By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 23 May 2009
Edit Thread
CHYUII said:
highwaystar101 said

Huh, science makes blunders ey? It seems to me that science looks for the truth and when it finds something worng they come clean and carry on the search. Not blunders, the search for the truth. Whan was the last time religious people admitted the mistakes they have made and carried on the search for truth? I know Christians who still think the earth is 6000 years old despite all that pesky evidence showing it is FAR older and that a flood wiped out everything except 8 people, which would have killed every plant on earth so the herbivore animals could not survive.

Here is you seven examples of what you would call macro-evolution... read this, 26 examples including... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals

Evidence of human evolution from primates

Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals

Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species

Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species

The full evolution of paramecium (ehich co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)

A whole heap of fossil records showing full evolution

 

Only fool would not accept it after read that site and these examples are just a few. Heck I can think of dozens of examples not on that site.

 

Now, Can you proove to me that god exists with seven examples.. Not just any god I mean YOUR GOD SPECIFICALLY...

 

 


WAIT

 

Before we continue STOP marginizing me by calling me religious and yourself a scientist. YOU have me labeled and are not talking to me but to every person that you think I am. IF you are going to be prejudice I have no need to continue.

When I said science makes blunders all I meant was exactly what you said- is it wrong for me to say I want more evidence before accepting a new hypothesis? Or theory?

As to religious people correcting there blunders they have and do. Just like with the scientist do evolution, religious people have debates over creation all of the time.

Also there is a difference between Creationist and Intelligent Designers; just like their is a difference between Christians and Jews; and Macro and Micro Evolution. Stop lumping things together because if we cannot agree on the "terms" or speak the same language their is no point in continuing.

You may not like Creationist and you may not know what an Intelligent Designer believes but maybe you should know the difference before you lump them together?

OK OK fine, let's settle down a bit. I agree this is getting heated. I appologise.

The evidence is very positive for evolution, I gave you the seven examples you wanted, I could have given more easily. But I have never heard many examples that are trustworthy for a creator, especially a specific one. And I know what an intelligent design is, the belief that life was created by an designer and that natural selection is not what occurs. But a lot of evidence exists for natural selection, this thread has seen dozens of examples IMO.

Also, sorry if I labelled you incorrectly, I can understand that is a very horrible thing to do, I wouldn't like it myself, Ididn't know. I thought you were a creationist not an intelligent design theoligist based on some of your posts