Do you believe in evolution?

jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
Jmick you sure are familiar with the Bible,sound like you may have been close to GOD at some point.Mind if i ask why your so P'ed-off at GOD?
If there is indeed a god I have no issues with it. My personal views of what god is are vastly different from the Christian view. Something all powerful and vast would not posses human traits such as vengeance, hate, judgmental, wrath, etc. Look at who is going to heaven and hell. The vast majority of the Christian world is white and everyone else is non white (those doomed to hell for not believing…odd huh). I was raised as a fairly devote Catholic and what first got me is the notion that I need a priest to talk to god. Later in life I dated a girl whose father was a Baptist minister and I found their thoughts and ideals to be lacking. I am a free thinker who perceives what god could be to be much more grandiose then what it is actually made out to be in Christianity.
People make these claims that there are no contridictions and truth be told there are many. The messages in the Old Test and the New Test could not be futher apart and they are supposedly from the same god, surely Jesus dying for our sins could not account for that.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
If there is indeed a god I have no issues with it. My personal views of what god is are vastly different from the Christian view. Something all powerful and vast would not posses human traits such as vengeance, hate, judgmental, wrath, etc. Look at who is going to heaven and hell. The vast majority of the Christian world is white and everyone else is non white (those doomed to hell for not believing…odd huh). I was raised as a fairly devote Catholic and what first got me is the notion that I need a priest to talk to god. Later in life I dated a girl whose father was a Baptist minister and I found their thoughts and ideals to be lacking. I am a free thinker who perceives what god could be to be much more grandiose then what it is actually made out to be in Christianity.
People make these claims that there are no contridictions and truth be told there are many. The messages in the Old Test and the New Test could not be futher apart and they are supposedly from the same god, surely Jesus dying for our sins could not account for that.
Ok i understand where you are coming from now.Its the organized religion that you are at odds with and not the concept of GOD.
Sorry for getting off track of the topic.I was just curious.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
Hello?
Anybody there?
CONGRATS!!!!!!

You are the 1000th post to this thread.And your prize is...............................
You get to decide if GOD created MAN.
or
We came to be via monkeys.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
CONGRATS!!!!!!

You are the 1000th post to this thread.And your prize is...............................
You get to decide if GOD created MAN.
or
We came to be via monkeys.

um....wow, I didn't even realize I wasted the 1000th post with such meaningless drivel.
I believe God created man.
(never realized how handy this guy was)
 
garnet13aj

garnet13aj

Active Member
The Scientific Process? Here is the Webster's definition of Science
Well, first of all, sthe scientific process is not exactly the same as science. It is the process one goes through to test a hypothesis and come to a conclusion. That is what I'm referring to when I say the scientific process. Whether or not one takes to heart what is observed in a scientific experiment to be true or not. For some people on this thread, seeing is not believing.
As far as entropy is being flung around to disprove evolution. There's something that's obviously not being understood here. Yes, the entropy of the universe is always decreasing, but that doesn't mean everthing in the universe is decreasing. If energy is put into a system, work can be done to counteract entropy for a particular bit of the universe and this increase in order will be counterbalanced by a decrease in order in a different part of the universe. So I'm not sure where you're going with the whole entropy arguement.
I believe I have said this before, but I will repeat it.
It would be useful for people who want to disprove evolution to atleast have an accurate general idea of the theory and the methods used in the scientific method.
It would also be a good idea to investigate actual primary sources instead of relying on people who support your opinion to provide you with information that is often misrepresented or based on a flawed assumptions.
here, here!
If you don't believe in the Bible than ask yourself this how could a book that is written by many different people over thousands of years still not contradict itself or anything like that?
hahahahaha, are you kidding yourself. The Bible has plenty of contradictions in it. To name a few:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abes_sons.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/all_saved.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
No, I meant dinosaurs... Google Mokele Mbembe.
I'll address the rest of this post in the morning...
Mokele Mbembe is clearly a folkloric being, on a par with the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. There are no, repeat, no verified sightings or findings to confirm the existence of this being, so whether it is a dinosaur or not is an open question. Either way, whether or not dinosaurs exist or not today has absolutely no bearing on evolution. There are other reptiles today, and their form and existence are evidence, in fact, in support of evolutionary theory.
 
deltablack22

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Mokele Mbembe is clearly a folkloric being, on a par with the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. There are no, repeat, no verified sightings or findings to confirm the existence of this being, so whether it is a dinosaur or not is an open question. Either way, whether or not dinosaurs exist or not today has absolutely no bearing on evolution. There are other reptiles today, and their form and existence are evidence, in fact, in support of evolutionary theory.
Reptiles are not by any means supportive of evolutionary theory. Your trying to say that they are a link between fish and birds - this is a poor thought process. Macro evolution is a tired issue that simply does not exist and cannot be proven - so save your breath. Reptiles produce reptiles not birds. Can you even show me a lizard with feathers that didnt come from a graphical artist trying to place that false image into peoples heads?
 
