Not dazzled by metamorphosis?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 2:16 AM GMT


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2011 6:31 AM GMT
    YOU ARE A JOKE! GO HOME! You can't come up with anything on your other forum so you make a new one? I'm sorry, but stop posting this creationism bullshit. You give Christians a rotten name.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2011 4:00 AM GMT
    swmrh911:YOU ARE A JOKE! GO HOME! You can't come up with anything on your other forum so you make a new one? I'm sorry, but stop posting this creationism bulls**t. You give Christians a rotten name.

    jockfever: The other video is a humorous look at the theory of evolution; this one is a serious look at evidence of Intelligence which transcends the natural world. Two different videos, two different topics, brainiac.

    A mentality which holds itself out as scientific but is seething with hate, anger, foul language, and a desire for censorship is a bad joke.

    A Lib is a person who advocates unfettered scientific research and debate, but then, with no evidence, simply declares discussions about evolution and global warming closed. (Ann Coulter in Demonic).

    "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" Professor Soren Lovtrup, embryologist.

    Observes Nobel-laureate physicist Robert Laughlin of Stanford: “The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.”

    The ultimate judge of my Christian witness is a Higher Power rather than a Darwinian cultist.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2011 4:06 AM GMT
    I want to hug the caterpillar
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 05, 2011 4:54 AM GMT
    OK, so basically your claim to evolution being false is a form of fallacy/false logic that simply sates that since a butterfly's metamorphosis is complex, it obviously couldn't have been created by evolution. But you offer no evidence on that.

    Now let's compare that to the fact that evolution is a theory just as much as gravity is, for scientific purposes, it's a fact. Let's consider by no means are butterflies the only creatures that go through metamorphoses, which is further evidence of homologous evolution. Let's consider the fact of the earth being around for billions of years and that when you understand everything evolved from proto-cells, the concept of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a cake walk to comprehend.

    but seriously, where's you're proof beside the bible and a bunch of fringe scientists? the same place where the idea that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is only 6,000 years old comes from. only someone who is truly weak in his beliefs needs to go out and try to convince other people of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2011 4:20 AM GMT
    I'm sorry Jockfever, really I do pity you. You post these topics to evoke anger out of people. You are in your late fifties and you are alone for obvious reasons...I really do wish you the best in your pseudoscience world.

    And until you offer substantial evidence SUPPORTING creationism and/or intelligent design, the theory will always be unscientific and not even remotely probable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2011 12:27 PM GMT
    swmrh911:I'm sorry Jockfever, really I do pity you. You post these topics to evoke anger out of people. You are in your late fifties and you are alone for obvious reasons...I really do wish you the best in your pseudoscience world.
    And until you offer substantial evidence SUPPORTING creationism and/or intelligent design, the theory will always be unscientific and not even remotely probable.


    jockfever: The video is beautiful, uplifting, inspiring, informative, and thought-provoking to most people.

    If the video makes evolutionists angry, that probably says more about their comfort with their belief system than it does about the video. Making some people uneasy about their belief systems is probably a service.

    Any uneasiness you experience when presuming to know so much about what motivates people, about the relationship status of people you've never met, and about what is scientific and what isn't, deserves more attention.

    Let everyone thoughtfully choose between the two main competing explanations of where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.

    Despite what evolutionists would like you to believe, evolution isn’t science. The theory of evolution is the creation myth of secular humanism, so the creation/evolution debate is a purely religious debate.

    Creationists can calmly point to many experimental and observational evidences that the theory of evolution is not true.

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2603

    Aug 06, 2011 12:29 PM GMT
    Yes,completely amazed by it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2011 3:08 PM GMT
    jockfever said
    Let everyone thoughtfully choose between the two main competing explanations of where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.

    Despite what evolutionists would like you to believe, evolution isn’t science. The theory of evolution is the creation myth of secular humanism, so the creation/evolution debate is a purely religious debate.

    Creationists can calmly point to many experimental and observational evidences that the theory of evolution is not true.


