Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 149 of 149

Thread: Jehovah's witnesses

  1. #101  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    You athiest always denie what we say but you captaincaveman say give me proof you should say something else then that. lets talk in pm captaincaveman about the bible and lets see who is true.

    with respect. after your last insult you pm'd me. i'll refrane thank you


    hahah thats what you get when i said do you want to play it that way.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Caveman this shows the spur has a useage. It is not a left over anything and occurs in all snakes of this kind.

    It is needed and used. For your view that its a left over youd need a before and after fossil or skeleton. At least some evidence. You have non as this is a designed part of a snake and not evidenc eof evolution.

    You appear to look facts in the face then pretend you dont see them.
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    I appear to look posts in the face then pretend not to see them.
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Fraudulent quotes and fraudulent evidence for evolution make you an untrustworthy poster relative.
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Then answer my damn posts!!

    Unless you have no response to them of course................
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Caveman this shows the spur has a useage. It is not a left over anything and occurs in all snakes of this kind.

    It is needed and used. For your view that its a left over youd need a before and after fossil or skeleton. At least some evidence. You have non as this is a designed part of a snake and not evidenc eof evolution.

    You appear to look facts in the face then pretend you dont see them.
    No it is the leftover from a hip and femur, its usage means nothing. thats just showing nature adapting what it has.

    not all snakes have this therefore is not needed for reproduction, similar species do not have it in the python family. so no it is not needed. It is only evident in old world snakes and the majority of snakes in the world(that are further evolved)dont have it or need it also
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then show me evidence that mankind knew the earh was round and were aware of the water cycle before the bible stated these things.

    Then ill reply relative.
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then ill reply relative.
    I have.

    2 new species of butterfly as a result of hybridisation.

    They didn't exist before so where did they come from if not evolution?
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then show me evidence that mankind knew the earh was round and were aware of the water cycle before the bible stated these things.

    Then ill reply relative.
    Yes show us the proof
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then show me evidence that mankind knew the earh was round and were aware of the water cycle before the bible stated these things.

    Then ill reply relative.

    can you not get to grips with the fact that evolution is a progressive thing over millenia.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Its All Relative
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then ill reply relative.
    I have.

    2 new species of butterfly as a result of hybridisation.

    They didn't exist before so where did they come from if not evolution?

    There is differen't breeds of dogs but when a dog turns into a fish that is way off topic. So when a dog makes babies it has to make dogs not fish or anything else.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    That is my proof. Now how are you going to defend that huh?
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    There is differen't breeds of dogs but when a dog turns into a fish that is way off topic. So when a dog makes babies it has to make dogs not fish or anything else.
    Okay then, how about these:


    Wolphin

    Liger


    Does that satisfy your criteria?
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by Its All Relative
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then ill reply relative.
    I have.

    2 new species of butterfly as a result of hybridisation.

    They didn't exist before so where did they come from if not evolution?

    There is differen't breeds of dogs but when a dog turns into a fish that is way off topic. So when a dog makes babies it has to make dogs not fish or anything else.
    you really have no clue. one animal doesn't make another totally different species right away. the species come about after millions of years of mutations

    Different breeds of dogs are from selective breeding and cross breeding of different types.

    If you think evolution is one animal(say a dog) giving birth to another animal(say a fish or cat or whatever) then i will finish this conversation here. because i cant take you seriously, know-one can be that niave
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by Its All Relative
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative ill help you.

    Show me clear evidence of creatures having or that are evolving nto new separate species that have never been seen before on earth

    Then ill reply relative.
    I have.

    2 new species of butterfly as a result of hybridisation.

    They didn't exist before so where did they come from if not evolution?

    There is differen't breeds of dogs but when a dog turns into a fish that is way off topic. So when a dog makes babies it has to make dogs not fish or anything else.
    you really have no clue. one animal doesn't make another totally different species right away. the species come about after millions of years of mutations

    Different breeds of dogs are from selective breeding and cross breeding of different types.

