|
|
| Macro-Evolution to be proved false? |
| yes |
|
57% |
[ 8 ] |
| no |
|
42% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:51 pm
Aenik Canar Yeah convince people that there is no hope just life. How are those mutually exclusive?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:22 pm
freelance lover Aenik Canar freelance lover Sarcastic_Angel Evolution is completely wrong. All Christians know and believe this. And I think we have plently of evidence to prove it wrong. And I don't think that scientists have enough evidence to prove evolution true. In fact I think we've been proving their hypothesis wrong sicne the idea came around, they've just been to blind and unwilling to see the truth. I don't think we'll ever be able to prove them wrong ourselves though. They won't believe us. But I wouldn't worry. They'll come around when they die and see God on judgement day.
"Macro-evolution" is a theory, much like the theory of the existance of an electron or a proton. It cannot be proven directly, however we have enough evidence to suggest that our theory is similar to how things actually are.
It's very obvious that within species evolution occurs- no one can deny that. Now can that evolution lead to the creation of a new species- why not? Though that comes down to humans determining that it's a new species. We say "the genes of this animal are so different it must not become it's own species."
Could we prove it false? Sure. Could we prove it true? Absolutely.
However, if it is in fact a true theory, then it obviously came from God seeing as it deals with how the living being works.
@Aenik: Wings do not equate feathers. Bats have wings and I don't see any feathers on them. Heck- there are flying squirrels, with fur. Furthermore, penguins have featherless (or rather, not the typical bird feather) wings and arre flightless. Heck, ostritches have huge plumes of feathers, and yet they are flightless.
Just because something doesn't match up with what you believe, doesn't mean it's a hoax. There is a truth out there, and I promise it's compatible with God's great plan. Afterall- he made everythingI Was Talking About The Theory of How Dinosaurs turned into Birds And Evolution like that is absolutely Stupid And Of Course The Gene difference between Bird Mammal and Reptile types are Simply Micro Evolution over at least 5,000 Years Evolution By far wasn't Darwin's Theory Micro Evolution Was. Not Dinosaurs turning into Birds over 600 million Years AS You should notice ten years ago it was 10 million Obviously an escuse for the reptile to Bird transformation. (I'm Not trying to Sound Offensive but What i say is True.)
Is there a theory about dinosaurs turning into birds? The last I checked the generally accepted story was that most dinosaurs were extinct by some sort of asteroid or something hitting the earth and causing massive destruction. Few animals (largely aquatic animals or reptiles) were left alive and after the climate of the earth changed new ecosystems developed from that.
Also- Dinosaurs were said to go extinct what... millions of years ago, yes? I used to know the actual number, but I don't. I feel like it's either 65 or 6.5.. but that's a large different. Regardless, it was a long time ago.
Other than that, I don't really understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that if birds evolved from Dinosaurs it was all micro evolution just over a prolonged period of time. If that's the case, you're pretty much giving a different name to the already widely accepted theory. If you argue that then why can't you argue that one upon a time humans resembled modern apes and it's just micro evolution over an extended period of time?
