Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEvolution and Monotheism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Evolution and Monotheism
    Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 21:40
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

Still,Creationists have absolutely NO evidence or proof that a God created anything,except writings from books that were written years after their messenger or prophet's time.Evidence leans toward Evolution more than it does Creation,but evidence,however,is not proof.

Tianshu says creationists have No evidence, however, offers no evidence at all for what he is advancing. Apparently Tianshu is not aware of the honest assessments of Darwinian evolutionists regarding Macro evolution. These Darwinian evolutionist are disillusioned with the theory of Macro evolution. Here is a quotation from a renown evolutionist.
 

Pierre-Paul Grass - distinguished evolutionist, Chair of Evolution (The Sorbonne, Paris),

and past-President (French Acadamie des Sciences).

Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out

by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering

whether they agree or disagree with their theories. Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of

evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly

unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the

interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The

deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,

purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."

Written by Pierre-Paul Grass in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:8..

As we can see men who know more about macro evolution then Tianshu and I, are disillusioned with the theory. Many people unfortunately choose to disregard the honest statements by disillusioned darwinian, macro evolutionist, and like Tianshu lapse into blind faith to continue to believe in a collapsing theory.

Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

 Fossil Records,Numbers,Facts and Figures,all those don't mean a damn thing when it comes to finding out what really had a hand in making us what we are today.
Tianshu is thowing what is supposely the support of evolution out of the window. It does not surprise me Tianshu says the fossil record, among other things does not matter, because the fossil record, among other things, in fact contradicts the theory of macro evolutionist and actually supports creationists. Tianshu has "blind faith". He does not need evidence or facts for his beliefs. Tianshu must agree with the above dillusioned darwinian macro evolutonist for like Tianshu, he finds there is no evidence for the myth of macro evolution? Tianshu must realize from the above quote in my previous post that the fossil record by another evolutionist, instead of supporting macro evolution, the fossils actually supports creationists or actually the Intelligent Design position. Here is the quote in question,Quote:

Below is a statement by an evolutionist:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.

 As we see, Tianshu and I and this darwinian macro evolutionist agree that there is no evidence for darwin's theory of evolution. Instead the above quote shows the fossil record supports intelligent design as "species appear and disappear abruptly" That is what a creationist would expect to find in the fossil record. Yet Tianshu says there is "no evidence" for the creationist or intelligent design position? 
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

 Arguement will never change,it'll always be about the Quran,or the Bible,or the Torah,or whatever Religious Book they hold sacred
I have advanced a scientific point, and as all know who have been reading my posts, I have been advancing the evidence from DNA studies that say all men and women come from one original couple and we all know that is a scientific fact. How can Tianshu say I have not advanced a scientific point? I have also pointed out in this thread the fact that GENESIS 3:20 also says humanity came from one original couple. Thus science has confirmed what a book written thousands of years ago is true.  Science now agrees with the Word of God, the Bible that all humanity came from one couple. Who would believe such a thing, before these DNA studies showed we are from one original couple? In fact the most popular theory, was that humanity resulted from separate populations in different areas. These conclusions were drawn as a result of fossil evidence and based on interpretations of skulls and cranial size. Who would believe that now, after these DNA studies today?
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

 always quote from the book,but Evolutionists will always find something new to back them up.It seems a century old theory is gaining more ground than a two millenia old religion.Thats funny.
The problem with what Tianshu is saying here, is it is not true. In fact as I quoted Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse above, they are saying the opposite of Tianshu and that the theory of macro evolution should be dropped. Maybe another quotation from a disillusioned darwinian evolutionist will help.
 