    If you think evolution is one animal(say a dog) giving birth to another animal(say a fish or cat or whatever) then i will finish this conversation here. because i cant take you seriously, know-one can be that niave

    Were you there millions and millions of years to know that? If it took millions of years just to make a dog or somthing humans must not had been there at that time so you call that proof. Were is the fossile finding to one animal that was mutated to another anamial? Like i said they were breeded but not to another animal.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    God made animals first then human that was named eve. So humans weren't there so how did you know that it took an animals millions of years to mutat.
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    "captaincaveman presses ignore user button"
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Caveman wrote...

    one animal doesn't make another totally different species right away. the species come about after millions of years of mutations
    Have you actually any evidence of this happening? I ask again and again.

    New species of butterfly coming from where?

    Can you show me a link to this please.
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    New species of butterfly coming from where?

    Can you show me a link to this please.
    Sigh


    And how about my wolphin?
    That a dolphin gives birth to?
    Its a different thing..........
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it.

    No idea what its got to do with evolution but still its more interesting facts about nature. Hybrids have nothing to do with evolution.

    The bible and science state..."All creatures give birth to their own species in great variety."

    Hybrids are always the same species just different variety. The old species block is still the killer of evolutionism, break it and youll convert me and prove a myth ot be true.
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    The bible and science state..."All creatures give birth to their own species in great variety."
    Yes, but I'm quoting:

    The new species of butterfly, which is yet to be named, possesses a mosaic genome that is a mixture of its two parental genomes yet which is evolutionarily "younger" than either, Gompert says. What is more, this offspring cannot reproduce with either of its parent species, he adds.
    So,it's not their own species. And it can't reproduce with the original species.
    So that's not too great of a variety from the new one is it?
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Its All Relative
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    The bible and science state..."All creatures give birth to their own species in great variety."
    Yes, but I'm quoting:

    The new species of butterfly, which is yet to be named, possesses a mosaic genome that is a mixture of its two parental genomes yet which is evolutionarily "younger" than either, Gompert says. What is more, this offspring cannot reproduce with either of its parent species, he adds.
    So,it's not their own species. And it can't reproduce with the original species.
    So that's not too great of a variety from the new one is it?

    i gave up on him, made use of the ignore user button banging your head against a brick wall springs to mind. Some people are beyond reason
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    i gave up on him, made use of the ignore user button banging your head against a brick wall springs to mind. Some people are beyond reason
    I refuse to give up!
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Its All Relative
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    i gave up on him, made use of the ignore user button banging your head against a brick wall springs to mind. Some people are beyond reason
    I refuse to give up!

    good luck on repeating yourself over and over about dogs not giving birth to fish
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    good luck on repeating yourself over and over about dogs not giving birth to fish
    Don't know why but that just reminds me of a lad I knew at school.

    He insisted that any type of animal could reproduce with another but the young would not live.

    I had endless hours of fun with him............
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    So let me get this straight...

    A butterfly that is different from another butterfly is a different species?

    Let me help you two before you dig yoursleves any deeper. Butterflies are a species. Now there are many, many butterflys. Some can mate together some cant mate together. They are all still buterflys.

    The new butterflys of which there are many are NOT caused by mutations or environment, simply by current butterflys mating with a different type of butterfly within its own species. This is called interbreeding NOT evolution.

    Wait for it...

    Hence they are all the same species.

    Ill repeat myself and ask again, show me species change NOT variety within a species. Please.
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Truth1010

    From what you say it shows that you have not studied evolution theory well enough. The theory is accepted by scientific community. There are numerous articles written by prominent scientists to support the theory. Could you provide the references with the comparable level of credibility?

    What is your alternative theory about species? All species were created all at once at the same time by god? Some garbage DNA were put in by design? You always ask for evidence from evolution. So to prove your theory can you show me the evidence of all species existing ten million years ago? (Or do you think that earth is 3,000 years old?)
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Uh yeah
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Prasit wrote...

