View Full Version : Science Disproves Evolution
We have a lot of assumptions here .
because first its hasnt been proven there was no universe ( or anything else) before the universe ?
Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. Do you know of anything that exists without a beginning? Do you know of anything that exists before it began to exist?
you said there was nothing nothing is nothing you are correct.
so what created a supernatural being from nothing, he ,she or it had to start from *something* to according to your theory nothing means nothing no earth no air no space , nothing ...... even how could he create him/her self from nothing , nothing is nothing including supernatural entities
When we refer to the universe, we are referring to everything physical. In the physical universe, every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
When we refer to supernatural, we are not referring to natural. Supernatural is beyond natural. The creator is not the effect of anything, therefore there is no cause for God.
cus we dont understand the * cause* of the beginning of life doesnt mean there is such a thing as supernatural entities no evidence to support that .
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, it is logical to assume the cause must be supernatural.
thiest have just inserted * god * into the mystery of lifes beginning for convenience to suit there beliefs and continue to control.
What evidence do you have to support your assertion? Is it possible atheists remove God from their belief because they cannot accept facts based on evidence and logic?
one might just as well* assume * there was a god or gods and they distroyed each other or the one god blow himself up ( by the big bang or whatever ) and the energy from that act caused the universe to start and evolution started from there .
We humans are very intelligent and are able to invent all kinds of notions to support what we want to believe. What we must do, if we are interested in finding the truth is compare our notions with facts. When we do this with evolution, it fails.
Even if athiest concede that in the beginning there was a god /creater nothing since then has happened or discovered to prove the assumption there is a live god watching who planned everything and there is a after life ,why assume that is so .. just because some human wrote it in a book ?
The book you are referring to is the Bible. In that book, someone claiming to be the Creator of everything and everyone predicted future events several hundred times. All those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled except a few that are still to occur in the future. Do you think humans could do that?
By what sign or action has god revealed himsellf to be omnipotent , omnipresent &omniniscient ??
Since He was 100% accurate in His prophecies, I believe everything else He has revealed.
the bible was written by humans gods words are in the third party as best the writers of each and every book in the bible are human they penned those words to discribe god NOT god himself , cus its written doesnt make it true
If it were written by humans, it wouldn’t necessarily be true, just like what you write, but fulfilled prophecy proves God is the Author. He revealed that He used humans to write what He inspired them to write. The only part of the Bible written personally by God was the Ten Commandments, which He wrote on two tablets of stone with His own finger.
even then believing in a *god * who created the universe dont mean he is competent,active or even still in existance or cares at all what happens to his creation . more assumptions
He has revealed that He not only created the universe, but maintains it. He also loves you so much that He took on human flesh and shed His blood to redeem you for eternal life with Him.
another assumption maybe there is a supernatual power in one of the other planets who caused all this activity on planet earth ( maybe earth is just waste d9iscared by this superiou planet
That’s quite an assumption, base on what? An overactive imagination?
god is a very convenient tool used for centuries to control the masses .
Many gods have been created for that very purpose by unredeemed humans. Because that is true, does it logically follow that therefore there can be no such thing as a true, living, creator God?
remember civillisation in the middle ages and before thought that the sun was god . and the earth was flat .and used similar arguments to explain the beginning of life .
All true. When we see the wonders of God’s creation, we are hard pressed to deny His existence. Most people can logically see He exists by the circumstantial evidence of the universe and life. The Bible does not teach God is the sun or the earth is flat. On the contrary, did you know God revealed over 3000 years ago that the earth is circular and hangs on nothing?
we have learnt differantly since then the time will come when the secrets of how the world /universe started will be known.
Your faith is admirable, but misplaced.
until then as in centuries before us its just assumption
Reconsider the above.
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23.19
Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind. 1 Samuel 15:29
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 15:8
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 19:35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our God is an Awesome God! MO
LisaM22
10-04-2009, 09:42 AM
We have a lot of assumptions here .
because first its hasnt been proven there was no universe ( or anything else) before the universe ?
you said there was nothing nothing is nothing you are correct.
so what created a supernatural being from nothing, he ,she or it had to start from *something* to according to your theory nothing means nothing no earth no air no space , nothing ...... even how could he create him/her self from nothing , nothing is nothing including supernatural entities
cus we dont understand the * cause* of the beginning of life doesnt mean there is such a thing as supernatural entities no evidence to support that .
thiest have just inserted * god * into the mystery of lifes beginning for convenience to suit there beliefs and continue to control.
one might just as well* assume * there was a god or gods and they distroyed each other or the one god blow himself up ( by the big bang or whatever ) and the energy from that act caused the universe to start and evolution started from there .
Even if athiest concede that in the beginning there was a god /creater nothing since then has happened or discovered to prove the assumption there is a live god watching who planned everything and there is a after life ,why assume that is so .. just because some human wrote it in a book ?
By what sign or action has god revealed himsellf to be omnipotent , omnipresent &omniniscient ??
. the bible was written by humans gods words are in the third party as best the writers of each and every book in the bible are human they penned those words to discribe god NOT god himself , cus its written doesnt make it true
even then believing in a *god * who created the universe dont mean he is competent,active or even still in existance or cares at all what happens to his creation . more assumptions
another assumption maybe there is a supernatual power in one of the other planets who caused all this activity on planet earth ( maybe earth is just waste d9iscared by this superiou planet
god is a very convenient tool used for centuries to control the masses .
remember civillisation in the middle ages and before thought that the sun was god . and the earth was flat .and used similar arguments to explain the beginning of life .
we have learnt differantly since then the time will come when the secrets of how the world /universe started will be known.
until then as in centuries before us its just assumption
exactly.... Science has disproved the myth of the story in the bible, but not that there is not a hereafter or a higher power
JohnA
10-05-2009, 03:22 PM
Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. Do you know of anything that exists without a beginning? Do you know of anything that exists before it began to exist?
When we refer to the universe, we are referring to everything physical. In the physical universe, every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
When we refer to supernatural, we are not referring to natural. Supernatural is beyond natural. The creator is not the effect of anything, therefore there is no cause for God.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, it is logical to assume the cause must be supernatural.
What evidence do you have to support your assertion? Is it possible atheists remove God from their belief because they cannot accept facts based on evidence and logic?
We humans are very intelligent and are able to invent all kinds of notions to support what we want to believe. What we must do, if we are interested in finding the truth is compare our notions with facts. When we do this with evolution, it fails.
