Evolution
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Fact or fiction?</div> Does evolution really exist?
There is undeniable evidence that arises that this is a possibility. Creationists would like to make it seem like they are only a process of natural selection, but not continuous. What evidence do evolutionists have for the evolution theory? If creationists believe that is a bunch of crap, what evidence do you have that God created the world in one fell swoop?
It is easy to say "God made it look that way." God is unexplained, and that excuse is unexplained as well. For the sake of the arguments in this thread, that excuse is NOT allowed. Don't assume anything but what evidence we've found physically. Creationists will be quite challenged to find evidence, I assume.
There is undeniable evidence that arises that this is a possibility. Creationists would like to make it seem like they are only a process of natural selection, but not continuous. What evidence do evolutionists have for the evolution theory? If creationists believe that is a bunch of crap, what evidence do you have that God created the world in one fell swoop?
It is easy to say "God made it look that way." God is unexplained, and that excuse is unexplained as well. For the sake of the arguments in this thread, that excuse is NOT allowed. Don't assume anything but what evidence we've found physically. Creationists will be quite challenged to find evidence, I assume.
Comments
If it (evolution) takes millions of years to occur, <i>How can we be sure it is happening?</i>
Is humankind as we now experiance it merly an intermediate satge leading to a more complex and intelligent life-form?
If humans are the product of random mutations, sifted by the process of natural selection, how can we be sure this statement is true?
How can natural processes, operating by blind chance, generate complex, functioning mechanisms, let alone intelligent human beings, out of random particles?
What objective value or dignity does humanity have if it owes its existence to nothing more then millions of accidents?
Rather than delve into all the examples I can think of, here's a site with a few sections detailing all of the evidence for evolution:
<a href='http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html' target='_blank'>The Evidence for Evolution</a>
More often than not, Creationist arguments do not center on fact but rather on their faith in their god and the story of creation from their bible. They believe the bible literally. This is an act of faith rather than proof, and simply cannot ever be argued for or against logically. That is the <i>definition</i> of faith. Either you believe or you don't. Asking them to provide proof of the story of creation is asking for the impossible, so I think you're only going to get opinions and beliefs here rather than a single shred of proof.
Some people will twist it and say their god created the evolutionary process and this is his way of giving new life. They can't be considered Creationists in the pure sense of the term.
I believe what I believe. I have proofs to back up what I believe that <i>in my world view</i> refute an evolutionary standpoint.
I do not, nor will I ever expect someone who is an evolutionist to ever agree with me. They have their beliefs I have mine. The only thing that this thread will do is prove that we can bring arguments to the table backed up by our own personal bias. Evolution cannot be proven except by the belief in processes that according to its own doctrine take millions of years to take place and therefore can't be documented. Creation cannot be proven except by belief in a religious text. You have your bias I have mine.
Even the so called evidences of evolution have to be taken with a little faith. (personally I think it takes more faith to believe that random processes created the incredible complexity that is our life today then it does to believe in a divine source of life, but that is just me).
On the other hand, I am always up for a good debate.
Let the games begin.
I believe what I believe. I have proofs to back up what I believe that <i>in my world view</i> refute an evolutionary standpoint.
I do not, nor will I ever expect someone who is an evolutionist to ever agree with me. They have their beliefs I have mine. The only thing that this thread will do is prove that we can bring arguments to the table backed up by our own personal bias. Evolution cannot be proven except by the belief in processes that according to its own doctrine take millions of years to take place and therefore can't be documented. Creation cannot be proven except by belief in a religious text. You have your bias I have mine.
Even the so called evidences of evolution have to be taken with a little faith. (personally I think it takes more faith to believe that random processes created the incredible complexity that is our life today then it does to believe in a divine source of life, but that is just me).
On the other hand, I am always up for a good debate.
Let the games begin. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well aside from the fact that eveloution in essence has been re-created on a small scale in a laboratory (gimme a couple hours I'll dig up the link).