    The theory is accepted by scientific community.
    No evolution has NOT been accepted.There are many scientists who dont believe in evolution.

    Many scientists in nazi germany were convinced that white people were supeior to non whites, they were wrong. For years scientists believed the earth was flat, they were wrong.

    The only problem with evolution is the lack of evidence for it.

    Evolution is a theory about HOW life that we see got here. There is no evidence to supports this, that is a fact and many evolutionists accept this, including a man called charles darwin.

    God creates the earth and heavens, then set about creating all living creatures so they could mate within their own structure and form great variety.

    There is no time scale placed given for how long this took place. The fossil record shows all creatures have immiediate beginnings. Studying biology shows all creatures reproduce their own kinds, with variety and sometimes inter breeding.

    My views are at one with science, yours are at odds with what we currently know. I have the truth and you have a myth.

    Ill ask again show me evidenc eof the process of evolution happening or that it has happened.

    Asking for evidence from an evolutionist is like showing a black sprinter beating a white sprinter to a nazi. The look on their faces is often a joy for a truth seeker.
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    No evolution has NOT been accepted.There are many scientists who dont believe in evolution.
    So tell me the difference between what you're saying and what we're saying then?

    Religion has NOT been accepted by everyone. There are many scientists who don't believe in religion.

    Don't you see that the same argument works the other way around?
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    So let me get this straight...

    A butterfly that is different from another butterfly is a different species?

    Let me help you two before you dig yoursleves any deeper. Butterflies are a species. Now there are many, many butterflys. Some can mate together some cant mate together. They are all still buterflys.

    The new butterflys of which there are many are NOT caused by mutations or environment, simply by current butterflys mating with a different type of butterfly within its own species. This is called interbreeding NOT evolution.

    Wait for it...

    Hence they are all the same species.

    Ill repeat myself and ask again, show me species change NOT variety within a species. Please.


    can i just clarify species for those who don't realise what the definition of species is

    In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (however, see definitions of species below).
    so by definition an animal that cannot interbreed with another(in respect of the butterflys) is a different species

    and another for clarification

    Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
    and

    Species

    A taxonomic category subordinate to a genus (or subgenus) and superior to a subspecies or variety, composed of individuals possessing common characteristics distinguishing them from other categories of individuals of the same taxonomic level. In taxonomic nomenclature, species are designated by the genus name followed by a latin or Latinised adjective or noun. (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.A specific kind of something; a species of molecule; a species of villainy.A taxon referencing organisms that can successfully reproduce with one another, and share common characteristics across the wide range of organisms that may exist in the species (their gene pool). subspecies can further pin-point unique classifications of species.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    The butterflys in question were created by current butterflys interbreeding. Hence a new variety of butterfly.

    Caveman wrote...

    In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.
    As these butterflys only came about due to interbreeding they did not come about through evolution.

    They cant breed with the same butterfly as created them, but we dont know what other butterflys they can mate with. Any butterfly that can mate with another butterfly is mating with its own species. Some variety of butterflys cant mate with another variety, but they still mate with a certain variety of butterflys. Hence they never mate with a frog or a camel.

    These butterflys are not incapable of mating with another butterfly, they are just incapable of mating with certain butterflys. There is no demand for all creatures in a species to be able to mate with all creatures in that species as long as they can one of them, these can.

    Relative wrote...

    So tell me the difference between what you're saying and what we're saying then?
    Relative you told me science had agreed on evolution. Now thankfully you accept many scientists dont agree on evolution.


    I have never said all scientists agree with the bible. But science itself, what we know, does not contradict the bible. A scientist is free to believe what they want.

    The bible is friends with science, evolution has made science its enemy.
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Truth1010

    The claim that there is no evidence for evolution. to anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with biology, that sounds like a ridiculous statement, like declaring that people can live on nothing but air and sunlight, or that yeti are transdimensional UFO pilots.

    Let me show you how well-established evolution theory is:

    In the PubMed database, there are about 150,000 primary research articles on evolution.