Since He was 100% accurate in His prophecies, I believe everything else He has revealed.
If it were written by humans, it wouldn’t necessarily be true, just like what you write, but fulfilled prophecy proves God is the Author. He revealed that He used humans to write what He inspired them to write. The only part of the Bible written personally by God was the Ten Commandments, which He wrote on two tablets of stone with His own finger.
He has revealed that He not only created the universe, but maintains it. He also loves you so much that He took on human flesh and shed His blood to redeem you for eternal life with Him.
That’s quite an assumption, base on what? An overactive imagination?
Many gods have been created for that very purpose by unredeemed humans. Because that is true, does it logically follow that therefore there can be no such thing as a true, living, creator God?
All true. When we see the wonders of God’s creation, we are hard pressed to deny His existence. Most people can logically see He exists by the circumstantial evidence of the universe and life. The Bible does not teach God is the sun or the earth is flat. On the contrary, did you know God revealed over 3000 years ago that the earth is circular and hangs on nothing?
Your faith is admirable, but misplaced.
Reconsider the above.
Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. Do you know of anything that exists without a beginning? Do you know of anything that exists before it began to exist?
what evidence .
The book you are referring to is the Bible. In that book, someone claiming to be the Creator of everything and everyone predicted future events several hundred times. All those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled except a few that are still to occur in the future. Do you think humans could do that?
many events that have happened in life have been predicted in books by many folks so does that mean they are gods to ?
exactly what *predictions are you talking about .
jesus said he would return in 7 days ...WE are still waiting , didnt predict that right did he ?
We humans are very intelligent and are able to invent all kinds of notions to support what we want to believe. What we must do, if we are interested in finding the truth is compare our notions with facts. When we do this with evolution, it fails.
when you compare the bible with facts it fails to because we cant e exactly say how and why the universe was caused does,nt prove there is a god ???? god is just a convenient answer to a question that has vexed humans for years .
can you DISPROVE the existance of the gods of the romans and greek empires or the goods of the primative tribes ??
if you cant then they must exist also .
All true. When we see the wonders of God’s creation, we are hard pressed to deny His existence. Most people can logically see He exists by the circumstantial evidence of the universe and life. The Bible does not teach God is the sun or the earth is flat. On the contrary, did you know God revealed over 3000 years ago that the earth is circular and hangs on nothing?
the earth doesnt *hang on nothing * and agording to the bible (genesis * it is only 3000 yeas old science has disproved that .
your interesting to me .
im puzzled why you quote scientific facts to disprove or cast doubt on the evolution thoery cus the full facts are not known . and disregard the scientic fact to disprove or cast doubt on the existance of god or the authenticity of the bible .
also when it suits you disregard scientific fact when it disproves so called * events * as told in the bible all religions dont follow the bible .
are you *saying * your belief ( christian ) is the only one that is correct ??? .
if so what scientific evidence do you have to support that notion?
what scientific, life ,or experiance do you have to support the notion that all other beliefs and religions are false ???
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, it is logical to assume the cause must be supernatural
explain the above statement you made .
if it were infinite it would NOT run out of energy it would go forever . science believes it is still evolving and as it gets further way from its oringinal souce it gets more energy
Metamorphosis 1
Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a 2-week-old caterpillar, it builds a chrysalis around itself. Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause its extinction—a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities. Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.
Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emerges—one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from the adult.
Evolution claims that:
Mutations slightly alter an organism’s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.
If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages (a)?
a. “Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionist’s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability.” Michael Pitman, “Adam and Evolution” (London: Rider & Company, 1984), p. 71.
“Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen? Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again?” Taylor, p. 177.
“There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life [metamorphosis] ever came about ...” Peter Farb, “The Insects,” Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), p. 56.
“Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar.” Douglas Dewar, “The Transformist Illusion” (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.
Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp2927793
LisaM22
10-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. Do you know of anything that exists without a beginning? Do you know of anything that exists before it began to exist?
what evidence .
The book you are referring to is the Bible. In that book, someone claiming to be the Creator of everything and everyone predicted future events several hundred times. All those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled except a few that are still to occur in the future. Do you think humans could do that?
many events that have happened in life have been predicted in books by many folks so does that mean they are gods to ?
exactly what *predictions are you talking about .
jesus said he would return in 7 days ...WE are still waiting , didnt predict that right did he ?
We humans are very intelligent and are able to invent all kinds of notions to support what we want to believe. What we must do, if we are interested in finding the truth is compare our notions with facts. When we do this with evolution, it fails.
when you compare the bible with facts it fails to because we cant e exactly say how and why the universe was caused does,nt prove there is a god ???? god is just a convenient answer to a question that has vexed humans for years .
can you DISPROVE the existance of the gods of the romans and greek empires or the goods of the primative tribes ??
if you cant then they must exist also .
All true. When we see the wonders of God’s creation, we are hard pressed to deny His existence. Most people can logically see He exists by the circumstantial evidence of the universe and life. The Bible does not teach God is the sun or the earth is flat. On the contrary, did you know God revealed over 3000 years ago that the earth is circular and hangs on nothing?
the earth doesnt *hang on nothing * and agording to the bible (genesis * it is only 3000 yeas old science has disproved that .
your interesting to me .
im puzzled why you quote scientific facts to disprove or cast doubt on the evolution thoery cus the full facts are not known . and disregard the scientic fact to disprove or cast doubt on the existance of god or the authenticity of the bible .
also when it suits you disregard scientific fact when it disproves so called * events * as told in the bible all religions dont follow the bible .
are you *saying * your belief ( christian ) is the only one that is correct ??? .
if so what scientific evidence do you have to support that notion?
what scientific, life ,or experiance do you have to support the notion that all other beliefs and religions are false ???
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, it is logical to assume the cause must be supernatural
explain the above statement you made .
if it were infinite it would NOT run out of energy it would go forever . science believes it is still evolving and as it gets further way from its oringinal souce it gets more energy
yep, pahu only has one source for all of his information, soon he will have two, one will be this thread ;)
as he doesn't quote anything and cw has not closed this thread, I must assume pahu is the author of the other site and he is just trying to gain hits to his site, but that is just a guess
JohnA
10-06-2009, 04:28 PM
exactly.... Science has disproved the myth of the story in the bible, but not that there is not a hereafter or a higher power
true but science hasnt offered any evidence that there is either .
since the story is in i the disproved bible doesnt that make the whole concept more likely to be fiction .
