Does everyone now accept the Theory o...

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2623 Oct 15, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but a theory in science is consider fact, science 101. Basic.
Epic fail on your part.
Oh so your big defence is "THEY SAID SO". Well done!

BIO101 has not long replaced its biology books that spoke to the robust empirical evidence of mankinds knuckle walking ancestry.

I might remind you, the same fossils that supported mankinds knuckle walking ancestry, now support mankinds non knuckle walking ancestry to an upright ape. A minority of researchers still disagree. Isn't that just dandy!

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2624 Oct 15, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'm here to say I am an atheist because there has never been any evidence showing any kind of a god created anything.
So there are atheists.
Actually there is evidence of God creating indeed. The theory of general relativity dictates that energy is niether created nor destroyed. Therefore energy has always been. Energy is turned into matter..."In the beginning God". Science continually validiates biblical claims but of course atheists would rather die than admit that fact.

Those that support the theory of elements and a few proteins rearranging themselves into complex factories of reproduction by themselves or chance actually sound more far fetched and non-plausible than those claiming a superior intelligence has done that exact same thing on a larger scale.
EvilutionBuster

Elizabethtown, KY

#2625 Oct 16, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure where that poll came from , I heard 46% didn't support the Theory of Evolution. But it does not matter, because science is not a democracy, it is true whether you believe it or not.
Gallup.......
Actually to be perfectly accurate about it....... Science is not nature and the universe, etc, it is mankind's STUDY of these things....... And while there are many facts learned by scientific study, when one says "good science", one is referring to things that are proven to be true.......Evolution my be something that is studied by scientists but science is certainly NOT evolution......You do not understand the difference between the study of things that exist or are thought to exist and those actual things......But keep trying......After I give you a few more lessons, you may get it after all....... As for now, why don't you concentrate on learning the fact that evolution is not a fact and is not the same definition as the word SCIENCE.......You really do look quite uninformed by continuing to use the definition of science as if it is the definition of evolution.
And it proves absolutely nothing with regard to evolution being true, etc......Science has never PROVEN that evolution is true.
EvilutionBuster

Elizabethtown, KY

#2626 Oct 16, 2013
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
In terms of inconsistencies, any comparison of the 4 gospels will show that they occasionally give different accounts of important events. Some of these are stunningly different, some are just minor but I can't see how anyone could not have noticed any inconsistencies at all. The only conclusion I can make is that you haven't read the Bible properly.
I suggest you read Matthew Mark Luke and John, and while you're reading, assemble the facts as they are stated, and notice which ones are different in which account.
Well, I suggest you present one of those things you believe to be inconsistent and we will see if your conclusion is correct.......Each writer saw things from his own perspective, but that does not mean the gospel was compromised just because one saw one aspect of something and another reported a different aspect of it....Present one of your inconsistencies.......
EvilutionBuster

Elizabethtown, KY

#2627 Oct 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is evidence of God creating indeed. The theory of general relativity dictates that energy is niether created nor destroyed. Therefore energy has always been. Energy is turned into matter..."In the beginning God". Science continually validiates biblical claims but of course atheists would rather die than admit that fact.
Those that support the theory of elements and a few proteins rearranging themselves into complex factories of reproduction by themselves or chance actually sound more far fetched and non-plausible than those claiming a superior intelligence has done that exact same thing on a larger scale.
Very true indeed, Maz.....You have just stated the ESSENCE of the entire reality of what creation and evolution are.......Creation is easily provable by the fact that nothing could have designed itself in 50 quintrillion years, therefore evolution is totally IMPOSSIBLE and UNPROVABLE by any means whatsoever.......

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2628 Oct 16, 2013
EvilutionBuster wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true indeed, Maz.....You have just stated the ESSENCE of the entire reality of what creation and evolution are.......Creation is easily provable by the fact that nothing could have designed itself in 50 quintrillion years, therefore evolution is totally IMPOSSIBLE and UNPROVABLE by any means whatsoever.......
Hi there

The creationist argument of irreducible complexity is a good one. Evolutionists have struggled to overturn the example of the eye. However, there is no need to look to the eye. A living cell is irreducibly complex, regardless of the DNA/RNA first evolutionary dilemma.

It is a different conversation when talking to an atheist about the creation/evolution debate. A theist must accept some sort of guidance in the creation of mankind, and require some form of IDer or creationist model at least.

Although atheists try very hard to get God out of the picture. God just keeps popping up everywhere. From the impossibility of an irreducibly complex factory of reproduction assembling itself, to the Copernican principle that guides cosmology, God just keeps popping up.'Goldilocks earth' sounds more like a fairytale than the claim God made earth for purpose and our cosmic address is proof of it.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-...

