Science Disproves Evolution

[Grey]

Well if it worked that way, I'd have no problem with it. But when you can only see a small portion of one room, I think it's pretty stupid to project what must be in the rest of the house based on what little you can see in that little spot. And to say that projection is true? Common! Let's stick with what we know when it come to science. That I have no problem with.

I agree, work b preidence, have we definitively discovered something considered supernatural, and did we replicate it in lab conditions? I don't believe there is no god, I think its unlikely but Im uncertain.

 

[Mo0448]

In 100 years evolution will be confirmed through more evidence (as if it needs anymore) and will be more widely accepted due to education and awareness.

I told myself I wouldn't get back in this thread...SIGH...here goes....I don't understand you Logical. You claim everyone is being rude and lack in understading when it comes to being more friendly towards dialogue...but you have been constantly jabbing at Christianity and "hits below the belt"! Claiming that "due to education and awareness" evolution will be confirmed?! What are you calling people that don't believe in it stupid?! I am a bio chemist and I can see God's "fingerprints" if you will in all of the universe, even after understanding and studying on different disciplines of biology chemistry and physics. Yet I don't claim you "lack education or awareness" for not believing what I believe. You are coming off as every typical evolutionist, "how dare you attack me an atheist, but I can attack you uneducated Christians!" You are avoiding the pretenses of the very thing you asked from us UNDERSTANDING! Why is it so many are to proud to ever consider that there is a God that there is something much greater than ourselves. Something that no science or mathematical equation will ever grasp? It's a shame really...just a darn shame

 

[Logical]

In 100 years evolution will be confirmed through more evidence (as if it needs anymore) and will be more widely accepted due to education and awareness.

I told myself I wouldn't get back in this thread...SIGH...here goes....I don't understand you Logical. You claim everyone is being rude and lack in understading when it comes to being more friendly towards dialogue...but you have been constantly jabbing at Christianity and "hits below the belt"! Claiming that "due to education and awareness" evolution will be confirmed?! What are you calling people that don't believe in it stupid?! I am a bio chemist and I can see God's "fingerprints" if you will in all of the universe, even after understanding and studying on different disciplines of biology chemistry and physics. Yet I don't claim you "lack education or awareness" for not believing what I believe. You are coming off as every typical evolutionist, "how dare you attack me an atheist, but I can attack you uneducated Christians!" You are avoiding the pretenses of the very thing you asked from us UNDERSTANDING! Why is it so many are to proud to ever consider that there is a God that there is something much greater than ourselves. Something that no science or mathematical equation will ever grasp? It's a shame really...just a darn shame

Maybe the Rapture will happen before then.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

In 100 years evolution will be confirmed through more evidence (as if it needs anymore) and will be more widely accepted due to education and awareness.

'education' and 'evolution' do not go in the same sentence together.

 

[megaman125]

I wonder how absolete science of today will be in 50 years. Apparently truth changes in science along with technology. Who knows what the truth will be in 100 or more years. Obviously not what it is today.

But yet the ironic thing is that they want us to believe in today's story, even though it'll get rejected later like all their previous stories. The only thing I can believe in regards to this is that their stories aren't trustable.

 

[Grey]

Replace the word "story" with religion(s), and "they" with society means quote makes a new interesting point.

 

[basebool]

What you're calling "scientifically aware" sounds more like "spiritually aloof." Evolution (with regard to speciation) and the Bible are mutually exclusive. If you say, "evolution is change over time". Then I say, yea, I'm pretty sure my farts stink worse than they used to, but it's a big jump to say we came from monkeys. Evolution IS the strawman.

The whole idea of evolution (speaking in terms of one kind of creature turning into another) is a baseless attempt to erase God from the equation. Evolution hypothesizes a common ancestor. Scripture verifies this. His name is YHWH.

Evolution is a fact. It has nothing to do with attempting to erase god. The catholic church can accept evolution, why don't you put your big boy pants on and accept it?

If you have legitamite evidence that evolution is false, go get your nobel prize. They will seriously make you famous.

We did not come from monkeys, we are the common ancestor of monkeys.

