[_ Old Earth _] Evolution debunked once and for all

[John]

You are just distorting the example without really answering my question. What is the significance of the finally copy being nothing but black lines versus spelling another word.

the chances are great but the problem is we have the original copy and the end result of the supposed 2000 copies, but no evidence that it was ever copied in the first place. We have A and C but no B. i am currently in the process of creating new thread on supposed "missing links" i already posted a couple.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You are just distorting the example without really answering my question. What is the significance of the finally copy being nothing but black lines versus spelling another word.

the chances are great but the problem is we have the original copy and the end result of the supposed 2000 copies, but no evidence that it was ever copied in the first place. We have A and C but no B. i am currently in the process of creating new thread on supposed "missing links" i already posted a couple.

John, I unlike Heidi I feel like you are sincere in your not believing ToE. If you want to reject it on theological grounds, I can respect that. I wouldn't understand it, but I think it is respectable.

But I will say that again I am very novice with ToE, and I still see some serious flaws in your understanding of it. First of all, the term "missing link" is poppy cock. It is a term created by the popular media in reference to transitional fossils.

There is no singular or multiple missing links that are needed to prove evolution. In fact, you really will never be able to "prove evolution". Heck, we will never be able to prove gravity. Thats not how science works

There are transitional fossils. These will be found all of the time. Evolution does not depend on them for support. When a new fossil is found, it is used to give evidence of common ancestry of certain species. Scientist arent going, "Wow this really proves evolution!" Its more like, well this gives weight that species A and species B share a common ancestor.

If some new device were invented today that helped scientist locate every single fossil in existence, there would still be "missing links" as there are many species whos individuals did not die in a manner that preserved any of them. Some species never got the chance to produce sufficient numbers to increase the likely hood of at least one being preserved.

The "missing link" is just a tactic used by Hoviend's to mislead.

 

[John]

John, I unlike Heidi I feel like you are sincere in your not believing ToE. If you want to reject it on theological grounds, I can respect that. I wouldn't understand it, but I think it is respectable.

its always good to pass the respect around :wink:

It is a term created by the popular media in reference to transitional fossils.

so does that not mean they are one in the same ? :-?

missing link = hypothetical organism formerly thought to be intermediate between apes and human beings

There is no singular or multiple missing links that are needed to prove evolution. In fact, you really will never be able to "prove evolution". Heck, we will never be able to prove gravity. Thats not how science works

nothing is proven in science correct.

There are transitional fossils. These will be found all of the time. Evolution does not depend on them for support. When a new fossil is found, it is used to give evidence of common ancestry of certain species. Scientist arent going, "Wow this really proves evolution!" Its more like, well this gives weight that species A and species B share a common ancestor.

Does not depend on them for support ? are you yanking my chain ?
why are scientists trying so desperately to find them then ?

If some new device were invented today that helped scientist locate every single fossil in existence, there would still be "missing links" as there are many species whos individuals did not die in a manner that preserved any of them. Some species never got the chance to produce sufficient numbers to increase the likely hood of at least one being preserved.

but you would find enough to support transition ? this is a fairly tale, an assumption, this bears no evidential weight.

The "missing link" is just a tactic used by Hoviend's to mislead.

Why is everyone always attacking hovind, shoot the message not the messenger, if he is wrong so what plenty of people have been wrong, he can't quite fix his mistakes because he is sitting in jail.
don't put anyone down without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

the term missing link is not a hovind tactic

It is a term created by the popular media in reference to transitional fossils.

they are the same :wink:

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Does not depend on them for support ? are you yanking my chain ?
why are scientists trying so desperately to find them then ?

It certainly isn’t to prove evolution. There are many many theories within evolution that depend on fossils for weight. For instance, the question on what happened to the dinos. Did they evolve into birds? This would certainly need a lot of fossil evidence. But, if that theory fails, it bears nothing on evolution.

The are many competing theories in human evolution as well. These all depend on fossils, although genetics is playing a huge role. Genetics will dramatically change what we know on human evolution in the coming years.

You are muddling all of the theories into one big title, Evolution. That is where you are mis-stepping.

but you would find enough to support transition ? this is a fairly tale, an assumption, this bears no evidential weight.

When you say transition, you should really be more specific. What transition are you referring to?

