> Off Topic Discussions
Worlds most prominant atheist stumped.
phazel:
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on April 17, 2008, 02:01:58 PM ---You missed the point. A small dog through environment and diet and breeding becomes a bigger dog it is still a dog, not a bear or a tiger or an ape. The genetics that allowed for this were already preprogrammed into it's genes. It was not a series of birth defect random mutations over billions of years that produced this result.[/color]
The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and one only has to research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.
It is still a mosquito. Are you going to say that a caterpillar spinning a cocoon, crawling in it and emerging as a butterfly proof of evolution as well?
--- End quote ---
The main point I am trying to make is if the evidence against the aspect of evolution that would be said to be "common descent" is a scientific demonstration for God.
If it is not then creationists need to formulate a scientific case to demonstrate what God is. The bible is not scientific evidence for a God creating the universe. As much as I believe that God did, I cannot use the scientific method to make the case for it.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that a new species of mosquito is not evolution while saying evolution is about a new species
A new species is a new species. Common descent is another matter. There are gaps in the evidence concerning our origin from a single cell. But those gaps do not demonstrate God.
Kent:
--- Quote from: phazel on April 17, 2008, 01:51:55 PM ---
Here is the difference.
You first question is the point scientifically. Why should science recognize something you cannot even formulate something for?
--- End quote ---
Why do evolutionists recognize something they cannot even formulate something for?
Paraphrasing HillsboroRiver, a duck is a duck is a duck. That there are different varieties of ducks doesnt mean that the first duck came from dinosaurs.
Another thing I have wondered about is: If evolution produces positive changes in a species thru mutation, how is it that we still have clearly defined species of apes if they evolved into homo sapiens (or whatever) "millions" of years ago?
Another thing is reproduction. It takes 2 to tango, and they must have the same number of chromosomes. How did 2 compatable mutants "get together" to reproduce? It's a big planet.
The evolutionists (as I understand them. I am talking about the hardcore here, not those that believe God set up evolution.) have faith in evolution as our origin, and Christians have faith in God. Never the twain shall meet, because it is all, creationism and evolutionism, based on faith that, to the faithful creationist or evolutionist, seems reasonable.
That does not mean that Christians dont believe in science. The smart ones do. I just dont confuse science with evolution.
--- Quote ---The second question is another problem. What does that lack of explanation ACTUALLY demonstrate?
--- End quote ---
IMO it demonstrates sciences' reluctance to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit into their belief systems. Scientists dont like anomalies, but just because they make scientists uncomfortable doesn't mean they dont deserve explanations or even acknowledgement.
That soft tissue was found in one sample doesnt mean it isn't common. What person would intentionally break a extremely rare bone just to see if anything was inside? But I am sure that there are tests that could be performed that are nondestructive. Have those tests been performed? I really doubt it.
--- Quote ---Does it really demonstrate God? If it does, please explain.
--- End quote ---
In and of itself, not in my opinion.
To me it does demonstrate evolutionists ability to readily give explanations to things that fit into their worldviews, and ignore what doesn't fit, and this definitely does not fit.
I like these kinds of talks. It's rare that this can happen without getting into a "you're a stupid head" "no, you are" "No I'm not, you are!" argument and I appreciate it.
Falconn003:
According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??
Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??
FOOLISH MAN THINKING
Rodger
musicman:
--- Quote from: Falconn003 on April 17, 2008, 03:38:33 PM ---According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??
Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??
FOOLISH MAN THINKING
Rodger
--- End quote ---
Rodger,
I expected you to be more sophisticated than that. First off, evolutionists say apes and humans evolved from the same ape like creature. Second, if higher forms of ape were to split from the main one, that doesn't mean that the first level of ape would have to go extinked. That would be like saying if multiple celled creatures evolved from single celled creatures, why would there still be single celled life? Why isn't all life only the most complex. I as well as evolutionists have a better imagination than that.
Besides, apes can still do some things much better than humans. They can climb and swing from trees, they can move much faster to avoid predators. Pound for pound, they are all much stronger than humans. So if anything, I can't see how humans ever survived in a pre-tech world. Our brains would be of little use when being beaten to a pulp by an angry chimpanzee. Apes rule!!
indianabob:
--- Quote from: musicman on April 17, 2008, 05:57:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Falconn003 on April 17, 2008, 03:38:33 PM ---According to darwnism, Humans evolved FROM APES. WHY DO WE STILL HAVE APES ??
Why have humans stopped EVOLVING ??
FOOLISH MAN THINKING
Rodger
--- End quote ---
So if anything, I can't see how humans ever survived in a pre-tech world. Our brains would be of little use when being beaten to a pulp by an angry chimpanzee. Apes rule!!
--- End quote ---
Dear Friends,
Humans survived because God made animals to obey instinct and normally to be afraid of the scent of Humans.
Humans normally had the good sense to let the predators eat what tasted good to them. Ha ha.
Bob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version