Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in God?

  • Yes

    Votes: 71 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 122 59.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 12 5.9%
  • Total voters
    205
DemonTrich

DemonTrich

Well-Known Member
carbon dating trumps dna testing :)

dna testing could only go back what 2014 years. carbon dating goes back 650 MILLION years.
 
callitgood

callitgood

Member
DemonTrich said:
carbon dating trumps dna testing :)

dna testing could only go back what 2014 years. carbon dating goes back 650 MILLION years.
Click to expand...
Carbon dating is used for dating artifacts of a biological origin.
DNA is used for genetic profiling, two different sciences.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
callitgood said:
Evolution has never been proven, in fact, DNA destroys Darwin's theory.
But most atheists won't except it.
Click to expand...
Evolution as been proven through not one, but many separate scientific fields (see Dawkins video) in post #62, and is as much a fact as anything known to man. The term theory in science is much different than is used in the layman's vernacular. Theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, made up of many physical laws and facts, i.e. gravitational theory, electronic theory, etc. These bodies of knowledge are used to land rovers on Mars 34 million miles away within a 3 meter accuracy, and used to create every electronic device in existence (including the PCs on which we type and read the thoughts presented here). These accomplishments are not based on mere guesses and speculation, but rather on the concrete nature of objective reality...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true - Layman's definition

: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Scientific definitions

It is important not to conflate the two definitions...

In the same video above, Professor Dawkins shows us that DNA supports evolution in a very major way. If you have links to credible, peer-reviewed sources (no creationist/christian videos or bias creationist websites, please) that state otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look...
 
Last edited:
callitgood

callitgood

Member
tyler.durden said:
Evolution as been proven through not one, but many separate scientific fields (see Dawkins video) in post #62, and is as much a fact as anything known to man. The term theory in science is much different than is used in the layman's vernacular. Theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, made up of many physical laws and facts, i.e. gravitational theory, electronic theory, etc. These bodies of knowledge are used to land rovers on Mars 34 million miles away within a 3 meter accuracy, and used to create every electronic device in existence (including the PCs on which we type and read the thoughts presented here). These accomplishments are not based on mere guesses and speculation, but rather on the concrete nature of objective reality...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true - Layman's definition

: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Scientific definitions

It is important not to conflate the two definitions...

In the same video above, Professor Dawkins shows us that DNA supports evolution in a very major way. If you have links to credible, peer-reviewed sources (no creationist/christian videos or bias creationist websites, please) that state otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look...
Click to expand...
All you have is opinion supporting evolution, that is it.
I could cite many links to scientists who disagree, who in fact support the theory that DNA disproves Darwinism.

Here is a link to documentary with five professors/scientists who believe Darwins theory is impossible.
go to 21:59 of the video.
Professor Dawkins was asked the question "can you give an example of genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in a genome" he is stumped, why, because there is no example.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
callitgood said:
All you have is opinion supporting evolution, that is it.
I could cite many links to scientists who disagree, who in fact support the theory that DNA disproves Darwinism.

Here is a link to documentary with five professors/scientists who believe Darwins theory is impossible.
go to 21:59 of the video.
Professor Dawkins was asked the question "can you give an example of genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in a genome" he is stumped, why, because there is no example.
Click to expand...
There are dozens of different disciplines that all independently confirm the theory of evolution

One of my favorite examples comes from Neil Shubin's exploration of the Canadian arctic and his teams discovery of the transitional species tiktaalik he details in his book Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

"Let's now return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs." Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would all recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clack at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in the rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins, conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals."

"On the basis of previous discoveries made in slightly younger rocks, we believed that ancient freshwater streams were the best environment in which to begin our hunt."..."First, there is the east coast of Greenland. This is home to Jenny Clack's fossil, a very early creature with limbs and one of the earliest known tetrapods. Then there is eastern North America, where we had already worked, home to Hynerpeton. And there is a third area, large and running east-west across the Canadian Arctic. There are no trees, dirt or cities in the Arctic. The chances were good that rocks of the right age and type would be extremely well exposed."

"It took us six years to find it, but this fossil confirmed a prediction of paleontology: not only was the new fish an intermediate between two different kinds of animal, but we had found it also in the right time period in earth's history and in the right ancient environment."
 
callitgood

callitgood

Member
Milovan said:
The Last Supper was really "The Last Session" and Jesus rose on the
7th day and took the first "wake & bake".

View attachment 3276041
slipknot
Click to expand...
I'm not much of a bible beliver
Padawanbater2 said:
There are dozens of different disciplines that all independently confirm the theory of evolution

One of my favorite examples comes from Neil Shubin's exploration of the Canadian arctic and his teams discovery of the transitional species tiktaalik he details in his book Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

"Let's now return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs." Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 million years old, include diverse kinds of fossilized animals that we would all recognize as amphibians or reptiles. My colleague Jenny Clack at Cambridge University and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 million years old. With their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in the rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins, conical heads, and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals."

"On the basis of previous discoveries made in slightly younger rocks, we believed that ancient freshwater streams were the best environment in which to begin our hunt."..."First, there is the east coast of Greenland. This is home to Jenny Clack's fossil, a very early creature with limbs and one of the earliest known tetrapods. Then there is eastern North America, where we had already worked, home to Hynerpeton. And there is a third area, large and running east-west across the Canadian Arctic. There are no trees, dirt or cities in the Arctic. The chances were good that rocks of the right age and type would be extremely well exposed."

"It took us six years to find it, but this fossil confirmed a prediction of paleontology: not only was the new fish an intermediate between two different kinds of animal, but we had found it also in the right time period in earth's history and in the right ancient environment."
Click to expand...
LOL

then you'll love this video, scientists have already disproved Tiktaalik, they even laugh about the theory.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
callitgood said:
All you have is opinion supporting evolution, that is it.
I could cite many links to scientists who disagree, who in fact support the theory that DNA disproves Darwinism.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not follow or understand science. I'm guessing you are a creationist or christian? I'm sure if you really tried, you could find some non-credible, fringe scientists that deny gravity, as well. That doesn't make it so. But please post these links to disagreeing scientists so we can bring them out into the light to see where they fall short...

Here is a link to documentary with five professors/scientists who believe Darwins theory is impossible.
go to 21:59 of the video.
Professor Dawkins was asked the question "can you give an example of genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in a genome" he is stumped, why, because there is no example.
Click to expand...
You forgot the link to your video, please repost it so that I can retort...
 
callitgood

callitgood

Member
tyler.durden said:
You clearly do not follow or understand science. I'm guessing you are a creationist or christian? I'm sure if you really tried, you could find some non-credible, fringe scientists that deny gravity, as well. That doesn't make it so. But please post these links to disagreeing scientists so we can bring them out into the light to see where they fall short...



You forgot the link to your video, please repost it so that I can retort...
Click to expand...
Well you are wrong on all points.
I'm not a bible believer, I do follow science and everything I cite, like you and those who believe in evolution, is backed by science.

To call scientists who do not agree with evolution, fringe, demonstrates your own close-mindedness.


 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
callitgood said:
I'm not much of a bible beliver


LOL

then you'll love this video, scientists have already disproved Tiktaalik, they even laugh about the theory.
Click to expand...
Scientists or two creationists responding to a clip about a debate about evolution?

Pretty substantial difference there, bud..

The theory of evolution is one of the most widely accepted scientific theories in all of science and has more than 150 years of evidence to support it. Something like 99.8% of all biologists accept it as fact

How do you explain how all living things share DNA based on how closely related organisms are?

How do you explain how all life forms on Earth are carbon based?

How do you explain vestigial appendages and organs?

How do you explain why chickens have the genetic code to make teeth, but have no teeth?

How do you explain why whales and dolphins swim vertically (like mammals run on land) but all fish swim horizontally?

How do you explain Darwin's famous finch observations?

How do you explain the fact that there's never been a single instance of an older, less complex organism being above a younger, more complex organism in the different layers of strata?

How do you explain the power of prediction, like the example I cited earlier with tiktaalik? Scientists knew where to look, what to look for and in what age rocks they would likely find the animal in, and they did. How do you explain that?

None of these observations make any sense without the theory of evolution

If you don't accept the theory of evolution, what is your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?
 
callitgood

callitgood

Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Scientists or two creationists responding to a clip about a debate about evolution?

Pretty substantial difference there, bud..

The theory of evolution is one of the most widely accepted scientific theories in all of science and has more than 150 years of evidence to support it. Something like 99.8% of all biologists accept it as fact

How do you explain how all living things share DNA based on how closely related organisms are?

How do you explain how all life forms on Earth are carbon based?

How do you explain vestigial appendages and organs?

How do you explain why chickens have the genetic code to make teeth, but have no teeth?

How do you explain why whales and dolphins swim vertically (like mammals run on land) but all fish swim horizontally?

How do you explain Darwin's famous finch observations?

How do you explain the fact that there's never been a single instance of an older, less complex organism being above a younger, more complex organism in the different layers of strata?

How do you explain the power of prediction, like the example I cited earlier with tiktaalik? Scientists knew where to look, what to look for and in what age rocks they would likely find the animal in, and they did. How do you explain that?

None of these observations make any sense without the theory of evolution

If you don't accept the theory of evolution, what is your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?
Click to expand...
"Scientists or two creationists responding to a clip about a debate about evolution?

Pretty substantial difference there, bud.."
Yet you supply one. LOL

I don't except evolution or the orthodox theory of "creation"
Everything you've asked me to explain, you can't explain yourself and neither can scientists.
All I am saying is, evolution is not proven, and that is a fact.
To this day there is no evidence of any kind of missing link, in fact, it is proven that humans cannot reproduce with primates, yet Darwins theory says we descended from them.
And the fact that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed because the replication contains built-in error checking. Kind of hard to claim a horse came from a fish when their dna structure makes it impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top