Why is everyone always attacking hovind, shoot the message not the messenger, if he is wrong so what plenty of people have been wrong, he can't quite fix his mistakes because he is sitting in jail.
don't put anyone down without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

the term missing link is not a hovind tactic

Because he was a corrupt charlatan.

I actually met him in person in highschool. I was forced to attend one of his seminars. He was nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show. A con man.

Shoot the message and messenger on this one.

they are the same

Not really. Missing link gives the impression that they are desperately trying to find this one piece of evidence.

There are tons of transitional fossils to be found, and many more that never will be. Missing link isn’t really used in the scientific community. Only in creationist sites and seminars to confuse the viewers. Pure smoke screen tactic.

Though I guess it is a semantics thing, it really is important to accurately understand.

 

[John]

It certainly isn’t to prove evolution. There are many many theories within evolution that depend on fossils for weight. For instance, the question on what happened to the dinos. Did they evolve into birds? This would certainly need a lot of fossil evidence. But, if that theory fails, it bears nothing on evolution.

The are many competing theories in human evolution as well. These all depend on fossils, although genetics is playing a huge role. Genetics will dramatically change what we know on human evolution in the coming years.

You are muddling all of the theories into one big title, Evolution. That is where you are mis-stepping.

i am talking about dinos to birds and apes to humans, if you wish to talk about another part of the theory go for it

When you say transition, you should really be more specific. What transition are you referring to?

any.

Because he was a corrupt charlatan.

I actually met him in person in highschool. I was forced to attend one of his seminars. He was nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show. A con man.

Shoot the message and messenger on this one.

forced? like it was bad thing, you could have just skipped off 8-)

Not really. Missing link gives the impression that they are desperately trying to find this one piece of evidence.

are they not ?

There are tons of transitional fossils to be found, and many more that never will be. Missing link isn’t really used in the scientific community. Only in creationist sites and seminars to confuse the viewers. Pure smoke screen tactic.

but until they are found you have not much to go by, the "transitional fossils " Are a smoke screen for the easily deceived.

Though I guess it is a semantics thing, it really is important to accurately understand.

thats what i am trying to do.. understand...understand why peopling take this in without gagging, (for lack of a better term)

 

[Heidi]

It certainly isn’t to prove evolution. There are many many theories within evolution that depend on fossils for weight. For instance, the question on what happened to the dinos. Did they evolve into birds? This would certainly need a lot of fossil evidence. But, if that theory fails, it bears nothing on evolution.

The are many competing theories in human evolution as well. These all depend on fossils, although genetics is playing a huge role. Genetics will dramatically change what we know on human evolution in the coming years.

You are muddling all of the theories into one big title, Evolution. That is where you are mis-stepping.

i am talking about dinos to birds and apes to humans, if you wish to talk about another part of the theory go for it


[quote:055be]When you say transition, you should really be more specific. What transition are you referring to?

any.

Because he was a corrupt charlatan.

I actually met him in person in highschool. I was forced to attend one of his seminars. He was nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show. A con man.

Shoot the message and messenger on this one.

forced? like it was bad thing, you could have just skipped off 8-)

Not really. Missing link gives the impression that they are desperately trying to find this one piece of evidence.

are they not ?

There are tons of transitional fossils to be found, and many more that never will be. Missing link isn’t really used in the scientific community. Only in creationist sites and seminars to confuse the viewers. Pure smoke screen tactic.

but until they are found you have not much to go by, the "transitional fossils " Are a smoke screen for the easily deceived.

Though I guess it is a semantics thing, it really is important to accurately understand.

thats what i am trying to do.. understand...understand why peopling take this in without gagging, (for lack of a better term)[/quote:055be]

Their findings are nothing different than a child finding a bone in the dirt and exclaiming; "Mommy, this bone look like a talking gorilla! I think I'll give it a name." ;-)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

i am talking about dinos to birds and apes to humans, if you wish to talk about another part of the theory go for it

But that’s the thing. There is no singular theory that says one day there was soup. Then came simple life, then dinos and small mammals, then dinos became birds, etc etc.

There are many individual theories on what became what.

It is not combined.

Evolution says we evolve. Not necessarily into what, or even how.

are they not ?

nope

but until they are found you have not much to go by, the "transitional fossils " Are a smoke screen for the easily deceived.

again because evolution is a constant process, there are tons of transitional fossils. This goes back to the misunderstanding of the theory.

thats what i am trying to do.. understand...understand why peopling take this in without gagging, (for lack of a better term)

Maybe you gag because you really do not understand it. I implore you to read more about it.

