Evolution vs. Creation

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"Evolution DOES rely on life to be here. Life IS here. Therefore life evolves. Facts."
Wow with this kind of reasoning you should publish!
CSL

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Incorrect yet again!
Evidence of what?
Science can not disprove God
Science can not disprove that God did not create a mature universes and a mature Earth. He did created a mature man and a woman, and everything else on the planet was created fully mature.
Oh and the chicken came first!
Fully matured.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Your side claims it has all the proof. Let's see it.
Like the singularity that existed before the big bang.
The facts are this singularity having gravity of unheard of strength could not just start expanding! It's Impossible. As soon as the laws of physics take hold like one billionth of a second after the big bang then gravity would have held or pulled this singularity back together and stopped time again.
Science deals with facts - them are the facts. and science is ignoring those facts.
Pre big bang singularity and then the big bang just could not have happened.
Common physic laws prove this.
Your science doesn't know if it's coming or going. Science needs to stick to the facts and not make up this crap that just could not have happened.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Idiot!
"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how DIVINE or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings."

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"Evolution can and has been demonstrated. " CSL
"evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know?"

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
But Einstein's THEORY of relativity has been proven false so why do you still call it a theory?

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"species adapt to changing environments across evolutionary time"
This is not Evolution!
Evolution is one kind coming into existence from another kind. It has never been observed and there is no proof in the fossil record.
Another point Evolution claims as proof
Is the fused chromosome number 2 that only humans have. Somehow this by evolutionist is proof we are related to apes. Because they (Apes) don't have it and we do have it. Ya right!
HL&S.(Hook Line & Sinker)

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes the universe is from God speaking the word. That's all it took his spoken word. And you choose to ridicule him.
Once a soul is created it will always exist. God tells us there are only two places that exist for that soul to go to after death, one God created "Heaven" the other always existed "Hell".
All the rest of your lame post has been answered many time over.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Where in any of that did you say that Mashia said it?

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah? Never tried to hide it surprise you're just catching on now. How long have I been doing that running gag?

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.
Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.
We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/...

Atlas12a wrote:

<quoted text>i do accept evolution and i do think humans are a part of all i was saying is that the "theoy of human evoltuion" is just that a theory. however the only reason it is just that is because of religion and the believe that a god all of a sudden said something and the universe was there all of a sudden 6000 yrs ago please read my post before this i dont wanna type it all again lol

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I did read it and largely agree with you. However, I will point out that saying evolution is 'just a theory' is to invite criticism. It is a hallmark of a fundy.

KJV wrote:

Your science doesn't know if it's coming or going. Science needs to stick to the facts and not make up this crap that just could not have happened.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Satan Junior - where in that post did it say "Scientific" Theory?

KJV wrote:

Here's a clue for you it's called a definition:
"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings."

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"You are incorrect here. Evidence is *exactly* what matters to scientists."
Where is the evidence of the singularity that existed before the big bang? This is a scientific theory so where is that evidence?
Where is the evidence of life forming from the puddle of goo. Life starting on it own on this planet is a scientific theory where's the eveidence?
String theory - failed!
Quantum Mechanics - failed!
The Theory of Relitivity - failed!
Big Bang theory? Nothing exploding and creating everything. Ya right!
Evolution theory? All life on Earth evolving from an auto starting speck of life. Ya right.

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
See what I mean, Atlas12a?

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"species adapt to changing environments across evolutionary time"
This is not Evolution!
Evolution is one kind coming into existence from another kind. It has never been observed and there is no proof in the fossil record.
Another point Evolution claims as proof
Is the fused chromosome number 2 that only humans have. Somehow this by evolutionist is proof we are related to apes. Because they (Apes) don't have it and we do have it. Ya right!
HL&S.(Hook Line & Sinker)

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims. If such creatures had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed, their numbers would be even greater than the number of animal species we know today, and everywhere the world should be full of their fossil remains. Evolutionists look for these intermediate forms in all the feverish fossil research that has been carried out since the nineteenth century. However, there has been no trace of these intermediate forms, despite all the eager searching for the last 150 years."

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"In short, the fossil record shows that living species emerged suddenly and perfectly formed, not by following a process from primitive forms to advanced ones as evolution claims.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to find evidence for their theory or so, but have actually proved by their own hand that no evolutionary process could have been possible. In conclusion, modern science reveals the following indisputable fact: Living things did not emerge as the result of blind chance, but God created them."