callitgood
Member
Neither is evolution, so where does that leave us?
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter tortie
- Start date
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
World's leading zoologist/biologist speaks to aid layman comprehension -
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
DemonTrich
Well-Known Member
evolution HAS been proven, but discounted by everyone who believes in God and Jesus.
callitgood
Member
Evolution has never been proven, in fact, DNA destroys Darwin's theory.
But most atheists won't except it.
DemonTrich
Well-Known Member
carbon dating trumps dna testing 
dna testing could only go back what 2014 years. carbon dating goes back 650 MILLION years.
dna testing could only go back what 2014 years. carbon dating goes back 650 MILLION years.
callitgood
Member
Carbon dating is used for dating artifacts of a biological origin.carbon dating trumps dna testing
dna testing could only go back what 2014 years. carbon dating goes back 650 MILLION years.
DNA is used for genetic profiling, two different sciences.
DemonTrich
Well-Known Member
ok then show me proof (dna) of god/jesus. I can carbon dating proof 650 million years back.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Evolution as been proven through not one, but many separate scientific fields (see Dawkins video) in post #62, and is as much a fact as anything known to man. The term theory in science is much different than is used in the layman's vernacular. Theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, made up of many physical laws and facts, i.e. gravitational theory, electronic theory, etc. These bodies of knowledge are used to land rovers on Mars 34 million miles away within a 3 meter accuracy, and used to create every electronic device in existence (including the PCs on which we type and read the thoughts presented here). These accomplishments are not based on mere guesses and speculation, but rather on the concrete nature of objective reality...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true - Layman's definition
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Scientific definitions
It is important not to conflate the two definitions...
In the same video above, Professor Dawkins shows us that DNA supports evolution in a very major way. If you have links to credible, peer-reviewed sources (no creationist/christian videos or bias creationist websites, please) that state otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look...
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Of course not
callitgood
Member
All you have is opinion supporting evolution, that is it.
I could cite many links to scientists who disagree, who in fact support the theory that DNA disproves Darwinism.
Here is a link to documentary with five professors/scientists who believe Darwins theory is impossible.
go to 21:59 of the video.
Professor Dawkins was asked the question "can you give an example of genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in a genome" he is stumped, why, because there is no example.
Milovan
Well-Known Member
The Last Supper was really "The Last Session" and Jesus rose on the
7th day and took the first "wake & bake".
slipknot
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There are dozens of different disciplines that all independently confirm the theory of evolution
One of my favorite examples comes from Neil Shubin's exploration of the Canadian arctic and his teams discovery of the transitional species tiktaalik he details in his book Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
"Let's now return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs." Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would all recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clack at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in the rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins, conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals."
"On the basis of previous discoveries made in slightly younger rocks, we believed that ancient freshwater streams were the best environment in which to begin our hunt."..."First, there is the east coast of Greenland. This is home to Jenny Clack's fossil, a very early creature with limbs and one of the earliest known tetrapods. Then there is eastern North America, where we had already worked, home to Hynerpeton. And there is a third area, large and running east-west across the Canadian Arctic. There are no trees, dirt or cities in the Arctic. The chances were good that rocks of the right age and type would be extremely well exposed."
"It took us six years to find it, but this fossil confirmed a prediction of paleontology: not only was the new fish an intermediate between two different kinds of animal, but we had found it also in the right time period in earth's history and in the right ancient environment."
callitgood
Member
I'm not much of a bible beliver
LOL
then you'll love this video, scientists have already disproved Tiktaalik, they even laugh about the theory.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
You clearly do not follow or understand science. I'm guessing you are a creationist or christian? I'm sure if you really tried, you could find some non-credible, fringe scientists that deny gravity, as well. That doesn't make it so. But please post these links to disagreeing scientists so we can bring them out into the light to see where they fall short...
You forgot the link to your video, please repost it so that I can retort...
callitgood
Member
Well you are wrong on all points.
I'm not a bible believer, I do follow science and everything I cite, like you and those who believe in evolution, is backed by science.
To call scientists who do not agree with evolution, fringe, demonstrates your own close-mindedness.
Commander Strax
Well-Known Member
the heathens are winning
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Scientists or two creationists responding to a clip about a debate about evolution?
Pretty substantial difference there, bud..
The theory of evolution is one of the most widely accepted scientific theories in all of science and has more than 150 years of evidence to support it. Something like 99.8% of all biologists accept it as fact
How do you explain how all living things share DNA based on how closely related organisms are?
How do you explain how all life forms on Earth are carbon based?
How do you explain vestigial appendages and organs?
How do you explain why chickens have the genetic code to make teeth, but have no teeth?
How do you explain why whales and dolphins swim vertically (like mammals run on land) but all fish swim horizontally?
How do you explain Darwin's famous finch observations?
How do you explain the fact that there's never been a single instance of an older, less complex organism being above a younger, more complex organism in the different layers of strata?
How do you explain the power of prediction, like the example I cited earlier with tiktaalik? Scientists knew where to look, what to look for and in what age rocks they would likely find the animal in, and they did. How do you explain that?
None of these observations make any sense without the theory of evolution
If you don't accept the theory of evolution, what is your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?
callitgood
Member
"Scientists or two creationists responding to a clip about a debate about evolution?
Pretty substantial difference there, bud.."
Yet you supply one. LOL
I don't except evolution or the orthodox theory of "creation"
Everything you've asked me to explain, you can't explain yourself and neither can scientists.
All I am saying is, evolution is not proven, and that is a fact.
To this day there is no evidence of any kind of missing link, in fact, it is proven that humans cannot reproduce with primates, yet Darwins theory says we descended from them.
And the fact that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed because the replication contains built-in error checking. Kind of hard to claim a horse came from a fish when their dna structure makes it impossible.