Evolution Theory is Error

Galvasean

Either way, I can't help but feel like I'm peeing into the wind here.

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

Gareth37 wrote: »

I hope that people reading this will really start deep thinking for themselves rather than accepting society for what it is.

you've got to be kidding me, it was the study of different sciences that diverted people of the christian path (among i'm sure other reasons)

religion was accept universally before science(edit: widely more than universally), so if anything, religion came before the science which you seem to be scoffing at, not the other way around which this quote seems to suggest

people were accepting religion for what it was,, THEN the questioning happened

i've read the bible, its a story book nothing more, and until the lord himself comes down and lets me sit on his lap while he reads the bible to me, i will not be religious

toiletduck

I've read the Bible and I certainly wouldn't read it again. Painful really.

Gareth37 wrote: »

From what I can see here, scientifically nobody here nor any other great scientist can prove the theory nor can they prove otherwise.

How many times have the "proof" issue been dealt with already... I mean seriously, you're trolling right?

Tell us more about the dancing sun/stars/moon though, that was more entertaining.

robindch

quad_red wrote: »

You don't know the meaning of the world lusciously illustrated till you see this puppy.

Ah, that'll probably be Adnan Oktar (aka "Harun Yahya") who, last year sometime, spent a fortune sending thousands of copies of a vast creationist book to reporters, schools and other places not all that well-known for the depth of their scientific research.

Anyhow, here's a mugshot of Oktar in what looks like Istanbul, presumably before he was convicted of fraud earlier this year:



I think he's quite dapper -- Dawkins could learn a lot from this guy. Just love the oiled-back hair, the furrowed eyebrows and that fist looks like it's done some serious quran-thumping in its time.

Gareth37

seamus wrote: »

So Gareth, from your posts, we can deduce at least one thing:

You don't bother reading anything.

I can't respond to everything and I don't want to see the scientific evidence but this is the only language some people think.

For people to think that the earth developed naturally is plausable (with the direction of God) but to think that at the very very start a concept beyond our minds does not exist is not only a mistake but impossible. No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

A Primal Nut

Gareth37 wrote: »

So how can life form from dead chemicals? And again why have no genuine fossils been found?

Why do people always say this - there are loads of examples:

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news195.htm
http://www.livescience.com/history/primitive_bones_050119.html
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060920_baby-afarensis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Its funny - Darwin didn't know that these remains would ever be found but his predicted it and he was proven right. Thats a good indication.

Evolution is no different to atomic theory in chemistry or mechanics in physics. Its a true a theory as a theory can be - the only reason its disputed is because of some stupid millennia-year old book.

toiletduck

Robin, is that the new Bond villain?

robindch

Gareth37 wrote: »

I can't respond to everything

What about responding to anything?

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

Gareth37 wrote: »

No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

no no

no matter how much YOU think about it

Mitch Connor

Gareth37 wrote: »

I can't respond to everything and I don't want to see the scientific evidence but this is the only language some people think.

if you don't want to see scientific evidence, why did you start this thread? TROLL.

For people to think that the earth developed naturally is plausable (with the direction of God) but to think that at the very very start a concept beyond our minds does not exist is not only a mistake but impossible. No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

None of this has anything to do with evolution. Another example of how you completely misunderstand the theory, and its purpose. TROLL

robindch

toiletduck wrote: »

Robin, is that the new Bond villain?

Nope, that's our favorite Turkish creationist! See here

Great eyebrows too.

5uspect

So now we have two Creation Scientists? Thats a 50% growth rate for boards, surely the fastest growing field of makeyuppy there is.

CerebralCortex

Gareth37 wrote: »

I can't respond to everything and I don't want to see the scientific evidence but this is the only language some people think.

For people to think that the earth developed naturally is plausable (with the direction of God) but to think that at the very very start a concept beyond our minds does not exist is not only a mistake but impossible. No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

I'm curious has anyone here actually said anything to the contrary?
The rest of your post to me is a reflection of your indoctrination, which is complete rubbish. Do you realise that all your doing is anthropomorphising something none of us know about? Its not a result its a poor guess!

D.S.

Gareth37 wrote: »

No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

You obviously have not thought for very long about this then..

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

Gareth37 wrote: »

For people to think that the earth developed naturally is plausable (with the direction of God) but to think that at the very very start a concept beyond our minds does not exist is not only a mistake but impossible.

you're contradicting yourself

we dont' know how the world began, neither do you, you are just saying this cause a book said it,

and when any religious person is asked how did god create the world in 6 days they just say he just did, was there building blocks and concrete involved? i don't know he just did

so you see the concept of how god created the world is also beyond religious minds so as you said this "is not only a mistake but impossible"

Malari

Gareth37 wrote: »

I can't respond to everything and I don't want to see the scientific evidence but this is the only language some people think.

