Quote:
"the missing link" is a missnomer, we will never be able to hold up on fosil and say this is the species between man and ape, we can hold up a long line of species and say these are part of the missing link.
Until I can be shown something that can’t be proven to be half primate or half man or something close to 40%-60%, then I’ll never consider that I am descended from a monkey. The one fossil that actually looked like it was half way between was taken by a “scientist” who used a hammer and a circular saw with some super-glue to make it look the way it “was supposed to look”…and he was totally serious and it was all over National Geographic (I saw a video if it instead of the magazine in a class). That’s about when I decided that a group of “scientists” that *created* facts to prove their point was not something I wanted to be involved with in any way. This is also the reason evolution is *not* science.
Quote:
ther ewill never be a smoking gun that screams hey I am half man half ape.
That’s bc it never existed :D
Quote:
of science works, we never truely "know" anything
When did science become based on theory where you never truly know anything instead of being based on facts? What happened to the “scientific method” where you have to prove something before it can be called science? Evolution is not science!
Quote:
You don't change a thory to fix the facts you modefy a thory as new evadence comes to light
What’s the difference?
Quote:
you know the guys that refuse t obeleive in the fosil evadence, or cardon dateing, or anything that isn't writen in the bible.
When an evolutionist scientist actually carbon dates a fossil (very rare), they are trying to date a rock that has taken the shape of something that used to be alive many years ago. Creationists have many impressive theories that aren’t written in the Bible. For example: the water canopy theory (lots of evidence to support that one and it explains a whole lot).
Quote:
the supporters of ID can do a good job shooting holes in older theories of evolution but the offer no counter theories (besides god did it),
Well what other theory would you like? The whole Creation account is based on the “theory” that “God did it”. Of course there are far more details about it that aren’t listed in the Bible but of course there’s evidence to support it all. I’m beginning to think that since you know nothing about the Creationist’s theories you are assuming that there are none.
Quote:
you need to supply a explanation for how things work that can be tested.
Well you’ve hit on something here. The whole problem with this is that it is difficult or impossible to test…which is why these things will never be anything more than theory (not fact, and therefore not yet science).
Quote:
perhaps we need a common base of understanding to continue the discussion.
I agree. I’ll look up some modern theories of evolution if you’ll look up some modern theories of Creation. (since there are some crack-pots on both sides that neither of us will agree with, perhaps we should direct each other to good sources of information)
Quote:
And no I cannot tell you where God comes from.
According to (most) Christians, God has always existed. This is something that is stated in the Bible but also something that we cannot understand because everything we know has a beginning and an end…even the Universe cannot be eternal. Also, according to an evolutionist when asked “where did the original ball of matter come from?” will respond “it has always existed”….which I also cannot understand but they have yet to come up with a better answer. As you can see, it comes down to whether you find it easier to believe in a God that has always existed or a ball of matter that has always existed. I find it easier to believe in God.
Quote:
this is a falisy, creationism = based on faith. science = search for facts.
Allanb has already addressed this one, but I’d like to give it my 2 cents worth as well. You say that science is a “search for facts” (which sounds true enough) but I still believe that something cannot be called science until it is either fact or based on something factual. Evolutionists have used the example of “if a monkey were given a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, and if we were to assume that the monkey were constantly typing, then it would eventually type out the preamble to the Declaration of Independence”. This is false. Even if the monkey were to have an unlimited amount of time, it is still considered a mathematical impossibility. The probability of a bunch of amino acids coming together and forming bacteria which gradually progressed into fish, then marine mammals, then monkeys, then into Mankind (gross generalization) has been calculated at 1 chance in 1,000,000…..(3-4 pages full of zeros following here…) which I remember being for more of an impossibility than the monkey-typewriter impossibility. When I find the specific way it was calculated and the exact numbers I’ll be sure to post them. Anyway, the point is that this is in no way based on fact, and must therefore be based on faith.
Quote:
Oh and it isn't a big ball of anything at the beginning of the big bang theroy...its a singularity (or the singularity) read hawkings, he explains it in terms taht most of us can understand.
I understand, but where did *that* come from? And we’re back to square one….it either had to come from somewhere or it has always existed.
Quote:
Ok Al I call your bluff...give me the evadince for creationism that dosn't involve well eveolution isn't 100% right so it must be all wrong or well I don't know how it happened so god didn't.
Of course the Theory of Creation is based on more than that and this comment was a cheap shot from you…please be more respectful…and perhaps you will be once allanb and I and whoever else would like to take part in this conversation finds the evidence you’d like. Most of it is in my head but I have books and online resources to draw from, so I’ll try and write an organized response containing evidence soon….but if you aren’t even familiar with the theories the evidence supports then I feel it would be pointless. I’ll try and write some of the theories too, but you and I said earlier, we should learn each other’s theories.
-Keezel
