Voyager 1 spacecraft nears interstellar space

#51
#51
kiddiedoc said:
That's where you are uneducated. Excavations have failed to produce any sort of fossil record to support Darwin's theory. The Cambrian Explosion demonstrates a sudden diversity of organisms which, according to Darwin, should have taken many, many years. Many scientists already dismiss the ideas of evolution, and many think that we will be viewed as fools for accepting his ideas.

I am happy to provide resources to raise your awareness of the advancements in biology over the past 50 years. Just because you read something in high school doesn't make it a "fact."
Click to expand...

This is wrong.

There is nothing in any of the literature that states evolutionary change follows a linear fashion. The history of the earth is rife with great explosions of evolutionary change, and conversely, massive and sudden extinctions.

The specifics and mechanisms of how exactly evolutionary change happens is still largely debated...not arguing that. But the basic premise of natural selection and origin of species is supported by mountains of evidence.

The car travels from point A to point B. Just because we can't explain every detail of how the engine and transmission are working, doesn't mean the car didn't move.
 
#52
#52
rjd970 said:
The car travels from point A to point B. Just because we can't explain every detail of how the engine and transmission are working, doesn't mean the car didn't move.
Click to expand...

Excellent example. So, if someone argued that the car somehow assembled itself out of bits of metal that had evolved from nothingness, he or she wouldn't appear foolish?
 
#53
#53
kiddiedoc said:
Excellent example. So, if someone argued that the car somehow assembled itself out of bits of metal that had evolved from nothingness, he or she wouldn't appear foolish?
Click to expand...

Who is speaking of "nothingness"?

The theory of natural selection makes no statement on the ultimate origin of life-bearing particles.
 
#54
#54
kiddiedoc said:
Please tell me where I stated either what I believe or that it is factual. I was explaining that among current-day scientists, evolution is far from a "known fact."

As for your second sentence: those are the kind of words that destroy any credibility you might have and make you look the childish fool.
Click to expand...

For the upteenth time +1 and twice today, this is a smoking pile of mule muffins. Please reference Project Steve.

Project Steve | NCSE


Extremely few, almost no, "scientists" refute Natural selection/evolution.
 
#55
#55
kiddiedoc said:
Excellent example. So, if someone argued that the car somehow assembled itself out of bits of metal that had evolved from nothingness, he or she wouldn't appear foolish?
Click to expand...

I'm making no claim in that example of where the car came from, only that it moved from one point to another, and we don't fully understand how.
 
#57
#57
NEOCON said:
And here's a list of scientist who do believe in creation.


Creation scientists

Point is both sides have scientist.

Gee, whod a thunk it.
Click to expand...

The fact that Leibniz is on that list is just funny. Please tell me how his theory of monads plays into either the Biblical account of Creation or Intelligent Design.

Further, this site lists contemporary scientists that express belief in the "Biblical Account of Creation"; this does not help the Intelligent Design group. In fact, it would be saying that the ID proponents are just as wrong as the TNS proponents.
 
#58
#58
#59
#59
kiddiedoc said:
Wrong, again. There are countless books and expert testimonies from scientists who believe in
Creationism.

Really? Countless?

Do real scientists believe in Creation?

Resources for Scientists

NASA Scientists, Nobel Laureates Discuss Creation in 'Cosmic Origins' Film
Click to expand...

The fact is that the vast proportion of scientists support evolution. look it up. When you count only scientists that have a degree related to the subject, the proportion is markedly higher. If you state otherwise, you are obviously speaking either from willful ignorance or outright prevarication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
Mods need to split this thread and merge it with the Einstien thread or start a new all things evolution thread.
 
#61
#61
yeah and the vast majority voted for obama?

whats your point?

the fact is there are still people on both sides.
 
#62
#62
What's up with the hijacking of the thread and turning it into a Big Bang vs. Creation debate?

I want to know what the readings from the probe are like when it crosses out of the heliosphere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#63
#63
NEOCON said:
yeah and the vast majority voted for obama?

No they didn't. Not even close.

whats your point?

the fact is there are still people on both sides.
Click to expand...

And there always will be. One side is wrong. Is it the 95+% or the <5%?
 
#64
#64
BookVol said:
What's up with the hijacking of the thread and turning it into a Big Bang vs. Creation debate?

I want to know what the readings from the probe are like when it crosses out of the heliosphere.
Click to expand...

How are they getting readings? We have an antenna that has a range of billions of miles?
 
#70
#70
Danl said:
Ha. Stupid example.

So tell me the last time most scientists said A, the church said NOT A and the church turned out to be right?

I'll wait....
Click to expand...

Judging from the current volatile state of the world, you may not have to wait long :)
 
#72
#72
Danl said:
Ha. Stupid example.

So tell me the last time most scientists said A, the church said NOT A and the church turned out to be right?

I'll wait....
Click to expand...

There are countless examples of science that was taken as "fact" being later disproven. The germ theory of disease, liver as a circulatory organ, and the discovery of DNA as a regulatory mechanism (in place of proteins). Point is, science is fluid, and facts today may be laughed at tomorrow.

There is mounting evidence that Darwin meet have missed the boat (pun intended). It requires a great deal of both introspection and review of current research, sometimes, to refute what you have been taught. But don't confuse textbooks with truth.

My intentions have not been to incinerate or aggravate, but to suggest that there is a growing, repressed field of science that disputes Darwinian theory. Remember that most any age of science has been later proven wrong. Claiming that we are the privileged age that has the answers is closed minded and egocentric.
 
#73
#73
Danl said:
In other words, it hasn't happened yet........
Click to expand...

On the contrary, science has failed to prove anything that eliminates our Creator or our Savior. I would hope that you might open yourself to a new way of thinking that just might explain it all, including the timeless question of the meaning for our existence.
 
#74
#74
BookVol said:
What's up with the hijacking of the thread and turning it into a Big Bang vs. Creation debate?

I want to know what the readings from the probe are like when it crosses out of the heliosphere.
Click to expand...

SETI institute is listening for signs of life much further out. Although I think that was a casualty of budget cuts.

It will be a long time before V1 reaches another planet. Don't know what other celestial bodies it might encounter in interstellar space.
 
#75
#75
kiddiedoc said:
Remember that most any age of science has been later proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Negative; certainly theories have been tweaked or largely overtaken by other theories (e.g., Newtonian Physics to Relativity; Relativity and Quantum theory to strings and the ToE) but that does not mean that they have been "proven wrong" if you are trying to imply that the main thrust of the theory is discarded.

Moreover, you have spherical earth theories proffered by Pythagoras and Aristotle that were then largely repressed in Christendom during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

kiddiedoc said:
The germ theory of disease
Click to expand...

Please explain.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top