A higher power isnt out of the realm of believeability but even eccepting that to be true, doent prove or offer any evidence the higher power has a plan for human life after death ... .
once again a religious assumption to suit dogma .
People can choose to beleive what they wish . IE the tooth fairy , santa , the lock ness monster . dracula, the god of harvest etc .
but that does,nt make it true
Metamorphosis 2
What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:
“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run”? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)”
The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?
Charles Darwin wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).”
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.”
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.
b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.
c. Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).
d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?
e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp2927793
JohnA
10-08-2009, 02:11 AM
Metamorphosis 2
What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:
“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run”? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)”
The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?
Charles Darwin wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).”
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.”
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.
b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.
c. Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).
d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?
e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp2927793
again your missing the point .
you can quote as many books as you like disproving as of yet to evolution .
why even this week another FOSSEL has been uncovered that may give even more gredance to the evolution theory .
all the work , study , and effort put forward by believes over the centuries no evidence either actual or scientific has ever been found to prove the existance of any god .. assumption faith and indoctrination drives you
one theory(EVOLUTION ) is moving forward as science offers up more clues .
the other ( BELIEF IN DEITY,S) changes i as the centuries come and go first we had the worship of physical things on earth , then we had the worship of sun gods and such .
now in modern times ( last 2000 years ) we have worship of a fiqure in a book which by any reasonable objective thought is at the least suspect as being fiction and proberly misquoted over the years thou translations .
who knows what society in 200 years in the future will think of your beliefs .
will they be thought of kindly as the superstitions of a primitive race? of will they be scoffed at as you do when considering the religions of ancient societies such as the greeks and romans
you still dont have any evidence supporting the world was created by your god as* depicted in the bible*. which is what you are advocating blindly not even considering other just as plausible thoeries
just because one theory is not proven does,nt mean the other one is correct .
o
again your missing the point .
you can quote as many books as you like disproving as of yet to evolution .
why even this week another FOSSEL has been uncovered that may give even more gredance to the evolution theory .
all the work , study , and effort put forward by believes over the centuries no evidence either actual or scientific has ever been found to prove the existance of any god .. assumption faith and indoctrination drives you
one theory(EVOLUTION ) is moving forward as science offers up more clues .
the other ( BELIEF IN DEITY,S) changes i as the centuries come and go first we had the worship of physical things on earth , then we had the worship of sun gods and such .
now in modern times ( last 2000 years ) we have worship of a fiqure in a book which by any reasonable objective thought is at the least suspect as being fiction and proberly misquoted over the years thou translations .
who knows what society in 200 years in the future will think of your beliefs .
will they be thought of kindly as the superstitions of a primitive race? of will they be scoffed at as you do when considering the religions of ancient societies such as the greeks and romans
you still dont have any evidence supporting the world was created by your god as* depicted in the bible*. which is what you are advocating blindly not even considering other just as plausible thoeries
just because one theory is not proven does,nt mean the other one is correct .
o
I'm not bout to spar with you I just think some other scientist see it a bit differently. Our God is an Awesome God! jmo
http://www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm
Symbiotic Relationships
Different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. At the broadest level, the animal kingdom depends on the oxygen produced by the plant kingdom. Plants, in turn, depend on the carbon dioxide produced by the animal kingdom.
More local and specific examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp (a), the yucca plant and the yucca moth (b), many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal, or one member of the honeybee family before the others), it could not have survived. Because all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time. In other words, creation.
a. Oscar L. Brauer, “The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129–131.
Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29–32.
b. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences43.html#wp2853657
LisaM22
10-11-2009, 01:51 AM
Metamorphosis 2
What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as “mush.” From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:
“Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first “production run”? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)”
The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?
Charles Darwin wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).”
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution “breaks down.”
Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larva’s and an adult’s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.
b. Pitman, pp. 193–194.
c. Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarch—the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).
d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?
e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp2927793
it's rather simple pahu, it's all in the dna code, anything you can code is possible with just modifications of earlier code, that is what evolution is, changes to the base code, the changes that survive their environment keep reproducing, the other don't and die off
Brentwood
10-11-2009, 10:48 PM
Some do not believe in dna or science. They think carbon dating does not exist and the earth is only 6K years old. AND they want to teach that in schools. At least most understand the world is not flat, I hope.
Sexual Reproduction 1
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
[a.] The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
[b.] The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
[c.] The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
[d.] The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
[e.] The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
[f.] This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.
a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist.
“The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,” Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,” Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111
LisaM22
10-12-2009, 10:56 PM
it's rather simple pahu, it's all in the dna code, anything you can code is possible with just modifications of earlier code, that is what evolution is, changes to the base code, the changes that survive their environment keep reproducing, the other don't and die off
so did you understand this pahu, it really is simple common sense
Brentwood
10-12-2009, 11:17 PM
so did you understand this pahu, it really is simple common sense
Well said Lisa!
so did you understand this pahu, it really is simple common sense
Often common sense does not comply with facts. For example, from our perspective, the earth appears flat, and the sun and stars appear to rotate around it. That was common sense for thousands of years.
DNA is not as simple as your common sense imagines. For one thing, there are huge amounts of information in DNA. In our experience, information only comes from intelligence, not random natural causes.
Duplicate copies of the long tape of coded information in DNA are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received 23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
If all the DNA in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing that you are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html#wp1191605
Sexual Reproduction 2
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
e. “But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals.” Jean Marx, “Tracing How the Sexes Develop,” Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. “This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.” George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
“So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.” Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,” New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.
“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.” Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.” Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?” Nilsson, p. 1225.
“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.” [According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?” Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.
g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.” Pitman, p. 135.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111
FurthurBB
10-14-2009, 12:31 AM
so did you understand this pahu, it really is simple common sense
I think Pahu only understands what he/she/it is being told to understand and very little of that. IMO
LisaM22
10-14-2009, 02:14 AM
Often common sense does not comply with facts. For example, from our perspective, the earth appears flat, and the sun and stars appear to rotate around it. That was common sense for thousands of years.
DNA is not as simple as your common sense imagines. For one thing, there are huge amounts of information in DNA. In our experience, information only comes from intelligence, not random natural causes.
