Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Linn and Astus, you two always have something interesting to say. I'd like to hear what David thinks about all this, because usually has a few good things to say, too. But you're right, Astus, it's all been said before. But I find it's never said in the same way twice, so it's always interesting to see what new way the same arguments crop up again. At best it keeps my mind active and keeps me interested in the topic, and after coming home from a long day at work, it takes a lot to keep me interested in anything. So you should all feel proud of yourselves. No one else can do what you do. And that's no theory, it's a scientific fact!
#2 Total Post Count
hmm alex, leben must have finally read your posts and realize his questions were answered because he did not come back.
It would be so funny if he came back right now and proved you wrong!
#2 Total Post Count
I have not been posting on here for several reasons but I doubt yall care to know. Not does it apply to anything in our conversation.
Now please everyone realize that I am just questioning and trying to understand this all. But I do have input and sertain things that I believe should be stated.
That being said,
I noticed someone told me to scientifically prove that a creator exists and for me to try and scientifically prove who that is. Now for me to do so that would also require a little bit of history.
If you would like me to try and prove those two things then I ask you to do the same for proving that we do not have a creator. That we are all suposedly by chance.
Another thing, this is controversy on this forum but it does still apply, the spiritual and "natural" (as Alex said, I will not comment on that) worlds do overlap. Some say that they do not but it is quite obvious that they do, all you need to do it look in the correct places.
Now do not get me wrong but this is an example for my side of the argument.
Lets take witchcraft for example, (whether or not you believe in it this does exist, and francly I think it may be foolish for a person to just dismiss its existance entirly)
Witchcraft deals with both the spiritual and natural realms. They feed off of the powers of the spiritual world but use those powers to effect the things in the "natural" world.
If the two did not overlap then this would be entirly impossible. You would not have humans who live in this realm be able to "control" stuff from the spiritual realm if the two did not overlap each other.
Some will see this post as a bunch of nonsence but I do not not care. Like I said before you may believe in this or not but it does exist. If you want proof you can get proof but I will tell you right now that you will not like what you see.
If there are any people here who are in a religion you should understand what I am saying here, but for all those who are in the science field who do not belive in religion then I am not entirly sure what to say for you to understand this.
But Alex, you said you were a Roman Catholic, the Bible talks about witchcraft so if you truly are a Roman Catholic then you accept that there is such thing as witchcraft. Accepting that means that you also accept that the spiritual world and the "natural" world overlap.
And as you asked Alex I belive in the creater who goes by the names of Jehovah, Adonai, El Shaddai, El Qanna, Jehovah Rapha, I AM, etc. I believe in the creator who is three parts in one, The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
The God of Abraham, Issac, & Moses.
The God whos son is Yeshua.
I am a Christian like yourself, I am an Episcopalian which is realativly similar to a Roman Catholic but we dropped some of the doctrines. I am still one of the true Episcopalians who still hold the Word of God true, and live by it. Also those who still believe in marrage as a covenant between a man and a woman.
For me to try and scientifically prove who the creator is will definatly take some time for me to do. I will also need the rules of which I would have to apply to my research.
I am not sure that I can even do this but it is definatly something of which I think would be worth trying.
Still one question has not entirly been answered, how is evolution itself not a myth? Please give me some info on this that would explain it, I somewhat get what you said before but would you explain how evolution is not a myth in detail please? I will read everything with an open mind.
Wow, Leben, you're much more open-minded than I originally thought. My apologies for misjudging you. Now here's my two cents.
If you're like me you don't have much time to post every day, but you're right it doesn't matter.
You can't prove a negative; you can never prove that something doesn't exist. However, that doesn't mean that it automatically does exist. And proving a creator doesn't prove who that creator is. It could be the Abrahamic God, or the Egyptian gods, or the Hindu ones, or Mithras, or aliens, or anything else. To prove any particular deity, you're going to have to go a lot farther than just proving that creator exists.
In my opinion, for what it's worth, the big bang is about the best proof of a creator than anyone's ever been able to come up with.
You have a point, but true science should deal exclusively with the natural. The supernatural is quite beyond the ability of science to investigate.
Witches aren't the only ones who do that; such also exists in Christian theology.
So do I.
Yes, it would take a while, but if you think you can do it, by all means give it a try. I'd be very interested to see what you can come up with.
It can be tested, it has, and it has passed every conceivable test and is supported by vast amounts of evidence. How does that make it a myth?
#2 Total Post Count
Okay yes SOME parts of evolution is able to be studied, BUT has a new creature evolving from a preivious creature been studied? Have we actually seen a species evolve from a previous species? And are there ANY fossil records of the actual progression. What I mean is, have we even found the progression of creatures STEP BY STEP, not a step here a step there.
I will admit that by observing fossil records and species that exist now that there are similarities between species and that if you line species together it will look like there is a line. But there are missing links. There are no records or observations of a new species being born.
Oh also, one thing that I have forgotten to mention before. Were are all these dates coming from? How can any scientist come up with these 65 million years ago, or all that jaz?
Carbon dating only goes back what? 2000 years? After that it is what crypton dating? Well that wont work since after all we have poluted the earth with nuclear power and stuff. So crypton dating is inacurate. So were are these dates comeing from.
Oh and BTW, my password was saved on my comp and I had to reset my server so all my passwords were erased so I had to get a new sn. My e-mail is down to so yeah, bad timing on my end.
True that you can not prove a negative, but for those who say that we do not have a creator I would like to see how they can prove that scientifically.
Kabuto, you may be surprised what can be proved. And I am not giving any garenties on this but I will definatly try to prove the identity of our creator. And my being a Christian I will not use that as the basis of my argument, or avoid stuff that may seem to contradict my beliefs. I will take a clean slate and work from their.
Alex, I know Witches are not the only ones. But they were the easyest for me to explain at the moment.
Alex, can you show me the tests and stuff, and the records plz. I would very much like to read them.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests