Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Too bad you can't see your evolutionist's sites like that, but nothing has been concluded when they had reported several claims of Atlantis having been found.
Makes you think it was found but where is all the hooplah? Show the videos. man! We are waiting!!!
Well kudos for pointing out the rep of that news site, but in light of NBC news, what do you say now?
Hmmm, I'm not seeing from this (very brief) article that they believe they're going to find a city where people were magically amphibious and had tails and everything was paved in gold or anything...just that they're searching for an actual source for a location that may have been the basis of the story of Atlantis.
This isn't exactly new. Those "scientists" you can't stand have also researched a historical basis for Jericho, for example, and for actual events that might be the basis for the several stories of a "great flood". The Exodus has been studied by both historians and archaeologists; it's not just theologians who want to know if mythological events had a historical basis of some kind. Troy and a possible Trojan War has been a hot topic among archaeologists although obviously, nobody believes a great war broke out due to a goddess giving Paris the most beautiful woman in the world in exchange for an apple trophy. Many legends have some sort of basis, even if the "magical" aspects aren't true. Archaeologists like to (pardon the pun) dig into these to find out what may have actually happened.
I don't know enough about this particular expedition, though. If they actually are looking for a lost city of gold where people had flying machines and it was Utopia, you can correct me.
At least, I know where you stand which is basically, go to any atheist site that presents science in the evolution theory point of view only.
Huh???
"Atheist sites" present science in the evolution theory POV only? Most of the teachers I've ever had were Christian, a few were Jewish, one or two stated they were atheists (in high school) and they ALL believed in and taught "evolution theory."
Where on earth are you getting the idea that only "atheists" talk about evolution, and "atheist sites"? No thinking person has to go on a specifically atheist site (???) to learn about evolution. I am confused.
God keeps those that are awake which are the elect as thanks to Him, they are not so easily misled by even errant creationists just to follow the crowd of atheistic deniers who wants their opinion to be fact in science.
Can the geology be perceived correctly when not taking into consideration of what all was involved in a catastrophic world wide flood?
I suspect that a catastrophic global flood would leave its mark. Show me the layer that this world wide catastrophic flood left. Let's start there. I already posted what we should see, and yet no one could offer any more of an explanation than simply shrugging their collective shoulders or just simply ignored it with their eyes glazed over.
Ah. I see. So no news media site, no matter how reputable, is worthy reporting what scientists have found in the field to you. Okay.
At least, I know where you stand which is basically, go to any atheist site that presents science in the evolution theory point of view only.
Hope you see me making my point.
I have answered why I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old and no matter how you guys drum up the evidence in an evolutionary point of view, that is all it is, a popular opinion in science in presenting the evidence in favour of the evolution point of view that can neither be observed nor proven in real life.
You see, Poor, this is an excellent example of what the theist was doing in the video. I provided an example of how evolution is indeed observable and factual, yet you act as if you have a fact-delimiter on your browser that X's out any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, so you can simply repeat your assertions. Evolution, as recognized in the mutation of bacteria and viruses, is not only observable, but falsifiable and predictable whether you believe it or not. The most recent flu vaccine is a result of evolutionary medicine. Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development
You have provided your belief but no evidence, only "if's" and "maybes", of why you believe the Earth is 6000 year old. All geological, biological, and astronomical evidence suggests just the opposite. If you have any evidence, I suggest that you present it to the vast majority of scientists who believe differently. You also might want to consider that the words from an ancient text is not considered reliable evidence by an objective observer.
BTW, theories are not opinions, but conclusions based on the best available evidence that has been tested, peer-reviewed, and demonstrated.
You see, Poor, this is an excellent example of what the theist was doing in the video. I provided an example of how evolution is indeed observable and factual, yet you act as if you have a fact-delimiter on your browser that X's out any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, so you can simply repeat your assertions. Evolution, as recognized in the mutation of bacteria and viruses, is not only observable, but falsifiable and predictable whether you believe it or not. The most recent flu vaccine is a result of evolutionary medicine. Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development
Let's be sure of the fact: macro evolution is not micro evolution.
A resistant bacteria and a resistant virus are still a bacteria and a virus. That can only serve as an example of micro evolution: NOT macro evolution.
A man building up an immunity to chicken pox or small pox is not an example of macro evolution, because he is still a man.
Quote:
You have provided your belief but no evidence, only "if's" and "maybes", of why you believe the Earth is 6000 year old. All geological, biological, and astronomical evidence suggests just the opposite. If you have any evidence, I suggest that you present it to the vast majority of scientists who believe differently. You also might want to consider that the words from an ancient text is not considered reliable evidence by an objective observer.
The same thing about what you believe; no evidence which was why I was presenting mine in the same way the evolution theory was, but you did not see that at all.
Quote:
BTW, theories are not opinions, but conclusions based on the best available evidence that has been tested, peer-reviewed, and demonstrated.
