Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[Zmrzlina]

You have not done your homework! There are thousands of scientists who reject evolution. Not tens, not hundreds, but thousands. Try again.

And they are wrong.

I say yours are wrong. So do we thumb wrestle to determine whose opinion carries more weight on the matter...

Or we could evaluate the empirical evidence which overwhelming supports evolution. I also find it hard to believe anyone in the field of biology that wholly rejects evolution. Could you present a source on that?

 

[GISMYS]

EVOLUTION IS BUNK "science"=THE RELIGION OF GOD HATING SIN LOVING FOOLS. WHO ELSE WOULD THINK THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY COULD EVER BE JUST AN ACCIDENT OF TIME AND CHANCE??? TRY to think!!!

 

[alang1216]

Uh huh and the odds of randomly assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1

You may love this strawman but repeating it over and over does not make it so. Evolution is not a random process.

 

[alang1216]

EVOLUTION IS BUNK "science"=THE RELIGION OF GOD HATING SIN LOVING FOOLS. WHO ELSE WOULD THINK THE MOST COMPLEX THING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE=THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY COULD EVER BE JUST AN ACCIDENT OF TIME AND CHANCE??? TRY to think!!!

If you look closely at the fractal picture I posted you'd see that it is INFINITELY complex. It is thus vastly more complex than the human brain and body.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You know, there is a simple test.
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.

So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?

is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....

it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....

That would be an example of evolution.

so when a dog breeder comes up with the next Shitzu, you would consider that evolution?......

 

[PratchettFan]

Again, you stick your foot in your mouth, prepare to chew. Here are a few rather well known ones.

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

My question to you is, do you believe a science teacher to be a scientist, and I don't mean homeschool teachers, but teachers in a school.

A scientist is someone trained in a field of science and works within that field. A science professor at a university would meet the qualification, a science teacher at a high school would not.

Believing in the Bible is not the same thing as believing in creationism. Let's just take one of your folks, but we can hit the others if you like. This is a letter written on the subject by von Braun. World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K

OK, get your facts straight, your argument was that there is not 1 scientist who disputes the theory of evolution, you state it is a fact of evolution.

I have just proven that there is more than one person who you would consider a "scientist." Can you admit to that?

You speaking for every scientist, is as assanine, as me speaking for every Christian.

Giving me a list of scientists who believe in God is not the same thing as a list of scientists who dispute evolution. I will happily concede most scientists believe in God in some fashion. Show me one who actually does dispute evolution. von Braun is clearly not one.

 

[PratchettFan]

is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....

it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....

That would be an example of evolution.

so when a dog breeder comes up with the next Shitzu, you would consider that evolution?......

Of course. If species did not change breeding dogs would be impossible. It is nothing more than the manipulation of the natural process of evolution.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You know, there is a simple test.
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.

So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?

is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....

it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....

Except there were no striped animals to start with...

yes there were......the passage quoted above says they sorted the lambs and he kept his cattle separate from Labans brown cattle.....what happens if you only breed your cattle to a spotted male and don't let them near the brown bull?........all of your cattle will be spotted.....some of his will be spotted.....the next year you take all yours and some of his......you do it again and again for five years......

now, is that evolution or creation?........

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Uh huh and the odds of randomly assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1

You may love this strawman but repeating it over and over does not make it so. Evolution is not a random process.

So its directed and controlled?

 

[PostmodernProph]

That would be an example of evolution.

so when a dog breeder comes up with the next Shitzu, you would consider that evolution?......

Of course. If species did not change breeding dogs would be impossible. It is nothing more than the manipulation of the natural process of evolution.

lol no....in fact, it would be intelligent design.....evolution is just random shit happening randomly......

 

[PratchettFan]

so when a dog breeder comes up with the next Shitzu, you would consider that evolution?......

Of course. If species did not change breeding dogs would be impossible. It is nothing more than the manipulation of the natural process of evolution.

lol no....in fact, it would be intelligent design.....evolution is just random shit happening randomly......