    The University of Minnesota library system has 4,445 books on evolution.

    The National Center of Science Education has a list of statements from scientific societies, all in support of evolution. The vast majority of all biologists, people who have extensive training in the subject and use biology day by day, see that evolution is well supported by the evidence and is a solid foundation for research. The list of scientific societies includes Academy Of Science Of The Royal Society Of Canada, American Anthropological Association, American Institute Of Biological Sciences,
    Australian Academy of Science, National Academy Of Sciences and so on.

    Now about the evidence..

    Many biologists have been telling everyone about that evidence for years: there comes a point where they have to recognize that the other side has simply put their hands over their ears and are shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" at the top of their lungs. If you want evidence from the fossil record, here, go read about Tiktaalik, a fossil tetrapod that was predicted by evolutionary theory (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...nother_gap.php) This is the intermidiate form you have been asking for.

    (The statements above are copied almost in its entirety from PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.)



    If you think therer are more "scientific" societies against evolution please show me.

    If you think there are "scientific evidence" that all lives on earth occur at the same time please show me.

    Please don't quote the bible as scientific evidence, because the book is not accepted in any science classes, worldwide.

    And tell me one more thing; do you REALLY believe that earth is less than 10,000 years old?
     

  34. #134  
    Guest
    I'd also like to point out that the amount of people "not sure" about evolution has risen, while those sure evolution is "wrong" has dropped.

    Unfortunately, due to george W. Bush and other conservatives pretty much "making sure" science classes and schools are largely underfunded, most people get the horribly WRONG idea about evolution. Not only that, but evangelists apparently make it a personal war, and spread around as much anti-evolution lies as possible.

    So herein lies a problem, we need evolutionists to start "evangelizing."

    I also love the fact that, if you do google searches, time and again you see that the more educated groups agree with evolution, while the undereducated (the majority) do not (usually). Apparently it's a ripple effect: A conservative gets in, they cut teaching, so that more people will ignore evolution. Plot much? (I'm joking)

    By the way, science has also come heavily politicized. We don't need separation of church and state anymore (since apparently it never happened if Stem Cells and other scientific works are limited by religious morals), we need separation of state and science.

    http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2...elieve-in.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in657083.shtml

    similar poll in 05
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in965223.shtml
    http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...evolution.html
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Relative you told me science had agreed on evolution. Now thankfully you accept many scientists dont agree on evolution.
    Huh?
    Show me where I said science had agreed on evolution?

    You're making things up to support what you are saying!

    Of course many scientists don't agree on evolution - creationists are allowed to be scientists too. The term 'scientist' covers a very broad range of people!!

    Doesn't mean it's wrong though!!

    There is a large amount of evidence to support the theory (which people are showing you and you ignore).
    All you are able to offer is quotes from a fictional book.
    How is that proving anything?
     

  36. #136  
    Guest
    Actually, the majority of biologists believe in evolution. A scientist that majors in physics can't exactly explain to the letter much about biology, since it's out of their field.

    Furthermore, popularity does not mean it's correct. I can list many things that were popular and not correct.

    Ever hear of the 10% myth?
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jeremy and relative you still refuse to show me evidence of the process of evolution. Im guessing you accept there is non.

    Evolution is a process that must show evolution. All i see is design. Creatures occuring throughout histroy with no mutated beginbnings immiediate full species appear. No half half species.

    As for prasit...

    Ill repeat the gist of creation...

    God created the heavens and the earth. He then created all life to reproduce its own with great variety. There is NO timescale given for how lonbg this took place.

    The above statement is scienctificly possible and not discredited. If it is then please show me. Evolution has not been seen and cant be reproduced in a laboratory.

    It seems more rational to accept a theory that isnt impossible than one that is impossible.
     

  38. #138  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Jeremy and relative you still refuse to show me evidence of the process of evolution. Im guessing you accept there is non.
    I have given you many links already. Every time you seem to wait for a few posts, then say "I have given you non." I *have* provided evidence, numerous times, you apparently ignore all of it.

