It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by infojunkie2
 

Imagine where we'd be if scentists just accepted Newton's notion of an Intelligent Creator governing the laws of the 6, yes he thought there were only 6, planets that orbit the sun.

LaPlace's scientific expositions removed the need to place a god--like creator at the center of the fundamental laws of planetary motion, and Einstein ripped apart Newton''s concept of gravity over 100 years ago.

People have a tendency to invoke Intelligent Design to resolve all the variance in the lmits of their understanding. Today those limits have been reduced to the microscopic flaggelum that allows microorganisms to be motive. And to the well learned, the flagellum can be explained rather precisely.

A little side dirge on LaPlace that I heard Tyson mention during one of his lectures. After LaPlace had published a 5 Volume series on Celestial Mechanics, Napolean sat down with him to discuss his research. I extracted the following from LaPlace's wiki page:


Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")


and your point is ? he used science to come up with the idea of only six planets.well thats really helping your cause.

let me ask you something, all you guys say that you only believe in things you can prove with facts, which this requires no faith, does that mean that you dont believe in faith, because faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for. and faith can't be seen or proven with your so called evidence.
but do you believe in air ? do you drive over bridges? do you believe you will wake up in the morning

if so why? you cant prove where air comes from and you cant see it, how do you know that the bridge will hold you up? and people die in their sleep all the time.




posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection—or survival of the fittest.

According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.

Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful input—no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.

This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.

For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.

Evolution is rooted in Deception and Wishful thinking...



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 





This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.


Actually, it's completely backed up by a crazy amount of objective data...that's why it's classified as a THEORY. We have at least the same amount of data supporting the theory, as we have for gravity, or thermodynamics.



For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.


The fossil record (and DNA analysis) totally shows gradual change. Not sure what you're on about...

You make it sound as if there's any doubt regarding the theory...that's just wrong. The people who should know best, earth/life scientists, are almost all supporting the theory.



Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists.


It gets even better...we're actively using the theory today




In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications.[22][98][99][100] In 2009, there were 235,740 scientific papers in PubMed that mentioned 'evolution'. Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.


Source

The number of religious believers have been dropping dramatically over the past 20+ years, and luckily people are slowly realizing that the rational used by creationists isn't based on objective evidence, but rather lies that are demonstrably wrong.
edit on 30-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faith2011
The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection—or survival of the fittest.

According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.

Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful input—no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.

Not a bad summarization.


This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.

For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.

Putting aside the fact that fossil formation only occurs under some pretty specific conditions, I want to be absolutely clear on what you're saying - are you asserting that we don't have a single case where the fossil record shows gradual changes from one organism to another?

Keep in mind, as has been stated in countless threads in this part of the ATS forums, that Darwin's work on evolution is only one part of the modern theory of evolution and that paleontological evidence is only one part of the evidence for it. For example, you're completely ignoring genetic evidence. Ignoring the genetic evidence makes for a good strawman, but is so divorced from reality that no one who has the faintest idea what the modern theory of evolution would think that Darwin is the beginning and end of information on evolution.


Evolution is rooted in Deception and Wishful thinking...

Evolution is rooted in well over a century of evidence and has made several confirmed predictions. Anything else is ignorance of the facts at hand and self-deception. If you don't want to believe in evolution because it conflicts with your personal belief system, that's fine. But the science is there. If this is what your claims consist of, you should stick to preaching.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Evolution is Based in Wishful thinking and is in Total Error!

Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

Sometimes I think the term "IDiot" is being too kind.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


You don't seem to have the slightest clue about science...



Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic.


So you claiming a mathematical formula is always required, and that evolution is the only one not featuring such, is complete and utter nonsense.

LINK



Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene.


Again, you seem to have no clue...

Here's why you are wrong:





The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones.


Of course babies are vulnerable, not because nature chose that, more because that's how sexual reproduction works. Are you expecting horses to give birth to fully grown horses? Where would that fully grown baby horse reside inside the fully grown mom horse? What a ridiculous idea


And evolution made sure there's mechanism making up for "weak babies". Birds lay more than 1 egg, so do turtles. It's a numbers game. If only a small % is able to survive, nature will produce a large amount of offspring to make up for that. If the offspring isn't really all that weak, there's fewer babies...as is the case with elephants for example.



Sometimes I think the term "IDiot" is being too kind.


Nice ad hominem attack...but also kinda ironic given what you just posted is complete garbage and demonstrably wrong









edit on 30-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


Except genes can be added to the genome through gene duplication. This has been observed numerous times and has been linked to many large scale mutations. I would go into the other part of your post, but I'm sure someone can answer it better than I can.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faith2011
Evolution is Based in Wishful thinking and is in Total Error!