The only thing all evolutionary researchers agree on is "It all evolved". That has about as much scientific merit as "God did it". In fact,'God did it' is much more plausible a scenario, than 'nothing' did it.
EvilutiontBuster

Raywick, KY

#2629 Oct 16, 2013
Master Po wrote:
No everyone has not accepted the theory of evolution because it is one big lie.
You are absolutely correct Master Po......They can say that a theory is a fact, but that also is a lie...They can say that there is proof of evolution but that is a lie....They can say that God does not exist but that is a lie...They can say that all reputable scientists believe in evolution but that is a lie....They can say that no evidence points to CREATION but that is one of the biggest of all their lies.......Evolutionists are not logical at all.... and they are very uninformed as to the reality of their existence.......They are totally brainwashed and blinded by a garbage heap so big they cannot dig their way through it or find their way around it, and since their beliefs simply do not FLY, they have no way to escape.

The Platypus Terrorizes Evolution:
www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/06/the-platypus...

Debunking Evolution:
www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2630 Oct 16, 2013
Prove Evolution IS False: Even Without The Bible

www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-eve...
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2631 Oct 16, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but a theory in science is consider fact, science 101. Basic.
Epic fail on your part.
Take your time there, Pete....Did you mean to say "considered" ?
Maybe you need to go down the hall to English 101.....Ha ha....Just having fun...We all make those typos.......
However, as you and the other atheists on this thread are forever incorrect, and also continually arrogant and condescending toward creationists, I must be quite frank, and say that you certainly ARE 101....(one, oh one, who definitely needs the basics of good science.......)..You see, no matter how hard we try to explain it all to you, you just keep on getting all F's in the class....Now back to that English....You should have said "Epic FAILURE on your part"......Which, I might joyously add, is one of the greatest definitions of the theory of evolution I have heard in a long time.......Evolution itself, had it ever existed, would have been an epic failure.
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2632 Oct 16, 2013
Evolutionary scenarios provide us with wonderfully laughable tales and certainly do continually give evidence that creation, instead,is the real thing.
One good example of this is the theory that human reproduction is evolution.......As kids are not exact duplicates of their parents, olasonn has stated that this is evolution......Now, just imagine one of olasonn's great great great great great great.....(many more greats) grandchildren being born with some evolutionary change such as 3 eyes or alligator-type scales down its back, and the reaction from its poor distressed mother!!!.....NNNOOOOOOOOOOOO! !!!!!!!After all, if evolution is gradual, but creatures eventually over long periods of time evolve into other creatures, then there has to be a specific time that SOMETHING is noticeably different!!......Oh well, at least the boy will be able to read well, but I am not sure if a back rub from his girlfriend would be an option....... The logical and barrier-based amazingly wonderful and provable
creation of God dictates that no creature can evolve into other creatures.......

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2633 Oct 16, 2013
EvilutionBuster wrote:
Evolutionary scenarios provide us with wonderfully laughable tales and certainly do continually give evidence that creation, instead,is the real thing.
One good example of this is the theory that human reproduction is evolution.......As kids are not exact duplicates of their parents, olasonn has stated that this is evolution......Now, just imagine one of olasonn's great great great great great great.....(many more greats) grandchildren being born with some evolutionary change such as 3 eyes or alligator-type scales down its back, and the reaction from its poor distressed mother!!!.....NNNOOOOOOOOOOOO! !!!!!!!After all, if evolution is gradual, but creatures eventually over long periods of time evolve into other creatures, then there has to be a specific time that SOMETHING is noticeably different!!......Oh well, at least the boy will be able to read well, but I am not sure if a back rub from his girlfriend would be an option....... The logical and barrier-based amazingly wonderful and provable
creation of God dictates that no creature can evolve into other creatures.......
All research and lab work indicates a genes ability to mutate is limited. Bradfords work on genetic entrophy still has some merit. The genome cannot evolve for billions of years due to deleterious effects, one of them being epistasis. Bradford was ridiculed, however current research suggests an organisms ability to adapt/microevolve is limited. Here are 2 research articles that tend to support that claim.

"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

"These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Of course evolutionary researchers will tweak models and insertion values to suggest there is some over ride, and life/evolution goes on. However modelling is based on the assumption of TOE and that life must have evolved over billions of years, regardless of any data that contradicts that claim.

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2634 Oct 16, 2013
Rewrite

All research and lab work indicates a genes ability to mutate is limited. Sanfords work on genetic entrophy still has some merit. The genome cannot evolve for billions of years due to deleterious effects, one of them being epistasis. John Sanford was ridiculed, however current research suggests an organisms ability to adapt/microevolve is limited.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.asp...

Here are 2 research articles that tend to support that claim.

