RunRyder RC
 16  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     28      29     ( 30 )     31      32     NEXT    >> ] 50252 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
11-09-2013 04:21 PM  4 years agoPost 581
koppter

rrApprentice

Virginia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

actually Thomas, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the big bang, although I don't think that any credible scientist would say that it is absolute.

as far as your statement that astrophysics is not concerned with the origins of the universe is just nonsense. there is on going research but it isn't all that easy to gather evidence from space.

I would suggest that you focus less on what we know today and more on what we didn't know 100 years ago. Modern science is in its infancy. it is no more than a period in War and Peace yet you attack for failing to provide answers.

You really need to consider revising your arguments. You don't have the scientific background to successfully refute the evidence. If you did you would be a very rich man making thousands of dollars on the lecture circuit. Your argument is strictly faith based and it is disingenuous to pretend it is anything else.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-09-2013 04:56 PM  4 years agoPost 582
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's funny why you so called enlightened people here do not have proof of what you theorise to be true yet call me disingenuous . There is thousands of years of evidence that we were created by God that carry just as much plausibility as any other evidence that modern science has come up with yet I'm being disingenuous ? That is what's truly wrong with most evolutionist here and what I argue with here the most.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-09-2013 05:19 PM  4 years agoPost 583
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There is thousands of years of evidence that we were created by God
Which God?

Can you post a link to any of this evidence?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-09-2013 07:22 PM  4 years agoPost 584
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dusty why are you being silly
Go To to the creation institute . Org and set a spell , take some time to do some research . Many well known scientist there. .

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-09-2013 07:37 PM  4 years agoPost 585
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It says:
The CRS is independent and unaffiliated with any other organization, religious group or church body. The CRS advocates the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms.

http://www.creationresearch.org/about_crs.htm
It doesn't say which God created the universe, or how scientists might study that God.

Like I said, science studies things that can be shown to exist, not things that cannot be shown to exist.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2013 12:43 AM  4 years agoPost 586
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ok Dusty here is where I ment to send you.

http://www.icr.org/

I will check the one you found as well thanks for finding it.

The statement you gave is a disclaimer. Did you bother to read what they have researched?
You sure didn't even check the site out dude. I at least will check out and read others sites and links.

They this from that site. I found this in about 4 seconds
http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2013 12:49 AM  4 years agoPost 587
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is a great one for the house of out

http://www.icr.org/article/7843/

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-10-2013 02:55 PM  4 years agoPost 588
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hoggy here is a good article for your lizard THEROY

Do 'New Species' Demonstrate Darwinism?
Frank Sherwin, M.A., and Brian Thomas, M.S.*

That species undergo change in this grand system called earth is apparent, but those changes do not occur the way Charles Darwin envisioned. Living things do shift behaviors and physiologies in response to environmental (and other) pressures, but can these minor changes completely rework a creature's essential form (a concept referred to as "macroevolution"? Decades of research emphatically say no.

Often, small changes within a kind are referred to as "microevolution," which has been defined as "evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."1 Creation scientists agree that small variations occur, both because they can be observed, and because it is reasonable that a wise Creator would equip His creatures with survival-enhancing capabilities. But these variations do not lead to large-scale changes between kinds. Indeed, "there is no agreement [among evolutionists] as to whether macroevolution results from the accumulation of small changes due to microevolution, or whether macroevolution is uncoupled from microevolution."2

The confusing array of definitions for the word "species" can obscure deficiencies in Darwinian evolution. As leading scientists have admitted, "The very term 'species' is deeply ambiguous."3 Harvard's Steven Palumbi said in 1994 that "the formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology."4

If different species are described as essentially those forms which cannot interbreed, then new species do arise, a process called "speciation." They do so, however, because of a loss of information--the opposite direction to what Darwinian evolution requires. For example, "the 'herring gulls,' as you move around the globe, become…more like lesser black-backed gulls."5 They interbreed in a continuum, until the ends of the ring meet in Europe, where these two species no longer interbreed. These changes are presented as evidence for evolution, but really only represent variety within the gull kind. And "it is by no means certain that this type of gradual process can lead to the origin of a fundamentally different species."6

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, evolutionist Jonathan Weiner actually validated the creationist position of variation within kind by admitting that the supposedly different members of "new species" of finches on the Galapagos Islands could occasionally interbreed.7 Creatures that can no longer interbreed with certain others of their kind are just dead-end varieties without some of the potentials of their more genetically enriched forebears.

And fruit flies remain clearly distinguishable as fruit flies, even after almost a century of mutation-inducing experiments. There is no evidence that new genetic material--other than newly-damaged material--is produced. Pre-existing genes can be shuffled, marred, or lost, but never invented by nature.

Instead of using the term "species," which has genetic, morphological, ecological, and evolutionary definitions, employing the concept of Genesis 1 "kinds" can clarify matters. These true-to-form kinds do not match well with conventional species because they are most often able to interbreed at the family or subfamily levels of conventional taxonomy.8 For example, domestic cats breed with some wild cats, and there is evidence that perhaps all of today's cat varieties--most of which are in the subfamily felinae--descended from original representatives of the cat "kind."