 

[Heidi]

i am talking about dinos to birds and apes to humans, if you wish to talk about another part of the theory go for it

But that’s the thing. There is no singular theory that says one day there was soup. Then came simple life, then dinos and small mammals, then dinos became birds, etc etc.

There are many individual theories on what became what.

It is not combined.

Evolution says we evolve. Not necessarily into what, or even how.

[quote:848fe] are they not ?

nope

but until they are found you have not much to go by, the "transitional fossils " Are a smoke screen for the easily deceived.

again because evolution is a constant process, there are tons of transitional fossils. This goes back to the misunderstanding of the theory.

thats what i am trying to do.. understand...understand why peopling take this in without gagging, (for lack of a better term)

Maybe you gag because you really do not understand it. I implore you to read more about it.[/quote:848fe]

And all the theories are discarded by the wayside as each person who claims to know better than God does looks as foolish as the next. ;-) But that's what delusions of grandeur do; they make one look foolish just to spend an eternity in hell. Poor souls. :roll:

Evolution is a process? Then why did apes suddenly stop turning into humans since there've been witnesses? :o After all, they had already started the process. So why did they stop? :o Maybe they were just too tired. : Way too many contradictions. Way too many. :

 

[Dunzo]

They didn't stop you dullard. The human species is evolving as we speak.

 

[Heidi]

They didn't stop you dullard. The human species is evolving as we speak.

Again, they already supposedly evolved into humans. So why did they stop? What ape offsrping is tunrning into a human being? None. So since you have no evidence for your claims, your comment is as false as it can be.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

And all the theories are discarded by the wayside as each person who claims to know better than God does looks as foolish as the next. But that's what delusions of grandeur do; they make one look foolish just to spend an eternity in hell. Poor souls.

I find it quite nice to realize that when a theory looses its support its thrown by wayside :P

That is what science is all about. Not defending a position just because you want it to be that way.

Evolution is a process? Then why did apes suddenly stop turning into humans since there've been witnesses? After all, they had already started the process. So why did they stop? Maybe they were just too tired. Way too many contradictions. Way too many.

You really just cut and past your old arguments don’t you.

You said the same thing before on an old post, and somebody pointed out to you the idocy of your statements. You then stopped posting and started a new thread now.

Watch out for the light Heidi. Wouldn’t want it to turn you to stone.

 

[Heidi]

And all the theories are discarded by the wayside as each person who claims to know better than God does looks as foolish as the next. But that's what delusions of grandeur do; they make one look foolish just to spend an eternity in hell. Poor souls.

I find it quite nice to realize that when a theory looses its support its thrown by wayside :P

That is what science is all about. Not defending a position just because you want it to be that way.

[quote:7c12d] Evolution is a process? Then why did apes suddenly stop turning into humans since there've been witnesses? After all, they had already started the process. So why did they stop? Maybe they were just too tired. Way too many contradictions. Way too many.

You really just cut and past your old arguments don’t you.

You said the same thing before on an old post, and somebody pointed out to you the idocy of your statements. You then stopped posting and started a new thread now.

Watch out for the light Heidi. Wouldn’t want it to turn you to stone.[/quote:7c12d]

Since most of your posts have been nothing but personal attacks, then you have refuted none of our posts. But when one can't refute a post and can't admit he's wrong, then personal attacks is all he has. :roll: So I feel sorry for you.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Actually with anyone else but you I strive to have a fruitful conversation.

You are not on here for intelligent conversation, so why should I try with you?

Remember, you just like saying "monkey cant breed humans. Species dont change. Your going to hell if you believe in evolution"

Why would any of those warrant a sincere response? They're just ridiculous and very troll like.

Anyone that tries to seriously debate with you is wasting their time.

*edited for spelling multiple times. Hey, I haven't had my coffee yet

 

[Vic C.]

Dunzo,

Could you kindly replace your signature? Thanks.


Heidi,

Your reasons for refuting evolution are understandable, but your methods...
You need to sharpen your strategy. If this was a court of law and you were the prosecutor, you'd be hit with a mass of objections and the judge would probably call a mistrial.

