Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you haven't really disproved the theory of evolution.
Actually, you are correct. You cannot disprove a theory.
All I have done is prove that it ISN'T FACT. If something is to be proven, it is no longer just theory and has to move toward being proven through a sequence of logical proving steps.
What I HAVE done, is prove the steps claimed are NOT fact and in fact are theory. -And BAD theory at that.
You bring up great instances of how carbon dating is flawed but your entire theory of creation as truth relies solely on someones faith and belief in the readings of the bible.
Again, this DOES disprove evolution, which was the topic.
The second part was that the Bible claims information in its verses, quite literally, that IS proven by our science. In this case, your statement of it relying solely upon FAITH would be entirely incorrect.
Belief is a different issue. I can believe my dog to be 100 years old as well. That doesn't make it fact.
Scientists and theologists have many different methods for discouting theories they don't subscribe to but doesn't do much to factually disprove those theories.
Take, for example, the carbon dating and reasons cited for disproving its scientific authenticity. While many examples are given to prove its unreliability there are no facts provided with it to prove that the very same fossil or skeletal remains are only 20 or 30 k years old. If the theory that claims a catastrophic event 65 million years ago is what wiped out the dinosaurs is wrong because the earth is only 30,000 years old, then where is the record of carbon dating these skeletal finds, or any other method of dating, to show a consistent age?
To claim a theory true because there is no alternative answer is a flasehood. Just because there is a hole left in the understanding of how something works, there does not have to be a proof that something else is true. We may not have an alternative answer for something like this dating becasue of 3 reasons:
1. We haven't developed an accurate way of reading the age of fossils.
2. Reading the fossil date is impossible based upon the sediments and weather from the time of the Great Flood.
3. We ignore the Bible.
some matter is perfect, others are not. A diamonds molecular structure is near perfect in shape while a ruby is less so. Further down the line is granite which is a very shoddy molecular structure. In living beings its even worse.
In context, the issue was the perfect organization of matter in order to support the necessary perfect complex changes evolution supposedly requires. I should have made that more clear. Sorry.
energy can come from a variety of sources so its not the energy that we need to look at, its the ways in which these processes come together to form that energy. chemical reactions can have a wide variety of results based solely on its particle makeup. Water is commonly known as H2O. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. H2 O2, or hydrogen peroxide, has one extra oxygen element and therefore is changed so much that its not water. Do we assume that a higher power is responsible for this 'organizing', and if so, what proof do we have other than faith?
First, the idea is that an energy had to arrainge all of the matter to be perfect for the previous question to be an evolutionary foothold.
Second, you are correct in how energy may be produced AFTER the energy already exists in other forms.....in other words, there HAD to be a start. -Which is what the creation of the universe, by scientific standards, still doesn't explain. -The Bible does.
Third, you ask for proof other than faith. Faith would standardly be defined as blind belief. I don't accept that. It is firmly proven in Biblical verses and verified by scientists that the Biblical explaination of astrophysics (where adressed) are correct. People just choose not to go the route of believing what is contained therein because it causes them to:
1. Believe that the Bible has to then be devine in origin
2. Believe God is who/what He claims.
Given the ego of man, that is a bitter pill to take.
That's something that scientists try to find out everyday. All this talk about carbon based forms with amino acid reactions sparking mutations of cells into RNA, then DNA, and so on is beyond my knowledge but it stands a good theory and offers slightly more factual evidence than someone proselytizing creation.
Again, you are ignoring the data in favor of a group collective who ignore literal verses backed by science in favor of a completely religious belief in their man-made theories in order to deny a higher authority.
This is what living cells, whether singular or complex, do. Life forms propogate, maybe its so simple that its beyond our understanding.
That is what they want you to believe so you cannot then accept the Bible as fact. Again, it proves its self.
reproduction does not have to include sexual activity. There are lifeforms that can reproduce within themselves. The ebola virus that I talked about earlier, as well as other virus's that reproduce themselves, use cell splitting to reproduce. It only requires an acting agent to intervene to provide that ability to split.
The question is not what can happen after man's intevention, but how did we get here?
These are two totally seperate issues.
any species with a basic thought process can learn and then adapt. That adaptation is passed to the next generation through training and eventually becomes instinct. Everytime we learn something new, our brain pattern changes for we have introduced new information to form our lives, our habits, our 'instinct' so to speak.
Again, this is a mechanism. This proves only the fact that this function does happen. It does not prove higher orders of evolutionary theory.
all animals express these same emotions on a limited basis. example, Two dogs who have lived together as siblings the whole of their lives. After 12 years or so, one of them dies. Watch the other dog go through a period of sadness or depression because he/she no longer has the sibling its known its whole life. Is it because it was a sibling? probably not but we may never know since we don't speak dog and they don't speak english. It's more likely that the dog has become so accustomed to having that particular 'friend' in its life and the change is hard to accept. It 'misses' its buddy. Your statement of feelings not evolving in evolution really doesn't apply except that we, as humans with higher thought patterns, have been able to explore, identify, and define those things we've become accustomed to as love, hate, mercy, guilt, etc.
The point, though, is that these emotions came from somewhere. Because they are here does not mean they were a function of evolution.
Was your computer rolled off the assembly line with Windows installed on the HD platters when the platters were created? Of course not. The operating system had to BE INSTALLED. No amount of time or molecular changes would have EVER cause the operating system to install its self spontaneously so the computer could live.
answered above as well. everytime a being learns something new, its imprinted on the brain. Its taught to the future generations. Sometimes that 'evolution' of thought hits a stumbling block and doesn't advance for awhile, but it still evolves.
We haven't proven that to be the case. We have only proven SOME thought processes can be passed down. Again, it started from somewhere.....Where?
how can you expect to predict evolution accurately? there are too many variables to predict evolution with any degree of accuracy.
Hence the impossibility of it occuring.
-Yet the Bible has direct provable statements backed by science in other realms proving it devine and accurate. To discard the statement of creation is requiring more faith than believing it.
:whip3: 