Despite the smokescreen that conflicting definitions can create, there remains no evidence that basic kinds can morph from one to another. Once again, real science and Scripture concur: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds" (1 Corinthians 15:39).

References

Leonard, B. Critical Analysis of Evolution -- Grade 10. Draft Reflecting Changes Made at March 2004 State Board of Education Meeting, page 314. Ohio Department of Education. Available online at http://www.texscience.org.
Allaby, M. (ed.) 1992. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Agapow, P. et al. 2004. The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 79 (2): 162.
Palumbi, S. R. 1994 Genetic Divergence, Reproductive Isolation, and Marine Speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25: 547-572.
Dawkins, R. 2004. The Ancestor's Tale. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 303.
Palmer, T. 1999. Controversy: Catastrophism and Evolution. New York: Kluwer Academic, 121.
Weiner, J. 1994. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. New York: Knopf. See also Grant, P. R. et al. 2003. Inbreeding and Interbreeding in Darwin's Finches. Evolution. 57 (12): 2911-6.
Wood, T. C. 2006. The Current Status of Baraminology. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 43 (3): 149-158.
* Mr. Sherwin is Senior Science Lecturer and Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Cite this article: Sherwin, F. and B. Thomas. 2009. Do "New Species" Demonstrate Darwinism? Acts & Facts. 38 (2): 36.

Next Article

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 01:00 AM  4 years agoPost 589
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thomas I am rather busy but I will reply to the other bits you've posted later. The same for the others too.

But I wanted to point out that if your getting your information from the ICR that's where you are going wrong these people are a laughing stock. Liars and charlatans.

No body but an idiot would ever take Frank Sherwin or Brian Thomas seriously. Pretty much everything on this website can be debunked and honestly while it's fun to laugh at for a while it gets less funny when you realise that some people take this rubbish seriously. I'm not going to spend anymore time debunking what's already been done time and time again.

Here's a few examples for you.
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur...es-theyre-real/
http://www.icr.org/article/what-are-polystrate-fossils/
http://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/

And here is a short video that deals with these.

Watch at YouTube

There is honestly no need for me to explain this for you.

So there you have the problem with the ICR these people sit around and quote mine good scientists leave out the things they don't like. And then proceed to add in whatever they need to fit what the bible says. Is what these people are very cleaver at doing is making it look like it works but you'll be caught out every time.

This might also help you

Watch at YouTube

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 01:29 AM  4 years agoPost 590
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is a great one for the house of out

http://www.icr.org/article/7843/
Its quote mined and misinformation to the point of lies.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 01:53 AM  4 years agoPost 591
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Its quote mined and misinformation to the point of lies.
So there you have the problem with the ICR these people sit around and quote mine good scientists leave out the things they don't like
You two sound like a couple of parrots

Come out read the article and read the references that the article was written. debunk the references and show me the mining.
Hoggy so where are we at with the lizards? Are they still lizards

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 04:08 AM  4 years agoPost 592
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The article was misleading and written by creationist with a agenda to keep mythology alive.

Let me show you.

This is all from the article posted as "their source"

This is from YOUR link Tom

The discovery of a 1.8 million-year-old skull has offered evidence that humanity's early ancestors emerged from Africa as a single adventurous species, not several species as believed, drastically simplifying the story of human evolution, an international research team said Thursday.

the finds at Dmanisi are especially important because experts in evolution could analyze the physical differences between individuals living in the same place at the same time almost 2 million years ago, when humankind first emerged from Africa to people the world, according to Yale University anthropologist Andrew Hill.

In this analysis, researchers concluded that the fossil remains most likely belonged to a tool-using species called Homo erectus, which existed from about 2 million years ago to about 143,000 years ago. Its fossilized remains have been found in Africa, Spain, Indonesia, India, China and Java. The earliest Homo sapiens, modern humans, emerged about 195,000 years ago

Tom, thanks for helping to prove human evolution and creationist ignorance. Your not too bright.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 04:24 AM  4 years agoPost 593
drdot

rrElite Veteran

So. California, Orange County.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

fwiw...

Heh...Heh....Hes said erectus.....Heh...Heh......Heh.

BC

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 11:19 AM  4 years agoPost 594
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Let me show you.
This is all from the article posted as "their source"
This is from YOUR link Tom
Really out ! Your just laughable dude. Talk about quote mining. You quoted a wall street journal article with no references to back it up. Read the scientific journals and show me the same.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 11:35 AM  4 years agoPost 595
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Ok Dusty here is where I ment to send you.
http://www.icr.org/
I will check the one you found as well thanks for finding it.
The statement you gave is a disclaimer. Did you bother to read what they have researched?
You sure didn't even check the site out dude. I at least will check out and read others sites and links.
They this from that site. I found this in about 4 seconds
http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm
Oh, so that site just so happens to have decided that the God in the Bible is the creator of the universe. What a surprise.

So how did these 'scientists' discover that the God in the Bible is the creator of the universe?

