RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Darwin's theory is wrong, Darwin's theory is wrong< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
John



Posts: 3
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2007,11:21   

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

:D

  
Not A Monkey



Posts: 24
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,07:56   

Great link.  Good reading.  God bless.

Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering."

  
Quack



Posts: 1803
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2007,04:43   

Quote

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong.


I am afraid I find the above statement somewhat off target.

It is correct as far as stating that the ToE is not a scientific law, but then nobody claims that it is either.

The theory have no problem meeting "challenges", but may of course be overturned anytime if new evidence should require that.

What the ToE however is, is a scientific theory. Just like any other theory, say the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, it just is science's answer to the questions raised by our studies of nature.

And like all scientific theories, it just is the best we can do; our best possible answer to the questions, and open for revision or even falsification at all times. Science admits that all theories are just theories, but still the best we are able to make out of facts, findings, and observations.

Gravity is a theory, fact and a law; but that doesn't mean that the theory cannot be falsified. In fact, that is what happened when it was found that the theory of relativity showed that Newton's theory of gravity could not account for everything about the movement of energy, light and matter.

Newtons theory is all we need with respect to building bridges or cars; it is not sufficient to calculate the movement of celestial bodies or for satellite navigation systems.

I am afraid I find it sad that critics of the theory of evolution shows such limited knowledge not only about that theory, but even about science in general.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2007,08:11   

This position starts from a false premise.  Not even scientific law is 100% correct.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2007,18:59   

Quote (Not A Monkey @ May 29 2007,07:56)
Great link. Good reading. God bless.

Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering."

Oooh! Leviticus! Can I play, too?

Quote
11.13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11.14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11.15 Every raven after his kind;
11.16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,
11.17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11.18 And the redshank, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11.19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
11.20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
11.21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
11.22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,12:19   

Quote (Not A Monkey @ May 29 2007,13:56)
Great link. Good reading. God bless.

Leviticus 5:11
" 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering."

I know this one is dead but I had to ask:
Why does God have to have his menu just so?

"No oil or insense today darling, you can serve it undressed, for it is a sin offering".

NB, this is not an invitation to respond with the deep theological meanings of impurities in the flour (to represent sin). It is merely an unavoidable opportunity to have a poke at the mighty Yahwah.
;)

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
Nullifidian



Posts: 3
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2007,13:37   

Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 20 2007,12:19)
I know this one is dead but I had to ask:
Why does God have to have his menu just so?

Perhaps God is an autistic child?

That would be my diagnosis, having read the Bible.

God's also a "He" and it's diagnosed in boys four times as much as in girls.

  
  6 replies since May 14 2007,11:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]