Hey you evolutionists...

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

so you are putting parameters on evolutions? if it can be proven see it all the way through from the beginning? the creation of the universe has to be taken into account, don't be lazy and start with earth.

The theory of evolution is based upon evolving life on this planet, not the physical beginnings of matter in this universe. If you have such a fundamentally poor understanding of this topic, why are you typing instead of sitting back, reading, and learning?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Using the famous gravity comparison:

Gravity is the pull between two objects. Evolution is the change in an organism over generations.

We have observed things falling, which demonstrates the pull between two objects. We have seen fruit flies change over generation.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact.

Newton's theory of gravity was not quite correct. Darwin's theory of evolution was not quite correct.

Einstein developed the General Theory of Relativity to explain gravity; we developed the Theory of Evolution (which includes more modern information like genes) to explain biodiversity.

Evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

My presence in this thread has been "I reject the theory of evolution," and I intend to keep it that way.

Way to show your open minded view of the topic. lol //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif
This is how you feel, and no amount of facts will tell you otherwise... right Cletis? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

So science and religion are very much the same because of the rigteous attitude many of the zelouts on each side hold? Pretty thin penn, pretty thin. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
How many times must I point out one is based on testing while the other is based on 'because its written' or 'because i say so'? You can say Im being righteous with my attitude by stating this, and then correlate that as some fundamental similrities between the two topics, but in reality that is human emotions trying to interfere with a fact and physics based world. A scientist should understand these things fundamentally, if they wihsh to be true to their career, and to themselves. Hedging your bets to get into heaven is to live a lie on both sides or the debate. Chose a side, quit trying to pretend you dont have to.

I'm on a side, Christianity. Its not about what the bases of the two institutions. its about what is at their core. Remember science has come a long way and it was as lost as many religious bodies are. Both do need to be tested. If you read the Bible you would see God clearly states to test things. Its just a different kind of test. God wants us to test if something is in line with Him or not. He does not require things to make sense. So both do test, only they are looking for different things. That's why I've been ignoring those test/faith comments since now

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

Evolution is a fact.

You're just plain wrong, and you wouldn't find a World Class scientist on the planet that would agree with you.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

so you are putting parameters on evolutions? if it can be proven see it all the way through from the beginning? the creation of the universe has to be taken into account, don't be lazy and start with earth.

Evolution has nothing to do with how the first matter appeared; it answers the questions of what happened to the matter between then and now.

 

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

The theory of evolution is based upon evolving life on this planet, not the physical beginnings of matter in this universe. If you have such a fundamentally poor understanding of this topic, why are you typing instead of sitting back, reading, and learning?

well the planet evolved from something right? it came from somewhere right? so where'd it come from? see it through to the beginning. that's like christians stopping at jesus and forgetting the whole Old testament. There's a reason the theory of evolution stops, because they can't even come close to proving anything before it.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

Using the famous gravity comparison:
Gravity is the pull between two objects. Evolution is the change in an organism over generations.

We have observed things falling, which demonstrates the pull between two objects. We have seen fruit flies change over generation.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact.

Newton's theory of gravity was not quite correct. Darwin's theory of evolution was not quite correct.

Einstein developed the General Theory of Relativity to explain gravity; we developed the Theory of Evolution (which includes more modern information like genes) to explain biodiversity.

Evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact.

I agree with this. Although the last sentence seems a bit misleading. It makes it sound like the whole package could be taken as fact. I'd say something more like "Both evolution and gravity contain factual as well as theoretical components."

But you suppose you could say I'm splitting hairs. I digress.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

You're just plain wrong, and you wouldn't find a World Class scientist on the planet that would agree with you.

Again, you are confusing the fact with the theory.

We have observed evolution. The act of evolution is a fact.

To say that evolution is the reason for the biodiversity is a theory. This theory believes that the continued act of evolution created the species we have today. This is not a fact because we have not been able to directly observe this yet in all instances.

Two very different things.

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

Evolution has nothing to do with how the first matter appeared; it answers the questions of what happened to the matter between then and now.

Actually that is the worst definition of evolution I've ever read.

Specifically it purports to have to do with the way life, not matter, mutates over time to more effectively engage it's environment.

It appears Canadian education sucks. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Johnny Drama 5,000+ posts]

Actually that is the worst definition of evolution I've ever read.
Specifically it purports to have to do with the way life, not matter, mutates over time to more effectively engage it's environment.

It appears Canadian education sucks. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

But yet everything is made out of matter so his response is true.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I'm saying that in a very general sense: evolution cannot answer any questions of what happened prior to the existence of matter.

 

[bose301s 5,000+ posts]

I would add some but Neil, audioholic and Drama have said and shown everything that needs to be. I am sorry, but the VAST preponderance of evidence supports evolution while the only "facts" that support creationism are religious texts.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I'm on a side, Christianity. Its not about what the bases of the two institutions. its about what is at their core. Remember science has come a long way and it was as lost as many religious bodies are. Both do need to be tested. If you read the Bible you would see God clearly states to test things. Its just a different kind of test. God wants us to test if something is in line with Him or not. He does not require things to make sense. So both do test, only they are looking for different things. That's why I've been ignoring those test/faith comments since now

So if your job ever asked you to do something tht you KNEW would or could, in your own heart, disprove the existance of Jesus, what would you do? If you were presented with scientific evidence that the bible is a hoax, what would you 'believe'?
What religious tests from God are you referring to exactly? You labeling smoething as a 'test' does not make it the same as a scientific proving method. My girlfriend 'tests' me all the time too, does this make her a scientist or a pastor?

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

Way to show your open minded view of the topic. lol //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif
This is how you feel, and no amount of facts will tell you otherwise... right Cletis? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

So, I'm closed-minded for rejecting a theory? You reject Christianity, therefore you must be closed-minded, too. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

I have considered the theory of evolution. I support certain aspects of it, but I reject it as a whole because there are too many fallacies. If these fallacies could be disproved, I would put more stock in it. Until then, I will continue to reject.