It's amazing that we trust the overall scientific community to shape our existences on this planet in countless ways, but yet when they make a stand on something that doesn't meet the standards that they have used for centuries, we have people accusing them of being Nazi-like! That does not make any sense.

That's like saying we hired an army general to lead the army, but if we want someone to lead the country we don't want the army general.

Dude, there are questions about existence that science is ill-equipped to tackle. They can answer questions about biology, chemistry, and physics - tools which we use to analyze, interpret and discuss elements of existence - but when those tools are turned on the user, then we have to remember who is in charge. The object or the subject. Scientists seem to forget that. Because, believe it or not, humans are more than biological.

there are questions about existence that science is ill-equipped to tackle. Hence the existence of metaphysics and related doctrines...

It is only when one side attempts to invade the territory of the other, without abiding by and respecting completely the inherent principles of the opposing side, do conflicts arise.

"Expelled" is a result of the long-standing attempt of Creationists to invade/destroy the established territory of Evolutionists, instead of respecting established scientific rules. Such efforts only serve to deepen the rift between these doctrines.

Like Hobo mentioned earlier, the two are more complimentary than many dare to realize, but in the ongoing defense of the stances of either side, bridges collapse and are abandoned. It is chiefly the side of religion that is strictly rigid in its interpretation though, as scientists continue to look for answers daily and are unafraid to modify or denounce established principles if new information is found or presented in a proper scientific fashion (even if the concept is only a theory). A creationist will never denounce their view, for it is written in a Holy Book and non-believers will be cast into a fiery pit forevermore (yet they expect a scientist simply to take their word for it).

You said:
"Since no one has observed evolution any thesis is still just a theory."
and
"Your proof is just a bunch of remains that tells us certain things but in themselves they do not prove evolution."
My comments were focused in direct response tothe above statements. What else is to be derived from such incorrect declarations?
Don't make my response out to be something that it is not. You merely were corrected on both counts - proof of evolution does exist and has been observed.
Don't cop an attitude at me for stating facts.
Just like the scientists in that film, who probably overreacted to the scientific community's logical response to those who do not follow scientific doctrine, you have made this conversation out to be a completely different scenario that what was intended.
You can't expect to be able to spit out anything that is not scientifically factual without being corrected. Especially when the information to the contrary is easily attainable.
And the film made no point at all, except to serve as a "last stand" for those who let religious belief cloud their scientific processes. The reputation of the entire scientific community is on the line. What's worse is that the scientists who support the creationism theory should know better. They KNOW what high standards they are held to, yet they wish to decrease the standard for the sake of their own beliefs.
It's amazing that we trust the overall scientific community to shape our existences on this planet in countless ways, but yet when they make a stand on something that doesn't meet the standards that they have used for centuries, we have people accusing them of being Nazi-like! That does not make any sense.
And again you took me out of context.

Has any one observed evolution of the remains.
That was my point and again I do not necessarily disbelieve evolution but that doesn't mean I disbelieve creationism either.


And again look at how you are carrying on with someone who agrees with you in part.


I simply think that perhaps the two may go together.

But I also know things do not build themselves. For instance the keyboard you are typing on was created by someone, it did not just appear because plastic met electricity.


Finally you are obviously intelligent so you don't have to lower yourself to taking my comments out of context.
I gave a specific example of where they did not see the evolution take place. I did not say it didn't exist.


Now you are a little younger than me but there was a time when I was coming up that they said we came from apes.


Today they are saying something else. Thats why I gave you the example about the world being flat.

By the way I am not coping an attitude, I know exactly where you are coming from and for the record I am not offended nor do I mean to offend you.

Amen. And perhaps they do go together. Why one would think that because of evolution that somehow negates God is a little silly, just as silly as thinking evolution just happens without being designed to happen.

when you look at this earth, and the human being how complex, how mirco and detailed we are...there has to be a designer

jXf8COiHMuM

Hobo, I know that you agree with me partially, but a few points...

And again you took me out of context.
Has any one observed evolution of the remains.
That was my point and again I do not necessarily disbelieve evolution You speak of remains as if they are the only means of proving evolution. Modern evidence for evolution derives from fossils, from genetics, from the development of organisms, and from many other fields unimaginable to Darwin or even to early 20th-century evolutionary biologists.

e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html



But I also know things do not build themselves. For instance the keyboard you are typing on was created by someone, it did not just appear because plastic met electricity.

Really? How about an eye? (btw, the analogy of using something that was made by man as an argument for ID has been discredited)
fOtP7HEuDYA

Hobo, I know that you agree with me partially, but a few points...

You speak of remains as if they are the only means of proving evolution. Modern evidence for evolution derives from fossils, from genetics, from the development of organisms, and from many other fields unimaginable to Darwin or even to early 20th-century evolutionary biologists.

e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html




Really? How about an eye? (btw, the analogy of using something that was made by man as an argument for ID has been discredited)
fOtP7HEuDYA
Well then you are kinda making my point. In the 22nd century we will know even more than we do today.

And an eye is a pretty good example of ID as well.

Again think of the world is flat analogy.