I mean comon dudes, your fellow christians can accept it, are you calling them dumb? Evolution is an observed change with chemical and bioloical change over time that creates the macroevolutionary scale.

And atheists have a disbelief in the belief in god. That is not a belief, that is a decision based on the claim. The sooner you stop trying to dumb science and atheism down to your fairy tail level, we can actually have a somewhat good discussion

 

[Shiloah]

I agree, work b preidence, have we definitively discovered something considered supernatural, and did we replicate it in lab conditions? I don't believe there is no god, I think its unlikely but Im uncertain.

Well, many people would say that they have discovered that supernatural person by way of their hearts. I would be one of them. Certainly none of us have proof beyond our own senses, but let's face it, everything is perceived by way of our senses. Hence, when a large group of people share the same experience, especially over a long period of time, I'd definately call that a kind of evidence.

What you don't understand is that you haven't got what's necessary in a laboratory situation to test the supernatural. If He's not there then you obviously can't test Him. Even still, that obviously that doesn't mean He doesn't exist. I think that's a good example of virtually any concept that's tested in a laboratory setting. If all the necessary variables aren't present, then whatever's being tested won't produce an accurate result. Right? Hence, your test results will be invalid.

See, if there is a supernatural aspect involved, then you can't possibly arrive at an accurate conclusion without taking it into account. And there's no way you can ever be sure that supernatural aspect isn't involved; hence, you can never be sure your results are accurate.

 

[Shiloah]

But yet the ironic thing is that they want us to believe in today's story, even though it'll get rejected later like all their previous stories. The only thing I can believe in regards to this is that their stories aren't trustable.

Yes, isn't that one heck of a belief-system? As if truth constantly changes over the course of time depending entirely upon how much knowledge we have accumulated? If a child believes in Santa Claus, is Santa Claus real until the child comes to realize that he's not real? He was real when the child was still ignorant, but not after the child learned he wasn't?

 

[Shiloah]

Evolution is a fact. It has nothing to do with attempting to erase god. The catholic church can accept evolution, why don't you put your big boy pants on and accept it?

If you have legitamite evidence that evolution is false, go get your nobel prize. They will seriously make you famous.

We did not come from monkeys, we are the common ancestor of monkeys.

I mean comon dudes, your fellow christians can accept it, are you calling them dumb? Evolution is an observed change with chemical and bioloical change over time that creates the macroevolutionary scale.

And atheists have a disbelief in the belief in god. That is not a belief, that is a decision based on the claim. The sooner you stop trying to dumb science and atheism down to your fairy tail level, we can actually have a somewhat good discussion

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory. Microevolution (adaptation) can be observed, yes. But Macro has never been observed in written history. It cannot be proven until that happens. Hence, it remains a theory. There's evidence, yes. But evidence is not proof.

Big boy pants? I have a brother that has a doctorate in biology, and he says it's clearly only a theory. My Biology teacher in college who has a doctorate told us not to let anyone tell us theories are facts. Believe you me, I've always remembered that. He, by the way, is an agnostic.

 

[megaman125]

Evolution is a fact. It has nothing to do with attempting to erase god. The catholic church can accept evolution, why don't you put your big boy pants on and accept it?

1. The catholic church are known conformists. Also, my faith does not come from, nor is dictated to me by the catholics.
2. I don't need to believe evolution just because you or anyone else claims it's a fact.

If you have legitamite evidence that evolution is false, go get your nobel prize. They will seriously make you famous.

Wouldn't happen because of the censorship by evolutionists. They can't stand anything contrary to the religion about billions of years ago, so they censor anything that even remotely opposes evolution.

 

[Grey]

Well, many people would say that they have discovered that supernatural person by way of their hearts. I would be one of them. Certainly none of us have proof beyond our own senses, but let's face it, everything is perceived by way of our senses. Hence, when a large group of people share the same experience, especially over a long period of time, I'd definately call that a kind of evidence.

What you don't understand is that you haven't got what's necessary in a laboratory situation to test the supernatural. If He's not there then youp obviously can't test Him. Even still, that obviously that doesn't mean He doesn't exist. I think that's a good example of virtually any concept that's tested in a laboratory setting. If all the necessary variables aren't present, then whatever's being tested won't produce an accurate result. Right? Hence, your test results will be invalid.