    Evidence I do not lack. The ability to force you to read that evidence, is what I lack. If you want those links, just start reading from the first pages of this thread (and others). I have, as well as others, provided ample evidence.
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jeremy ive read many of these links. They sadly refuse to show me evolution. They instead try to link two things that are nothing to do with evolution and claim this as evolution.

    There are no evoving creatures for me to witness, no half half intermiediate specimens for me to see. Just fully completed creatures that evolutionist CLAIM are intermiediates.

    Saying "i believe" or making a "claim" or stating "i think " is NOT science jeremy. Its opinion.

    Evolution requires you to first believe in it then follow its theory, all along never showing any evidence for it. Evolution is no different than a major religion that claims jesus is god when there is no evidence for this. Or stating that one race is better than another.

    Evolution remains a statement, a popular one, a much studyied one, but non the less still a statement of an opinion on how we all got here.
     

  40. #140  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Jeremy ive read many of these links. They sadly refuse to show me evolution. They instead try to link two things that are nothing to do with evolution and claim this as evolution.
    so...a wiki page, and a page soley used to explained evolution biology wise, don't explain evolution? You have just proven you didn't read any of the links anybody gave you.

    There are no evoving creatures for me to witness, no half half intermiediate specimens for me to see. Just fully completed creatures that evolutionist CLAIM are intermiediates.
    Umm...just what *IS* your idiotic version of "intermediate?" Some half mangled monster from a fiction book? "intermediate" species are species which share many similarities with current ones, and according to genetic backtracing, are "ancestors" of current species we see today.

    Saying "i believe" or making a "claim" or stating "i think " is NOT science jeremy. Its opinion.
    So glad you admit the shortcommings of your faith. However, I, nor the links, have ever said "I believe." Strawman tactics much?

    Evolution requires you to first believe in it then follow its theory, all along never showing any evidence for it. Evolution is no different than a major religion that claims jesus is god when there is no evidence for this. Or stating that one race is better than another.
    No, no, and no. Evolution requires 1. education 2. proper understanding of the theory 3. not being so closed minded you pretend to actually read links people give you when you apparently do not.

    Evolution remains a statement, a popular one, a much studyied one, but non the less still a statement of an opinion on how we all got here.
     

  41. #141  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Saying "i believe" or making a "claim" or stating "i think " is NOT science jeremy. Its opinion.
    You would do well to apply this to your own post's as well.

    It is your opinion that God exist's, and in the fashion you describe, it is not neccessarily a fact.
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Evolution is a process that must show evolution. All i see is design. Creatures occuring throughout histroy with no mutated beginbnings immiediate full species appear. No half half species.
    what are you expecting to see a dog giving birth to a half cat, then the half cat giving birth to a full cat It is a gradual process


    God created the heavens and the earth. He then created all life to reproduce its own with great variety. There is NO timescale given for how lonbg this took place.

    The above statement is scienctificly possible and not discredited. If it is then please show me. Evolution has not been seen and cant be reproduced in a laboratory.

    this is not scientifically possible without the scientific proof of god and all things supernatural

    creationism has never been seen and cant be reproduced in a lab and therefore cannot be scientifically proven.

    Small mutations(of which evolution is based) can and have been shown under lab conditions

    http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/b110.html
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    You evolutionists refuse to listen.


    Here goes...

    When you find fully formed new species the result is...you have found fully formed new species. What this has to do with evolution is beyond me.

    Evolution is the gap NOT the result. Showing a result and claiming its evidence as i keep saying is opinion not evidence please accept this.

    The fly you showed was formed by man in a laboratory, unnaturally. Do you not understand natural [in the wild naturally] and un natural are different?

    It was still a fly and the fly was surviving fine thanks without a scientist experimenting on it. So again no evolving.

    To evolve a creature must turn into another creature. This is impossible until you show me it is possible. Understand?
     

