Human Origins (Page 2) XFixYourBrainX: Haha id rather believe in God than believe in the lame idea of evolution shouldnt we all be eating bananas, if we were monkeys at one time, haha I wonder why so many people dont like bananas haha, stupid donkey evolutionist religion.  F0rdPrefect: 'Haha id rather believe in God than believe in the lame idea of evolution' Just because u believe in something, doesnt mean its true! Incidentally we share 60% of DNA with that of the humble banana! Also, did u know there is a species of onion that contains more DNA than that of a human? God really fx~%@# up there, didnt he?!  candyrivers: That onion made me cry But I share 97% dna with a bonobo. We are all made up from amino acids. No matter how hard I try I just cant get along with the idea of a supreme being. it's just so daft. I am sorry POkerman - I think you are just lovely when I talk to you. But I can not get god bothering with a straight face. A theory that shows itself in practise (pedigree cats etc) still outweighs a mythology. XFixYourBrainX: Theory of something is not proof of something. Theory of something is not proof of evolution. Theory of something is not proof of gravity. Missing link is not proof of something. This is like saying there is proof of aliens, but there is missing evidence, keep thinking. F0rdPrefect: Explanation for Pokermon because he still cant grasp the idea of what a scientific theory is. I think now this is like my 5th attempt. Why does Pokermon always assume he knows better than the brilliant minds that make up the scientific community? Anyway, ho, hum, 6th attempt. English words are loaded with a multiplicity of meanings. This is NOT the case in science, where terms used are precisely defined. In science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of real world observational phenomena of interest, that has been subjected to direct empirical test with respect to its correspondence with observational reality, and which has been found, via such testing, to be in accord with observational reality. It is precisely because scientific theories have been subject to direct empirical test, and have passed said empirical test, that they ARE theories, and consequently enjoy a high status in the world of scientific discourse. As a consequence of the above, anyone who erects the "it's only a theory" with respect to evolution will be regarded with well deserved scorn and derision. According to The Oxford English Dictionary: Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of FACTS or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been CONFIRMED or ESTABLISHED by OBSERVATION or experiment, and is a propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. According to the National Academy of Sciences(NAS) a scientific theory is 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypothesis' So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter - they are not expressing reservations about its truth. Mathemeticians can proove things - according to some strict views, they are the only people who can, but the best scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the moon is smaller than the sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But there is massive evidence to support it so strongly that to deny it the status of fact seems ridiculous to all but pedants. I ask, would ur supernatural god or the mythology that surrounds it, stand up to the same ammount of scrutiny and disection as is afforded to evolution? XFixYourBrainX: Why do you always say I dont understand and I cant grasp what a scientific theory is, obviously you dont understand its just a theory get over the fact it is, if is was real there wouldnt be missing links. Science and evolution is about facts not, "missing evidence." How can you say that evolution is real and God is not real, but there is missing evidence behind evolution, there is no missing evidence for God, duh too lame. Missing evidence is missing facts, and missing facts is missing proof, missing proof is not proof of evolution only proof of an idea of evolution that exists. It can not be physically proven, now why dont you go talk to a real professional about evolution and ask them why evolution is only a theory. I can easily say that there is aliens, and that there is, "missing proof" of aliens, but since that missing proof or evidence has not been found it does not justify that there are aliens just like missing evidence does not justify there is a such thing as evolution. Keep thinking XFixYourBrainX: I dont care what the definition of what a scientific theory is, i know what it basically is, and thats all that is needed to be known. So please continue to get all technical with me, i honestly dont care. When it basically comes down to it. There is so much missing evidence and facts in evolution. This you can not argue! There are so many missing links trying to link us to our ancestors that its giving scientists headaches. Its as if scientists are purposefully trying to fit any and whatever supposed fossils that are supposed links to our ancestory line, that its rediculous. Its as if it doesnt matter if its our real ancestor as long as it looks right, from their perspective and if it makes evolution look good than it must be right. Every time, "new," missing links are found the old missing links get thrown out the window. Right now scientists dont have any missing links showing how man came to be, as stated in the, "Human Origins," article I posted. Now what someone that is a believer in evolution would think is, "oh its just a matter of time until the real missing link is found." Well the last two theories behind how man came to be through ancestory has been disproven by evolutionary scientists. This you can not argue, because its true! Evolutionists believe evolution is real, but where are these missing links. Oh wait their still buried in the ground waiting to be discovered right. Here is some information you might find useful from the all about science missing link page. Have we found the missing link? Many articles have been published by prominent newspapers and magazines stating that the "missing link" has been found. What this metaphor implies is that chain links representing current species are connected together by one or more links representing transitional fossils from extinct life forms to form one or more unbroken chains that only need one transitional fossil link to complete the chain. This implies that evolution has almost fully explained how man has descended from the earliest ancestral life form of some microprobe. Nothing could be further from the truth! The truth is that for the last 150 years, since Darwin, evolutionists have been searching for the first transitional fossil link out of potentially millions required to explain the entire chain and still have not found it. Still has not been found, well how do they know if its real, they dont because there is no proof of it being real. Since the first transitional fossil link has not been found this does not mean evolution is real since it has not been found. Remember aliens are real, but we just need the missing proof to prove they are real F0rdPrefect: 'I dont care what the definition of what a scientific theory is, i know what it basically is, and thats all that is needed to be known.' Which is a shame really that u couldnt care about one of the miracles of nature and refuse to see the beauty that resides within it. And until u can break free from the embrace of ur invisible sky-daddy, this will always be the case. 