Jump to content

Denali Expedition 2008 - Looking for 10-12 member

vertical_hiker

By vertical_hiker
in Spray

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

vertical_hiker Gumby

vertical_hiker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Evolution is a bad theory that got a lot of hype in the 1925 scopes trial, where some putz didn't know how to defend himself, and all the evidence the evolutionist teacher used is now debunk. Many are still trying to keep it alive, while everybody else in the world is figuring this theory is no longer holding water...

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears.

 

I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack.

 

You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

in particular

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man.

 

There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself.

 

You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally.

 

But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vertical_hiker Gumby

vertical_hiker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
All you guys talking about monkeys to prove evolution. Definitely not enough, just go to Africa, where they found mostly all those monkey fossils/bones, and realize, wow,... monkeys still live in Africa. There is a junkyard of fossils there. Does it prove evolution, no. Then what does?....What proves evolution? We need facts that SHOW evolution to be true. In science, we are taught that evolution is still a theory, in college, even my philosophy of Science class classifies evolution as Theory. It's not fact. It's not verifiable. In order for something to be fact, it has to be verifiable and tested verifiable. You can't test it in a lab. You can't do experiments. All you can do "scientifically" is call it a theory.

 

Sounds like somebody would do well to rent that Nova episode "Evolution on Trial" - so you might avoid sounding this ignorant of the topic in the future. And as for your "Talk to Jesus" line, well, I'm not in the habit of talking to guys that have been dead for 2000 years. There's medication for that. I'm talking to you, mofo.

 

Thanks I will rent that. I'm totally open to learning, and if I'm wrong, I would like to know. I've studied evolution and science, and if I'm ever proven wrong, I will change my view. For now, evolution (that is the change from one species to another) like Cat to Dog = Cog or something like that, appears hopeless, not in that order. Does life have changes and variations,...yes, but within the species,...not evolving into another species. There are horses, and all kinds of horses. There are dogs and all kinds of dogs, but I don't ever see interspecies walking around, do you? It's not normal. Darwin even said that what's missing are the links. And today, the missing links are still missing. There are 1/4 of million species in this world, and you're telling me you can't find millions, even thousands, at least hundreds throughout history (millions of years) of any transitional fossils (the Best evidence by the way)? I mean, you may have a few weak excuses, but still, that should be your best cards for THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR evolution, and that's exactly what they need to make a water-tight argument.

 

I had a science teacher's manual of how to teach evolution for a public school with questions kids may ask(I'm telling you, I've studied this stuff blue in the face). For example, if a kid asks, isn't there a gap problem? The teacher is to respond something like, yes, but we are working on it, and here's an example (in the entire book, is only one(1) example). Guess what the example is, that they really want to sell the kids on this idea. It's a freaking Wasp-Bee. That is it! It looks like a wasp. That's all the guns they had. I'm sorry, but somebody forgot to tell the Writers, that is called speciation (change from within a species), not a transitional missing link.

 

Actually, there's a website where if you can actually scientifically (empirically) prove Evolution to be true, you will receive $250,000. Funny thing is nobody's claimed the prize yet. Here's the Page:

 

EMPIRICALLY PROVE EVOLUTION FOR PRIZE HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayB Gumby

JayB

Posted
Posted

Evolution is a bad theory that got a lot of hype in the 1925 scopes trial, where some putz didn't know how to defend himself, and all the evidence the evolutionist teacher used is now debunk. Many are still trying to keep it alive, while everybody else in the world is figuring this theory is no longer holding water...

You are totally delusional! There is not one credible scientist in the world who does not believe that evolution is a good theory and there is little chance of that ever changing. I'd love to write a long diatribe arguing the point but I know it will fall on deaf ears.

 

I actually had some sympathy for you in the first 9 pages I read but I had to skip to the end and see that you are insulting what I hold dear and that is scientific research. I thought "Hey, maybe he does just want to find some climbing buddies interested in Christ." but arguing Intelligent Design in your own thread removes whatever credibility you had when JosephH launched the first attack.

 

You want facts about evolution? Here is a website devoted entirely to those who think just like yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

in particular

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

There are many Christians that think that evolution is a good theory and that literal interpretations of the Bible are foolish. How can one selectively declare what is literal and what isn't in the Bible? It's all or nothing because otherwise it isn't the true word of god, it's an interpretation by man.

 

There I go. I said I wouldn't argue but I just couldn't help myself.

 

You are correct. There are some people who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and they are usually labeled liberals, but you are incorrect to say many Christians believe in Evolution, there is a group that believes the possibility of seven million year earth, as opposed to 7 day earth, but I have to say, it doesn't matter, nor was anybody there to watch. God did it. That's what matters. I believe in 7 day, not just because it's says in Genesis "Day", and not just that the context there supports it by saying "there was a morning and and an evening, and there was the next day," but the fact that Jesus in the new testament refers to it as a 7-day period (and since He is God in flesh,) that pretty much to me affirms that it was 7-days literally.

 

But again, I wasn't there, so I don't truly know, nor do Scientist because they can't test it. They weren't there. Science used to date the earth by carbon dating, but that only works up to something like 50,000 years (and since water taints the testing, speeds up the life) that version of dating the earth is ill-equipped to measure the age of the earth. Bottom line, we're all going to find out later what happens. Even though some people believe differently, that is perfectly fine for me. We can differ and still be good friends.

 

I had to chime in here with a minor point about the testability of scientific theories.

 

There some theories that you can test by observation, others that you can't. Those theories that can't be tested by direct observation and measurement can still be tested by the extent to which they make useful, verifiable predictions.

 

One of the many predictions of evolutionary theory was that evolutionary relationships should persist at the molecular level. For instance - the hemoglobin molecules generated by humans should more closely resemble the hemoglobin molecules of lemurs than, say - lampreys. These predictions were made several decades before scientists had the technology necessary to test them directly, and well before DNA had been identified as the agent of heredity. The fact that this prediction was borne out by empirical evidence several decades later provides one of many strong lines of evidence in support of the original theory. The case is even stronger when one considers the evidence provided by DNA sequencing.

 

Speaking of DNA - were you aware of the fact that nearly one-half of the human genome is composed of ancient retroviruses (or similar self-repicating elements) that integrated into our genetic material millions of years before the arrival of modern humans? That they splice themselves into a new locale in the genome something like every 30-250 live births? That when these endogenous retroviruses replicate and insert themselves into the genome, they quite often damage the hosts by cripling and turning off necessary genes, or activating quiescent genes in a way that can give rise to cancer and other disorders? That the reason that primates can't synthesize their own vitamin C is because one of these retroelements spliced itself into the middle of a gene that encodes an enzyme required for the biosynthesis of this vitamin? Is any of this consistent with the notion of intelligent design?

 

"The eukaryotic genome has undergone a series of epidemics of amplification of mobile elements that have resulted in most eukaryotic genomes containing much more of this `junk' DNA than actual coding DNA. The majority of these elements utilize an RNA intermediate and are termed retroelements. Most of these retroelements appear to amplify in evolutionary waves that insert in the genome and then gradually diverge. In humans, almost half of the genome is recognizably derived from retroelements, with the two elements that are currently actively amplifying, L1 and Alu, making up about 25% of the genome and contributing extensively to disease. The mechanisms of this amplification process are beginning to be understood, although there are still more questions than answers. Insertion of new retroelements may directly damage the genome, and the presence of multiple copies of these elements throughout the genome has longer-term influences on recombination events in the genome and more subtle influences on gene expression."

 

Read the whole thing.

 

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/10/1455

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...