Duplicate copies of the long tape of coded information in DNA are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received 23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
If all the DNA in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing that you are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI3.html#wp1191605
yes, but it is all code, code that is being changed even today little by little by cosmic radiation and now man as well, Christians of the past were slow to accept the truth, even killing and torturing those that dared disagree with them about the universe as though it was a threat against their beliefs, this too shall pass and you will realize your beliefs were not dependent on a creation myth.... one day your eyes will open to the truth - right now you seem to think energy and matter need a intelligent creator as described in your bible, but you seem you forget, it would be easier to evolve everything from energy then it would be to evolve a god that creates everything
you spend all you time reposting that one site here, you really should try and expand your knowledge base, btw... is that your site?
all comic radiation needs is time and we on earth had over 4 billion years, were but a blip on the radar in evolutionary terms
Scienter,
Could is the operative word. But seeing how that is not likely, those of us who choose to believe in Creation will continue to seek the truth through the Bible and be accused of not being as open-minded as those who dare not think that possibly their own eyes will be opened one day.
The BB imo will take place when the veil is rent, the thunder roars and the lightening flashes as Jesus makes His majestic entry to claim His own. MHO
LisaM22
10-14-2009, 11:20 PM
Scienter,
Could is the operative word. But seeing how that is not likely, those of us who choose to believe in Creation will continue to seek the truth through the Bible and be accused of not being as open-minded as those who dare not think that possibly their own eyes will be opened one day.
The BB imo will take place when the veil is rent, the thunder roars and the lightening flashes as Jesus makes His majestic entry to claim His own. MHO
if you only look for the truth in just one book, your bible, your never gonna find the truth, the creation myth is just that, a myth
if you only look for the truth in just one book, your bible, your never gonna find the truth, the creation myth is just that, a myth
So you say.
Immune Systems
How could immune systems of animals and plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize the best defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.
Your health, and that of many animals, depends on the effectiveness of these “search-and-destroy missions.” Consider the capabilities and associated equipment the white blood cell must have to do its job. It must identify friend and foe. Once a foe is detected, the white blood cell must rapidly locate and overtake the invader. Then the white blood cell must engulf the bacterium, destroy it, and have the endurance to repeat this many times. Miniaturization, fuel efficiency, and compatibility with other parts of the body are also key requirements. The equipment for each function requires careful design. Unless all this worked well from the beginning of life, a requirement that rules out evolution, bacteria and other agents of disease would have won, and we would not be here to marvel at these hidden abilities in our bodies.
A few “stem cells” in your bone marrow produce more than 100 billion of these and other types of blood cells every day. Each white blood cell moves on its own at up to 30 microns (almost half the diameter of a human hair) each minute. So many white blood cells are in your body that their total distance traveled in one day would circle the earth twice.
If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense (a). Obviously, for each organism to have survived, this information must have all been there from the beginning. Again, creation.
(a.) “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” Behe, p. 138.
“Unfortunately, we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution, which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and possess separate T and B cells, as well as MHC molecules. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed.” Avrion Mitchison, “Will We Survive?” Scientific American, Vol. 269, September 1993, p. 138.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences45.html#wp1027797
LisaM22
10-15-2009, 11:23 PM
pahu, btw... is that your site your copying here, are you the author?
LisaM22
10-17-2009, 03:14 PM
most Christians believe in evolution, only the ones that ignore science believe otherwise
LisaM22
10-21-2009, 02:38 PM
Pahu, I'm looking to hear specifically from you about whether you accept or reject "natural selection". You haven't posted for several days.
maybe his other site ran out of content to repost over here?
LisaM22
10-21-2009, 11:33 PM
"Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab "
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."
LisaM22
10-22-2009, 05:53 PM
Snipped
There is some confusion here. We are talking apples and oranges.
In science, “natural selection” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) does not mean the selection of a mate. I have never before heard this term connected with this meaning, and it does not answer my question about Creationists accepting “natural selection”.
In science, “speciation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) is what loosely would be called “the origin of species” (eg, humans arose from lesser animals). What you refer to as “speciation” is what scientists call “natural selection”. Your examples of guppies, lizards, daisies, etc are examples of natural selection. Scientists and (according to you) Creationists know that species can adapt quite rapidly to changes in the environment, especially compared to the emergence of new species. So, your response here does answer my question (and suspicion) — the two schools of thought are on the same track in regards to what scientists call “natural selection”. A rather interesting example of "natural selection"/adaptation/breeding occurred with the Lundehund (http://www.lundehund.com/the%20lundehund.htm). Personally, I don’t know of any scientists who would be “bewildered”, “surprised”, or “alarmed” at the adaptation rates that your cut-and-paste text mentions.
I also draw your attention to LisaM22’s post. It has a link to the material in question. This is where your posts come up short. You are copying and pasting huge amounts of text from another site, the sheer amount of which looks impressive; however, when I actually go to the site, it provides links to its own creation.com articles and only claims what other publications state without providing links to those sites.
Snipped
I think the real goal of puhu is to get more hits to his other site, notice he will not say if it is his site or not
this site is real good at catching copyright violations, so I have to assume CW has already verified with puhu he has permission to copy and paste so much of that site here in order for them to allow him to continue
FurthurBB
10-23-2009, 01:28 PM
I think the real goal of puhu is to get more hits to his other site, notice he will not say if it is his site or not
this site is real good at catching copyright violations, so I have to assume CW has already verified with puhu he has permission to copy and paste so much of that site here in order for them to allow him to continue
I do not understand why they are allowed to get away with this. It says only actual news from legitimate sources, yet, they are posting 19th century ideas from a website full of misrepresentations, out of context quotes, and outright lies. You would think that if someone actually wanted to talk about creationism versus evolution they would at least take some new news articles like about the dinosaurs and how paleontologists might be wrong in over 1/3 of the cases because the infants might not look like the adults. IMO
LisaM22
10-23-2009, 06:40 PM
I do not understand why they are allowed to get away with this. It says only actual news from legitimate sources, yet, they are posting 19th century ideas from a website full of misrepresentations, out of context quotes, and outright lies. You would think that if someone actually wanted to talk about creationism versus evolution they would at least take some new news articles like about the dinosaurs and how paleontologists might be wrong in over 1/3 of the cases because the infants might not look like the adults. IMO
the title of the forum was changed to "Religion", i do not think the new news applies anymore sense it was removed from the forum title, though I do wonder about any copyright violations and lack of quotes, I don't know, but then again the religious forum has always had a different set of rules it seems
The Bible is easier to read and understand than all pahu has to offer.
I know there are many who call it a crock, but I call it as I see it, Law & Order.