How do you explain humans have vestiges that are completely useless and can be directly linked to lifeforms that existed thousands of years ago, and moreover if we were created completely seperate from animals by a diety why do we share genetic code with them?
PS isn't this a do not discuss topic now like abortion?
we can look back over millions of years of fossils, and see the traits which emerge and continue through evolutionary paths.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Is humankind as we now experiance it merly an intermediate satge leading to a more complex and intelligent life-form?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, i think that we are still evolving, but since society has come into being and we are self conciouse beings and all, the processes of evolution have changed. we are no longer evolving around such factors as food or physical strength, but around constantly changing factors which change as rapidly as our society itself. (ie. in generation z due to social factors people with bald heads are considered desirable).
However because these factors change so rapidly, its not really true evolution, because it looses the compound effect which natural selection has.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If humans are the product of random mutations, sifted by the process of natural selection, how can we be sure this statement is true?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, since we cant go back and actually witness the evolution of humans, i guess the next best thing would be to find the complete chain of species from which humans evolved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
How can natural processes, operating by blind chance, generate complex, functioning mechanisms, let alone intelligent human beings, out of random particles?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
people who argue against evolution often call it random or 'blind chance' i notice. and yes, part of the first stage is blind chance, but its the fact that its put to the test in terms of survival of the fittest which makes me think that summing up evolution as blind chance is twisting words at best.
people also like to use the example of the eye, 'eyes are so cool! how could they have evolved' etc... you should remember that these processes are supposed to take place over very very very long amounts of time.
think of it in terms of stages, perhaps the first version of the eye was a few cells clumped togeather which reacted to light and dark and sent information about what kind of light levels were about. a million steps later and your upto say an organ which can distinguish shapes through grids of cells, or whatever. the point is can you even comprehend just how long a million years is?!
can you even imagine 10'000 seperate dots next to each other, people arent good at thinking about extreme numbers in real world terms.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
What objective value or dignity does humanity have if it owes its existence to nothing more then millions of accidents?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you make it sound like the only good things humans did was get created by God <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
humans are more than things, the fact that we can think is enough to make us rulers of the planet (universe??), and thats good enough for me.
That's why it's called a theory. You cannot sit and analyze a million years of evolutionary change on any one being; all you can do is look at the past and make educated guesses as to what must have occured. It takes millions of years for incredibly complex organisms to evolve. We can, however, observe evolution on a microscopic scale. Some viruses mutate and become immune to antibiotics at an alarming rate. The most evolutionary virus is HIV; it is mutating and evolving all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is humankind as we now experiance it merly an intermediate satge leading to a more complex and intelligent life-form?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who knows? That's speculation and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Some would argue that we are becoming more and more stupid as we evolve. As a guess, I would say that humans will continue to evolve until the point we become extinct, either because of overpopulation or a mass extinction such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Certain reptiles, like crocodiles, have remained relatively unchanged for tens of millions of years. Have they reached a point at which they no longer need to evolve to survive? It sure seems so. Perhaps we've reached the same point. Viruses, on the other hand, cannot survive if they remain static. Thus they have to evolve quickly in order to survive. And they do... this is fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If humans are the product of random mutations, sifted by the process of natural selection, how can we be sure this statement is true?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do we have toenails? Why do we wisdom teeth? Why do we have tonsils? What is the purpose of our tailbones? Why do we have to straighten out our teeth, just so we can develop cavities in those areas that we can no longer reach? Why do you have hair on your arms, your legs, and other parts of your body? Why are most people on this planet lactose intolerant, while most people with European origins are not? Why do Europeans look different than African Americans who look different than Asians who look different than Arabs?
