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.
Eusie, find something that doesnt come from Creation.com. They are well know for not being truthful and I wouldnt accept that those scientists actually said they dont believe in evolution based on Creation.coms word.
And when I said eminent scientist, I meant in the field under discussion, that being evolutionary biology or genetics. In other words, someone who actually studies the subjects on a professional level.
My very dear friend, and yes, I do consider you a friend. I truly do appreciate your posts. You are one of the better posters on here. Why, you could be a "poster child" for good posting (pun intended). But really, I do appreciate how you think and appreciate all the time you take to form well thought-out posts unlike some on here who can only denigrate and act like little children.
I do admit that belief in evolution is a faith-based belief. Belief in God forming man of the soil of the earth in a day is also faith-based. However, I do not in any way sideline practical evidence. If there truly was evidence that man evolved from simpler organisms I'm sure evolutionists would be trumpeting them the world over. But no, there is no evidence, only say-so by men or woman with letters after their names as if those letters lend credence to their evolutionary theory.
Eusebius old chum the evidence of evolution is trumpeted the world over and you reject is as some kind of fantasy or conspiracy. While 'faith based - belief' is open to misinterpretation, it is clear that have to decide what to believe. Do we base it on the conclusions derived from studying the evidence or conclusions based on an old book which had ben shown to be in conflict with the evidence?
You tell me. If you say 'Faith' then that ends the debate. if you say evidence, then you are in denial.
Eusie, find something that doesnt come from Creation.com. They are well know for not being truthful and I wouldnt accept that those scientists actually said they dont believe in evolution based on Creation.coms word.
I can post from whatever web site the truth is told.
I suggest you folks don't post from any non-creationist web sites. They are well known for not being truthful and I wouldn't accept that those scientists actually said they believe in evolution based on a non-creationist's word.
Quote:
And when I said eminent scientist, I meant in the field under discussion, that being evolutionary biology or genetics. In other words, someone who actually studies the subjects on a professional level.
Try again.
Eusebius old chum the evidence of evolution is trumpeted the world over and you reject is as some kind of fantasy or conspiracy. While 'faith based - belief' is open to misinterpretation, it is clear that have to decide what to believe. Do we base it on the conclusions derived from studying the evidence or conclusions based on an old book which had ben shown to be in conflict with the evidence?
You tell me. If you say 'Faith' then that ends the debate. if you say evidence, then you are in denial.
The scientists I posted based their findings that evolution is a farce based on their scientific investigations. After all, they are scientists you know.
Obviously you and anyone who believes in evolution is in denial especially after all the scientific findings they are coming out with.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) drafted the statement below:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Approximately 1% of the world's scientists' first names is "Steve." The NSE asked all Scientists whose first name was Steve if they agreed to with the statement above.
As of October 26, 2015, 1380 Scientists named Steve agreed with the statement.
LT, just as you are incorrect concerning how man was created by God, thus also are you incorrect concerning evolution. Look, I can't help it you all have been brainwashed from a young age to the present that evolution took place. But hopefully I can help you all to see what a farce it really is.
[1]Also, your belief in evolution is actually faith-based. You have no verifiable proof it ever occurred. Yet you put your faith in the say-so of these so-called scientists.
[2] Likewise my belief that God formed man of the soil of the earth in a day is faith-based. But at least my historic documents I get my faith from are older than your "The Origin of Species" document by Darwin.
[3] Ecc 3:18-20 I said in my heart:It is on account of the sons of humanity That the One, Elohim, seeks to
manifest them And to show them that they themselves are beasts." (19) For the destiny of the sons of
humanity And the destiny of the beast, It is one destiny for them; As death is for this one, so is death
for that one, And one spirit is for all; There is no advantage for the human over the beast, For the whole
is vanity." (20) All are going to one place; All have come from the soil, and all return to the soil."
[4] Solomon's use of the word "beast" above is a figure of speech. Israel was also called "a wild ass." Does that mean Israel really was literally a wild ass? Jesus was called "the Lamb of God." Was He literally a lamb? Figures of speech are a nice and colorful way to express images or symbols in speech. But I am glad you believe that "all have come from the soil" just as the Genesis account proclaims with God as their creator, not evolution, not the single cell, and not some primordial scum pond.
Rave on. I enjoy watching you folks state what you do. It really shows how much you've been sucked into this evolution crap.
[1] You are making an assumption that we "believe in evolution". You can't speak for us as you don't accept evolution so you can't know. The same applies to me - I can't speak for you for the same reason. Your thinking baffles me but I have made an effort to understand and I think I have a better idea now.
[2] Our 'documents' are cast in stone. They're called fossils. You can't get much older than that.
[3] Well that one is plain enough, no arguments there. We are beasts just like any other beast.
[4] Now we are getting somewhere! In that same vein, Adam and Eve, Noah and his ark and the great flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, all just figures of speech that are a "nice and colorful way to express images or symbols in speech". The word 'Adam' comes from Hebrew and means mankind.
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.
Quote:
This federal court—along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science—say that the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis" through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions," and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Quote:
It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
And there you have it! What they are promoting is not a scientific proposition but merely manufactured controversy.
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.