You started it! How else are people supposed to respond (in any forum by the way) to a thread started about evolution? Would you prefer I say I believe it because Darwin came to me in a vision and told me natural selection was the one true way?

Gareth37 wrote: »

For people to think that the earth developed naturally is plausable (with the direction of God) but to think that at the very very start a concept beyond our minds does not exist is not only a mistake but impossible. No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

Just because you are limited in your understanding doesn't mean you can state that no-one else can conceive of a particular idea. You don't see people wandering randomly into the Construction forum and saying "all you architects are wrong! I can't see how your plans could possibly construct something as complex as a building. Therefore it can't happen!"

toiletduck

Nope, that's our favorite Turkish creationist! See here

Great eyebrows too.

I can see the next flick: Bond races against time to stop a crazed Turkish creationist from staging a false flag attack on an Iranian navy base using the remnants of the Ark. 007 tracks him from the American Bible Belt to Oz right up to the thrilling conclusion at Mount Ararat.

Gareth37

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Why do people always say this - there are loads of examples:

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news195.htm
http://www.livescience.com/history/primitive_bones_050119.html
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060920_baby-afarensis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Its funny - Darwin didn't know that these remains would ever be found but his predicted it and he was proven right. Thats a good indication.

Evolution is no different to atomic theory in chemistry or mechanics in physics. Its a true a theory as a theory can be - the only reason its disputed is because of some stupid 2000-year old book.

"They are not direct ancestors of modern humans" - taken from your first article. We can go around in circles and keep discussing this over and over again. What it does prove if accurate that apes existed back then.

Its funny how these finds were "discovered" in the past few years whilst dictators around the world were attempting to remove religeon from society.

Mitch Connor

Malari wrote: »

You started it! How else are people supposed to respond (in any forum by the way) to a thread started about evolution? Would you prefer I say I believe it because Darwin came to me in a vision and told me natural selection was the one true way?



Just because you are limited in your understanding doesn't mean you can state that no-one else can conceive of a particular idea. You don't see people wandering randomly into the Construction forum and saying "all you architects are wrong! I can't see how your plans could possibly construct something as complex as a building. Therefore it can't happen!"

I'm guessing "Cause I read it in a book" is the only type of argument he might actually understand.

toiletduck

Gareth37 wrote: »

Its funny how these finds were "discovered" in the past few years whilst dictators around the world were attempting to remove religeon from society.

I have a graph about pirates and global warming for you...

Dades

Gareth37 wrote: »

No matter how much you think about it the only result is that a supernatural force, as described in the Bible, must be behind the earth and the universe and what they contain.

Classic!

I love the add-on that bridges the gap between philosophy and dogma.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow -- yay, our very own creationism thread!!!

Sweet mercy, lads. If you allow this you'll begin digging your own bottomless pit. In other words, you'll never reach your goal and you'll spend forever at it.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Gareth the proval/disproval of a theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the existence of a god.
OP fails.

Galvasean

toiletduck wrote: »

I have a graph about pirates and global warming for you...

Pirates are on the increase...

Goduznt Xzst

The Insider wrote: »

You do know you can believe in God and still recognise that the evolution theory is correct??

You do know that you can accept that God doesn't exist and recognise that the evolution theory is correct??

Dades wrote: »

Maybe this thread is a ploy to keep us all from bothering people in the Christianity forum. :pac:

I've been thinking the same thing myself actually.

Gareth37 is almost like an automated bot or something.

Also, you have yet to tell us, Gareth37, what field or science you are in? So far you have pretty much proven yourself to be a liar in that regard (lying is still a sin right?) So how exactly can you classify yourself as a "scientist"?

Gareth37

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You do know that you can accept that God doesn't exist and recognise that the evolution theory is correct??



I've been thinking the same thing myself actually.

Gareth37 is almost like an automated bot or something.

Also, you have yet to tell us, Gareth37, what field or science you are in? So far you have pretty much proven yourself to be a liar in that regard (lying is still a sin right?) So how exactly can you classify yourself as a "scientist"?

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

That is what I do or supposed to be - must do more now.

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

Gareth37 wrote: »

That is what I do or supposed to be - must do more now.

que?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Gareth37 wrote: »

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

That is what I do or supposed to be - must do more now.

...Do you have any academic attestment to your scientific prowess?:pac:

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

i think his claim of being a scientist went out the window when he said this

"I can't respond to everything and I don't want to see the scientific evidence but this is the only language some people think."

Goduznt Xzst

Gareth37 wrote: »

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

Gareth37 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

That is what I do or supposed to be - must do more now.

You said you where a scientist by profession. So in what field of science are you a professional?

Or where you just lying to try and give your argument more weight?