Are you to suggest your god invented a creature called homo sapiens and made them rather peculiar, imperfect individuals that must remove some of their body parts in order to survive? I had my tonsils removed when I was a child just so I would not choke to death at night. What is the Creationist explanation for tonsils? Had evolution been allowed to take its course, anyone with tonsil problems would not survive past childhood, removing that trait from the homo sapiens species.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can natural processes, operating by blind chance, generate complex, functioning mechanisms, let alone intelligent human beings, out of random particles?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You answered it above. It takes millions and millions of years. Humans cannot even comprehend or relate to the timeframe involved. Which is why you question it. For billions of years, the only life on this planet was simple one-celled organisms and a sea of protein molecules... the building blocks. If you take the entire history of the Earth and compress it into a 24-hour period, the dinosaurs would have existed about 2 minutes before midnight. Humans would appear about 2 seconds before midnight. For the <b>vast</b> majority of those 24 hours, life was just these simple building blocks randomly bumping into each other, sometimes forming more complex molecules. Eventually, after numerous building blocks joined together into a meaninful symphony, the first organism arose out of the primordial soup. An organism capable of reproducing through mitosis. The rest, as they say, is history.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What objective value or dignity does humanity have if it owes its existence to nothing more then millions of accidents?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That, is the meaning of life. Another thread on here discusses that. Your answer comes from faith in a supreme being that you believe wants you to have a happy, heaven-like ending. You want to accept that there is everlasting life and that this one trip around is not just the end. The majority of the human population on this planet wants to believe that, too, which is why religion is so popular. For me, there is no objective value or dignity in humanity. I would argue that we have recently become the bane of this Earth, and that we are a virus that plagues this planet. I'm sure that if Mother Nature were an actual entity, she cannot wait for the day that we cease to devastate her beauty. Some of us have devoted our lives to trying to make sure that the rest of humanity doesn't destroy this planet in the process of attempting to gain self-righteousness in the belief that they are destined for greatness beyond these mortal, physical bounds.
I know this may sound immature, but we will never be able to explain everything in one idea. Until humans reach complete thought, which will probably never occur, we'll never really know the true mysteries of the universe. Who knows, there could be dimensions, like already theorized, which we don't know yet. It all cycles back, the humans, to single celled organisms, to the primordial soup, to the particle soup, then to almost infinite heat, and nothing. <Insert God>
I am sorry, but I will believe in God, not only on the fact that there is no other reason to explain the existence of the universe, but also on faith.
Also, I've heard of the theories, which explains on a small scale how random particles can appear. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
Anyways, the past should be left to history, not science. Science is too speculative, anyone could weed out some or certain facts to prove their hypothesis, a true scientist tries to prove himself wrong anyways not right.
think of it in terms of stages, perhaps the first version of the eye was a few cells clumped togeather which reacted to light and dark and sent information about what kind of light levels were about. a million steps later and your upto say an organ which can distinguish shapes through grids of cells, or whatever <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lots of interesting theories have come out about how the eye developed. There are lots of creatures on this planet with incredibly rudimentary "eyesight." There is a species of Snail that lives in the ocean. It has two appendages that extend out from beneath its shell. These appendages are sensitive to changes in light received. Thus, they can detect changes in movement if the animal is static. The snail uses this to detect approaching predators and also to partially navigate. Is it an "eye" in the modern sense? Not a chance. Does it have similar functions? Absolutely. Can you imagine how it evolved over millions of years in other strains of the species into an organ that could actually focus the light received and make better interpretations of what it is seeing? Absolutely.
We have toenails and toeprints because we are primates, descended from the ape family. Chimpanzees are our closest relative. Apes that use their feet to climb trees use claws to aid in grip. They also make use of the fact the skin on their feet have ridges that help to grip. We do, too. You spend most of your day with shoes covering your feet. Your big toe was actually closer to a thumb. One needs only to look at an xray of a foot to understand what its purpose was long ago. <a href='http://www.med.unc.edu/emergmed/teachme/Images/images%20lis%20franc%20fracture/lis%20franc%20fracture_5064.jpg' target='_blank'>Foot xray</a>. Over time, the usefulness of our toes, which are really just like the fingers in our hands, became obscured by a web of skin. Today, just little piglets stick out. We are bipedal now, and do not require the independent movement of each little toe. Imagine that at some point in our history we might have been able to stick up our middle toe at someone... that would have been fun!
