Page 1 of 13
Remember - Evolution is only theory, not a scientific law
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:52 amby Korhal IVV
Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:
Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.
The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.
[spoiler= OP's opinion]Theistic evolutionist. Period.[/spoiler]
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:54 amby Jochistan
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:54 amby Auroya
Korhal IVV wrote:No transitionary fossils have been found yet
Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:56 amby Neu California
Korhal IVV wrote:Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are
scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:
Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
No transitionary fossils have been found yet
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.
The only way to be
absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.
[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. Two different things.
Anyway, evolution does not deal in physics or the origin of life, just how it has changed over time
Also, no transitional fossils? Then what do you call
all these?
And lastly, source on most mutations being harmful? Because, IIRC, most mutations are neither helpful nor harmful
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:56 amby British Prussia
Auroya wrote:Korhal IVV wrote:No transitionary fossils have been found yet
Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
Jochistan wrote:>No transitionary fossils have been found yet
Are you shitting me?
I was gonna say...
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:57 amby Korhal IVV
Auroya wrote:Korhal IVV wrote:No transitionary fossils have been found yet
Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
You have been brainwashed by a secular media that never takes into consideration any piece of evidence the Creationists give and they only take time to examine the evidence of evoltionists
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:57 amby Jochistan
Korhal IVV wrote:Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
A mutation is just an abnormality in ones genetic structure. This could be beneficial, harmful or they could just effect nothing.
Not all genetic mutations are
Akira shit.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:59 amby Empire of Donner land
Creationism is scientific?
What scientific way can we explain "and everything just appeared, but don't question it or we'll burn you at the stake."
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:59 amby Jochistan
Korhal IVV wrote:Auroya wrote:Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
You have been brainwashed by a secular media that never takes into consideration any piece of evidence the Creationists give and they only take time to examine the evidence of evoltionists
What evidence?
And I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church accepts evolution. Only believing it was divinely guided or mandated, I thought?
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:59 amby British Prussia
Korhal IVV wrote:Auroya wrote:Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
You have been brainwashed by a secular media that never takes into consideration any piece of evidence the Creationists give and they only take time to examine the evidence of evoltionists
Oh dear... Here we go again...
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:00 amby Novaya Equestria
[SCREAMING INTENSIFIES]
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:00 amby Empire of Donner land
Korhal IVV wrote:Auroya wrote:Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
You have been brainwashed by a secular media that never takes into consideration any piece of evidence the Creationists give and they only take time to examine the evidence of evoltionists
Christ...
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:02 amby Yuganesia
Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:04 amby Neutraligon
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of matter, like the germ theory has nothing to do with the origin of matter, thus I fail to see why it is a weakness. Second, Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is the single most well supported theory in science. Third the key word is most (although I am not sure this is the case source please), most is not all, some are neutral and some are beneficial. Since most is not all this is not an issue for evolution if true.
Creation on the other hand is not even an hypothesis since there is no way to test creationism, unlike evolution (you are wrong about the time machine thing, we can see evolution simply by looking at antibiotic resistant diseases).
So.....LET"S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:04 amby Korhal IVV
Yuganesia wrote:Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.
Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol
And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:05 amby Quokkastan
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.
A scientific law and a scientific theory/hypothesis do not relate to the same thing. No matter how well confirmed a theory is, it can never become a law. For instance, atomic theory is not a law. Ever after Hiroshima.
It is very obvious that you do not understand the scientific terminology you are using, OP.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:05 amby Washington Resistance Army
Don't use words you don't understand OP.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:06 amby Quokkastan
Korhal IVV wrote:Yuganesia wrote:Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.
Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol
And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now
I'll just add stellar life-cycles to the list of topics you know nothing about.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:06 amby Neutraligon
Korhal IVV wrote:Yuganesia wrote:Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.
Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol
And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now
What does the sun shrinking (source please) have to do with evolution?
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:07 amby Korhal IVV
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Don't use words you don't understand OP.
FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN!
Thiese are your traps again FEGELEIN!
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:07 amby Neu California
Korhal IVV wrote:Yuganesia wrote:Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.
Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol
And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now
No it's not.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:08 amby British Prussia
Empire of Donner land wrote:Creationism is scientific?
What scientific way can we explain "and everything just appeared, but don't question it or we'll burn you at the stake."
In fairness, the Inquisition is long gone.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:08 amby Blakullar
The difference between the two being one is backed by hard empirical evidence, while the other is almost entirely reliant on faith. As for the origin of matter, that loophole is closed by the Big Bang theory.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:09 amby Auroya
Korhal IVV wrote:Auroya wrote:Both of these couldn't be more false.
Evolution is scientific and has more evidence behind it than you can imagine; creation is the one that isn't.
You have been brainwashed by a secular media that never takes into consideration any piece of evidence the Creationists give and they only take time to examine the evidence of evoltionists
Oh, it's gonna be one of these threads?
Yeah, it's too early in the morning to get into this sort of bullshit.
Posted:
Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:10 amby Neutraligon
Korhal IVV wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:Don't use words you don't understand OP.
FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN!
Thiese are your traps again FEGELEIN!
SO are you actually going to respond to people or are you going to go off on random tangents, make non sensible and non-sequitur responses, and in general ignore actual requests for sources?