If I've misinterpreted anything you've said sorry, I just don't really understand everything you're saying.Sorry I was trying to point out the flaws in the evolutionary theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:26 pm
Lethkhar Aenik Canar Yeah convince people that there is no hope just life. How are those mutually exclusive? First of all Evolutionists are arguing and not living what they believe They waste their time debating if they believe the evolutionary theory they could be living their dream but they waste time arguing about a theory that has more against it than for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:33 pm
Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Yeah convince people that there is no hope just life. How are those mutually exclusive? First of all Evolutionists are arguing and not living what they believe They waste their time debating if they believe the evolutionary theory they could be living their dream but they waste time arguing about a theory that has more against it than for it. What on earth are you talking about? Scientists are living their dream by finding evidence for evolution. It's their profession. They want to learn. As for arguing for/against it...Really, it's the fundies that even brought it up as a debate. Aren't you guys the ones who are wasting time? As far as I'm concerned, there's about as much up for debate as there is for gravity. I don't spend a whole lot of time arguing about this, and I definitely do everything else I want to do first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:49 pm
Lethkhar Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Yeah convince people that there is no hope just life. How are those mutually exclusive? First of all Evolutionists are arguing and not living what they believe They waste their time debating if they believe the evolutionary theory they could be living their dream but they waste time arguing about a theory that has more against it than for it. What on earth are you talking about? Scientists are living their dream by finding evidence for evolution. It's their profession. They want to learn. As for arguing for/against it...Really, it's the fundies that even brought it up as a debate. Aren't you guys the ones who are wasting time? As far as I'm concerned, there's about as much up for debate as there is for gravity. I don't spend a whole lot of time arguing about this, and I definitely do everything else I want to do first. When did they actually "find" evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:22 pm
Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Yeah convince people that there is no hope just life. How are those mutually exclusive? First of all Evolutionists are arguing and not living what they believe They waste their time debating if they believe the evolutionary theory they could be living their dream but they waste time arguing about a theory that has more against it than for it. What on earth are you talking about? Scientists are living their dream by finding evidence for evolution. It's their profession. They want to learn. As for arguing for/against it...Really, it's the fundies that even brought it up as a debate. Aren't you guys the ones who are wasting time? As far as I'm concerned, there's about as much up for debate as there is for gravity. I don't spend a whole lot of time arguing about this, and I definitely do everything else I want to do first. When did they actually "find" evidence? Oh, they've been doing it since the 1830's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:54 pm
Lethkhar Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Yeah convince people that there is no hope just life. How are those mutually exclusive? First of all Evolutionists are arguing and not living what they believe They waste their time debating if they believe the evolutionary theory they could be living their dream but they waste time arguing about a theory that has more against it than for it. What on earth are you talking about? Scientists are living their dream by finding evidence for evolution. It's their profession. They want to learn. As for arguing for/against it...Really, it's the fundies that even brought it up as a debate. Aren't you guys the ones who are wasting time? As far as I'm concerned, there's about as much up for debate as there is for gravity. I don't spend a whole lot of time arguing about this, and I definitely do everything else I want to do first. When did they actually "find" evidence? Oh, they've been doing it since the 1830's. it's true but not proof for the Evolutionary theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:46 pm
Aenik Canar freelance lover Aenik Canar freelance lover Sarcastic_Angel Evolution is completely wrong. All Christians know and believe this. And I think we have plently of evidence to prove it wrong. And I don't think that scientists have enough evidence to prove evolution true. In fact I think we've been proving their hypothesis wrong sicne the idea came around, they've just been to blind and unwilling to see the truth. I don't think we'll ever be able to prove them wrong ourselves though. They won't believe us. But I wouldn't worry. They'll come around when they die and see God on judgement day.
"Macro-evolution" is a theory, much like the theory of the existance of an electron or a proton. It cannot be proven directly, however we have enough evidence to suggest that our theory is similar to how things actually are.
It's very obvious that within species evolution occurs- no one can deny that. Now can that evolution lead to the creation of a new species- why not? Though that comes down to humans determining that it's a new species. We say "the genes of this animal are so different it must not become it's own species."
Could we prove it false? Sure. Could we prove it true? Absolutely.
However, if it is in fact a true theory, then it obviously came from God seeing as it deals with how the living being works.
@Aenik: Wings do not equate feathers. Bats have wings and I don't see any feathers on them. Heck- there are flying squirrels, with fur. Furthermore, penguins have featherless (or rather, not the typical bird feather) wings and arre flightless. Heck, ostritches have huge plumes of feathers, and yet they are flightless.
Just because something doesn't match up with what you believe, doesn't mean it's a hoax. There is a truth out there, and I promise it's compatible with God's great plan. Afterall- he made everythingI Was Talking About The Theory of How Dinosaurs turned into Birds And Evolution like that is absolutely Stupid And Of Course The Gene difference between Bird Mammal and Reptile types are Simply Micro Evolution over at least 5,000 Years Evolution By far wasn't Darwin's Theory Micro Evolution Was. Not Dinosaurs turning into Birds over 600 million Years AS You should notice ten years ago it was 10 million Obviously an escuse for the reptile to Bird transformation. (I'm Not trying to Sound Offensive but What i say is True.)
Is there a theory about dinosaurs turning into birds? The last I checked the generally accepted story was that most dinosaurs were extinct by some sort of asteroid or something hitting the earth and causing massive destruction. Few animals (largely aquatic animals or reptiles) were left alive and after the climate of the earth changed new ecosystems developed from that.
