nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

kingchess

ME too-wish the best for everyone and hope you will walk on the right path,that your eyes may open-anyway may Thor bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You are hilarious. Not in a good way, though. You think the posters here and in the A&A are just angry teenagers going through an atheistic phase.

... some seem to be ... others are more considered in their views.:)

Pherekydes

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I am not a scientist nor devoting my life to researching the topic, so cannot give any estimate.
I just have to go with a best guess of who I believe.

Well, who do you believe and why?

Here's an analogy:

Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

J C

kingchess wrote: »

ME too-wish the best for everyone and hope you will walk on the right path,that your eyes may open-anyway may Thor bless you and hold you in the palm of his hand

I'm holding 'Thor' in the palm of my hand ... apart from that ... I'd like to thank you for your good wishes ... and wish you many happy returns.;)

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, who do you believe and why?

Here's an analogy:

Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ... for that you need aeronautical engineers, bio-chemists and bio-medical technologists.:)
... and whether they think that 'God did it' ... or 'it did itself' ... doesn't really matter when it comes to designing aircraft, developing medical tests or surgical instruments.:)

kingchess

J C wrote: »

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

kingchess wrote: »

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???

SaveOurLyric

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, who do you believe and why?

Here's an analogy:

Draw a line 1mm long. Now draw another line 450m long. That's the comparison between JC's best estimate using his creation "science" and modern science's best effort using radiometric dating. As you can see, they are wildly different. Which do you think is the best estimate?

Would you trust creation "science" to design aircraft? Or to develop medical tests or surgical instruments?

I would be tending towards the 4.5 billion years theory at this stage.

catallus

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

5uspect

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ... for that you need aeronautical engineers, bio-chemists and bio-medical technologists.:)
... and whether they think that 'God did it' ... or 'it did itself' ... doesn't really matter when it comes to designing aircraft, developing medical tests or surgical instruments.:)

Never heard of genetic algorithms then?

I'm still waiting for you to show me a paper from a peer reviewed journal where you point out all the mistakes, or are you happy to accept their contents?

Also what is your scientific background? I take your silence as admission that you are not a biologist.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't use either Creation Science or Evolution Science to design aircraft, develop medical tests or surgical instruments ...

So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

endacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

Bet he ignores that...

J C

kingchess wrote: »

well facts are facts-so in other words if they have not read the bible there is no way that they could come up with Creation theory because the the facts(the science bits) would not lead them in that direction???

Facts are facts ... how they are interpreted can depend on ones worldview.

Pherekydes

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

You don't have to quit reading poetry or speculating when you open your eyes to reality, you know.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

So why would you trust creation "science" to measure the age of the earth? Wouldn't you ask a geologist?

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Look at it this way. People from various religions have accepted evidence supports evolutionary theory. Only those who believe in the Abrahamic religious have found that the evidence supports creationism. Does this not strike you as odd?

... it's not odd ... and some people of other faiths and none have grave doubts about 'molecules to man' evolution ... and that's not odd either.

J C

endacl wrote: »

Bet he ignores that...

Answer here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599813&postcount=1133

endacl

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they ignore their geological training for the most part, choosing to interpret some aspects of the geological evidence while ignoring other, less convenient aspects ... based on their erroneous belief that the Earth is very young indeed.

Good thing there's not very many of them about!

endacl

J C wrote: »

Answer here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599813&postcount=1133

^^

Ya. Got that.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Isn't it? If the creationist hypothesis is indeed the one which evidence supports, surely at least one scientist from outside these religions would agree with it. But this has yet to happen.

Religious (and irreligious) worldviews are very powerful ... and this applies to people of all faiths and none.

Frank Bullitt

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Speculation? You are going by the writings of a primitive book from a backwards part of the world, and you say Atheists don't speculate? Hahahahahaha

J C

endacl wrote: »

Good thing there's not very many of them about!

Please stop misquoting me.

I never posted this ... yet you deliberately changed it to give the impression that I did
here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92599894&postcount=1137
Quote:-
"Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they ignore their geological training for the most part, choosing to interpret some aspects of the geological evidence while ignoring other, less convenient aspects ... based on their erroneous belief that the Earth is very young indeed."

... not only are you confusing your beliefs and your science ... you are now confusing your posts with my posts - and not in a good way.:eek:

Wibbs

And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?

5uspect

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

And yet you provide no peer reviewed evidence to support this and allude to some sort of conspiracy where the poor auld creationist geologist/scientist must hide their views for fear of losing their jobs.

endacl

What if....?

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Nice of you to summarise your first paragraph in your second! Probably easier to read and rebut your own work than reply to a post from me I guess.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

And again what about Neandertals and homo Erectus and all other archaic humans? How do they fit into your Adam and Eve story?

Just fully Human races within the Human Race.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Or Catallus, one could argue from another angle and imagine a god, a cosmic force existed and brought all of this complexity into being and knew intelligent species would emerge and grow from this system to question, to seek answers to this complexity and try to explain it. If a deity existed, surely that would be what it would seek? For it's "children", those who got the point of asking the universal questions, using their "god given" intellect and senses to find answers, to become fully aware, rather than be mired in primitive thinking and stasis. Any parent would look to their kids to question, explore the world and grow up, so why wouldn't some posited deity not feel the same way?

Brian Shanahan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Including Creation Science ?

Creation science is like invisible rainbow-coloured unicorns. Neither has an existence outside of one's imagination, and neither has any relevance or reference to reality.

Capt'n Midnight

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

When you are right, you are right.
Its science that keeps having to change its position. Does that not completely undermine is claim to objective scientific reason ? "Here, this is the definitive answer. For now. But I will have a new difinitive correct answer for you next year".

You've just failed science, forever.

The whole point of science is that no position is final. Any scientific theory can be overturned by evidence.

Science doesn't know everything, that's why it's on going.

Just look at the taste map of the tongue which used to adorn most schools science books.
Now debunked.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

So two conventionally qualified geologists differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand and you go with the guy who isn't using instruments?