"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

"These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

Of course evolutionary researchers will tweak models and insertion values to suggest there is some over ride, and life/evolution goes on. However modelling is based on the assumption of TOE and that life must have evolved over billions of years, regardless of any data that contradicts that claim.
Levi

London, UK

#2635 Oct 16, 2013
*Sigh*...

The thread was just getting interesting and now it's been spammed to death.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2636 Oct 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is evidence of God creating indeed. The theory of general relativity dictates that energy is niether created nor destroyed. Therefore energy has always been. Energy is turned into matter..."In the beginning God". Science continually validiates biblical claims but of course atheists would rather die than admit that fact.
Those that support the theory of elements and a few proteins rearranging themselves into complex factories of reproduction by themselves or chance actually sound more far fetched and non-plausible than those claiming a superior intelligence has done that exact same thing on a larger scale.
We don't entirely know if energy has always existed, before the Big Bang, but someday may understand it. So there's not much to your hypothesis.

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2637 Oct 16, 2013
Levi wrote:
*Sigh*...
The thread was just getting interesting and now it's been spammed to death.
Well obviously the thread topic was quickly answered. Of course not everyone now accepts TOE. Both sides of the debate are supported by intelligent people.

It seems now some want to argue that one side of the debate has more merit than another. Why not???

I see research that supports what I claim, I see others claims that I know are also backed by research. I wouldn't say that was spam. I see evolutionists opinions with little to no research offered.

What exactly are you calling spam?

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#2638 Oct 16, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't entirely know if energy has always existed, before the Big Bang, but someday may understand it. So there's not much to your hypothesis.
Actually it is not my hypothesis and you should know that. The law of conservation of energy is the hypothesis of your leading scientists that just so happens to align with biblical claims of an eternal source of power, that being God.

The law of conservation of energy.
This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermody...
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2639 Oct 17, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't entirely know if energy has always existed, before the Big Bang, but someday may understand it. So there's not much to your hypothesis.
Ha ha....EXCELLENT post Pete.......You have just given creationism a big boost..... You "don't know"......."Someday we MAY understand", and "not much to your hypothesis" are all very good descriptions of the way the theory of evolution appears.......It is continually hilarious to read the articles that are supposed to validate evolution....They are loaded with phrases just as you have just used......."Scientists THINK"......"possibl y evolved from"......"Research ers BELIEVE"......"most likely happened"......
etc, etc, etc, proving that most of the entire theory and its individual suppositions have never been proven.......Evolution will always continue to be what it is....theoretical, and not factual.......not to mention the wide gap of possible years for something to evolve.......Often it is "between 20 and 100 million years ago" or something similar to that......HA HA.......Such wide gaps only show that scientists are only making GUESSES about what they are trying to validate.......
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2640 Oct 17, 2013
Is anyone else's posts showing up with the letters in individual words having gaps??......I certainly did not type it in that way....Oh well, on a funny note, it just reminds me of the gaps in the timeline that are guessed at by evolution-believing scientists......Or missing links that are never found......
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2641 Oct 18, 2013
Hey, everyone....This is very interesting......I could not get the link to go in by itself, but type into your browser...

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there's no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution....

The link is about Professor James M. Tour...... he talks all about no one truly understanding or being able to explain evolution......They just believe it anyway.......he tells of microevolution (actually variation within species)... but insists that no great scientist really knows the other.......There is also a mention of a book about ADAM that deals a death blow to evolution.
EvilutionBuster

Raywick, KY

#2642 Oct 18, 2013
Well, I think the title of this thread has already been answered long ago, as Maz said......

NO....there are MANY intelligent and well-educated people who do NOT believe the theory of evolution.......and you atheists would do well to do the same thing.......there is no real proof or way to explain evolution.......People just believe it and then make assumptions/guesses/ifs/maybes /possiblies/most-likelies/thin ks/ etc, the basis for their belief.......in other words, the ENTIRE IDEA OF EVOLUTION ASSUMES IT IS TRUE BEFORE ANY PROOF IS EVER OFFERED......and since no real proof has ever been found......I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.......

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where is the IJ found in Scripture? 2 min Lay Worker 170
Ellen White asked a Legitimate Question that ex... 18 min djc 26
God says for me to Live; I am told to Die. 22 min misbehaved 9
We Have Never Seen Anything like This... (2017-... 53 min Earburner 717
Why did Pastor Doug RESIGN ? (Apr '11) 1 hr djc 639
EGW & SDA Forbid Jewelry? 2 hr Stephen1989 26
Freemasonry in Adventism (Jul '07) 2 hr djc 1,065
Christ's Investigative Judgment Doctrine 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 24
Was the Sabbath Covenant made for mankind? 2 hr djc 285
More from around the web