Everything in our bodies can be traced to examples in other species, all the way down to the simplest organisms. Look at how dolphins have remnants of hind legs still in their bodies. These appendages are completely useless, and at some point they will probably disappear completely from the animal or will become too unrecognizable. Nature is simply limitless in examples of evolution at work, both now and in the past.
By that reasoning, where did God come from?
I'm not saying it's easy to comprehend, but whose to say it's not possible ?
The problem is that we "scientifically" try to build a case on sinking sand. It's way too difficult to theorize things man has never experienced or seen. We haven't seen the beginning, we haven't seen evolution on an epic scale. We've only seen the result.
Let me make an analogy, what mathematical problem would equal 12 ?
Well, theres 4x3, or 10 + 2, 6x2, 11+1. There's simply too little information to base a theory off a conclusion. We need to see or experience it physically to accurately theorize it.
of course i cannot state fact about human evolution, all I can tell you is my beleifes based on what others have told me.
stuff about the big bang, interesting, if OT... i like that one, all our beleifes fit togeather nicely.
why do people who are about religion denounce evolution anyway, couldnt they just say God created the process?
I know this may sound immature, but we will never be able to explain everything in one idea. Until humans reach complete thought, which will probably never occur, we'll never really know the true mysteries of the universe. Who knows, there could be dimensions, like already theorized, which we don't know yet. It all cycles back, the humans, to single celled organisms, to the primordial soup, to the particle soup, then to almost infinite heat, and nothing. <Insert God>
I am sorry, but I will believe in God, not only on the fact that there is no other reason to explain the existence of the universe, but also on faith.
Also, I've heard of the theories, which explains on a small scale how random particles can appear. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the topic is evolution but if you want to talk about theories of where the universe came from chew on this one. As you said the universe was an amount of infinite heat for an indefinite amount of time now for there to be any kind of reaction to produce galaxies, suns, and planets there would have to be a catalyst, and since something cannot be created out of nothing there seemed to be an impasse as to how this could have happened. However recent studies of space showed the existence of "slip streams" or a micro wormhole that expanded over thousands of light years, where one end was literarily years into the future of another one, so in theory this expanse of infinite heat could have existed for 50 billion years and over that time had cooled down and somewhere along the line a slipstream was present long enough to propel a single particle back through it in turn becoming a catalyst for the big bang. The question of where did this expanse of heated matter come from then becomes redundant because each presented variable could be a result of a previous big bang.
Just think of it. Man is the only self-aware being, and highly intelligent on this planet. What if man existed for another million years? Would he achieve immortality? Would he achieve levels of science to be able to do what God does in the Bible? Therefore God is an evolved higher lifeform, with technology beyond our comprehession.
That's all easy to explain, but what really gets me is where did this higher lifeform God come from? The only explanation I have is eveolution. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You're mistaking that there's was a very real person named Jesus who came to the Earth. By the way, try and find his body/bones. He did exist, yet Biblically, he rose again. Vewwy interesting.
In addition, your theory is really unfounded. Logically we haven't progressed far enough to even claim to be immortal, nor do "magic(Whattttt ?)". So it's not correct to say he's just advanced, because you don't have anything to relate Him to.
Sirus you claimed that people who believe evolutionary theory don't have an open mind and so you could never change it. This si completely false. Science has prooved old theorys that were practically law (gravity seems to be on the way out, at least our current model based on newtonian theory) wrong. And it was accepted because there was suffiecient evidence to disproove the theory. Currently there is no such evidence to disprove evolution (AFAIK). Creationists are the ones with the closed minds here, they believe what their book tells them, refuse to take it as metaphorical, and so they will never believe it happened any other way.
Seriously creationists, is it so hard to believe that perhaps God was just dumbing it down for you? I mean, no one would have understood it if genesis read "and so God created the amino acid, and made protien from it... ...and thus the mitochondria was forever in symbiosis with with the cells... ...and thus Man was created from earlier primates."
