Results 181 to 190 of 324
-
04-03-2009, 10:11 PM #181Junior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
The Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution, I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it. And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.
-
04-06-2009, 06:45 PM #182OPSenior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Thathighkid
I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it.
And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.
How do you know God isnā??t real? Could you provide evidence supporting your assertion? Using the facts of science, the existence of God can be proved.
-
04-06-2009, 08:36 PM #183OPSenior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2c
[/align]
ā??It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.ā? Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.
ā??... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.ā? E. J. H. Corner, ā??Evolution,ā? Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
-
04-08-2009, 08:16 PM #184OPSenior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 3c
[/align]
ā??The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.ā? Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.
ā??The origin of angiosperms, an ā??abominable mysteryā?? to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.ā? Colin Patterson et al., ā??Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,ā? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
-
04-10-2009, 08:19 PM #185OPSenior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1d-f
[/align]
d. ā??The insect fossil record has many gaps.ā? ā??Insects: Insect Fossil Record,ā? Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).
e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:
ā??As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.ā? Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.
ā??How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.ā? Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.
ā??Origin of the vertebrates is obscureā??there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.ā? Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.
f. ā??...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.ā? Taylor, p. 60.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
-
04-10-2009, 08:34 PM #186Senior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.
-
04-10-2009, 09:07 PM #187Senior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Blind leaps of faith work very well for some people, but not everyone... to each his own
-
04-10-2009, 09:16 PM #188OPSenior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Join me on an imaginary trip into the pastā??way back into the past. Letā??s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, letā??s take another step into the past. Letā??s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldnā??t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It canā??t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, Iā??ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
[from ā??Reincarnation in the Bible?ā? http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]
-
04-10-2009, 11:13 PM #189Member
Science Disproves Evolution
In my opinion I see believing god as the easy way out. Humans can't even comprehend a thing so large with no beginning or end. It's a big mystery that I doubt we will ever figure out. I canā??t even imagine the universe never being born or how big it is.... It scares me.
ā??Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction.ā? -Bob Marley
-
04-10-2009, 11:16 PM #190Senior Member
Science Disproves Evolution
Well... almost 200 posts after, and this debate still goes on and on... i think this debate only will be definitively answered if some day mankind create a time-machine, travel to the past, and do see the evolution actually happening (or God creating the live beings Himself).
Until this happens, all we have are theories. Some are more "logical", more "rational" than others, but all of them are just theories, just creations of human's minds. The universe has absolutely NO need to behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, and so the mere rationality of a theory does NOT prove its validity.
And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys. But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.
(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)
--------------------
Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
evolution
By 420ultimatesmokage in forum ScienceReplies: 20Last Post: 08-14-2007, 07:36 PM -
Evolution
By dankkeeper in forum SpiritualityReplies: 60Last Post: 05-05-2007, 11:28 PM -
To the science majors/scientists/science geeks out there...
By iwantFUEGO in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 100Last Post: 10-30-2006, 04:41 AM -
Evolution or God????. . . .
By LOVElife in forum SpiritualityReplies: 249Last Post: 06-06-2006, 02:23 PM -
Evolution or God????. . . .
By in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 0Last Post: 01-01-1970, 12:00 AM