All the logic defies the ability to receive miracles. JMO
Thank you EMAA. Christians get into trouble when they stray from the Bible. Isn’t that what the Christianity preaches? Pahu is no exception.
Pahu is a day late and a dollar short with this so-called “science” cut-and-pasted from another site (aka spam). In fact, so is Christian science regarding natural selection and speciation. Christian science should have started 150 or more years ago. Instead, Christian science is reactive instead of proactive. Pahu seems limited in knowledge. When I asked about natural selection, Pahu talked about selecting a spouse. When I asked about speciation, Pahu talked about natural selection. Pahu states various “facts” without substantiation.
And Pahu quotes Shakespeare – of all people – in his signature (“What fools these mortals be”). That's like quoting some Hollywood trash. Shakespeare was maybe Catholic or maybe not, he wrote fiction about sex and violence, he portrayed a teenage Romeo speaking praise of 13yo Juliet’s genitals, and he himself married Anne Hathaway because he impregnated her. Pahu seems confused indeed.
Thank you for your kindness rather than condemnation.
No one has brainwashed me into believing, it all comes natural to me.
All I know is when I've been faithless, God has been faithful. At a time when I didn't want to do anything but lay down and die, only He was able to bring me through it. Not an easy feat I will admit.
It is my belief that God isn't looking for 'instant perfection' but instead He is seeking 'righteous progression'. When we fall, He is there to lift us up. When we stray He will gently guide us back to where we need to be. The only time I can stand up straight and tall is when I am leaning on Him and Him alone.
Our God is an awesome God!!! AJMO
LisaM22
10-26-2009, 11:46 PM
Thank you for your kindness rather than condemnation.
No one has brainwashed me into believing, it all comes natural to me.
All I know is when I've been faithless, God has been faithful. At a time when I didn't want to do anything but lay down and die, only He was able to bring me through it. Not an easy feat I will admit.
It is my belief that God isn't looking for 'instant perfection' but instead He is seeking 'righteous progression'. When we fall, He is there to lift us up. When we stray He will gently guide us back to where we need to be. The only time I can stand up straight and tall is when I am leaning on Him and Him alone.
Our God is an awesome God!!! AJMO
I believe sort of the same thing, only I believe we have multiple lives to learn all the lessons to be learned, I believe there is a higher power, I believe in energy being what created our universe as energy is matter and visa versa, if a higher power created anything it came long before the universe was set in motion imo, maybe god is energy in all it's wonderful forms... which would make god... everything
FurthurBB
10-27-2009, 07:03 PM
I think you are referring to this quote:
"Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors."
Notice the last sentence. Scientists seem to be unanimous in their conclusion that all mutations are useless or lethal.
Almost 98% of mutations have no effect at all, but, sometimes even if they seem useless or even harmful in a different environment they can be very helpful. I am a scientist and I know that bacteria mutate in the presence of antibiotics, and that the HIV virus mutated in the presence of AZT. Would you not say that even though those mutations would be useless without the drugs or in the case of HIV even harmful, in the presence of AZT and antibiotics they are very beneficial. No sceintist would ever say that all mutations are either useless or lethal, because that would be a lie. Oh, and it doesn't even take mutations to change a wing to a flipper or an arm. IMO
FurthurBB
10-27-2009, 07:06 PM
Evolution requires a series of miracles caused my natural, random events that cannot be scientifically supported. Creation requires a series of miracles caused by a supernatural Creator. As I have been sharing, science supports creation over evolution.
No, it actually does not. I agree that life and biology are amazing, even beautiful to me, but, there is no need for a creator and science is the study of natural phenomenon, it is not in the same purview as anything supernatural so it could not support creation. IMO
FurthurBB
10-28-2009, 10:52 PM
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here (http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp).
There are too many errors in “Evolution” to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution” thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
The producers of “Evolution” unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.” Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution” mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time” which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,” in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
Pahu, as I have already told you there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution so you had better come up with something better than this. IMO
FurthurBB
10-28-2009, 11:09 PM
Of course you are right that science is the study of natural phenomenon, but my point is that in the study of natural phenomenon, science disproves evolution, which is the notion that everything is caused by natural, random forces. Since science disproves that notion, the only alternative is the basic cause of everything is supernatural.
Being a scientist, I assume you are aware that science is the testing of the truth of a hypothesis by the use of controlled experiment.
There are four things we need to be aware of with the scientific method:
1) The controlled environment.
2) Observation made.
3) Data needs to be drawn from that observation.
4) Hypothesis empirically verified.
There are two methods of proof: Scientific and Evidential/Historical.
Scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. For this modern scientific method you need to have a controlled environment where the event can be repeated over and over and over again, observation made of it, data drawn from it, and hypothesis (not fact!) empirically verified.
Science is never absolute; it’s always open to correction, because you might do 1,000 experiments, and if the 1,001st is different—the whole law is voided.
Assume we have a fact in question. To be proven scientifically it must be related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation, or repeated observation. Science is limited, very limited.
Legal proof is based upon showing that something is true or a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable events, but is not adequate for people or events within history.
Did Patrick Henry say, “Give me liberty or give me death?” or did he simply say, “Let me out!” You can’t repeat that in a controlled environment, observation made, data drawn, hypothesis empirically verified.
Science is not "the testing of truth of a hypothesis." Geeze, if you get it wrong in the very first sentence is there any hope for you at all? An easy and basic quote from Wiki
"Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested."
It would actually be more acurate to say that science tries to disprove a hypothesis than to prove one. Then again, your whole premise is wrong. Evolution is a natural observable phenomenon (what you keep trying to say is "microevolution" [sic].) where there is basically descent with modification. Now, the theory of evolution goes on to explain things like natural selection as it pertains to evolution and even that all the variation we see in living things in the world today is due to evolution. The theory of evolution has more evidence to back it up than any other theory in all of science. Evolutionary theory has has been behind every single new discovery in all biological sciences longer than I have been alive and that includes medicine. In the next few years it will at least quadruple the world wide blood donation supply and make organ transplants far safer. All I know is, if there is a god/gods, he/she/it/they came up with an amazing and beautiful system that we call evolution and are probably none too happy that some people spend their lives trying to prove that what we see with our own eyes is not real. IMO
So is Pahu claiming to be a christian or what? :scared:
Like I said before, it's easier to read and understand what the KJV has to say than what all this stuff has to say. It's just a bunch of words to me. Too many people just talking too much.