See, if there is a supernatural aspect involved, then you can't possibly arrive at an accurate conclusion without taking it into account. And there's no way you can ever be sure that supernatural aspect isn't involved; hence, you can never be sure your results are accurate.

Nothing is legitimized by many people following or agreeing with it. That is not evidence. I agree it would be hard to measure something supernatural in a lab situation but until we do it, as you said earlier we'll stick with the known accepted science.

 

[Grey]

Yes, isn't that one heck of a belief-system? As if truth constantly changes over the course of time depending entirely upon how much knowledge we have accumulated? If a child believes in Santa Claus, is Santa Claus real until the child comes to realize that he's not real? He was real when the child was still ignorant, but not after the child learned he wasn't?

He was never real, and very likely his friends or parents told him that it was true, and he accepted it because he saw the presents and eaten coolies as "evidence". A supernatural man in the sky rewarding good and punishing evil, often told to small children to make them be good, remind you of anyone?

 

[Grey]

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory. Microevolution (adaptation) can be observed, yes. But Macro has never been observed in written history. It cannot be proven until that happens. Hence, it remains a theory. There's evidence, yes. But evidence is not proof.

Big boy pants? I have a brother that has a doctorate in biology, and he says it's clearly only a theory. My Biology teacher in college who has a doctorate told us not to let anyone tell us theories are facts. Believe you me, I've always remembered that. He, by the way, is an agnostic.

Gravity is theory, also a law, but theory nonetheless. Saying I believe in micro not macro is like saying I believe that a page of harry potter was written exits, but not the full book. There's no distinctions and if you wish to see examples of speciation merely look for them on an acredited
scientific website.

 

[megaman125]

Nothing is legitimized by many people following or agreeing with it. That is not evidence.

I'm glad you said this, because all I keep hearing from evolutionists (that I've met elsewhere and even in this topic and the other one) is "these scientists believe it, so you should too," or "these catholics believe it, so you *insert insult* Christians should believe it too."

 

[Grey]

1. The catholic church are known conformists. Also, my faith does not come from, nor is dictated to me by the catholics.
2. I don't need to believe evolution just because you or anyone else claims it's a fact.



Wouldn't happen because of the censorship by evolutionists. They can't stand anything contrary to the religion about billions of years ago, so they censor anything that even remotely opposes evolution.

Though truthfully you could say many branches of Christianity 'evolved' from catholism. I wouldn't say they're conformists, look how long it took them to forgive Galileo for telling the truth nonetheless.

So there's a vast scientific conspiracy to cover up creationism?

 

[Grey]

I'm glad you said this, because all I keep hearing from evolutionists (that I've met elsewhere and even in this topic and the other one) is "these scientists believe it, so you should too," or "these catholics believe it, so you *insert insult* Christians should believe it too."

The difference is scientists back claims with observations and evidence, they also don't 'believe' in evolution a theory is viewed as a good explanation for why things occurred until another theory even more watertight is put forth and peer reviewed.

 

[megaman125]

So there's a vast scientific conspiracy to cover up creationism?

So speaking out about obvious censorship makes someone a conspiracy theorist nutjob? Yet another reason I don't take evolution or its religious followers seriously.

The difference is scientists back claims with observations and evidence, they also don't 'believe' in evolution a theory is viewed as a good explanation for why things occurred until another theory even more watertight is put forth and peer reviewed.

Once again, censorship is the word of the day, and peer review is just a part of the censorship.

 

[danschance]

Yep someone called me a conspiracy theorist on the other thread and I think I know who said it. What a pity.

 

[Grey]

So speaking out about obvious censorship makes someone a conspiracy theorist nutjob? Yet another reason I don't take evolution or its religious followers seriously.



Once again, censorship is the word of the day, and peer review is just a part of the censorship.

If by a majority not seeing it valid you mean censorship then perhaps your right, but it the same sense you would be right in saying that flat earth is censored. It also isn't taught in schools much for the same reason that prayer can't be compelled in schools.

If peer review is censorship then so is spell check.