Where was God on 9/11?
- Thread starter Pako
- 319 comments
- 9,332 views
- 2,732
Found it, now you guys have no excuse not to look at it. And you better read ALL of it before you start talking again!
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/show...d=13444&highlight=creationism+vs+evolutionism
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/show...d=13444&highlight=creationism+vs+evolutionism
The thread lives again... Hmmmmmmmmmmm....Looks like there is no stopping this.
Well here is a little lite reading on it. I'm hoping not to get go any further into the debate though.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
Later guys.
Well here is a little lite reading on it. I'm hoping not to get go any further into the debate though.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
Later guys.
- 5,716
but I will answer it anyhow
no, it's not offensive. It is your belief and you are entitled to it.
He isnt forcing it upon you, and infact if you dont like looking at it you can click on "my gtplanet" and turn all sigs off.
I am not religous my self, but dont find it offensive. I think that would be the view of any open minded individual (not saying of course that you arent).
<-- I love this smilie <--- but seem to use this one more 
Re-read his question, then do it again. And now, since you still don't understand why your answer was wrong, I'll tell you. He said that 'Jesus lived to die for YOU' is offencive. Then he asked 'isn't, 'The man is dead, get over yourselves'' offencive to the same degree. This is akin to asking whether 'yes' and 'no' have the same degree of meaning. The answer, whether either of the signatures offend you, of course, is yes.Originally posted by ving
but I will answer it anyhow
no, it's not offensive. It is your belief and you are entitled to it.
- 209
I don't see why not. It's a pretty valid statement; when though researchers can create life from basic protiens, they are still no closer to a true answer. He may be proven wrong, but I don't see how this is ignorant.
- 197
I'm ignorant because I posted my opinion. Umm, ok
These quotes are from the site DGB454 posted. (Nice site!)
"The notion that the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." (Sir Fred Hovle. evolutionist)
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of Evolution." (Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist)
"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that run contrary to the view of conservative creationists."(Edmund Ambrose, evolutionist)
"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protien or gene - is complex beyond anything produced by the intelligence of a man?"(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, "Evolution: A theory in crisis")
"Modern apes seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record, and the true origin of modern humans is if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., evolutionist)
There are experianced and intelligent scientists who finds all forms of evolutionism unsatisfactory in providing a credible explination for the true origin of the cosmos and life - based on the known facts and physical laws.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html
I encourage you to read the whole page.
Posting quotes from men who believe in evolution means that those men have no credibility since they believe a theory is fact, right?Do you understand that this quote is significant of the fact that Conservative Creationists have no geological evidence to back up their claims, therefore this quote applies? I must stress that you read fully what you post.
I'm glad you included this quote, because I know who Lyall Watson is. Lyall is self-described (and if you've ever read any of his books, you'd believe him) as a man with "no philosophy to sell and no preconceived ideas about how the world works." Hmmm, he doesn't sound much like an evolutionist, does he? Perhaps I should look the rest of these clowns up, also...
This comment can only come from someone naive about the world, based on the simple fact that I could just as easily refute that with "There are experienced and intelligent scientists who find all forms of creationsim unsatisfcatory in providing a credible explanation for the true origin of the cosmos and life - based on the known facts and physical laws." Refute it, and not with a website...
...that bills itself as "biblical answers to contemporary questions" because that says perfectly: If you ask it a question that applies today, it will give you an answer that applied in the bible's times. Also, a site giving only biblical answers won't be too fair to both sides of the argument, now will it? I'm surprised you post this website as fact.
There are no Internet search results for anyone called "Edmund Ambrose" of interest.
This website comes up on Google concerning 'Sir Fred Hovle.'
This website comes up on Google concerning 'Sir Fred Hovle.'
Oh, but the glory one: Pierre-Paul Grasse. DGB454's page is clearly misquoting him and his 1977 book Evolution of a Living Organism in which Grasse states that he believes in evolution wholly but that he also believes the notion that the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order, which is the quote you provided. Meaning he just believes in a different form of evolution.
I encourage you: DO RESEARCH!!!
I encourage you: DO RESEARCH!!!
More Light reading.
Feel free to put your links for evolution theory . I would like to read them. Thanks.
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists-fs.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-077.htm
http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/08/1/evolutionism.html
Feel free to put your links for evolution theory . I would like to read them. Thanks.
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists-fs.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-077.htm
http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/08/1/evolutionism.html
"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that run contrary to the view of conservative creationists."(Edmund Ambrose, evolutionist)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do you understand that this quote is significant of the fact that Conservative Creationists have no geological evidence to back up their claims, therefore this quote applies? I must stress that you read fully what you post. "
What? Am I misreading this? Doesn't it say that there is nothing in geological records that run contrary (against) the view of conservative creationists?
Nothing that runs against the view?
So if I am reading it correctly then why do you say that it has to do with" Conservative Creationists have no geological evidence to back up their claims" Am I missing something?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying .
If so I appoligize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do you understand that this quote is significant of the fact that Conservative Creationists have no geological evidence to back up their claims, therefore this quote applies? I must stress that you read fully what you post. "
What? Am I misreading this? Doesn't it say that there is nothing in geological records that run contrary (against) the view of conservative creationists?
Nothing that runs against the view?
So if I am reading it correctly then why do you say that it has to do with" Conservative Creationists have no geological evidence to back up their claims" Am I missing something?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying .
If so I appoligize.
Just to clarify in my mind what you are saying. I'm in google therfore I am? Strange theory but who am I to question your beliefs.
Actually I did the same search on Google and a number of pages came up on Hovle
Here are a few.
There are at least 10 Google pages on Fred Hovle. He is the guy who coined the phrase "Big Bang Theory" then later rejected it the theory. I personally don't suscribe to any of his theories.
http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html
http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/fredhoyle.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1503721.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,540961,00.html
First: Do you realise that the websites you are posting websites devoted entirely to proving creationism exists? That is in no way fair, because there's just as many websites like that for evolution, that I don't care to post based simply on the fact that those websites are skewed. Doesn't seem to stop you and NASCARnut, though.
Second: You're merely giving me more quotes from people who probably either don't exist (like Edmund Ambrose) or are being entirely misquoted (Pierre-Paul Grasse). Unfortunately, this time I am not going to look them up because this camp lost all their credibility in the last go.
Allow me to clarify. By stating that there is no geological evidence to refute the claims of conservative creationsits, "Ambrose" is also stating that there is no geological evidence to back up those claims, meaning there is no geological evidence on the topic for conservative creationists, period.
Second: You're merely giving me more quotes from people who probably either don't exist (like Edmund Ambrose) or are being entirely misquoted (Pierre-Paul Grasse). Unfortunately, this time I am not going to look them up because this camp lost all their credibility in the last go.
Allow me to clarify. By stating that there is no geological evidence to refute the claims of conservative creationsits, "Ambrose" is also stating that there is no geological evidence to back up those claims, meaning there is no geological evidence on the topic for conservative creationists, period.
- 197
Just because you can't find me on Google doesn't mean I don't exist.
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
Similar threads
- Poll