Also- Dinosaurs were said to go extinct what... millions of years ago, yes? I used to know the actual number, but I don't. I feel like it's either 65 or 6.5.. but that's a large different. Regardless, it was a long time ago.
Other than that, I don't really understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that if birds evolved from Dinosaurs it was all micro evolution just over a prolonged period of time. If that's the case, you're pretty much giving a different name to the already widely accepted theory. If you argue that then why can't you argue that one upon a time humans resembled modern apes and it's just micro evolution over an extended period of time?
If I've misinterpreted anything you've said sorry, I just don't really understand everything you're saying.Sorry I was trying to point out the flaws in the evolutionary theory.
You said something about dinosaurs turning into birds as a theory- as far as I know that's a view very few people hold- I'm calling a straw man.
And I didn't really understand the 5,000 years point? Are you saying birds evolved from dinosaurs over 5,000 years? If so, you are sorely mistaken. The Epic of Gilgamesh was orally passed on and compiled in about 2500 BCE- a little under 5,000 years ago. Meaning there had to be a good period of time between the writing of that text and mankind to become "civilized." Mankind was around long before we organized ourselves into a society. Last I checked, humans and dinosaurs did not live side by side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:30 pm
freelance lover Aenik Canar freelance lover Aenik Canar freelance lover Sarcastic_Angel Evolution is completely wrong. All Christians know and believe this. And I think we have plently of evidence to prove it wrong. And I don't think that scientists have enough evidence to prove evolution true. In fact I think we've been proving their hypothesis wrong sicne the idea came around, they've just been to blind and unwilling to see the truth. I don't think we'll ever be able to prove them wrong ourselves though. They won't believe us. But I wouldn't worry. They'll come around when they die and see God on judgement day.
"Macro-evolution" is a theory, much like the theory of the existance of an electron or a proton. It cannot be proven directly, however we have enough evidence to suggest that our theory is similar to how things actually are.
It's very obvious that within species evolution occurs- no one can deny that. Now can that evolution lead to the creation of a new species- why not? Though that comes down to humans determining that it's a new species. We say "the genes of this animal are so different it must not become it's own species."
Could we prove it false? Sure. Could we prove it true? Absolutely.
However, if it is in fact a true theory, then it obviously came from God seeing as it deals with how the living being works.
@Aenik: Wings do not equate feathers. Bats have wings and I don't see any feathers on them. Heck- there are flying squirrels, with fur. Furthermore, penguins have featherless (or rather, not the typical bird feather) wings and arre flightless. Heck, ostritches have huge plumes of feathers, and yet they are flightless.
Just because something doesn't match up with what you believe, doesn't mean it's a hoax. There is a truth out there, and I promise it's compatible with God's great plan. Afterall- he made everythingI Was Talking About The Theory of How Dinosaurs turned into Birds And Evolution like that is absolutely Stupid And Of Course The Gene difference between Bird Mammal and Reptile types are Simply Micro Evolution over at least 5,000 Years Evolution By far wasn't Darwin's Theory Micro Evolution Was. Not Dinosaurs turning into Birds over 600 million Years AS You should notice ten years ago it was 10 million Obviously an escuse for the reptile to Bird transformation. (I'm Not trying to Sound Offensive but What i say is True.)
Is there a theory about dinosaurs turning into birds? The last I checked the generally accepted story was that most dinosaurs were extinct by some sort of asteroid or something hitting the earth and causing massive destruction. Few animals (largely aquatic animals or reptiles) were left alive and after the climate of the earth changed new ecosystems developed from that.
Also- Dinosaurs were said to go extinct what... millions of years ago, yes? I used to know the actual number, but I don't. I feel like it's either 65 or 6.5.. but that's a large different. Regardless, it was a long time ago.
Other than that, I don't really understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that if birds evolved from Dinosaurs it was all micro evolution just over a prolonged period of time. If that's the case, you're pretty much giving a different name to the already widely accepted theory. If you argue that then why can't you argue that one upon a time humans resembled modern apes and it's just micro evolution over an extended period of time?
If I've misinterpreted anything you've said sorry, I just don't really understand everything you're saying.Sorry I was trying to point out the flaws in the evolutionary theory.
You said something about dinosaurs turning into birds as a theory- as far as I know that's a view very few people hold- I'm calling a straw man.
