Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
Mimio, macro-evolution is an extrapolation from the evidence. We have no evidence that Natural Selection + Unguided Mutation can produce novel body plans. It's simply an unwarranted conclusion. Saying it's otherwise, doesn't change the facts. And as we peer deeping into the molecular building blocks (something Darwin couldn't do) we find things are consistent with the lack of evidence.
So yes, it does require faith.
- discipler0
What point, kelpie?
- pavlovs_dog0
no.
- Baskerville0
"I believe in God/Jesus because of a bevy of historical and archaeological evidence."
Oh of course! I forgot that they dug up the ruins of god's house and found his diary written in aramaic. Yeah there's tons of evidence of god!?
- pavlovs_dog0
What point, kelpie?
discipler
(Jan 5 06, 08:59)if you ignore it, it will go away.
- mrdobolina0
7500 years of iranian history versus 6000 years of the entire earth being here.
How bout an answer?
- discipler0
Many still believe God™ created the universe and everything in it, but will get over that too when proven wrong.
designerror
(Jan 5 06, 08:49)
--------------------Unlikely, since the trend in scientific discovery over the last 30 - 50 years is pointing more and more towards God. i.e. genetic code in the cell, the Big Bang, the physical constants and their fine-tuning, etc...
- discipler0
mrdobs, I thought this thread was about Darwinism pretending to be science? Most Young Earth Creationists believe the earth is 10K years old. There are Old Earth Creationists too. So, it's non issue. And that assumes that you have correct information about said recordings.
- kelpie0
and again
- -sputnik-0
I believe in God/Jesus because of a bevy of historical, archaeological, and subjective-experienc e, evidence. Faith based in facts.
Darwinism, on the other hand, requires faith in the absence of facts. The evidence is sorely lacking.
discipler
(Jan 5 06, 08:39)post of teh dhey!!!
lolz!!!!!!!!!!!!
- discipler0
tell me what point you were referring to, kelpie. It's just me here, trying to respond to about 8 other people.
- Baskerville0
If this thread goes past 200 posts then discipler is officially wrong and may never return to Newstoday unless it is to start or join in a design discussion
- Chimp0
What if there was a creator? The very existence of a 'god' would mean there could be more than one. This would contradict the bible.
I find 'faith' a very dangerous thing.
- mrdobolina0
how many years does your bible say the earth has been here, discipler?
not young earth vs. old earth.
The bible.
It is an issue, you cannot dictate what is and isnt an issue.
- cphunk0
omfg. I seriously cannot believe there is another thread on this stuff on this board...
What doesn't surprise me is who the majority of responses are from.
- ********0
well it's a goofed up thread anyway. KuzII was clipped by the big guy
- ross0
Trade Gothic Bold Two.
- kelpie0
discipler my friend if you don't know to what I refer then it really does proove my point. Sorry pal, I'm out of here.
- bradpitt0
god just called and mentioned earth is about 6 days old. Also the oil formation which usually takes a very long time cause it requires fossils, all happened about 6 days ago.
ohhh...and mormons had it right, it was the right religion.
- ********0
Evolution does not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, the success of any arrangement of matter, beit from a change in dna coding to produce variations in protein, or the larger scale effects of same that might compound to produce better resistance to disease, a more crumpled ear, darker hair etc..
The truth is that almost almost always, these minor variations within a species are harmful, something inthe order of 1 in a 100 billion are not..
Because these changes are usually deliterious to the individual that carries the instructions to build them, the individual has a low chance of reproducing, and so, with fossilisation being so very very rare, are not preserved..
So, when we look back thru the fossil record, what we dont see are the mutations that didnt survive to be fossilised.. A mutation - a change in physiology must have to be extrememly advantageous to have have produced enough individuals to have entered the 'fossilisation lottery'.
Fossilisation does not, of course, preserve evolutionary/mutational evidence at the molecular level - we must assume that changes in physiology then we, as today, caused by molecular changes, which is not unreasonable.
Does that cover it ?