Evolution? How?

Rosborne wrote

Quote:

The Bible is a story which is not derrived from evidence.

First I would like to know if you have read the Bible? Have you seen a jury trial? The one thing that relies on any verdict is the testimony of witnesses.

However I believe that the fossil record speaks of Creation (which DOES HAVE REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE). I would like to show you the scientific evidence

I really don't feel like I need to show you the scientific evidence as you will poo poo it and say that the people who researched it are wrong just as I say evolution is wrong.

However I believe that the fossil record speaks of Creation (which DOES HAVE REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE). I would like to show you the scientific evidence

Just like you take the bible out of context, you have taken my quote out of context. I really don't feel like I need to show you the scientific evidence as you will poo poo it and say that the people who researched it are wrong just as I say evolution is wrong.

I see, I think.

So what you are saying is that you found trigonometry difficult to understand at school, you got pissed off with evolutionary theory because thats hard too [real science is often hard] so you took the easy route via religion where you can believe or reject as much or as little as you like.

There is no assumption of "guilt" or "innocence" in science. Rather there is a question of does it fit the facts or not.

The Bible is a story which is not derrived from evidence. As a matter of fact, many of the events in the Bible are in direct conflict with the evidence we find in the natural world.

I have read the Bible, and I have been on a Jury, and the one thing which matters more than a witness is physical evidence.

Science builds theories from evidence. Creation builds theories from stories. If countless rocks are dated using well understood known techniques, and they all say the Earth is billions of years old, then it's billions of years old. I don't care how many books with accounts of witnesses you can find which disagree, they are wrong.

I don't know if Jesus ate that bread, or even if he existed, and I don't care.

But if the Bible describes a physical history to Earth and to biology which clearly doesn't match the evidence, then it's wrong. Simple as that.

Fossils are routinely found embedded in rocks which we know for a fact are millions of years old.

Bili, Bless you in your ignorance. Have a nice life.

You are simply lobbing bombs from the back row.

Buried deeply within Behe is a stipulation that Ive always found a bit troubling to his "hypothesis". Irreduscible Complexity requires a system to be fully functional with all its parts from the getgo (Of course thats his definition , not his finding) BUT, Once IC has established the form, Behe then says it can be modified through time (so he says it cant evolve to get there, but once a system is "created" , it can evolve ) might I say DUUUHHH?

Bili,
Several points here.
First, I get real tired of your playing the "martyred Christian." We are not disagreeing with you because you are "Christian" but because you are not intellectual by any sense of the word.

Experiments in 1948 are invalid when new experiments prove those conclusions to be not valid. The problem is you take the conclusions of a single study and attempt to apply it to all other studies as if it is an undisputable fact.

Quote:

The most interesting thing about this article is that the author doesn't seem to understand what the word "species" means. A species is one that can't breed with another. That has been created in laboratory experiments. If you would care to discuss the scientific mechanics of fruit fly speciation or what the definition of "species" is. then lets do it. Simply changing the meaning of words to prove yourself right is NOT a debate.

semantics.

i'll translate for you and you correct me on your wording (reminisce of a previous thread with your sharp questions).

translation of above paragraph:
"mutating a fly that originally had 4 bristles into a fly with 36 bristles is a new species"

correct?

The Theory of Evolution is derived from evidence, lots and lots of rock solid evidence and logical deduction. It fits exactly with what science requires for a valid theory. The theory of evolution resulted from observation and deduction, just like all other scientific theories did.

It is not evolution or creation but evolution and creation.

Have a nice eternity evolving into whatever

Notice just how many versions of "the Truth" are argued among scholars of many Christian sects.Its like cats "copulating" A simple disagreement amongst yourselves about the very meaning of the value of the word "day" leads you with absolutely noquantitative credibility when you, then wish to begin adding a scientific perspective to the same terminology.