And I didn't really understand the 5,000 years point? Are you saying birds evolved from dinosaurs over 5,000 years? If so, you are sorely mistaken. The Epic of Gilgamesh was orally passed on and compiled in about 2500 BCE- a little under 5,000 years ago. Meaning there had to be a good period of time between the writing of that text and mankind to become "civilized." Mankind was around long before we organized ourselves into a society. Last I checked, humans and dinosaurs did not live side by side.Actually Scientits Have found Fossil footprints proving that they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:32 pm
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:54 pm
First of all, may I see this proof of footprints proving birds evolved from dinosaurs over 5,000 years? I was pretty into palentology as a kid, and even today I'm fairly knowledgeable about that sort of stuff and I've never even heard of that.
Also, you see to know very little about the scientific procedure. While they start out with a hypothesis, they are unbiased. They do thousand of experiment to get the most accurate data- their preconcieved notions have nothing to do with the results they get. I'm fairly certain that the hundreds of scientist doing thousand of experiments and getting the same results well... that seems fairly reliable to me.
Often too, I don't think they have preconcieved notions. I think they say "I need to know X, so I'll do this experiment, which I've done before and I know how it works, to learn what I need to know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:45 am
Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar Lethkhar Aenik Canar First of all Evolutionists are arguing and not living what they believe They waste their time debating if they believe the evolutionary theory they could be living their dream but they waste time arguing about a theory that has more against it than for it. What on earth are you talking about? Scientists are living their dream by finding evidence for evolution. It's their profession. They want to learn. As for arguing for/against it...Really, it's the fundies that even brought it up as a debate. Aren't you guys the ones who are wasting time? As far as I'm concerned, there's about as much up for debate as there is for gravity. I don't spend a whole lot of time arguing about this, and I definitely do everything else I want to do first. When did they actually "find" evidence? Oh, they've been doing it since the 1830's. it's true but not proof for the Evolutionary theory. What?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:49 am
Aenik Canar freelance lover Aenik Canar freelance lover Aenik Canar I Was Talking About The Theory of How Dinosaurs turned into Birds And Evolution like that is absolutely Stupid And Of Course The Gene difference between Bird Mammal and Reptile types are Simply Micro Evolution over at least 5,000 Years Evolution By far wasn't Darwin's Theory Micro Evolution Was. Not Dinosaurs turning into Birds over 600 million Years AS You should notice ten years ago it was 10 million Obviously an escuse for the reptile to Bird transformation. (I'm Not trying to Sound Offensive but What i say is True.)
Is there a theory about dinosaurs turning into birds? The last I checked the generally accepted story was that most dinosaurs were extinct by some sort of asteroid or something hitting the earth and causing massive destruction. Few animals (largely aquatic animals or reptiles) were left alive and after the climate of the earth changed new ecosystems developed from that.
Also- Dinosaurs were said to go extinct what... millions of years ago, yes? I used to know the actual number, but I don't. I feel like it's either 65 or 6.5.. but that's a large different. Regardless, it was a long time ago.
Other than that, I don't really understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that if birds evolved from Dinosaurs it was all micro evolution just over a prolonged period of time. If that's the case, you're pretty much giving a different name to the already widely accepted theory. If you argue that then why can't you argue that one upon a time humans resembled modern apes and it's just micro evolution over an extended period of time?
If I've misinterpreted anything you've said sorry, I just don't really understand everything you're saying.Sorry I was trying to point out the flaws in the evolutionary theory.
You said something about dinosaurs turning into birds as a theory- as far as I know that's a view very few people hold- I'm calling a straw man.
And I didn't really understand the 5,000 years point? Are you saying birds evolved from dinosaurs over 5,000 years? If so, you are sorely mistaken. The Epic of Gilgamesh was orally passed on and compiled in about 2500 BCE- a little under 5,000 years ago. Meaning there had to be a good period of time between the writing of that text and mankind to become "civilized." Mankind was around long before we organized ourselves into a society. Last I checked, humans and dinosaurs did not live side by side.Actually Scientits Have found Fossil footprints proving that they did. Source, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:12 pm
 See the Footprints left Human, right Dinosaur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:27 pm
Aenik Canar See the Footprints left Human, right Dinosaur. And where were those footprints found? Please don't say Paluxy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