You still haven't explained how scientists might begin to study that God, either.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 01:29 PM  4 years agoPost 596
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Let me start here
I don't want your forgiveness nor do I care if you remember or forget my comments.
First off what i said was I am capable of ,not offering forgiveness ( ie can,may,will,won't,). Again showing your comprehension skills during a conversation.
Again I don't care please pay attention.
Your post just show your deep rooted disrespect for anybody who disagrees with you. Get a life dude
Feel free to disagree with me. But calling real evidence lies and misrepresenting it with creation BS and I will disrespect your stupidity.
10 years or 10,000 years the lizard is still a lizard,a warble is still a warble and Be it a horse,donkey,zebra or mule ,your still still show yourself to be the jackass in the room
That's it stomp your foot put your fingers in your ears and yell it's still a Lizard it's still a Warble... Even if it's very different from it's ancestors. Having issues with the Horse Donkey and Zebra bud can't ICR your way around that can ya.
if you think I twisted or lied you are never restricted by any means to clarify your point . Fell free To do so or dont complain.
I think your issue is you think it's ok to lie for your cause or you believe your own lies. And you can no longer tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

Gearhead
oh, so you believe ??, like that means something to the world ?? just because you believe, does not make it something
This comment of yours makes me think you might just be getting it... But I doubt it. Anyway your right you shouldn't give a dam about my opinion or what I believe you should only care about the evidence. And when it comes to nothing at this point in time there is not one thing in our physical universe that is or can rightly be called nothing. Even empty space contains energy so it can not be considered nothing. Some scientists think that a black hole may contain nothing however we have not been able to test that as yet. The only place nothing exists is in your imagination. However if you know of nothing that can be studied to determined that it is in fact nothing scientists are waiting.... The best example of nothing I can point out is God/Gods can't be detected in anyway never did anything never does anything completely non-existent.

Back to Thomas
You two sound like a couple of parrots
That's what happens when the evidence points to one thing.
Come out read the article and read the references that the article was written. debunk the references and show me the mining.
I have a better idea how about you go and read all of those papers the ICR is referencing from start to finish and see what they have left out hashed together and fabricated. You want to talk about me taking your BS book out of context well unlike your book you don't need a BS decoder to understand. They mean what they say you don't need to interpret them. Go and do it stop wasting our time go and learn something from real scientists.

Back to the Lizards just for you. Yes they are still Lizards what I would like to point out though is that they are now very different lizards. Yes the 2 new types of salamander can still mate but the offspring are neither good mimics or good at camouflage so the offspring don't survive and multiply just in case you missed the point this is known as Natural Selection.

In the case of the Greenish Warbler where the 2 new types of Warbler meet again they are so different they can no longer reproduce with each other however they can still breed with the previous Warblers in the ring.

So by the definition you use (the Bible) it states that only the same kind can bring forth so the Warblers can bring forth with all of their neighbouring cousins making them well the same kind.... But when we reach the last 2 in the ring they can't bring forth with each other so this must make them a different kind. Thomas I know this confuses the $hit out of you. But that's how it is that's what the evidence points to.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 02:42 PM  4 years agoPost 597
Xterra

rrApprentice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Let me show you.
This is all from the article posted as "their source"
This is from YOUR link Tom
Really out ! Your just laughable dude. Talk about quote mining. You quoted a wall street journal article with no references to back it up. Read the scientific journals and show me the same.
You don't
Have you actually read the original article published in Science? The findings do not support what it is written in the book of Genesis. It is what it is.
Now, you can call it evolution, you can call it adaptation, it does not matter, it is fascinating. I, personally, see God in each and every aspect of nature. However, I respect all different religious belief and also people that have opted not to believe in God (any God, Christian, Islam, Hindi, etc).
Have a good day gents! I will be enjoying the wonders of Praia de Pipa -another reason for me to believe in God.


Stratus
Raptor 50V2
T-rex SE
T-rex CDE
T-rex 250 SC
Kyosho M24

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-11-2013 08:13 PM  4 years agoPost 598
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You quoted a wall street journal article with no references to back it up.
Stop being tarded.

Its the same article your biased apologetic website used for fugt sake

So it sOK for them to quote mine it, but no one else. Get real grandpa.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2013 03:28 PM  4 years agoPost 599
HeliAdict

rrApprentice

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How many years did it take for all the species to form, both current and extinct? If your science is so complete you should be able to answer it. The reason this debate continues is neither side can prove beyond doubt their point of view. So what we end up with is a group of pompous arrogant people that claim to know everything, that really are not smart enough to know they know very little. You read and believe what you want to and will never change each other's mind.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-12-2013 03:56 PM  4 years agoPost 600
nitro fun

rrApprentice

Oc ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How many years did it take for all the species to form, both current and extinct? If your science is so complete you should be able to answer it. The reason this debate continues is neither side can prove beyond doubt their point of view. So what we end up with is a group of pompous arrogant people that claim to know everything, that really are not smart enough to know they know very little. You read and believe what you want to and will never change each other's mind.
Not true. Physics of the atomic structure tells the truth, life only comes from life not a chemical reaction

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     28      29     ( 30 )     31      32     NEXT    >> ] 50252 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 16  Topic Subscribe

Monday, May 28 - 12:41 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online