LisaM22
10-30-2009, 12:33 AM
pahu, evolution is fact, the "theory of evolution" is the theory of how life evolved on this planet, think your confusing the two
LisaM22
10-30-2009, 01:05 AM
Snipped
Why would evolution not produce redundancy? Pahu, you make ridiculous unsupported statements.
Why stop at redundancy in the brain? Four fingers on each hand is redundancy -- why not only three fingers (like cartoon characters)? Two arms is redundancy. Thrity-two teeth is redundancy, as is the set of milk teeth and the set of adult teeth. The approximately 100,000 hairs on a person's head is redundancy. Why not 50,000 or 25,000? Pahu, you make ridiculous unsupported statements.
Pahu, of all the cutting-and-pasting and spamming that you probably do on various boards etc, how many people have you converted to your unsupportable cherry-picking theories?
I do not think pahu understand the genetic code, we mere humans are modifying code now, faster then mother nature ever could, it took her billions of years, at the rate we are learning, we could create a new creature in the laboratory faster then her
LisaM22
10-30-2009, 01:10 AM
Pahu, you never answered whether this content you are copying here is your own or if you have permission from the copyright holder, which is it?
the site is copyrighted "All rights reserved."
I do not think pahu understand the genetic code, we mere humans are modifying code now, faster then mother nature ever could, it took her billions of years, at the rate we are learning, we could create a new creature in the laboratory faster then her
Respectively Lisa, I think the creation of a new creature in the laboratory is a really scary idea. jmo
LisaM22
10-30-2009, 07:59 PM
<snip>
Most of the information I share is copied from Walt Brown’s book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008). It is found online at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/. This is the statement on the first page:
“This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008), by Dr. Walt Brown. It is designed to be read online.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.”
Copyrighted material cannot be legally copied for profit. I am not copying it for profit but to share the facts in his book that disprove evolution. Is your objection based on your concern for Walt Brown’s book, or an attempt to stop me from sharing information that disproves what you want to believe despite the facts?
it says to be read on-line, as in read on his site, not copy it to some other site, copyright "All rights reserved.”
this site you are copying to has banner ads thus is a for profit site that you are copying his material too
LisaM22
10-30-2009, 08:45 PM
our genetic code only has so many combinations, given enough time every combination will be tried, so anything that is possible will be tried at some point
LisaM22
10-31-2009, 08:51 AM
It seems that Pahu has never done any research, but simply compiles other people's results. This allows for cherry-picking, and I have suspected this from Pahu for some time. I have repeatedly asked Pahu about personal research, and Pahi has ignored me on it.
I have highlighted Pahu's unsubstantiated conclusions, yet Pahu has not defended those conclusions. Pahu's cut-and-paste and spamming contains flawed logic.
Pahu shows a wannabe martyrdom attitude, and this is my last post here. Pahu has, in a scientificc sense, steadily displayed the unworthiness of his position. Pahu is in a little fantasy world.
Hey Pahu, good luck on your martyrdom.
actually it looks like he gets all his information he copies and pastes here from that one copyrighted on-line book that is "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" - something that used to be against the rules here on insessions
FurthurBB
10-31-2009, 04:09 PM
Where is your evidence that evolution is a fact? Why do you think it is a theory? Since the supporting evidence is missing, evolution really is only a disproved hypothesis, which many scientists have admitted.
If a new creature were created, wouldn’t it be the result of intelligence rather than random, natural processes?
The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease (a). It seems most reasonable that the genetic code and the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence (b).
a. “Genomes [all the DNA of a species] are remarkable in that they encode most of the functions necessary for their interpretation and propagation.” Anne-Claude Gavin et al., “Proteome Survey Reveals Modularity of the Yeast Cell Machinery,” Nature, Vol. 440, 30 March 2006, p. 631.
b. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were produced by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html#wp1843575
Most of the information I share is copied from Walt Brown’s book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008). It is found online at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/. This is the statement on the first page:
“This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008), by Dr. Walt Brown. It is designed to be read online.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.”
Copyrighted material cannot be legally copied for profit. I am not copying it for profit but to share the facts in his book that disprove evolution. Is your objection based on your concern for Walt Brown’s book, or an attempt to stop me from sharing information that disproves what you want to believe despite the facts?
The only scientists that would say that evolution is not a fact and only a disproved hypothesis are either lying or are not in a discipline that has anything to do with biology. IMO
LisaM22
10-31-2009, 10:32 PM
Copyrighted material is designed to protect the author from losing profits as the result of the material being illegally shared with others. Since Walt Brown has opened his book to be read by everyone on line,obviously he is not concerned about losing sales. He apparently is more interested in sharing the information in his book. When I share his information, I give him credit by including a link to his book, so I am also sharing the fact the book exists and where. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he has sold some books as a result. Surely he wouldn't object to that, would he?
many sites open their sites up to reading on-lin, but the reason they say "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" is to keep others from copying their stuff without permission
Life Science Conclusions 2
An organ is a complex structure of different types of tissues and cells, all of which work together to perform a specific function such as seeing, hearing, digesting, or pumping. A system, such as the nervous system, circulatory system, skeletal system, or reproductive system, consists of related organs and other tissues and cells that have even broader functions. A healthy body has all its systems working properly. Life depends on a broad, compatible, and complex hierarchy: molecules −−> cells −−> tissues −−> organs −−> systems −−> body −−> other organisms −−> the environment. All are carefully balanced and integrated with each other.
Arbitrarily changing one component at any level will often be harmful at that level and to the vertical hierarchy. For example, change one type of molecule throughout a category of cells, and the result may be damaged cells and a diseased body. Environmentalists and ecologists are aware of this critical balance (regarding, say, the spotted owl and the environment), but often they fail to ask, “Who or what created this balance?” Some fail to see the incredible complexity, integration, and systems engineering that extends throughout the universe—from carbon atoms to galaxies to physical laws.
Humans are only one of millions of different organisms. To integrate all organisms into a living ecosystem requires stupendous design and balance. If evolution happened, time and natural processes alone must have maintained a livable environment for most forms of life as each new organism came into existence and proliferated. No global contaminants, plagues, predators, or famines could be allowed for billions of years. Imagine what would happen if a few organisms at the base of the food chain became extinct.