No. A theory, like a hypothesis, is not a fact but still an opinion to prove or disprove.
When the law of evolution comes about, man would be able to unlock our DNA to sprout wings without adding genetic material into our DNA, and we would be able to mate with similar evolved birdmankind, but unable to mate with former mankind.
Now how is that for a fairy tale? And yet all of this happened by random chance in the gene pool.
You can stir the soup all you want, but you are still not going to get a pot roast out of that.
Let's be sure of the fact: macro evolution is not micro evolution.
A resistant bacteria and a resistant virus are still a bacteria and a virus. That can only serve as an example of micro evolution: NOT macro evolution.
A man building up an immunity to chicken pox or small pox is not an example of macro evolution, because he is still a man.
The same thing about what you believe; no evidence which was why I was presenting mine in the same way the evolution theory was, but you did not see that at all.
No. A theory, like a hypothesis, is not a fact but still an opinion to prove or disprove.
When the law of evolution comes about, man would be able to unlock our DNA to sprout wings without adding genetic material into our DNA, and we would be able to mate with similar evolved birdmankind, but unable to mate with former mankind.
Now how is that for a fairy tale? And yet all of this happened by random chance in the gene pool.
You can stir the soup all you want, but you are still not going to get a pot roast out of that.
This is why you've been accused of being unfamiliar with science and the scientific process. The meaning of "theory" in science is not the same as the colloquial meaning. By definition,
Quote:
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
The Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Relativity, much like the Theory of Evolution, are NOT opinions. Though I am happy you've admitted that what you call micro-evolution does occur, macro-evolution is only micro-evolution that takes much longer. In other words, it's simply a matter of time. This demonstrates an example of what you call macro-evolution, above the species level. The evolution of whales
These fossils are not only pictures, but can be seen and observed and touched at the American Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian, and many other museums.
Repeating false statement s is the same as creating them . Morris' s geological ideas have been thoroughly disproved by the field of geology long ago. There is a reason that oil companies hire geologist s rather than bible scholars.
Your statement of scientists now thinking that Neanderthal where modern humans with rickets is factually incorrect. Soon after the discovery, 3 years Before the publication of ON THE ORIGINS OF SPECIES it was the religious who made the claim and today scientists are arguing if it should be a subspecies or a separate species. But this is how science works, new information fine tunes earlier work. Even with living species taxonomies are fine tuning with new discoveries such as the North America black billed magpie is no longer a subspecies of Pica pica but is now Pica hudsonia.
You have been explained many times on how science works and yet you keep insisting that meaning need to change for you. If you go and look up scientific laws you will read that theories do not become laws but are equal to them just do not have equations. And facts support theories not theories become facts. It is like you demanding that paragraphs become words in order to believe them.
I have been reading on this site for several weeks now in order to try to understand how religious fundamentalist think, and it seems that many have a mindset that they will not even look at sites that do not share their world view.
Sorry but the only way that a global flood could have done what you state is if all the principles of geology and the laws of physics did not apply in which case I waste years of study and some field work.
Please read about what science is and how it works so that you are not always repeated other people's lies. I did not state on if evolution is true or how old the earth is as you are free to believe your faith but to so completely distort facts and terms just seems to me to be wrong.s
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
Let's be sure of the fact: macro evolution is not micro evolution.
A resistant bacteria and a resistant virus are still a bacteria and a virus. That can only serve as an example of micro evolution: NOT macro evolution.
A man building up an immunity to chicken pox or small pox is not an example of macro evolution, because he is still a man.
The same thing about what you believe; no evidence which was why I was presenting mine in the same way the evolution theory was, but you did not see that at all.
No. A theory, like a hypothesis, is not a fact but still an opinion to prove or disprove.
When the law of evolution comes about, man would be able to unlock our DNA to sprout wings without adding genetic material into our DNA, and we would be able to mate with similar evolved birdmankind, but unable to mate with former mankind.
Now how is that for a fairy tale? And yet all of this happened by random chance in the gene pool.
You can stir the soup all you want, but you are still not going to get a pot roast out of that.
Poor, I thought you were just one of those twisted creationists, and you came here to try and convince us of your perspective.
I now actually feel sorry for you. You don't even try to get to know what you don't know.... you are blissful in your ignorance of anything to do with science. You use words and concepts and have no idea what those words mean, nor how to tie them into the concepts, because you just don't understand them, nor attempt to try and learn.
I said it before, it is little wonder that America is falling so behind in education when there are parents (I assume you are one, or will be one) like you push these type of thoughts. A parallel can be drawn to fundamentalist muslim nations, whose populations suffer from being backward, for the same reason. They let their faith trump their reason. I am truly saddened what was a great nation has been sinking into a morass, and many in it are happy about it.
Have a great tribulation.
Moderator cut: deleted
Last edited by june 7th; 12-10-2014 at 04:05 AM..
Reason: Rude.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well kudos for pointing out the rep of that news site, but in light of NBC news, what do you say now?