    Listen to yourself! You are the biggest hypocrite. "Let everyone thoughtfully choose between the two main competing explanations of where we came from." "the theory of evolution is not true." You are telling me that I have insecurities in my beliefs because I am stating the fact that creationism is not based in science, however you are the one questioning your own beliefs. Obviously you feel insecure in creationism because you continually bring up observations against evolution. You continue to fail to provide any proof that creationism is indeed scientific and based in fact despite your claims. Once again, I challenge you to find a single instance that supports your claims of creationism without simply arrogantly and ignorantly declining the theory of evolution.

    Also, You keep quoting people as if they are reputable sources. Scienceagainstevolution.org?? really? like that isn't biased. At least I have brought in scholarly articles and reputable scientists with PhD's in their fields. You, however, choose to cite some bigoted website that appears to be designed by a fourth grader.

    I realize you will always be living your life under a vail and will never truly understand how the world works, because if you can't understand evolution, an elementary scientific process, then you have no hope, especially at your age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2011 5:01 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]jockfever said[/cite: The video is beautiful, uplifting, inspiring, informative, and thought-provoking to most people.

    If the video makes evolutionists angry, that probably says more about their comfort with their belief system than it does about the video. Making some people uneasy about their belief systems is probably a service.

    >[/quote]

    Ehm no, Im a total evolutionist... religious writing doesnt make me uneasy about it, I just think eviolutionism is the more logical and rational choice given the state of the world as my human senses perceive it.. plain and simple.. not to mention I dont like religious writing... Ive spent much time reading the bible and reciting Budhist mantras and Qur'anic textx as well as singing in synagogue, just to get a feel for it... My conclusion? Some of it is good fun, like singing carols at Christmas.. some of it is downright scary... like reciting the Qur'an the Torah about god's wrath,.. some of it is very neutral and more meditative, like the buddhist mantras.. Some of it can comfort me.. like a well-meaning sermon about love, brotherhood, enlightenment, service to mankind etc..... but do they get me anywhere? No.. they are simply a pastime.... a sermon will not make me love my fellow man... only I can do that, on my own.. perhaps religion can remind me of that in times where I may feel lost.... but it is up to me to practice what is preached, and for that, the preaching is not needed.. humanists can do the same, and so can atheists.. they are usually too aggressive and offensive about it for my taste, but thay can do it.. we all can
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2011 11:25 PM GMT
    calibro: OK, so basically your claim to evolution being false is a form of fallacy/false logic that simply sates that since a butterfly's metamorphosis is complex, it obviously couldn't have been created by evolution. But you offer no evidence on that.

    jockfever: The Theory of evolution lacks credibility because it is inconsistent with scientific observations.

    For example, the idea that life can develop from nonliving matter is key to the theory of evolution. Scientists have been trying for 50 years or more to demonstrate that this is possible. It isn't possible.

    The living cell is so far beyond mankind's ingenuity and technical capabilities that it is reasonable to conclude that its origin is Supernatural, as asserted by the Bible.

    If the living cell is beyond what can happen through natural processes, then the complexity of the life cycle of the Monarch Butterfly is exponentially beyond what could have happened through natural processes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its design is Supernatural, as the Bible says.

    There is no satisfactory explanation how irreducibly complex systems could have developed by any natural process, especially evolution's blind random mutations.

    #74 from the Seventy-five Theses Against Evolution:

    We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.


    calibro: Now let's compare that to the fact that evolution is a theory just as much as gravity is, for scientific purposes, it's a fact.

    jockfever: There is a Law of Universal Gravitation developed by one of the most brilliant scientific minds of all time, Newton, a devout Christian. It goes something like F = G*(m1*m2)/r**2 The Theory of Evolution is not in the same league as a Law of Universal Gravitation. Some theories have zero scientific evidence, e.g., the multi-verse theory.

    calibro: Let's consider by no means are butterflies the only creatures that go through metamorphoses, which is further evidence of homologous evolution.

    jockfever: The fact that different species undergo metamorphosis is evidence that they have a common Designer.

    calibro: Let's consider the fact of the earth being around for billions of years and that when you understand everything evolved from proto-cells, the concept of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a cake walk to comprehend.

    jockfever: Have any direct evidence that the earth is billions of years old? The old earth theory comes from "experts" who make educated guesses based on hunches as much as science. There is a strong scientific case for a young earth. Evolutionists need those millions and billions of years for the magic of random mutations and natural selection to have any credibility.

    The idea that all life forms have a common ancestor lacks scientific credibility: #26, #27, and #28 from the Seventy-five Theses:

    According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.


    calibro: but seriously, where's you're proof beside the bible and a bunch of fringe scientists? the same place where the idea that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is only 6,000 years old comes from.

    jockfever: The Bible does not say that the earth is flat, that the earth was created in 4000 B.C. or that the sun revolves around the earth. Attempts to discredit the Bible rely on colloquialisms still in use today, such as "the four corners of the earth" and the "sun rising and setting."

    Evolutionists have nerve asserting that the Bible has been undermined by science when probably half of Darwinism has been disproven by science. It's evolution that is laced with whoppers: Haekel's drawings, Piltdown Man I and II, Ramapithecus, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Archaeopteryx, etc.

    It's easy to produce a list of about ninety scientists with doctorate degrees who do not subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and the list is growing.


    calibro: only someone who is truly weak in his beliefs needs to go out and try to convince other people of it.

    jockfever: Didn't you post a video of Mr. Nothing-Created-Everything, Richard Dawkins? One hopes that was that a sign of weak beliefs.

    Proponents of questionable belief systems use intimidation rather than persuasion. Evolutionists will no longer participate in public debates with creationists because they always lose a factual discussion. So, evolutionists get emotional and go to court to prevent both sides of the issue to be presented in public schools. Evolutionists pressure institutions to fire scientists who don’t agree with the theory of evolution.

    Again, #75: We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    jockfever said The Theory of evolution lacks credibility because it is inconsistent with scientific observations.

    For example, the idea that life can develop from nonliving matter is key to the theory of evolution. Scientists have been trying for 50 years or more to demonstrate that this is possible. It isn't possible.

    The living cell is so far beyond mankind's ingenuity and technical capabilities that it is reasonable to conclude that its origin is Supernatural, as asserted by the Bible.


    Here you're confusing /evolution/ with /abiogenesis/. The theory of evolution does NOT explain how life developed from nonliving matter- that's abiogenesis. The theory of evolution DOES explain how living beings evolve over time by inheriting traits and characteristics that will better suit them for their environments.
    The theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory about how we got here because of the fact that it *is* consistent with scientific observations.
    What makes something science is it's ability to be observed and tested- evolution is a scientific theory because it can be and has been observed and tested, and has not yet been proven wrong.
    The fact that *creationism* cannot be observed or tested is what discounts it as science.

    And you are right that mankind does not have a solid understanding of abiogenesis /yet/, but there are theories out there that are gaining credibility. Some scientists are even putting together experiments to try to recreate what they think happened on Earth to create life. It takes time for humans to understand such complex anomalies! But I do believe that within my lifetime, abiogenesis will be recreated in labs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2011 11:55 PM GMT
    Ariodante saidI want to hug the caterpillar


    +1 , Lets hug together icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2011 12:04 AM GMT
    I assume that by not responding to any of my post you concede to every point I have made, so once again I will approach this issue with your tactics and make claims against creationism and allow you to, once again, further understand that creationism is invalid.

    First:

    Vestigial structures. God was obviously very sloppy in some areas. He created "irreducibly complex" organisms, yet he decided that humans should have extra fused vertebrae, which coincidentally have magically resembled those in animals that closely resemble humans and also share nearly 95% of our DNA. What about snakes? These are some tricky reptiles. The divine creator must have thought they looked better with elongated bodies and tiny little legs. Or maybe he was just playing a cruel joke on them, after all Humans were only the beings of even marginal importance (even though God gave them tail bones and appendixes with no clear functions).

    There is a huge discrepancy in creationism logic. Why would God go through so much trouble to design organisms with "irreducibly complex" structures yet include vestigial structures in their physical design?

    http://uprightape.net/EvolSac.pdf
    [url]http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1671/0272-4634%282007%2927%5B1%3AVFAAEI%5D2.0.CO%3B2[/url]
    ^reputable sources from a scientist with both an M.D. and Ph.D. (oh and they have more than 90 scientists that support these claims if I'm not mistaken)

    Second:

    Chordates (or any other phylum for that matter). Why would it be that Humans, as well as all other chordates develop so similarly? All chordates share the following:
    1. A notochord which evolved in the vertebral group of chordates into a spine
    2. A dorsal neural tube, which by chance, once again evolved into a spinal cord
    3. Pharyngeal gill slits, obviously God wanted human embryos to be able to breathe under water, but once they are born they are not blessed with this privilege
    4. A post-anal muscular tail, once again God divinely created Humans to have tails as an embryo for no reason?
    5. Finally, an endostyle. Naturally, as humans we constantly filter feed underwater and thus need this structure to survive. Why else would God design us with one?

    Anyone with half a brain can see these correlations are not by chance and were not planned. Chordates is such a diverse phylum, consisting of species ranging from lampreys to humans, yet they share five fundamental similarities that group them together.

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/541.full
    ^sorry I got a little lazy and only found something from the oxford journal...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2011 12:06 AM GMT
    The over the top stock music was an instant giveaway that the video had an agenda. Que the "worldly" stock... "♪ ♫ ♬ Da da dum...... heyaaaa-eeee haaayaaaa...... ba ba bum...♪ ♫ ♬" Jeez...

    *hugs the catapillar*


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2011 12:08 AM GMT
    wtf? icon_confused.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 08, 2011 12:33 AM GMT
    jockfever saidcalibro: OK, so basically your claim to evolution being false is a form of fallacy/false logic that simply sates that since a butterfly's metamorphosis is complex, it obviously couldn't have been created by evolution. But you offer no evidence on that.

    jockfever: The Theory of evolution lacks credibility because it is inconsistent with scientific observations.

    For example, the idea that life can develop from nonliving matter is key to the theory of evolution. Scientists have been trying for 50 years or more to demonstrate that this is possible. It isn't possible.

    The living cell is so far beyond mankind's ingenuity and technical capabilities that it is reasonable to conclude that its origin is Supernatural, as asserted by the Bible.

    If the living cell is beyond what can happen through natural processes, then the complexity of the life cycle of the Monarch Butterfly is exponentially beyond what could have happened through natural processes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its design is Supernatural, as the Bible says.

    There is no satisfactory explanation how irreducibly complex systems could have developed by any natural process, especially evolution's blind random mutations.

    #74 from the Seventy-five Theses Against Evolution:

    We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.


    calibro: Now let's compare that to the fact that evolution is a theory just as much as gravity is, for scientific purposes, it's a fact.

    jockfever: There is a Law of Universal Gravitation developed by one of the most brilliant scientific minds of all time, Newton, a devout Christian. It goes something like F = G*(m1*m2)/r**2 The Theory of Evolution is not in the same league as a Law of Universal Gravitation. Some theories have zero scientific evidence, e.g., the multi-verse theory.

    calibro: Let's consider by no means are butterflies the only creatures that go through metamorphoses, which is further evidence of homologous evolution.

    jockfever: The fact that different species undergo metamorphosis is evidence that they have a common Designer.

    calibro: Let's consider the fact of the earth being around for billions of years and that when you understand everything evolved from proto-cells, the concept of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly is a cake walk to comprehend.

    jockfever: Have any direct evidence that the earth is billions of years old? The old earth theory comes from "experts" who make educated guesses based on hunches as much as science. There is a strong scientific case for a young earth. Evolutionists need those millions and billions of years for the magic of random mutations and natural selection to have any credibility.

    The idea that all life forms have a common ancestor lacks scientific credibility: #26, #27, and #28 from the Seventy-five Theses:

    According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.


    calibro: but seriously, where's you're proof beside the bible and a bunch of fringe scientists? the same place where the idea that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is only 6,000 years old comes from.

    jockfever: The Bible does not say that the earth is flat, that the earth was created in 4000 B.C. or that the sun revolves around the earth. Attempts to discredit the Bible rely on colloquialisms still in use today, such as "the four corners of the earth" and the "sun rising and setting."

    Evolutionists have nerve asserting that the Bible has been undermined by science when probably half of Darwinism has been disproven by science. It's evolution that is laced with whoppers: Haekel's drawings, Piltdown Man I and II, Ramapithecus, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Archaeopteryx, etc.

    It's easy to produce a list of about ninety scientists with doctorate degrees who do not subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and the list is growing.


    calibro: only someone who is truly weak in his beliefs needs to go out and try to convince other people of it.

    jockfever: Didn't you post a video of Mr. Nothing-Created-Everything, Richard Dawkins? One hopes that was that a sign of weak beliefs.

    Proponents of questionable belief systems use intimidation rather than persuasion. Evolutionists will no longer participate in public debates with creationists because they always lose a factual discussion. So, evolutionists get emotional and go to court to prevent both sides of the issue to be presented in public schools. Evolutionists pressure institutions to fire scientists who don’t agree with the theory of evolution.

    Again, #75: We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation




    i don't know how many times i have to tell you that we did recreate it. it's called the oparin and ulrey-miller experiments. second, evolution is not the same thing are the origin of man nor the origin of life. evolution is a vehicle. no scientist in his/her right mind would ever question evolution itself. you're an idiot for not knowing what exactly evolution is.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2011 12:35 AM GMT
    Evolutionary biology at it's finest...

    I can appreciate the beauty of pure chance...

    Next weeks topic snowflakes icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2011 6:57 PM GMT
    Lr6Tb: ...Here you're confusing /evolution/ with /abiogenesis/. The theory of evolution does NOT explain how life developed from nonliving matter- that's abiogenesis...

    jockfever: It's difficult to discuss the theory of evolution without agreeing on what the theory is.

    My definition of the theory has six parts, includes life developing from nonliving matter, and was used in a court case.

    One reason I think that the court's definition is appropriate is that evolution is used as an enabler for atheism. Atheists cling to the unscientific belief that life emerged from nonliving matter through a natural process.

    It's tough to resist posting Thesis #74 again: "We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2011 7:07 PM GMT
    jockfever saidMy definition of the theory has six parts, includes life developing from nonliving matter, and was used in a court case.


    I have no desire to jump into this, other than to say icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    Unless you are an evolutionary biologist, your definition is completely irrelevant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 09, 2011 7:50 PM GMT
    If every layman had a coherent theory of cosmogony, monkeys would play the piano.

    If every Bible-thumping literalist had a coherent theory of evolution (supported by up to date molecular biology)...wait, that's an oxymoron, i.e. he would probably go crazy trying to reconcile the two. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2011 9:43 PM GMT
    swmrh911:Listen to yourself! You are the biggest hypocrite. "Let everyone thoughtfully choose between the two main competing explanations of where we came from." "the theory of evolution is not true." You are telling me that I have insecurities in my beliefs because I am stating the fact that creationism is not based in science, however you are the one questioning your own beliefs.

    jockfever: Creationists can point to experimental and observational evidence that the theory of evolution is not true. The theory that Nothing somehow exploded and produced a very creative big bang is not credible. The theory that life emerged from nonliving matter through natural processes is not credible. The idea that new species emerged from old species through random mutations and natural selection is not credible. The idea that a worm turned into John Travolta is not credible.

    Displaying anger and hate because people disagree with your theory, and attempting to demonize and silence those persons, suggests that you are trying to protect a vulnerable theory from rational analysis.

    Creationism asserts that many natural phenomena (the universe with all of its energy and matter, life, and other complex designs including mankind and consciousness) cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural processes and have a supernatural Cause, a Creator, just as the Bible asserts.

    Science, as self-delimited, does not recognize supernatural causes. Therefore science will probably never be able to explain phenomena such as the origin of the Universe or the origin of life, and science is unable to endorse the supernatural answers which are part of creationism.

    Evolution, wrapping itself in the robes of science, asserts that it can explain everything through natural processes. It says things like given enough time, unguided mutations, natural selection, and parallel universes, anything is possible. The burden of proving that a worm could turn into John Travolta is on evolutionists.

    swmrh911: Also, You keep quoting people as if they are reputable sources. Scienceagainstevolution.org?? really? like that isn't biased. At least I have brought in scholarly articles and reputable scientists with PhD's in their fields. You, however, choose to cite some bigoted website that appears to be designed by a fourth grader.

    jockfever: Scienceagainstevolution.org offers scientific objections to the theory of evolution. If you consider the objections unscientific, you should be able to demonstrate that. Otherwise maybe you should reevaluate your faith that evolution is scientific.

    It's easy to produce a long list of scientists with PhD's who reject the theory of evolution.

    One does not need a PhD to decide whether the evidence against the theory of evolution is scientific or not.

    The content of a web site, not the flashiness of its presentation, is what's important.


    swmrh911 I realize you will always be living your life under a vail and will never truly understand how the world works, because if you can't understand evolution, an elementary scientific process, then you have no hope, especially at your age.

    jockfever: vail? Colorado? Sounds like a pleasant place. At least I admit that my understanding of the world is a work in progress. Repeating the mantra that "evolution is science" doesn't make evolution scientific.

    Seeing guys swoon over the idea that the Earth is millions or billions of years old makes me feel kinda young.

    Let's close with #74 of the Theses Against Evolution: “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2011 10:12 PM GMT
    jockfever: My definition of the theory has six parts, includes life developing from nonliving matter, and was used in a court case.

    showme: I have no desire to jump into this, other than to say unless you are an evolutionary biologist, your definition is completely irrelevant.

    jockfever: So the theory of evolution is like a religion which can only be defined by its high priests?

    "They pretend that their leaders are blessed by a knowledge inaccessible to the rest of mankind..." (Human Action by Von Mises)

    As I said, the definition is from a court case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

    It may or may not have been authored by an evolutionary biologist.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 10, 2011 10:31 PM GMT
    jockfever saidswmrh911:Listen to yourself! You are the biggest hypocrite. "Let everyone thoughtfully choose between the two main competing explanations of where we came from." "the theory of evolution is not true." You are telling me that I have insecurities in my beliefs because I am stating the fact that creationism is not based in science, however you are the one questioning your own beliefs.

    jockfever: Creationists can point to experimental and observational evidence that the theory of evolution is not true. The theory that Nothing somehow exploded and produced a very creative big bang is not credible. The theory that life emerged from nonliving matter through natural processes is not credible. The idea that new species emerged from old species through random mutations and natural selection is not credible. The idea that a worm turned into John Travolta is not credible.

    Displaying anger and hate because people disagree with your theory, and attempting to demonize and silence those persons, suggests that you are trying to protect a vulnerable theory from rational analysis.

    Creationism asserts that many natural phenomena (the universe with all of its energy and matter, life, and other complex designs including mankind and consciousness) cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural processes and have a supernatural Cause, a Creator, just as the Bible asserts.

    Science, as self-delimited, does not recognize supernatural causes. Therefore science will probably never be able to explain phenomena such as the origin of the Universe or the origin of life, and science is unable to endorse the supernatural answers which are part of creationism.

    Evolution, wrapping itself in the robes of science, asserts that it can explain everything through natural processes. It says things like given enough time, unguided mutations, natural selection, and parallel universes, anything is possible. The burden of proving that a worm could turn into John Travolta is on evolutionists.

    swmrh911: Also, You keep quoting people as if they are reputable sources. Scienceagainstevolution.org?? really? like that isn't biased. At least I have brought in scholarly articles and reputable scientists with PhD's in their fields. You, however, choose to cite some bigoted website that appears to be designed by a fourth grader.

    jockfever: Scienceagainstevolution.org offers scientific objections to the theory of evolution. If you consider the objections unscientific, you should be able to demonstrate that. Otherwise maybe you should reevaluate your faith that evolution is scientific.

    It's easy to produce a long list of scientists with PhD's who reject the theory of evolution.

    One does not need a PhD to decide whether the evidence against the theory of evolution is scientific or not.

    The content of a web site, not the flashiness of its presentation, is what's important.


    swmrh911 I realize you will always be living your life under a vail and will never truly understand how the world works, because if you can't understand evolution, an elementary scientific process, then you have no hope, especially at your age.

    jockfever: vail? Colorado? Sounds like a pleasant place. At least I admit that my understanding of the world is a work in progress. Repeating the mantra that "evolution is science" doesn't make evolution scientific.

    Seeing guys swoon over the idea that the Earth is millions or billions of years old makes me feel kinda young.

    Let's close with #74 of the Theses Against Evolution: “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.









    Evolution in no way "explains everything." Assuming Evolution is a viable mechanism, which I do, it explains only that there is the possibility for life to originate from one cingular celled organism, and provides support based on that claim.

    Do I indefinitely know that this is true? No, does that mean I believe in Creationism? The answer to that question is sort of in the grey area. I do want to believe that there is a higher power, however I do not accept the theory that God created "everything." Rather, I see God as an enabler. Why is it that both theories coincide with each other?

    You do know a lot about the matter and should know that Evolution does not claim that a "worm turned into John Travolta." Evolution only occurs under specific conditions.

    I do not disagree with you, the idea that spontaneous mutation that benefits the organism is highly unlikely, HOWEVER, it is what I choose to believe. I believe that these random mutations must have occurred, and somewhere along the lines speciation arose out of that. I choose to believe that life's DNA provided its own defense mechanism to restrict the number of mutations, however not so much so that the mutations could not arise spontaneously.
  • geojock

    Posts: 141

    Aug 10, 2011 10:37 PM GMT
    Lr6Tb said
    jockfever said The Theory of evolution lacks credibility because it is inconsistent with scientific observations.

    For example, the idea that life can develop from nonliving matter is key to the theory of evolution. Scientists have been trying for 50 years or more to demonstrate that this is possible. It isn't possible.

    The living cell is so far beyond mankind's ingenuity and technical capabilities that it is reasonable to conclude that its origin is Supernatural, as asserted by the Bible.


    Here you're confusing /evolution/ with /abiogenesis/. The theory of evolution does NOT explain how life developed from nonliving matter- that's abiogenesis. The theory of evolution DOES explain how living beings evolve over time by inheriting traits and characteristics that will better suit them for their environments.
    The theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory about how we got here because of the fact that it *is* consistent with scientific observations.
    What makes something science is it's ability to be observed and tested- evolution is a scientific theory because it can be and has been observed and tested, and has not yet been proven wrong.
    The fact that *creationism* cannot be observed or tested is what discounts it as science.

    And you are right that mankind does not have a solid understanding of abiogenesis /yet/, but there are theories out there that are gaining credibility. Some scientists are even putting together experiments to try to recreate what they think happened on Earth to create life. It takes time for humans to understand such complex anomalies! But I do believe that within my lifetime, abiogenesis will be recreated in labs.


    Here I had thought that by watching that video I had wasted 5 min of my life. But this point redeemed this thread.

    +1 for a smart, rational comment.