deltablack22

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by garnet13aj
hahahahaha, are you kidding yourself. The Bible has plenty of contradictions in it. To name a few:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abes_sons.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/all_saved.html
I didnt even bother to look at the last two links you posted since the first one touted, as you claim "to contradict the bible" is based solely on the authors perceptions. I believe YOU are the one kidding yourself.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Reptiles are not by any means supportive of evolutionary theory. Your trying to say that they are a link between fish and birds - this is a poor thought process. Macro evolution is a tired issue that simply does not exist and cannot be proven - so save your breath. Reptiles produce reptiles not birds. Can you even show me a lizard with feathers that didnt come from a graphical artist trying to place that false image into peoples heads?
No, I am saying that reptiles today have no exact duplicates in the fossil record, but do have predecessors. As for a lizard with feathers, try archaeopteryx .
 
deltablack22

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
No, I am saying that reptiles today have no exact duplicates in the fossil record, but do have predecessors. As for a lizard with feathers, try archaeopteryx .
Yeah I'm way ahead of you. I googled "lizard with feathers" knowing that you would ask me about some obscure garbage like archaeopteryx. I saw it, read about it and the artist rendentions are great...
That DINOSAUR was found in 1861 in Bavaria next to a single feather... so they said "Wow Jessup, looks lieuk wee got urselves a feathured tayled diN-O-saur". Hardly your dinosaur - bird missing link.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Yeah I'm way ahead of you. I googled "lizard with feathers" knowing that you would ask me about some obscure garbage like archaeopteryx. I saw it, read about it and the artist rendentions are great...
That DINOSAUR was found in 1861 in Bavaria next to a single feather... so they said "Wow Jessup, looks lieuk wee got urselves a feathured tayled diN-O-saur". Hardly your dinosaur - bird missing link.
You are exactly right, but only if you ignore the seven other more complete specimens of archaeopteryx that have been found since. And I won't even ask you to consider Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, since that would certainly show that if you consider all of the data, then your assertion about "Jessup" is just more of the usual partial truth parading as sound logic when partial truth is, by definition, partial lie.
 
deltablack22

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
You are exactly right, but only if you ignore the seven other more complete specimens of archaeopteryx that have been found since. And I won't even ask you to consider Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, since that would certainly show that if you consider all of the data, then your assertion about "Jessup" is just more of the usual partial truth parading as sound logic when partial truth is, by definition, partial lie.
Evolutionists parade partial truths as facts all the time, or partial lies if you like that term better. Since you cant actually prove that macro evolution exists yet you tout it as fact, then based on your assertion you are a liar.
Perhaps we could throw big party with the theme "Liar". I'll wear my hillbilly redeck costume and you wear your feathery dinosaur costume...
I think after all that I have participated in this thread I'm done with it now. Thats why I quit posting there for awhile. We're all just a bunch of dogs chasing our own tails with fancy words and this thread is still the same old "he said she said" argument.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Evolutionists parade partial truths as facts all the time, or partial lies if you like that term better. Since you cant actually prove that macro evolution exists yet you tout it as fact, then based on your assertion you are a liar.
Actually, what I said was that I cannot prove that "macro evolution" exists. I simply assert that all of the scientific data are consistent with evolution being a correct explanation for the observed events. That assertion is plainly true, so I guess I'm not a liar after all. BTW, I put "macroevolution" in quotes because it may, in fact, not exist. It is a term coined by creationists to create a straw dog.
 
darknes

darknes

Active Member
Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Yeah I'm way ahead of you. I googled "lizard with feathers" knowing that you would ask me about some obscure garbage like archaeopteryx. I saw it, read about it and the artist rendentions are great...
That DINOSAUR was found in 1861 in Bavaria next to a single feather... so they said "Wow Jessup, looks lieuk wee got urselves a feathured tayled diN-O-saur". Hardly your dinosaur - bird missing link.
Why is a reptile-bird so hard for you to believe? It's possible, it was even mentioned in the bible:
http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/archaeopteryx.htm
 
clown boy

clown boy

Active Member
What makes you all think that it's a transitional form? It's a bird! Ostriches have that same kind of head, and they also have those claws on the wings.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
What makes you all think that it's a transitional form? It's a bird! Ostriches have that same kind of head, and they also have those claws on the wings.
Good point - there are many birds that have vestigal claws on their wings, which is in agreement with predictions made by the theory of evolution. However, they are not functional claws, just vestiges of variable incidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top