"I know that, at least in Paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences

interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual

data." David Pilbeam in his article "Rearranging Our Family Tree" in Human Nature, June, 1978 p:45

I would Tianshu rather have a discussion on the facts in order to arrive at logical conclusions. www.bible.ca



Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:06
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

If 'intelligent' design is so intelligent, then why do people have an appendix? It serves no function but can cause a lot of trouble.
Evolution can explain the appendix as a redudant leftover of an organ that used to be useful in earlier stages of evoltion, but how can the existance such a 'stupid' organ be explained with intelligent design?
Hi hermano Mixcoatl, you may not be aware of the latest scientific advances in understanding functions of the so called "vestigial organs". It is unfortuanate universities continue to teach this in science classes, for I am sure they must be aware of the current discoveries. When the vestigial argument was originally made over 100 years ago, the uses of many organs were not understood. As you know many medical advances have occured since then and with those advances have come the understanding of the use of the supposed vestigial organs.This misused point, "vestigial organs" should be dropped as this is not a legitimate or factual point. Could darwinian macro evolutionists have misrepresented the facts to us? The understandings about these organs are a result of medical science and not creationistst ideaology as so many groundlessly say and the quote will clearly show that. Here are some quote,

The appendix has long been categorized as a useless vestigial organ, but this is totally inaccurate.

Since the 1960s it has been scientifically known that it has an important lymphatic and antibody

production function, as part of the bodys immune system. See Dr Jerry Bergman and Dr George Howes review of the

scientific literature in their book Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Monograph Series No. 4, 1993



Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 22:25
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

^^^Great, now you just found out god isn't perfect and the universe is going to implode...
Hi SearchAndDestroy, God is perfect and as He wrote in the Bible, in Genesis 3:20, which is thousands of years old, all humanity is related to one original couple. As we know that original couple is Adam and Eve. Science through DNA studies, SearchAndDestroy, now confirms what the Word of God has always said. Science now agrees as it traces humanities ancestry to one original couple, Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. These are facts that can't be disputed as anyone can check out the verse I cited in the Bible and do a search for the studies on DNA that confirm it. The previous theory, before this discovery as a result of DNA research, was that humanity arose from different groups in different parts of the world. This theory was advanced because of fossil discoveries and the interpretation of skulls and cranial size. However the fossil record does not support darwinian macro evolution. Here is a quote, Quote:

Below is a statement by an evolutionist:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.



Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 00:29
You are repeating yourself Cuauhtemoc.

Believe what you wish... but I suggest you to study the matter in depth and give authority to scientists (serious people) not to tele-preachers (Bible-sellers who would sell their own mother if that would give them money or power).

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 01:06
Originally posted by Maju

You are repeating yourself Cuauhtemoc.

Believe what you wish... but I suggest you to study the matter in depth and give authority to scientists (serious people) not to tele-preachers (Bible-sellers who would sell their own mother if that would give them money or power).
No Maju as everyone sees, I have addressed every question that was asked of me by any previous post. I have not run or had to make prejudicial statements as you did above. It seems you cannot support your position and so instead of doing that, you seek to use predudicial statements not true, for I don't agree or listen to tele evangelist preachers. However I am glad you made this post for I will give you a quote of a serious scientist who is disillusioned with the darwinian theory of macro evolution and who you define as a serious person and who does not agree with you. Quote:
Sren Lvtrup - evolutionist.

Sren Lvtrup does not adhere to the commonly promulgated Darwinian theory of evolution. He maintains that the logical consequence of any form of Darwinism "requires us to surrender our common sense". He claims that Darwinism is like the emperor's new clothes in the Hans Christian

Anderson tale - "nakedly false". New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of

science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" S. Lovtrup in

"Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth", Croom Helm: London, 1987 p:422; Quoted in New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66

It seems to me, due to this quotation, your belief in darwinian macro evolution is nothing more then blind faith, the very thing you accuse religioius people of doing. Instead of simply saying false prejucial statements, for I have done personal study, why not dear friend, Maju, consider the facts I have presented to you in our previous posts.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 02:43
The quotes you've all cited are all from the 1970s and 1980s. As I've mentioned earlier, Macro evolution theory was not consistentenly developed until recent times.

It is unquestionable that evolutionary theory has changed dramatically since then.

Since this post has evolved to the same eiscussion as that in the "Genesis" thread. I'm closing this one to prevent redundency. Please post in that thread.



Edited by Imperator Invictus
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.092 seconds.