This is the second time you've said this. You seem to be describing yourself much more accurately than the theory of evolution.


Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.

It's painfully obvious that you haven't the first clue on what constitutes a theory and how they differ from laws. Or are you asserting that the theory of evolution is devoid of mathematics?


Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

It's painfully obvious that you haven't the first clue about the mechanisms that drive evolution. For example, one form of mutation results in extra copies of gene within a genome. This actually aids the process of evolution, as the extra copies of genes act as raw materials for new genes to evolve. This would have taken you five minutes of research to find out if you were actually interested in having honest discourse on the subject.


The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

Hardly. Fitness is determined across populations within an environment, not against some fictitious absolute scale that you try to impose so you can create yet another strawman argument. Seriously, stop reading creationist propaganda sites for factual information. It rots your mind.


Sometimes I think the term "IDiot" is being too kind.

Given that ID is typically shorthand for Intelligent Design, I'd tend to agree.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
While organisms do change through time, this quality of life is driven by a complex cellular machinery. To assume that the sophisticated systems within the cell could have arisen by pure chance requires a tremendous amount of faith in statistical improbability. Our world has many features that testify to the existence of an intelligent designer. God's handiwork is readily evident in nature, and therefore, it may indeed require less faith to believe in God than the possibility that complex structures could simply develop by themselves.

Evolution is a theory of desperation for those that refuse to accept the obvious -- we were created for a purpose. To believe in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any conceivable circumstance. Is evolution then a science or a religion? Many have stated it is the latter. Evolution has unquestionably been spawned by atheistic philosophy, and is the key instrument used by secular humanism to explain the existence of humans independent of God.

God created man for his own purposes; particularly that man should mature and become a friend of God. In order to achieve this he gave man considerable intelligence, a reasonable freedom of choices, many opportunities to explore and learn, but most importantly the opportunity to become the sons of God through salvation in Jesus Christ. Then, as a child of God, people have the privilege of maturing into adults that are friends of God. The good result is that men, women, and children gradually learn to know and enjoy God. The bad result is that man can acquire a technological competence that makes him feel that he does not need God, in fact, that he is able to God what God does. Without God, man is subject to the evil inspired tendency to try to be equal with God.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faith2011
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.

This is laughable, Hardy and Weinberg would surely take offense.

Anybody who has taken an undergrad evolution course knows at least 3 by heart, and certainly would recall the one underlying the basic principle of evolutionary change:

p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1

Why should anybody listen to a single word you say after making such a grand assumption without doing even a basic google search? On either the above or fossil evidence.

This is what distinguishes a scientist from a creationist et al.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


By above, I mean higher in rank, authority, or power...

So is an oak higher in rank than an acorn? A colonel in the army of vegetables, while an acorn is just a buck private?

Is a cow is higher in authority than an aurochs (it's 'origin species', as you call it)? How much higher? Does a cow have national-level authority, while an aurochs can only make district-level decisions?


... with a definable purpose or utility revealing a striving desire

Simply insisting that purpose or utility reveals intent or desire won't do, mate. That's what you're trying to prove.


All your textbooks amount to theory stacked on theory making a house of cards.

Pish. The theories and laws in scientific textbooks are substantiated by observation and experiment. They are realistic and reliable. You're afraid of what they reveal, so you deny them, just like an ostrich that hides his head in the sand because he is afraid of what he sees.

The more you write in this thread, the less sense you make, and the less worthy an opponent you come to seem.


edit on 31/3/11 by Astyanax because: of the lulz.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 





In order to achieve this he gave man considerable intelligence


It seems he gave some more than others if he really existed...especially if you continue to post nonsense like "evolution is based on faith" or "atheism is a religion". All you're doing is preaching, you haven't posted a single objective evidence to back up your claims



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


Why would a bacteria turn into a horse (which is what you're implying) if it's best suited for its environment being a bacteria?

You bring up the macro vs micro evolution argument again...it's been discussed dozens of times, and it's complete nonsense...all it shows is that you don't really understand the theory.




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faith2011
reply to post by uva3021
 

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Ah, you've given yourself away a bit. You're just blindly cutting and pasting this from another source, without reading it and cross-referencing it to make sure it's actually correct. What makes it obvious is that you haven't stripped out all of the numbers for footnotes, as witnessed in the following sentence in your post:


There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16).

So fess up and post your source.

Can you explain the environmental pressures that would require bacteria or fruit flies to evolve into something "new"?