Who or what has the ability to design, construct, and harmoniously integrate and maintain all of life? Time and natural processes, as evolution states, or an infinitely intelligent Creator?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences48.html#wp1009763
I have to admit, Yourself and Scienter are very good at sparing with words.
I am in no way at this level of discussion, but I sure do try to read it. However, I can answer the very last question on your list with no problem. That would be the one I call 'God', an infinitely intelligent Creator. Look at what complex human beings we are. Even science can't create an original they can possible take pinches of this and that to modify but it won't be creating. (imo & the Bible too), lol we as human are the bluprint, any thing after that is merely a copy.
Carry on mates.
LisaM22
11-04-2009, 03:36 AM
I have to admit, Yourself and Scienter are very good at sparing with words.
I am in no way at this level of discussion, but I sure do try to read it. However, I can answer the very last question on your list with no problem. That would be the one I call 'God', an infinitely intelligent Creator. Look at what complex human beings we are. Even science can't create an original they can possible take pinches of this and that to modify but it won't be creating. (imo & the Bible too), lol we as human are the bluprint, any thing after that is merely a copy.
Carry on mates.
Pahu doesn't put quotes around anything, how do you know what part of his posts are his and which belong to the copyrighted site he is copying all this stuff from?
Pahu doesn't put quotes around anything, how do you know what part of his posts are his and which belong to the copyrighted site he is copying all this stuff from?
Lisa, I don't know which parts are his or the copyrighted site. When asked a question, Pahu just seems to add more of the same stuff that takes me forever to try to understand. I'm not too proud to admit that whatever he/she is trying to say is just too convoluted to get through. For me it's just easier to 'believe' what the Bible has to say than what all this scientific mumbo jumbo reads. jmo
Call me a bonehead if you like. I just believe what I believe, it's not that I'm a closed minded person, it just makes no sense to me.
It's kindo like math. I can add, subtract, multiply and divide, but in no way am I a mathmatician.
I have to admit, Yourself and Scienter are very good at sparing with words.
I am in no way at this level of discussion, but I sure do try to read it. However, I can answer the very last question on your list with no problem. That would be the one I call 'God', an infinitely intelligent Creator. Look at what complex human beings we are. Even science can't create an original they can possible take pinches of this and that to modify but it won't be creating. (imo & the Bible too), lol we as human are the bluprint, any thing after that is merely a copy.
Carry on mates.
Only to add a correction-
God is the blueprint and we are His creation. Nevertheless, anything else is simply a copy of that original creation.
LisaM22
11-11-2009, 05:22 PM
:shrug: Pahu, it probably feels good to cut-and-paste your beliefs, but everyone's still waiting for real answers to real questions. This is what science is all about. This is the real world. Not this hearsay gobbledygook cut-and-paste stuff replete with its soft information, non-scientific terminology, fakery, unsubstantiated claims, weasel words, backwards logic, etc, etc. :shrug:
I thought the thread would be closed long ago, Pahu admitted up thread he doesn't have permission to be copying all that copyrighted stuff here, yet the thread is still here, any other thread would be shut down by now
LisaM22
11-16-2009, 05:23 PM
yep, this whole thread seems to be that one web site being advertised over and over ....
moorhill
11-17-2009, 04:56 PM
You no more "believe" in evolution than you "believe" in breathing or gravity. It happened. That issue is as well settled as any. Darwin's Theory of Evolution turns out to have been a pretty good one. Creationism, not so much. Not at all, in fact.
It is embarassing that the US scored ahead only of Turkey among industrialized nations in the percentage of respondents (40%) who believe Darwin's Theory to be truthful. If not for the inclusion of Turkey we would have been dead last. That is disgraceful.
LisaM22
11-17-2009, 10:33 PM
Genesis is a myth, science has proved that
Genesis is a myth, science has proved that
I don't understand how you can be that certain of this one thing. I know what science says, but then science can't decide whether coffee is good for you or not.
I look around at all the glories, the sun, the moon, the stars, the oceans, and the complex way in which we are designed and I just can't wrap my head around it just happening by accident.
On the other hand I guess I do, because there is nothing that could convince me that 'The beginning wasn't just as it is discribed in Genesis. I don't think of myself as fanatical or a right wing extremist, I believe in what I believe and allow others to decide for themselves. Ater all it is not I who will stand and answer for another. I must answer completely for myself. jmo
I'm am glad the online class has been closed tho'. jmo
LisaM22
11-19-2009, 02:40 AM
I don't understand how you can be that certain of this one thing. I know what science says, but then science can't decide whether coffee is good for you or not.
I look around at all the glories, the sun, the moon, the stars, the oceans, and the complex way in which we are designed and I just can't wrap my head around it just happening by accident.
On the other hand I guess I do, because there is nothing that could convince me that 'The beginning wasn't just as it is discribed in Genesis. I don't think of myself as fanatical or a right wing extremist, I believe in what I believe and allow others to decide for themselves. Ater all it is not I who will stand and answer for another. I must answer completely for myself. jmo
I'm am glad the online class has been closed tho'. jmo
and some could say the same about a god, could a god just happen by accident, could a god just at some point in time poof into existence from nothing? and if a god had always been there, why could not of everything else always of been there too - I would think you would think a god would be more complex in design, do you think a god needs a creator? if there is a god would he really be so concerned what you believed? what if god is better then described in the bible and someone believed he wasn't?
and some could say the same about a god, could a god just happen by accident, could a god just at some point in time poof into existence from nothing? and if a god had always been there, why could not of everything else always of been there too - I would think you would think a god would be more complex in design, do you think a god needs a creator? if there is a god would he really be so concerned what you believed? what if god is better then described in the bible and someone believed he wasn't?
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found, although there is plenty of circumstantial evidence proving His existence, which I have shared.
God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
Strange Planets 3
Is Pluto a Planet?
In 2006, after years of internal debate, 4% of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU)—those meeting in Prague—voted to no longer call Pluto a planet. Instead, they said Pluto is a transneptunian object (h).
The IAU had no jurisdiction to change the definition of “planet” for the rest of the world. It is fine for an organization to tell others what it considers a word to mean, but common usage is the basis for definitions. Our language is filled with scientific words whose meanings have changed based on new discoveries and broader understandings. Few meanings have changed based on an organization’s vote.
Since Pluto’s discovery 76 years earlier, Pluto has been a thorn in the side of astronomers trying to explain how planets evolve. So many characteristics of Pluto are difficult to fit into evolutionary scenarios. No longer calling Pluto a planet (even though it is spherical, has three known moons, and orbits the Sun in the right direction) may reduce those man-made problems, but now calls attention to the more difficult question of how a thousand transneptunian objects evolved.
