In article <
[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>facts and others.
>>>
>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>
>>
>> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>
> Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
> field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
> people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
> evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
> species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
> isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.
Evolution is just that, evolution, from one thing to another. It does
not state how life first got started, it only tries to explain what
occured once it did. How that first one celled organism, what is thought
of as the starting point for evolution started is unknown. Evolution
starts only after life exists. Origin of species, refering to darwin
I suppose, is about how life gets from one form to another.
>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>should allow this to happen, right?
>> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.
> Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
> interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
> good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
> both creationists and evolutionists.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp
That's nice piece of faith work. I've seen people write with more
conviction about how the US government is league with the greys.
The bible is simply a collection of stories most with a historical
basis, many of just belief. Practically all with some sort of theme
about how to lead a good life. It too has evolved throughout time.
> However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
> There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
> Bell Labs/Lucent.
Yet still we have plants like brocolli.(sp?)
>> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.
> But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
> analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
> some of the issues.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
I see alot of denials and trying to claim that there is no way to date
fossils. It is pure idiotcy to claim the earth is 6000 years old.
Here's where it goes wrong:
"UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"
That's the first line. We know that this is an extremely biased
source that is setting out make everything fit the bible, it is
not objective.
I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
is far older than established science claims, older than your
creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
What next? Skip codes?