I'm not a believer in the idea that we share a genetic line with any other part of creation, but I do understand the evolutionary process as they teach it. You are grossly misrepresenting their side.

They require empirical proof for all that surrounds them, for whatever reasons. Maybe some are believers but are still analytical in some areas. Maybe some are agnostic and some are atheist. Your faith will always be a stumbling block, for them... and for you. That's not a put down at all; your faith is very simple and fundamental and we can respect that, but respect works both ways.

Let the past be a guiding light. I'm not saying these people are right, but lets not forget the great works of men like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. They were men of faith, but were not treated as such by the Church. Nevertheless, they forever changed the relationship between Faith and science.

Science is not just a bunch of people looking to disprove God; for many, science is a tool used to try and figure out God's methods of Creation.

 

[Heidi]

Dunzo,

Could you kindly replace your signature? Thanks.


Heidi,

Your reasons for refuting evolution are understandable, but your methods...
You need to sharpen your strategy. If this was a court of law and you were the prosecutor, you'd be hit with a mass of objections and the judge would probably call a mistrial.

I'm not a believer in the idea that we share a genetic line with any other part of creation, but I do understand the evolutionary process as they teach it. You are grossly misrepresenting their side.

They require empirical proof for all that surrounds them, for whatever reasons. Maybe some are believers but are still analytical in some areas. Maybe some are agnostic and some are atheist. Your faith will always be a stumbling block, for them... and for you. That's not a put down at all; your faith is very simple and fundamental and we can respect that, but respect works both ways.

Let the past be a guiding light. I'm not saying these people are right, but lets not forget the great works of men like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. They were men of faith, but were not treated as such by the Church. Nevertheless, they forever changed the relationship between Faith and science.

Science is not just a bunch of people looking to disprove God; for many, science is a tool used to try and figure out God's methods of Creation.

That is incorrect. They are claiming that an ape can breed a human descendant. Since they call humans apes, they believe that makes it possible. It does not. And the only way for themto see that is to see why no animal can breed a human descendant any more than a human can breed an ape or any other animal.

So instead of engaging in their talk tangles that are intended to confuse the lay person, I tell the simple truth.

You are also incorrect about the theory of evolution. If Darwin believed Genes 2:7, then he would not have looked for an alternate theory of the origins of man. In fact, Darwin states that he didn't believe in God which is one of the reasons his theory was not taken seriously in the beginning.

In addition, if scientists believed the bible, then they would not have invented a 4.5 billion year old earth theory of even looked for it. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then Adam who was created on the 6th day would have been millions of years old by the time of the fall, which is ludicrous. So scientists believe their theories over God's word. I also saw a movie on Stephen Hawking where the top scientists said that their enemy was God. God is either right or they're right. So no, secular scientists are not out to prove the bible, but to disprove it.

Evolutionists know why a human can't breed an animal as a descendants any more than an animal can breed a human as a descendant which is why they're so angry when someone points it out. That's because they don't want to admit they're wrong, so they start attacking the messenger when they don't like the message just like they did to Jesus. And that's what they do with me and others who can see through their ridiculous theory. So blaming me for their theory that has brainwashed our children into believing that they came from wild animals and are no better than monkeys is a waste of time. They reap what they sow.

And most importantly, Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." One cannot be both. Either scientists are for God and out to prove him right or they're against God and out to prove him wrong. That's because we are either ruled by Satan or by God. So I believe Jesus over any man any day. No one who believes in God would even think about proving him wrong. So we all stand for something, Vic. We're either for God or against him as Jesus says.

 

[Vic C.]

So Copernicus and Galileo were not believers? God is their Judge, not us. Most of my post went over your head anyway. You totally missed my point. :-?

So, here's my solution... either come up with better and more logical rebuttals or don't bother posting in the Science Forum any longer. There's no compromising of Faith there, just represent your Faith in a better way. I know you can do it. ;-)

Lets shift topics for a moment. If Archeology found something that proves God and Christianity, would you rebuke it? After all, archeology is a form of science. 8-)

 

[Heidi]

So Copernicus and Galileo were not believers? God is their Judge, not us. Most of my post went over your head anyway. You totally missed my point. :-?