Well, theres 4x3, or 10 + 2, 6x2, 11+1. There's simply too little information to base a theory off a conclusion. We need to see or experience it physically to accurately theorize it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a better analogy.
The answer is 12. We know that one of the arguments is between 2.9 and 3.1 and the other is between 3.9 and 4.1. Therefore we can conclude with pretty high probability that the operation was multiplication.
If your going to clam things like that, then you should probably link to something (yeah I know i'm a hypocrit for not doing so myself...). As for why the slime and fish are still around, thats easy. The same fish that inhapbit the waters of today are not the same as the first fish to ever inhabit water, they are newer, beter adapted fish. Evolution can create forks and evolve in multiple paths at the same time. There are some creatures living today that have remained essentially unchanged for a very, very, very long time because they have had no need to further adapt as of yet.
Also, evolution based solely on mutation has been done with Artificial Life, a field originated by <a href='http://www.isd.atr.co.jp/~ray/' target='_blank'>Thomas S. Ray</a>. The interesting thing about the artifical beings that evolved in ray's original experiment was that they were always paracitic, which was probably just a limitation of their environment.
There's plenty of reasons against Evolution, do one Google search for it, I'd rather not visit the old Evolution thread for it. The reason science can disprove "gravity" might be thrown out is because it's science, based on the literal definition at least, something that can be observed, and reproduced.
Currently, we can't even do that with Evolution.
In addition, the public is recieving filtered information about Evolution, it is <i><b>not</i></b> by any means air-tight, it's far from it. But you were taught in school that it was 100% fact. If you want to know some truth, Evolution might be on it's way out.
I'm not being closed-minded, I'm open to the discussion of facts, not speculation. I understand that there is plenty of reasons to believe that evolution is true, but you can't just pick some facts, you need to look at the whole scope, sure, one reason can make something seem true, but another reason might contradict, or disenfranchise the hypothesis.
When the theory of evolution was created, it wasn't based on a whole lot, currently, scientists have made some headway in trying to prove it right, and they've found some information, but they are searching to prove it right, but anyone can prove anything right, that's because of selective information, and context. All or most of the facts supporting evolution could also be evidence for something else ! They can still be true, and evolution false.
Anyways, I'm not being close minded because I've seen a wide range of information, and am basing my decision on multiple reasons, not one. Many evolutionists base their decisions on what they were just taught in school, or what they want to believe, even if there might be clear evidence against it, because they will simply find another fact, that they think will outweigh the evolutionary theory.
Things are not quite so simple. There's a million things to take into consideration, and evolution, is not looking broadly enough.
If you ask me, it's turned into something philosophical not scientific. Many people use it as a basis to prove religion wrong. I disagree, but let's not get into that.
Don't mind the double-post, I wasn't paying attention, so don't bother to bring it up, it doesn't matter.
There's plenty of reasons against Evolution, do one Google search for it, I'd rather not visit the old Evolution thread for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course not, Aegri pwned that thread good.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason science can disprove "gravity" might be thrown out is because it's science, based on the literal definition at least, something that can be observed, and reproduced.
Currently, we can't even do that with Evolution.
In addition, the public is recieving filtered information about Evolution, it is <i><b>not</i></b> by any means air-tight, it's far from it. But you were taught in school that it was 100% fact. If you want to know some truth, Evolution might be on it's way out.
I'm not being closed-minded, I'm open to the discussion of facts, not speculation. I understand that there is plenty of reasons to believe that evolution is true, but you can't just pick some facts, you need to look at the whole scope, sure, one reason can make something seem true, but another reason might contradict, or disenfranchise the hypothesis.
When the theory of evolution was created, it wasn't based on a whole lot, currently, scientists have made some headway in trying to prove it right, and they've found some information, but they are searching to prove it right, but anyone can prove anything right, that's because of selective information, and context. All or most of the facts supporting evolution could also be evidence for something else ! They can still be true, and evolution false.