You think the source of the pressure causing the change makes any difference in the actual process?

Evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Whether the change is the result of animals with longer necks are better able to eat and breed or if animals with longer ears are the only ones allowed to breed, the biological process is exactly the same. Tendencies get passed on to the next generation and modifications occur over time. If evolution was not a fact, there would be no such thing as a great dane.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

So says the insane theist.

 

[GISMYS]

Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

So says the insane theist.

OH!!! IN GOD WE TRUST!!!! ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!! even you>

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

And they are wrong.

I say yours are wrong. So do we thumb wrestle to determine whose opinion carries more weight on the matter...

Or we could evaluate the empirical evidence which overwhelming supports evolution. I also find it hard to believe anyone in the field of biology that wholly rejects evolution. Could you present a source on that?

yes Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: "Another evolutionary biologist rejects the bogus theory of Evolution"

 

[itfitzme]

You must be a Liberal - Right ?

That's one hypothesis.

 

[alang1216]

Uh huh and the odds of randomly assembling a cell with 2,000 proteins are 3.3E 5,735-1

You may love this strawman but repeating it over and over does not make it so. Evolution is not a random process.

So its directed and controlled?

Yes, just like gravity. Everything we see is subject to the forces of nature. Drop something and it falls to the earth. No other direction. Measure its speed and (ignoring things like air resistance) it falls at the same speed as every other object.

 

[pinqy]

is this what you were referring to?......this has nothing to do with either creation or evolution.....

it has to do with animal husbandry......having strange striped sticks in the watering trough likely was less threatening to striped animals than to the brown ones, so they were less nervous and more inclined to breed.....

Except there were no striped animals to start with...

yes there were......the passage quoted above says they sorted the lambs and he kept his cattle separate from Labans brown cattle.....

Before that part:
34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word.

35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons.

36 And he set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban's flocks.

Jacob was left with only plain animals.

what happens if you only breed your cattle to a spotted male and don't let them near the brown bull?........all of your cattle will be spotted.....some of his will be spotted.....the next year you take all yours and some of his......you do it again and again for five years......

now, is that evolution or creation?........

Evolution, of course. And while part of Jacob's actions...the separation of the strong from the weak, is in line with observations, the use of the rods to make the offspring speckled and spotted is not. And yet the verses clearly state that cause and effect.

 

[itfitzme]

Creationists attack evolution because they cannot support creation. Are there holes in the theory of evolution? Sure there are. But here's the important facts:

There is real factual data that supports evolution.
There is no factual data of any kind that supports creation.

Everytime a new fossil is found that bridges a gap, there are then two gaps.

 

[GreenBean]

You may love this strawman but repeating it over and over does not make it so. Evolution is not a random process.

So its directed and controlled?

Yes, just like gravity. Everything we see is subject to the forces of nature. Drop something and it falls to the earth. No other direction. Measure its speed and (ignoring things like air resistance) it falls at the same speed as every other object.

Creationists find it inconceivable that randomness could have produced the vast diversity and complexity of nature. Some evolutionary scientists agree : Evolution is not chance.

To imagine evolution as simply blind chance and randomness is a conceptual mistake . The process of natural selection, a natural algorithm that creates order out of chaos and works in accordance with fixed and non-random variables.

An explosion in a print shop will not produce an encyclopedia and a tornado in a junkyard will not produce a mazaratti . A million monkeyspounding away at keyboards willnever produce a Novel [They might however produce posts worthy of asome of the LiberalHacks on this Forum ] DNA in a blender will never create a living being. All of these scenarios lack the component of intelligent Design

 

[PostmodernProph]

Of course. If species did not change breeding dogs would be impossible. It is nothing more than the manipulation of the natural process of evolution.

lol no....in fact, it would be intelligent design.....evolution is just random shit happening randomly......

You think the source of the pressure causing the change makes any difference in the actual process?

you mean the random source of pressure?.....