So, here's my solution... either come up with better and more logical rebuttals or don't bother posting in the Science Forum any longer. There's no compromising of Faith there, just represent your Faith in a better way. I know you can do it. ;-)

Lets shift topics for a moment. If Archeology found something that proves God and Christianity, would you rebuke it? After all, archeology is a form of science. 8-)

Again, as I've said many times, when scientists agree with God, they are always right. When they disagree with God, they are always wrong. But any theory that goes to such ridiculous extremes as evolution and the 4.5 billion year old earth doesn't give a hoot about what God says. So they are against God. But by enlarge, most scientists are secular unless they state otherwise. It's those who are out to disprove God.

 

[Heidi]

But I do want to add that we must be careful when putting people on a pedastel as having the infallible truth. As isaiah 2;22 says; "Stop trusting in man who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?"

Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men!"

That includes Gallileo, Newton and others who have merely,finally observed part of God's creation correctly...at least, we think. They were still fallible human beings who can't be 100% correct. Only God is 100% correct. It's precisely the hero-worship of scientists that has allowed people to blindly accept evolution as a fact instead of seeing that scientists are just as fallible as anyone else. If they knew that scientists were fallible, then they wouldn't abandon their common and sense and could easily see through the ridiculous theory of evolution.

 

[John]

i already posted to 100% truth about the reason they accept evolution .

In the last few decades, numerous scientists have publicly admitted that their real reason for accepting and promoting the theory of evolution is that, although the scientific evidence for macro evolution is non-existent, the only logical alternative was special creation by God.
Since that biblical alternative was absolutely unacceptable to their atheistic convictions, thousands of scientists chose to ignore the evidence they encountered in their own field that proved that chance and mutations could never explain the marvelous design and biological complexity that life displays
Prof L.T More, with the university of Cincinnati , spoke of the "faith" in evolution when he acknowledged the conflict between personal belief and scientific evidence" Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" Prof More acknowledged the profound philosophical problem faced by scientists when they confronted the overwhelming problems now facing the ToE,

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation [evolution] ; [for] the only alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act or super natural creation. there is no third position, For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity"

Significantly, British astronomer Pro Fed hoyle acknowledged that enormous problems existed with the ToE. Holye actually admitted that the only reason the ToE is still so wildly accepted in the scientific community, despite the virtual lack of scientific evidence , is due to the need of atheistic people to deny the scientific evidence that God created the universe. Remarkably, prof Holye wrote that the ToE survived despite that lack of evidence becuase the theory is "considered socially desirable and even essential to the peace of mind of the body politic.

 

[Heidi]

i already posted to 100% truth about the reason they accept evolution .

In the last few decades, numerous scientists have publicly admitted that their real reason for accepting and promoting the theory of evolution is that, although the scientific evidence for macro evolution is non-existent, the only logical alternative was special creation by God.
Since that biblical alternative was absolutely unacceptable to their atheistic convictions, thousands of scientists chose to ignore the evidence they encountered in their own field that proved that chance and mutations could never explain the marvelous design and biological complexity that life displays
Prof L.T More, with the university of Cincinnati , spoke of the "faith" in evolution when he acknowledged the conflict between personal belief and scientific evidence" Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" Prof More acknowledged the profound philosophical problem faced by scientists when they confronted the overwhelming problems now facing the ToE,

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation [evolution] ; [for] the only alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act or super natural creation. there is no third position, For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity"

Significantly, British astronomer Pro Fed hoyle acknowledged that enormous problems existed with the ToE. Holye actually admitted that the only reason the ToE is still so wildly accepted in the scientific community, despite the virtual lack of scientific evidence , is due to the need of atheistic people to deny the scientific evidence that God created the universe. Remarkably, prof Holye wrote that the ToE survived despite that lack of evidence becuase the theory is "considered socially desirable and even essential to the peace of mind of the body politic.

I've been saying it for years. But what proves me right, is that people have to wait for a scientist to say the same thing I've been saying. That's because people blindly believe that only scientists have the God's honest truth. : But here's what Jesus says about to whom God reveals the truth:

Matthew 11:25, "I praise you good Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for hiding these things from the wise and learned and revealing them to little children. For that was your good pleasure."

In order for scientific theories to gain popularity, they have to be accepted by the world. that means they have to agree with worldly wisdom, not spiritual wisdom. But as God says, "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in his sight." So most top scientists will disagree with God's word and use worldly wisdom for their theories to be accepted by the world.