  44. #144  
    Guest
    Moved here due to it's descent into another evolution/creationist argument.

    PM a mod if you are unhappy.
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    When you find fully formed new species the result is...you have found fully formed new species. What this has to do with evolution is beyond me.

    Evolution is the gap NOT the result. Showing a result and claiming its evidence as i keep saying is opinion not evidence please accept this.

    No evolution is the result. What you can show with evolution is 1, the redundancys of cetain parts of a species(showing what is left over in the process)

    and 2, with the fossil records, the related species from then til now

    such as horses



    or whales



    heres a page too

    http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales...ion_of_whales/
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Because you have put these animals in order we are supposed to believe that they came in this order?

    That takes faith in your opinions.

    Now all i see are separate creatures who had an immidiate beginning. They like many animals on earth have similarity, this doesnt lead me to think they evolved. Some came about by interbreeding, which is variety as the bible says.

    Evolution is NOT the result caveman, you are very wrong here.

    Evolution is a process by which you CLAIM life, the result, came about. PLease can all evolutionists stick to this.

    You cant show me evolution as you "claim" it happened therefore its up to me whether i should accept your word on faith. I refuse to do that, i accept gods word the bible. Which has not been proven wrong.


    Again i ask...

    Show me how job and isaiah knew the earth was round? [a sphere from distance appears round]

    Show me how job knew of a water cycle before anyone else?

    Show me how the bible predicted jesus life and the occurencies that took place during his life?

    Why do only jehovahs witnesses follow the bible to the letter?
     

  47. #147  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Because you have put these animals in order we are supposed to believe that they came in this order?

    That takes faith in your opinions.
    *sigh* no, it's due to the order in which they appear according to dating methods. Use some common sense before you make assumptions, please.

    Now all i see are separate creatures who had an immidiate beginning. They like many animals on earth have similarity, this doesnt lead me to think they evolved. Some came about by interbreeding, which is variety as the bible says.
    Each one of the species listed has distinct similarities, both in appearance habitat and other factors (I'm not sure if they can test DNA that far back).

    Evolution is NOT the result caveman, you are very wrong here.

    Evolution is a process by which you CLAIM life, the result, came about. PLease can all evolutionists stick to this.
    *sigh* evolution is the process, and the resulting process. What I mean by "result" is what you see today, which you may not see a million years later.

    You cant show me evolution as you "claim" it happened therefore its up to me whether i should accept your word on faith. I refuse to do that, i accept gods word the bible. Which has not been proven wrong.
    what he "claims" to have happened is heavily documented in links we continually share with you. Try reading some of them.


    Show me how job and isaiah knew the earth was round? [a sphere from distance appears round]
    And a triangle from a distance appears to be a dot (hence round). You have provided no evidence. Furthermore, the earth is not round, it is a sphere. If god inspired those words, they would have been less erroneous.

    Furthermore, many people assumed the earth was round in those days. A circle is a perfect shape, thus if the earth was created would not it be perfect? An example of the reasoning used.

    Show me how job knew of a water cycle before anyone else?
    The water cycle bit was refuted. However, you are horribly wrong. Many civilizations used the water cycle to their advantage long before the dead sea scrolls are dated.

    Show me how the bible predicted jesus life and the occurencies that took place during his life?
    Hint: Jesus never existed. Hint hint. Big fracking hint.

    Why do only jehovahs witnesses follow the bible to the letter?
    Why do Jehovah's witnesses act arrogant enough to believe they do?

    The bible is based on interpretation and translation. A bible translated by a bunch of amateurs (not to mention it's a DYNAMIC translation) is not something I for one would trust.
     

  48. #148  
    Guest
    THis thread has gone far enough off-topic, and also duplicates the evolution thread - locked!

    Please PM a mod if unhappy.
     

  49. #149  
    Guest
    I also agree with the decision. It's gone too far off the subject of JW's as I originally intended and became evolution vs. creation. I doubt there will be any objections.
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •