOUR MINDS BEFORE HE'S D ...[text shortened]... o a new being? A human that is taking on a new form that will alter my own writing?
NO WAY
I'll show you mine if you show me yours ...
Originally posted by NosracCarson,
So you admit you are wounded by the massive evidence against evolution: THE BIBLE
see also: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Y'all may laugh, again, at the website, but I have a small competition for ANYONE wo believes in evolution:
TALK TO KEN HAM AT ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOOSE? i BET HE CAN CHANGE ALL OF YOUR MINDS BEFORE HE'S D ...[text shortened]... o a new being? A human that is taking on a new form that will alter my own writing?
NO WAY
You are such a laugh!! You really think that the bible can somehow transmogrify the physical evidence for evolution somehow? If the bible is right and evolution is somehow wrong, how do you account for dinosaurs? What about trilobites? How do you explain the fact that there are some 3 million species of beetle? Did God not find one or two species enough? How do you explain Australopithicus and the constant evolution of cereals and other crops??
You seriously need to grow up and get yourself educated.
Originally posted by NosracA Ken Ham debate:
So you admit you are wounded by the massive evidence against evolution: THE BIBLE
see also: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Y'all may laugh, again, at the website, but I have a small competition for ANYONE wo believes in evolution:
TALK TO KEN HAM AT ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOOSE? i BET HE CAN CHANGE ALL OF YOUR MINDS BEFORE HE'S D ...[text shortened]... o a new being? A human that is taking on a new form that will alter my own writing?
NO WAY
KenHam: Stupid claim
Evolutionist: Well actually, that isn't true.
KenHam: Repeat stupid claim.
Evolutionist: That still isn't true.
KenHam: Prove it!
Evolutionist: Well I don't have a million dollar lab on hand but I can quote some scientific papers.
KenHam: That's not good enough! Look at me people I'm proving the scientists wrong!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NosracCorrect me if I am wrong, but you seem to me to be the type of person who wouldn't know humour if it was a hippopotamus and it landed on you. The bible isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that there was a group of people some time in history that thought it was important to write that stuff down. And evolution wasn't even scratched by any of the arguments put against it, neither, apparently, was anyone’s faith in god, or genesis, so in convincing people stakes it was a nill-nill draw.
So you admit you are wounded by the massive evidence against evolution: THE BIBLE
see also: http://www.answersingenesis.org
Y'all may laugh, again, at the website, but I have a small competition for ANYONE wo believes in evolution:
TALK TO KEN HAM AT ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOOSE? i BET HE CAN CHANGE ALL OF YOUR MINDS BEFORE HE'S D ...[text shortened]... o a new being? A human that is taking on a new form that will alter my own writing?
NO WAY
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd how do you explain the appendix?
Carson,
You are such a laugh!! You really think that the bible can somehow transmogrify the physical evidence for evolution somehow? If the bible is right and evolution is somehow wrong, how do you account for dinosaurs? What about trilobites? How do you explain the fact that there are some 3 million species of beetle? Did God not find one or t ...[text shortened]... olution of cereals and other crops??
You seriously need to grow up and get yourself educated.
God: I know I will give man a completely useless organ, which will sometimes malfunction and cause them to die in a very painful and amusing manor.
Man: Thank god for science and modern medicine, no wait.... that was us.
2 edits
Originally posted by amannionThe starting points for all life forms, were they all started at a single
Firstly past extrapolations ARE science.
Secondly, can you tell me what are the guesses that scientists have made that prepresume the theory?
point (the simple cell) or were the main bulk of life all started at the
same time, each form fully developed from the on set? If you favor
the former over the later is there any way to know which is correct by
just looking at universe around us? If you claim the fossils tell us,
assumptions are being made there too, for it doesn’t even matter
how old they fossils are; simply seeing them does not mean that we
know they too were not started at the same time as all the other life,
nor does it also clearly mean that they didn’t evolve from the simple
cell. It is all based upon assumptions and speculation thereby
accepting certain unknowns as facts for baselines moves us into faith.
(note: nothing is simple about a cell just an expression)
You have to see that my saying there is faith involved does not mean
that science isn't being used. If we assume certain unknowns we are
building upon something that cannot be proven wrong or right, we are
accepting the results as some how true, it is a matter of personal
tastes not truth. The foundations of that theory are built upon that
which cannot be shown to be wrong.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
As I have said before, there is only one, non testable, unverifiable question, is the universe A, an illusion, B, Created at some point in the past with the illusion of all that came before it, or C, real and 'natural'. If A. nothing is provable or testable, nothing can be known apart from the existence of ones self, if B, then things could be testable as long as the universe continues to run after it's 'conception' along 'natural' means, if C, then it's science rules of investigation. As the universe look's like option C, then which ever option you pick you can't tell them apart by observation, so philosophically if they all look the same, is there any difference? Science demonstrably works, until this ceases to be the case, the ONLY assumption is that we live in option C. As an explanation Evolution works, it explains how you can get from microbes to humans with everything else on the way, and does so simply and elegantly, and it has a vast body of evidence that supports it and none contradicting it. Simply claiming that you weren't there to witness it and thus can't prove it happened is exactly akin to saying that you can't prove the Second World War happened, as I wasn't there to witness it. The latter is evidently a ridiculous position to take, and thus so is the first.
EDIT: and this asumption does not require or imply faith, in any way.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm sorry how is C any different than B in what is real or testable?
As I have said before, there is only one, non testable, unverifiable question, is the universe A, an illusion, B, Created at some point in the past with the illusion of all that came before it, or C, real and 'natural'. If A. nothing is provable or testable, nothing can be known apart from the existence of ones self, if B, then things could be testable a he first.
EDIT: and this asumption does not require or imply faith, in any way.
You seem to think that we cannot test in B as we could C, but I do not
see the difference between them, and why that would be the case?
There isn't any illusion in B if true, only assumptions about age which
is the same thing we could have in C. You look at what is there, and it
is there, what you think it means will be what you think, not necessarily
what is real and true. If B is true, than what is real and testable is as
valid as it is in C, I don’t see how or why you make a distinction
between the two.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo that's not right.
The starting points for all life forms, were they all started at a single
point (the simple cell) or were the main bulk of life all started at the
same time, each form fully developed from the on set? If you favor
the former over the later is there any way to know which is correct by
just looking at universe around us? If you claim the fossils tell us, ...[text shortened]... . The foundations of that theory are built upon that
which cannot be shown to be wrong.
Kelly
I understand what you're saying, but that's not how scientific theories work - including evolution.
What you're talking about there is more akin to mathematical theorems - which are built upon axioms that must be taken as true for the theorem itself to be true. Axioms cannot be proven - they're just accepted.
This is not the case for scientific models.
They may be based upon things which are not yet proven, but the implication is that they can be shown to be correct, or if not, then the theory is discarded.
You're basing your theory on a starting point - fully developed life forms appearing simultaneously around the Earth, which can have no proof for it. That isn't a scientific model.