Also, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist" - it's a bigoted word made up by creationists to try and denigrate the theory of evolution. There seems to be a need to repeat this to you - the theory of evolution has as much evidence supporting it as the theory of gravity, the heliocentric theory, germ theory, and a whole host of other scientific theories. But I don't see you calling people heliocentrists or gravitationists or germists.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Theories are observations of existing laws and not an invention of them. These observations are never made twice and can never be realistic or reliable. No substantiation is possible. Here's why:

The Earth moves, the solar system moves, the galaxy moves. We have never been in the same place twice. All substance and matter is in constant flux from one state to another. No piece of matter has ever been the same twice. It is all moving from one thing to becoming another. Science has only observed one changing state after another and one unique observation after another. If you ask three people to describe the same event, you will get three perspectives. Each will be accurate only to one point of view and frame of reference. Only an observation made of all at one time, by an observer in every state of change possible could make the statement you made. You have seven holes in your head to sense the world. Those holes only perceive a fraction of what is actually going one. We have made our best observations in the last 100 years, making your statement a bit presumptuous at this point. The best answers to all of nature are presented to us in the Bible. It stands against our best science, presented in the simplest form possible. All the obvious answers in one place. The Bible has been our only true comparison apart from the obvious design in nature.



Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



All your textbooks amount to theory stacked on theory making a house of cards.

Pish. The theories and laws in scientific textbooks are substantiated by observation and experiment. They are realistic and reliable. You're afraid of what they reveal, so you deny them, just like an ostrich that hides his head in the sand because he is afraid of what he sees.

The more you write in this thread, the less sense you make, and the less worthy an opponent you come to seem.


edit on 31-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You literally have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science. I'm sorry if science runs contrary to your holy book but you are deluded in the way you flagrantly ignore objective evidence that conflicts with your scripture. If you want to live in a fantasy land, by all means you are fee to do so, but it strikes me as more than a little foolish to dismiss science out of hand yet be content to reap the benefits by using a computer and posting on the internet. Maybe an Amish way of life would better suite your beliefs, rather than living a lie in this modern world?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Theories are observations of existing laws and not an invention of them.

Another person that doesn’t really understand what a scientific theory is. In science, a fact is an objective and verifiable observation which is independent of the observer. Scientific laws are concise verbal or mathematical statements of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science which is always true under specific circumstances. Hypotheses are testable, potentially falsifiable explanations of facts and/or laws. Finally, theories are unifying frameworks explaining facts, laws, and hypotheses. Going further into defining a scientific theory, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

You can’t have a theory without having observable facts or laws.


These observations are never made twice and can never be realistic or reliable. No substantiation is possible.

Are you asserting that no test is reproducible and therefore no two tests will ever get the same results?


The Earth moves, the solar system moves, the galaxy moves. We have never been in the same place twice. All substance and matter is in constant flux from one state to another. No piece of matter has ever been the same twice. It is all moving from one thing to becoming another. Science has only observed one changing state after another and one unique observation after another.

You are operating under the assumption that these changes will have a significant impact on the reproducibility of tests. I’ll ask again: are you asserting that, because of the phenomena that you’ve listed above, no test is reproducible and therefore no two tests will ever get the same results?


If you ask three people to describe the same event, you will get three perspectives. Each will be accurate only to one point of view and frame of reference. Only an observation made of all at one time, by an observer in every state of change possible could make the statement you made.

Are you talking about subjective or objective observations?


You have seven holes in your head to sense the world. Those holes only perceive a fraction of what is actually going one.

Because we don’t have any devices that can make observations of phenomena that we can’t perceive with our senses for us. Nope. None. At all.


We have made our best observations in the last 100 years, making your statement a bit presumptuous at this point. The best answers to all of nature are presented to us in the Bible. It stands against our best science, presented in the simplest form possible. All the obvious answers in one place. The Bible has been our only true comparison apart from the obvious design in nature.

To use your own model for understanding, the "facts" as presented in the Bible are based on the best observations of a bunch of primitive goat herders over three thousand years ago. So claiming that it provides the best answers, even after it’s been debunked time and time again by the facts, is more than a bit presumptuous... it's absolutely lunatic.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You don't seem to have the slightest clue about science...


Well, this poster is calling the theory of evolution "darwinism". People such as this reveal their lack of knowledge right up front and with little shame.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


According to your "logic", you might just as well change gravity to "intelligent falling" because we have just as much objective evidence for evolution as we have for gravity. Yet I don't see you attacking gravity...I wonder why that is







 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join