THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS
in [Freeware]
|
From: Lew/Silat on 25 Apr 2010 12:18 "Mike Easter" <MikeE(a)ster.invalid> wrote in message news:83j3tmF2kbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Mike Easter Way to be a killjoy Mike :) Lew -- "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" Denis Diderot 1713-1784
From: David H. Lipman on 25 Apr 2010 12:20 From: "Lew/Silat" <ProgressivesRule(a)LiberalUSA.com> | "Mike Easter" <MikeE(a)ster.invalid> wrote in message | news:83j3tmF2kbU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Mike Easter | Way to be a killjoy Mike :) | Lew ;-) -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Don Kirkman on 25 Apr 2010 13:59 On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:34:25 -0700, No Spam <nospam(a)nospam.nospam> wrote: >In article <pBOAn.166033$0N3.4161(a)newsfe09.iad> >"Lew/Silat" <ProgressivesRule(a)LiberalUSA.com> wrote: >>Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, the >>scientific debate over natural selection is as settled as the medieval >>controversy over heliocentrism. Evolution is a fact. >But, how can you prove " Evolution is a fact"? >You can't, it is not proven, and will remain a theory. >If you say it happened, then why it does not today? >On top of that, DNA science disagrees with the theory of evolution. So what's all that talk from scientists about DNA mutations that randomly produce species better adapted to environmental changes? >And the question remains unanswered. >If you say that humans were the result of the baboons/monkeys/whatever >evolving, which there is no proof on this yet, then I have to ask, where >did those monkeys come from then? Did they evolve themselves?If so from >what?And can you prove that scientifically and beyond any doubt? >Sorry, you can't No, that question in fact is answered. But nobody claims humans were the result of baboons' or monkeys' evolution; the well-supported theory is that the human line, like the other primates, developed from an ancestral form. Considering that we only have an extremely small sample of all possible extinct species, it's rather amazing how well the theory fits the evidence--and allows us to refine the theory. Religionists tend to expect "beyond any doubt" while scientists work from the explanatory and persuasive value of the known evidence. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: Lew/Silat on 26 Apr 2010 13:40 "D E Willson" <sky_cop(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message news:9e4bt5dvn3njk9f8hdpajca23q9pe49gbo(a)4ax.com... Snipped.... Creationism is Faith.. Evolution is SCIENCE. Apples and Oranges. Creationism is superstition. Science is years of research with "real" and tangible evidence used to reach a conclusion based on fact. It is a false equivalency you are trying to promote. Lew
From: Don Kirkman on 26 Apr 2010 13:41
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:34:15 -0700, D E Willson <sky_cop(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT), Steve <hghgstdhkd(a)yahoo.com> >wrote: >>THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS >I find it rather strange that nobody considers the possibility that >both "theories" are correct. >For the creationists, who are they to mandate how "God" may have >created all? How can anyone read the mind of God or limit God's means >of creating all that is seen and unseen? To do so, would not a human >have to be the equal of God? The creationists are not mandating , they're accepting and propagating what they believe to be God's truth in the earliest parts of the Bible. So it is not a "theory" like evolution, but a "fact" for them. > For the scientists, they may accept the idea of natural selection, >but, just as with religion, there is no undisputed "fact" which proves >either natural selection, nor disproves creationism. A great man >renowned scientists have gone from believers in God to non-believers, >and a great many others have gone from non-believers to believers. >I find this especially true of astronomers. As one said, 'the more we >discover, the more I come to believe that there must be something far >greater, for I have yet to understand where it all is, what's outside >it, or where, how and when it started. We can guess how old what we >know exists happens to be, but what was there before and what will >there be afterward?' Scientists deny that the world is 6,000 years old and fossils were planted by a creator, since neither assumption fits the known facts about the material world. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net |