'i know what it basically is, and thats all that is needed to be known' But u clearly dont know what it means. Ur basic idea of what the word means doesnt automatically overide the opinions of the whole scientific coomnuity and their definition towards what the word theory actually means. 'It can not be physically proven, now why dont you go talk to a real professional about evolution and ask them why evolution is only a theory' Afraid to say ur wrong here too, evolution has been proven and can also be observed. And who is this real professional u suggest i speak to about evolution? Surely not ur beloved Dr J? The same guy who believes the universe and everything in it was made in 6 days? Anyway who made him in an expert in natural evolution? What kind of reputation does he enjoy within the scientific community? 'Have we found the missing link?' I take it here u are talking of 'Transitional Species' In order to deal with this one, I have the following to ask. Namely: [1] Have you ever studied comparative anatomy in detail, at a proper, accredited academic institution? [2] Do you understand rigorously what is meant by "species"? [3] Do you understand even the basics of inheritance and population genetics? [4] Do you understand the basics of the workings of meiosis? If you cannot answer "yes" to all four of the above, then you are in no position to ask this question in the first place. Because anyone with a proper understanding of the dynamic nature of species will readily understand. Indeed, you only have to ask yourself the following question, "Am I identical to either of my parents?" in order to alight quickly upon why this canard IS a canard. Your own family photo album supplies you with the answer here. YOU are a "transitional form" between your parents and your offspring, should you have any offspring. Some pictures i have been kind enough to research for u in order to show u the most common examples of transition. (Archaeopteryx being the most obvious -transition from reptile to bird) These are just a few amongst the hundreds of examples of transitional species. http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=1926714 http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=1926717 http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=1926716 http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=1926718 http://www.wireclub.com/Galleries/ViewImage.aspx?ImageId=1926720 Im still waiting patiently for u to come foward and provide evidence in favour of ur god and the whole mythology that surrounds him/her/it F0rdPrefect: Oh yeah and one other point. Darwins deathbed confession, which is often mischeveously misused by Pokerman and his creationist buddies as fact, never actually happened the way they say it did. Read: It has been widely held among many sincere and well-meaning Christians that Charles Darwin on his deathbed not only renounced evolution, but also accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. The tale of this deathbed conversion has been passed down over the years as fact. This “event” has even been used as “evidence” that evolution is false. The overzealous have, at times, boldly proclaimed, “See—even Darwin knew that this theory was not true!” What is the basis for this story? As often as it is repeated, there must be credible evidence that these events actually took place, right? Surely, the tale would not have continued though the years if it were a lie? Sadly, when evidence is sought, there is little to support this story. Charles Darwin died in April 1882 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Within days of his death, reports of a conversion experience began to circulate. The first report supposedly came in a sermon preached in South Wales by a gentleman identified as “Mr. Huntingdon.” Some weeks later there surfaced a report about a letter sent to John Eadie, a divinity professor in Glasgow, in which Darwin indicated, “He can with confidence look to Calvary.” Curiously, when examined, Darwin’s existing correspondence (which totals over 14,000 letters) contains no communication between these two men. The most often cited evidence for the alleged conversion of Darwin comes from a woman known as Lady Hope. She was born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in December 1842 and was the daughter of General Sir Arthur Cotton. She and her father were active evangelists in Kent, very near Charles Darwin’s home. In 1877, she married Admiral Sir James Hope and thus became Lady Hope, a title she continued to use even after remarrying subsequent to Sir James’s death a few years later.3 While traveling in America in 1915 she attended a conference in East Northfield, Massachusetts. While there she apparently told the story of a visit she had with Darwin before the scientist’s death. She recounted this tale during a devotional service and was later persuaded to write an account of this visit, which was then published in the Watchman-Examiner, a national Baptist magazine, on August 19, 1915.4 Here, Lady Hope claimed to have visited Darwin on an autumn afternoon. She noted that Darwin had been bedridden for several months before his death, and at the time of her visit she found him sitting up in bed. Lady Hope indicated that Darwin was at the time reading the Bible, which she claimed he was always studying. When asked what he was reading he replied, “Hebrews . . . the Royal Book.” Darwin also supposedly commented, “I was a young man with unformed ideas.” Lady Hope further claimed that before her departure she was asked by Darwin to return and speak to his servants in his summerhouse. When asked about the subject on which she should speak, Darwin was said to have replied “Christ Jesus!” Continued Below F0rdPrefect: Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin’s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death. He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible. On the Down House property, there was a small summerhouse, but it was too small to accommodate 30 people. There is nothing in his writings to indicate that Darwin ever asked anyone to speak about “Christ Jesus.” Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope’s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian. The story, even if true, merely claims the Darwin was reading the Bible and made a statement about Christ. Nowhere is there a claim of a saving relationship with the Savior. As soon as this story became public, the denials from Darwin’s family began (as they did after every supposed “conversion story” became known). In a letter to James Howe, Darwin’s son Francis wrote in 1915: “He [Darwin] could not have become openly and enthusiastically Christian without the knowledge of his family, and no such change occurred.” In a letter dated May 28, 1918, Francis again writes: “Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but I have not seen any reply.” Darwin’s daughter Henrietta wrote in 1922: “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. . . . He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.” Conlclusion: Beyond these denials, if the tale were true, why did Darwin’s wife Emma not rejoice in this? She was always troubled by what she perceived as the godless nature of his views. If he indeed repented, why did she not make this known? Also, if the story were credible, why did Lady Hope wait 33 years before relating it, and even then, relating it in a country across the ocean? Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution. Source: Answers in Genesis (christianity-defending website) | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |