Evolution is NOT a Science
10-24-2009, 12:07 AM
#101
Since it took thousands or hundreds of years, show me the fossil record that backs up this supposition. If there were that many generations of slight differences, there should be tens of thousands of fossils. I'm not totally sold on the idea that evolution holds all the answers to nature.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:08 AM
#102
Gravity is a theory too.
Darwin's theory has been scrutinized a LOT since The Origin of Species, and not just by creationists of course. It's been under review by the scientific community continuously, and rightly so. Darwin was the first word on evolution but certainly not the last.
No new species will evolve during our lifetime, as I stated already it takes much, much longer than that. A little change here, another there, another there, and over time a new species emerges.
And no, I don't get my information from the tour guide at the zoo. Do you get your information from the church bulletin board?
Darwin's theory has been scrutinized a LOT since The Origin of Species, and not just by creationists of course. It's been under review by the scientific community continuously, and rightly so. Darwin was the first word on evolution but certainly not the last.
No new species will evolve during our lifetime, as I stated already it takes much, much longer than that. A little change here, another there, another there, and over time a new species emerges.
And no, I don't get my information from the tour guide at the zoo. Do you get your information from the church bulletin board?
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:15 AM
#103
Gravity is a theory too.
Darwin's theory has been scrutinized a LOT since The Origin of Species, and not just by creationists of course. It's been under review by the scientific community continuously, and rightly so. Darwin was the first word on evolution but certainly not the last.
No new species will evolve during our lifetime, as I stated already it takes much, much longer than that. A little change here, another there, another there, and over time a new species emerges.
And no, I don't get my information from the tour guide at the zoo. Do you get your information from the church bulletin board?
Darwin's theory has been scrutinized a LOT since The Origin of Species, and not just by creationists of course. It's been under review by the scientific community continuously, and rightly so. Darwin was the first word on evolution but certainly not the last.
No new species will evolve during our lifetime, as I stated already it takes much, much longer than that. A little change here, another there, another there, and over time a new species emerges.
And no, I don't get my information from the tour guide at the zoo. Do you get your information from the church bulletin board?
Lol no i don't. I actually have been enjoying this little debate. I'm also surprised that you would assume that just because someone points out that evolution has problems with its reasoning and evidence that they must be misinformed by their church.
I would just like someone to give me a straight answer to explain the evolutionary flaws. My high school teachers couldn't, my college professors were contradicting themselves and each other and i have a hard time believing something that no one can agree upon.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:25 AM
#104
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Since it took thousands or hundreds of years, show me the fossil record that backs up this supposition. If there were that many generations of slight differences, there should be tens of thousands of fossils. I'm not totally sold on the idea that evolution holds all the answers to nature.
One could also say evolution is why people look so vastly different from one another. What would you say is the reason for that? I also wouldn't say "totally new species arising from pre-existing species". You can trace many different species back to one common source where they branched because of geographic reasons. So the old species doesn't really go anywhere, it just changes. Its not like one day one animal gives birth to something completely different and the old design disappears. Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:29 AM
#105
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I'm also quite enjoying it, so I hope everyone tries to keep it civil so we can continue. This kind of discussion is my favorite, along with space related things and physics. Real things unlike politics and trivial things that in the big picture don't matter.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:32 AM
#106
If you are really going to believe that evolution is true and an exact science please explain to me these areas of contradictions:
How can radiometric dating and carbon dating be considered a fool proof way to date the earth?
Where are all the fossils in the fossil record proving the small steps that species takes to change from one to another.
Why in the fossil progession of the horse does the rib count jump all over the place and why all the horse fossils are found on different continents and no two have been found on the same continent.
Why is the geologic column not found in the correct order anywhere. In fact some of the strata are actually found in the wrong order.
Why are there some fossils of whales running perpendicular through several layers of strata? Do you expect me to believe that the whale was there standing straight up for millions of years without being disturbed?
Why mutations are considered to be a new form of evolution and yet no mutations have been found to beneficial.
Why evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is Einstein's law wrong?
And there are several more.
How can radiometric dating and carbon dating be considered a fool proof way to date the earth?
Where are all the fossils in the fossil record proving the small steps that species takes to change from one to another.
Why in the fossil progession of the horse does the rib count jump all over the place and why all the horse fossils are found on different continents and no two have been found on the same continent.
Why is the geologic column not found in the correct order anywhere. In fact some of the strata are actually found in the wrong order.
Why are there some fossils of whales running perpendicular through several layers of strata? Do you expect me to believe that the whale was there standing straight up for millions of years without being disturbed?
Why mutations are considered to be a new form of evolution and yet no mutations have been found to beneficial.
Why evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is Einstein's law wrong?
And there are several more.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:40 AM
#107
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
If you are really going to believe that evolution is true and an exact science please explain to me these areas of contradictions:
How can radiometric dating and carbon dating be considered a fool proof way to date the earth? Its not. Is it flawed? Yes. Does it work overall, yes. Too many variables in the process to get accurate readings every time. Its another one of those things that will get better over time.
Where are all the fossils in the fossil record proving the small steps that species takes to change from one to another. How would you see such small changes from generation to generation, when no two life forms are ever exactly the same? It's also not always going to be a forward progression. If change isn't needed, no change will occur.
Why in the fossil progession of the horse does the rib count jump all over the place and why all the horse fossils are found on different continents and no two have been found on the same continent. I don't follow this one. Shouldn't differences of horses on different continents be more proof for evolution?
Why is the geologic column not found in the correct order anywhere. In fact some of the strata are actually found in the wrong order. Also don't follow this one.
Why are there some fossils of whales running perpendicular through several layers of strata? Do you expect me to believe that the whale was there standing straight up for millions of years without being disturbed? Again, don't follow this one or understand what it has to do with evolution.
Why mutations are considered to be a new form of evolution and yet no mutations have been found to beneficial. Mutations in what? Humans? I don't see mutations in complex organisms like humans in the realm of evolution.
Why evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is Einstein's law wrong? Explain please. What is contradictory about it?
And there are several more. With all of these unexplained problems how can you be 100% confident that evolution is an exact science? Its not an exact science. Its not something you are going to get right on the first guess. It has to be learned and understood better through experience. Like any science.
How can radiometric dating and carbon dating be considered a fool proof way to date the earth? Its not. Is it flawed? Yes. Does it work overall, yes. Too many variables in the process to get accurate readings every time. Its another one of those things that will get better over time.
Where are all the fossils in the fossil record proving the small steps that species takes to change from one to another. How would you see such small changes from generation to generation, when no two life forms are ever exactly the same? It's also not always going to be a forward progression. If change isn't needed, no change will occur.
Why in the fossil progession of the horse does the rib count jump all over the place and why all the horse fossils are found on different continents and no two have been found on the same continent. I don't follow this one. Shouldn't differences of horses on different continents be more proof for evolution?
Why is the geologic column not found in the correct order anywhere. In fact some of the strata are actually found in the wrong order. Also don't follow this one.
Why are there some fossils of whales running perpendicular through several layers of strata? Do you expect me to believe that the whale was there standing straight up for millions of years without being disturbed? Again, don't follow this one or understand what it has to do with evolution.
Why mutations are considered to be a new form of evolution and yet no mutations have been found to beneficial. Mutations in what? Humans? I don't see mutations in complex organisms like humans in the realm of evolution.
Why evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is Einstein's law wrong? Explain please. What is contradictory about it?
And there are several more. With all of these unexplained problems how can you be 100% confident that evolution is an exact science? Its not an exact science. Its not something you are going to get right on the first guess. It has to be learned and understood better through experience. Like any science.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:52 AM
#111
Alright one last post.
The geologic column is the supposed idea base on the Law of Superposition. This law states the strata will lie in the order that they were laid down. Evolutionists have tried to use this to prove that the earth is millions of years old. Each layer would have been built up over time. They teach that the lowest layers would be the oldest and the ones near the top should be the newest.
The theory makes sense if it was found this way. However their order of layers does not appear in the correct order from oldest to newest anywhere. There are even several instances were the layers are out of order newer ones are found under the older ones and so on. There isn't even a place where all the layers are even present. Some are just missing all together.
The geologic column is the supposed idea base on the Law of Superposition. This law states the strata will lie in the order that they were laid down. Evolutionists have tried to use this to prove that the earth is millions of years old. Each layer would have been built up over time. They teach that the lowest layers would be the oldest and the ones near the top should be the newest.
The theory makes sense if it was found this way. However their order of layers does not appear in the correct order from oldest to newest anywhere. There are even several instances were the layers are out of order newer ones are found under the older ones and so on. There isn't even a place where all the layers are even present. Some are just missing all together.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 12:57 AM
#113
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Alright one last post.
The geologic column is the supposed idea base on the Law of Superposition. This law states the strata will lie in the order that they were laid down. Evolutionists have tried to use this to prove that the earth is millions of years old. Each layer would have been built up over time. They teach that the lowest layers would be the oldest and the ones near the top should be the newest.
The theory makes sense if it was found this way. However their order of layers does not appear in the correct order from oldest to newest anywhere. There are even several instances were the layers are out of order newer ones are found on top of the oldest and so on. There isn't even a place where all the layers are even present. Some are just missing all together.
The geologic column is the supposed idea base on the Law of Superposition. This law states the strata will lie in the order that they were laid down. Evolutionists have tried to use this to prove that the earth is millions of years old. Each layer would have been built up over time. They teach that the lowest layers would be the oldest and the ones near the top should be the newest.
The theory makes sense if it was found this way. However their order of layers does not appear in the correct order from oldest to newest anywhere. There are even several instances were the layers are out of order newer ones are found on top of the oldest and so on. There isn't even a place where all the layers are even present. Some are just missing all together.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 01:09 AM
#114
I understand that geology isn't for everyone it can get boring and I know you are already bored
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 01:25 AM
#115
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
So you believe that a whole strata layer could possible move and disappear from a rock bed with no evidence left behind? Even under the most severe earth quakes the rock layers actually become more defined because of the shaking and floods reset the layers in the their correct order that they started.
I understand that geology isn't for everyone it can get boring and I know you are already bored
I understand that geology isn't for everyone it can get boring and I know you are already bored
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 10:24 AM
#116
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
So you believe that a whole strata layer could possible move and disappear from a rock bed with no evidence left behind? Even under the most severe earth quakes the rock layers actually become more defined because of the shaking and floods reset the layers in the their correct order that they started.
I understand that geology isn't for everyone it can get boring and I know you are already bored
I understand that geology isn't for everyone it can get boring and I know you are already bored
as for the vertical whale, similar thing. moving earth could push it into any orientation.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 11:30 AM
#117
always thought that was a good quote.
But still evolution happened, and it doesn't take place overnight.
Someone mentioned its being weird that its still a theory. but in the scientific field the term theory also mean Law.
IE: Newton's law is the same as the Theory of Relativity both are known to be true. just different terms
Reply
0
0
10-24-2009, 02:11 PM
#118
In no way is a theory accepted as a law in the scientific realm. A theory is considered a possible explanation to certain observable problem. Almost the same meaning as the word hypothesis.
Once a theory has withstood several years of observable tests and experiments with the same measurable results it will be considered a law.
Even the definition of the words ,theory and law, contradict your statement that they have the same meaning. Just because people use the terms theory and law when speaking interchangeably doesn't mean it's correct.
Example: It is still called the atomic theory. Even through the past decades and the great hurdles that science has jumped in this field we still call it a theory, not a law. Because it hasn't produced irrefutable data to prove our theory as to its construction, bonding, and structure. We cannot see an atom. We believe the theory to be correct because of some of the evidence through experiments and interactions, but it is still called a theory.
Once a theory has withstood several years of observable tests and experiments with the same measurable results it will be considered a law.
Even the definition of the words ,theory and law, contradict your statement that they have the same meaning. Just because people use the terms theory and law when speaking interchangeably doesn't mean it's correct.
Example: It is still called the atomic theory. Even through the past decades and the great hurdles that science has jumped in this field we still call it a theory, not a law. Because it hasn't produced irrefutable data to prove our theory as to its construction, bonding, and structure. We cannot see an atom. We believe the theory to be correct because of some of the evidence through experiments and interactions, but it is still called a theory.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rippledabs
Miata parts for sale/trade
5
10-04-2012 02:33 PM
projectrally
General Miata Chat
14
12-13-2010 01:59 PM
