<p>coincidence, huh? run your math probability stuff, and that's a pretty big coincidence to deal with</p>
<p>evidence against evolution: inability to create life
NO one has yet seen a star being born</p>
<p>I'd also argue that evolutionary theory can be taken down by the argument of "coincidence"</p>
<p>No one has seen a star being born, but we've seen stars in the process of being "born". Nobody saw the whole universe be created in seven days, either. Just beause we don't "see" something doesn't mean that it didn't happen.</p>
<p>I'm feeling that my replies are futile, so I'll just leave with a link. The last section there has a nice FAQ.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/%5B/url%5D">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd also argue that evolutionary theory can be taken down by the argument of "coincidence"
[/quote]
Then please do elaborate. I'd like to read that.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp%5B/url%5D">http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp</a></p>
<p>I'm feeling lazy, so try the link</p>
<p>remember, evolutionists claim that they can see millions of years into the past, yet in those "millions of years" we have yet to see a star being born</p>
<p>Quote:
I'd also argue that evolutionary theory can be taken down by the argument of "coincidence" </p>
<p>Then please do elaborate. I'd like to read that.</p>
<p>Name your piece of evidence, and I'll see whether I can call it coincidence</p>
<p>Basically: No one's seen evolution happen. It's not an event you experience, it's something you look back on. Because you have a bunch of fossils that go from one organism to another you have no right to make the leap to evolution. Furthermore, the actual evidence is sketchy - life from basic molecules, there are no intermediary-stage fossils, natural selection can't actually do the whole reptile-mammal thing. So some birds had weird beaks. So what?</p>
<p>and God threw in the platypus as a safeguard against evolution lol</p>
<p>creation science is labeled a "non-science" not because the scientists believe it, but because the masses and the politicians believe it</p>
<p>We can say sure, there might be another lifeform that thinks 2+2=5</p>
<p>no - 2+2 can never =5 - I suppose another lifeform could think it, but it would never be true (even if God said it was), that was the point I was making.</p>
<p>And thank you plaidcalico haha - I was getting to the fact that God didn't write the Bible. Man did. And it was writen for people who lived 2000 years ago - we cannot take it literally. And it is by no means a scientific book.</p>
<p>Tanonev, lets see a link that isn't biased by religion that says that the earth is 6000 years old?? Oh thats right, you wont be able to find one - my mistake.</p>
<p>Also, get your facts straight - the length of a year has absolutely nothing to do with how fast the Earth is spinning. The length of a year is how long it takes the Earth to circle the sun one time.</p>
<p>thank you icarus and plaidcalico... i just don't like stubborn people who don't have their facts straight.</p>
<p>I'm a Christian, but even if there was not a god, I can't imagine a better lifestyle than that laid out in the Bible.</p>
<p>and you agnostics/atheists complain about being a minority in the discussion lol looks like I'm all alone in my defense of creation science</p>
<p>whether rotation or revolution has slowed doesn't matter; my point was that either (or both) would have been way too fast to support life (or a planet, for that matter)</p>
<p>God didn't physically write the Bible, no, but we Christians believe He inspired it</p>
<p>the reason no texts besides the Bible give discourse on the age of the earth being 6000 years is that no one feels the need for redundancy...there is no need to reinvent the wheel</p>
<p>also, I noticed that you kept <em>mysteriously quiet</em> about my argument about the atmosphere...do I take your silence as agreement?</p>
<p>and I have NO problem with disagreeing with the "scientific community"...not meaning to sound conceited or anything, but many things once regarded by everyone as "scientific fact" have been tossed out...think geocentric universe, biological humors, epicycles, etc.
how much more so, then, when evolutionary theory is just that, a theory</p>
<p>Newt, you might want to specify a little, there. There are many lifestyles described in the bible, and not all are favorable by any means.</p>
<p>And come on Tanonev. I've been reading through that website you linked to - are you serious? That site argues, among other things, that Job 40: 15-24 is a description of a dinosaur (even though it is so ridiculously vague, no one would make that connection otherwise). This claim can't hold up under even the slightest scrutiny - the site says the creature is monstrous, but the passage from Job says it hides behind reeds in the marsh. I'm pretty sure most reeds aren't dinosaur-sized.
It (the site) also says that "There is much empirical data that conclusively proves vaccinations can be harmful, and in many cases fatal, and should therefore be avoided." - seriously, you've got to be kidding me. I have found absolutely nothing on that site that will stand up to scientific (hell, even logical) scrutiny.</p>
<p>Like I said, nice try - but next time, I want a non-religious link.</p>
<p>ok first - I have read the bible - quite extensively actually.
Second, the bible never comes out and says "the earth started on this date, blah blah blah" - you extrapolated that age. So yes, i think there is a need to "reinvent the wheel" as you say.</p>
<p>Also, I didn't respond to your atmosphere thing because it didn't seem like an argument. I dont' know on what "evidence" you base your claim, and even if it is true, it proves nothing. You throw out so many "arguments", I can't respond to all of them - dont take my silence as agreement.</p>
<p>Hmm.. I think there are many examples of lifestyles in the Bible, but one way of living that people are called to live -- that modeled after Jesus Christ. I just finished reading the entire new testament a few months ago, and I was overwhelmed by the advice it held. My personal favorite book is James, which talks about such topics as perservering in the face of adversity, faith and deeds, and the dangers of the tongue. (see <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James&version=31;%5B/url%5D">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James&version=31;</a> if you want)</p>
<p>If references to God in the New Testament were removed and it was a "self-help" book or something else like that in today's society, it would still offer amazing advice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how much more so, then, when evolutionary theory is just that, a theory
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since theories aren't worth anything, there must be no such thing as gravity, the sun revolves around the earth, I shouldn't have bothered learning about plate tectonics, and whatever nerd made up the theory of relativity was wasting his time.</p>
<p>All right, tanonev - here is my response to your atmosphere argument.
You say that the atmosphere is not stable yet (i dont' know why you say yet). Fine I'll agree with you there. Our atmosphere is in a state of constant flux; a more accurate term is dynamic equilibrium. The elements necessary to sustain life are always moving and reacting with each other, moving through continuous cycles. And in fact this is a good (nay, great!) thing, which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you said "yet" as if it were a good thing.
Having a static equilibrium (like mars has) indicates a dead world, incapable of sustaining life. I have found nothing to support your claim that atmospheres stabilize after 30000 years, so that item goes with the rest of your argument in the "not true" pile lol. I think we should both hope that our atmosphere never "stabilizes".</p>
<p>haha keep 'em coming, if you want.</p>