Anyways, I'm not being close minded because I've seen a wide range of information, and am basing my decision on multiple reasons, not one. Many evolutionists base their decisions on what they were just taught in school, or what they want to believe, even if there might be clear evidence against it, because they will simply find another fact, that they think will outweigh the evolutionary theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You keep claiming that there is all this evidence against evolution but you refuse to link to it. Google may bring me a million links to sites about how the theory is wrong or right, but those sites could be put up by 8th graders for all I know.
And I don't know where you wen't to school, but I was never taught that evolution was a 100% solid fact.
Considering that the narrowing fields were that the product was produced by a number between 2.9 and 3.1 and a number between 3.9 and 4.1 (which are analogous to evidence) your expression doesn't work.
I already posted it. Instead of whining and complaining about how someone reposted the <b>same</b> topic already, instead of using the <b>last</b> one.
So please don't bring up stupid technicalities for trying to disenfranchise my claim. That's just pure semantics, you should know there's information against it, and if you don't believe it you're just proving my point that evolutionists tend to be closed-minded.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Considering that the narrowing fields were that the product was produced by a number between 2.9 and 3.1 and a number between 3.9 and 4.1 (which are analogous to evidence) your expression doesn't work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But my expression does equal 12, so you can't say it doesnt work, because it is absolutely true. And it doesn't follow the rule that it was the product of two numbers, so his rule was false. See how that works ?
I already posted it. Instead of whining and complaining about how someone reposted the <b>same</b> topic already, instead of using the <b>last</b> one.
So please don't bring up stupid technicalities for trying to disenfranchise my claim. That's just pure semantics, you should know there's information against it, and if you don't believe it you're just proving my point that evolutionists tend to be closed-minded.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Considering that the narrowing fields were that the product was produced by a number between 2.9 and 3.1 and a number between 3.9 and 4.1 (which are analogous to evidence) your expression doesn't work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But my expression does equal 12, so you can't say it doesnt work, because it is absolutely true. And it doesn't follow the rule that it was the product of two numbers, so his rule was false. See how that works ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the rule is like evidence. Hypothetically there is evidence to support the the theory that 4x3 has given us the answer of 12. The evidence is that we know the 2 factors that made it are within those ranges.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why don't you search for it ?
I already posted it. Instead of whining and complaining about how someone reposted the same topic already, instead of using the last one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
um... what? Are you trying to tell me you posted links to evidence in some other thread? which one? argument from evil or the other evolution thread?
i dont remember anything about dinosaurs in the bible (not that ive read it, so please tell me if there are dinosaurs in it)...
dinosaurs man! how do you account for those!
they seem to discredit creationism, and seem to ... credit? ... agree with ,,, evolutionism.
i knew this mormon guy, tried to tell me dinosaurs were put there by someone other than God as a test of faith... does anyone have a less crumby interpretation.?
i dont remember anything about dinosaurs in the bible (not that ive read it, so please tell me if there are dinosaurs in it)...
dinosaurs man! how do you account for those!
they seem to discredit creationism, and seem to ... credit? ... agree with ,,, evolutionism.
i knew this mormon guy, tried to tell me dinosaurs were put there by someone other than God as a test of faith... does anyone have a less crumby interpretation.? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The evidence that Dinosaurs existed doesn't discreadit creationism (unless you take that whole 7 days thing literally). It doesn't even support evolutionary theory that well other than that they can be shown to have remarkable similarities to modern birds.
The bible never said there were Dinosaurs, but it also didn't say there weren't, so with a loose interpretation you could just assume they were part of the animal kingdom for a long time before god created man.
There's plenty of things scientifically that would suggest a creator, however, evolutionists refuse to consider it because they think that scientifically, they can only prove evolution is true.
There's plenty of things scientifically that would suggest a creator, however, evolutionists refuse to consider it because they think that scientifically, they can only prove evolution is true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright thats it... thats the third time you have completely missed the point. I can't take it anymore, I'm banning myself fromt he discussion forums.