In 1930, after astronomers had been searching for a suspected ninth planet for 25 years, a tenacious farm boy from Kansas, Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997), discovered Pluto. He later became one of my favorite professors. Going to his backyard to use his handmade 9-inch telescope was memorable. Professor Tombaugh was a warm, unpretentious man with the biggest smile you have ever seen. However, in class, he sometimes became irate at astronomers who made pronouncements but seldom touched a telescope.
Classification can be a useful tool, but at other times it leads to endless arguments, because the world (or, in this case, the solar system) is usually more complicated than theories imply. We can call Pluto anything we wish, but tens of thousands of books and hundreds of millions of students have called Pluto a planet.
What is a planet? Its original meaning was “wandering star.” I will always associate Pluto with Clyde Tombaugh and the worldwide excitement of finally discovering the ninth planet. For historical reasons, if nothing else, I suspect that millions of others will continue to call Pluto a planet as well as a transneptunian object.
Semantics aside, the scientific question remains: how could Pluto evolve?
h. Far more astronomers and planetary scientists quickly signed a petition opposing the IAU’s vote. They said:
“We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it.”
Jenny Hogan, “Pluto: The Backlash Begins,” Nature, Vol. 442, 31 August 2006, pp. 965.
A transneptunian object is a body that orbits the Sun—usually beyond the orbit of the planet Neptune, about 30 astronomical units, or 2.8 billion miles, from the Sun.
Contributing to the IAU’s decision to remove Pluto’s status as a planet was its small size (two-thirds the diameter of our moon) and the discovery, beginning in 1992, of what are now more than a thousand transneptunian objects, at least two of which are larger than Pluto. All are much farther from the Sun than Pluto.
A simple fix for the IAU would have been to define transneptunian objects as those bodies that always orbit the Sun beyond the orbit of Neptune. (Pluto’s orbit sometimes comes inside that of Neptune.) Also, an honest acknowledgement that all planets are unique would have clarified matters. Even the many planets that have been discovered outside the solar system are completely different from those inside the solar system. Evolutionary process will not explain them all.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences3.html#wp1011388
LisaM22
11-19-2009, 08:52 PM
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found, although there is plenty of circumstantial evidence proving His existence, which I have shared.
God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
you said "The universe exists. It is not infinitely old."
who said it was, not I
universes pop in and out of existence in the multiverse, what is beyond that is unknown, could be multiple dimensions of multiverses
LisaM22
11-20-2009, 04:50 AM
<snip>
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
<snip>
which would be "everything", and everything is in constant flux, always changing, even our universe is changing and someday will be no more, but that which makes up our universe will still be there, just as something else, always in constant flux, always changing
GossipGirl
11-20-2009, 08:45 AM
What?
Why can't the universe be infinitely old? It can be self-sustaining, or able to be sustained by what's around it and what it produces.
Who's to say? We didn't even know there was a band of stars around us until we built ourselves a telescope sharp enough to see it.
The universe has stars and planets that come and go with age, and galaxy's that produce the energy needed to keep it all alive.
The universe was there before the very first star in the very first galaxy.
Remember, there are thousands of galaxies just like our Milky Way.
Religion was created by man as a method of bringing a population some rules and sense of order in a time when neither existed. It also brought a sense of community to it's people and a way to teach morals, values, and compassion.
Because it preceded governement, they were often combined.
Creationism is a story written by men in an area of the world where Christianity was popular. Other areas of the world, with different religions, have other stories to explain where we came from. Creationism's catalyst was God deciding to create an environment for humans. Some religions, much older than Christianity, have just as interesting stories on how this happened. I've always enjoyed the American Indian's perspective on things, along with many others.
Evolution speaks to the science of it all, and points to a big bang as the catalyst that got things going.
Evolution is a fact. The rest is just made-up.
GG
you said "The universe exists. It is not infinitely old."
who said it was, not I
On post 308 you asked: "if a god had always been there, why could not of everything else always of been there too" I answered your question.
universes pop in and out of existence in the multiverse, what is beyond that is unknown, could be multiple dimensions of multiverses
Why do you believe that?
Why can't the universe be infinitely old? It can be self-sustaining, or able to be sustained by what's around it and what it produces.
Review the information I shared. Even though it is self-sustaining, it had to have had a beginning before the Big Bang. Before the beginning of the universe, it did not exist and therefore there was nothing. From that total nothingness, the universe appeared. Physics tells us nothing comes from nothing by any natural, random cause, therefore the cause of the universe must be supernatural.
The universe was there before the very first star in the very first galaxy.
The definition of “universe” is everything that exists including all the planets, stars and galaxies. How could the universe exist before the existence of the universe?
Religion was created by man as a method of bringing a population some rules and sense of order in a time when neither existed. It also brought a sense of community to it's people and a way to teach morals, values, and compassion.
Because it preceded governement, they were often combined.
Most religions were created by man for the reasons you give. One religion was created by God for the same reasons plus revealing His nature, our nature, our need for salvation and His plan for our salvation.
Creationism is a story written by men in an area of the world where Christianity was popular. Other areas of the world, with different religions, have other stories to explain where we came from. Creationism's catalyst was God deciding to create an environment for humans. Some religions, much older than Christianity, have just as interesting stories on how this happened. I've always enjoyed the American Indian's perspective on things, along with many others.
One interesting fact is most ancient religions speak of a worldwide flood that killed everyone except one family on a boat. As people spread out after the flood, the story got changed somewhat, but the essentials remained.
What you call Creationism is nothing more than the result of comparing the two models of origins with the facts of science. The creation model fits the facts, the evolution model conflicts with the facts. Those are the facts I have been sharing.
Evolution speaks to the science of it all, and points to a big bang as the catalyst that got things going.
Evolution is a fact. The rest is just made-up.
That is what we have been led to believe by evolutionists, but when we examine the “evidence” for evolution we find it to be lacking, as many scientists admit.
LisaM22
11-21-2009, 04:04 AM
On post 308 you asked: "if a god had always been there, why could not of everything else always of been there too" I answered your question.
Why do you believe that?
I said "everything", I did not say "universe"
everything is not a part of the universe, our universe is part of everything, though it may take other forms someday, it will still be a part of everything
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.