Listen we can go around and around on this obviously I am not intelligent enough to persuade you and since I already agree with you on the evolution part there is little you can do to persuade me any further.

It's fun though discussing even if we get nowhere.

Amen. And perhaps they do go together. Why one would think that because of evolution that somehow negates God is a little silly, just as silly as thinking evolution just happens without being designed to happen.
:hammer::hammer::hammer:I feel so much better now, its good to know im not the only one to harbor these thoughts. When one asks this question both sides attack you not the question and try to slander by saying that you are apart of the side opposing them

EVOLUTION THE GREATEST LIE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY!!!!

Despite the claims of many on this website I have given ample evidence that would make the hypothesis of evolution impossible, If not beyond impossible.

But an amazing discovery I have taken note of on this website is that no one really reads long post including the so called intelligent Y. Brown.

I literally posted a scientific fact three times before he read it once!!!!!!!!!! But on the other hand they expect me to read endless baloney!!

Understanding this fact I am going to break this post up into segments to keep the readings brief so the less intelligent can understand!!!

Now let me begin

There are three very strong scientific facts that have been observed time and time again that makes the hypothesis of evolution impossible. (Evolution does not even rise to the level of a theory) in an effort to be brief I will only deal with one of them right now!!!

These are unchanging scientific laws!!!!!!!!!!!
Which means they change over time to get better results!!! These scientific laws are like gravity. Gravity was the same 50years ago as it is now and 50years into the future if you jump off a 10 story building you will still fall and not float!!!!

That is what is referred to as a scientific law that does not change with age!!!

Point #1 there is a scientific rule called the law of probability.

You either can believe in the law of probability or you can believe in Evolution!!!!!!!!
YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN BOTH THE LAW OF PROBABILITY AND THE LAWS OF EVOLUTION AT THE SAME TIME. The two directly contradict each other!!

If I have a deck of 52 cards and I believe that there is a 1/52 chance that I get a Queen of Spades then I believe in the scientific law of probability.

But if there is only one queen of spade in a deck of cards and yet someone believes that there is a 95% chance of getting a Queen of spades the stupid child must believe in the hypothesis of evolution!!!

Why do I say this??? The answer is quite simple. There are over 2000 amino acids found on the Earth’s surface but only about twenty are left handed amino acids (which are the building blocks of life)

SCIENTIFIC FACT: ALL LIVING THINGS ARE MADE UP OF 100% LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen to what this scientist had to say
A basic Chemist admits:

Quote: this is a very puzzling FACT!!!! All the proteins that have been investigated obtained from animals and plants of higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria mold even viruses are found to made of L-amino acids (left handed acids)
Source L Pauling - General Chemistry third Edition p.774 1970


Notice that I have highlighted the Name of my source and the book page at the bottom!!!

Now the evolutionist claim we came here by chance. But what is chance??
The study of chance is none other that the study of probability!!!
But ironically the laws of probability declare the hypothesis of Evolution impossible!!!

You simply cannot believe in both the laws of probability and evolution and I will explain why.

Remember I said only 20/2000 amino acids on the earth surface is left handed
So 20/2000 = 1% which means more than 99% of the amino acids are right handed on the earth surface. (Remember I said there are more than 2000 amino acids on the earth surface) so for every 99 right handed amino acid there is one left handed on the earth surface!!! Yet all living things are 100% left handed!!! So how could this happen by chance, the laws of probability says it could not!!!

The smallest living protein has about 100 left handed amino acids and the average has 300.

The probability of getting 100 left handed amino acids is like flipping a coin and getting heads 100 consecutive Times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mathematicians calculated that the probability of that happening as 10 to the power of 30

Multiply 10 X 10 X 10 until you have multiplied by ten 30 times on your calculator. Can You pronounce the number?????????????


Now that is just for 100 amino acids imagine 300!!!! Which is the average size protein!!!

It actually baffles me the Evolutionist say that we came here by chance and they completely ignored the science of probability that studies chance!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mathematicians have already declared evolution as a beyond impossible feat.

They say that intelligent people believe in evolution but honestly I cannot see how anyone with a half of brain could accept this theory!!!!

You know Yorick Brown made and interesting statement saying that the Bible ignores contradictory evidence.

BUT NOTHING HAS IGNORED MORE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE THAN THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!! IT IS LIKE A CONSPIRACY!!! THEY DONT EVEN MENTION IT IN THEIR BOOKS OR MAGAZINES!!!!!!

If this alone does not destroy the theory of evolution there is actually more where that came from. I will present to you part two of the series in short order.

Wasnt there a thread about this before?

Wasnt there a thread about this before?
Ya know this gonna blow up soon!

Yes there was a thread on this and I think Spirit was one of the persons arguing back and forth!

Wasnt there a thread about this before?

yes there was a post similar but because there are soo many dumbo's out there I have to break things down in more detail!!

yes there was a post similar but because there are soo many dumbo's out there I have to break things down in more detail!!
That was not called for! When u were running on on the other thread no one insulted you!

I have merge the two threads...

I have merge the two threads...
thx...probably need to close it too! cuz spirit already start out wrong!