Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 11-13-2009, 10:37 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
Seems he can't provide anything now because so many complained about him and wanted him banned, so he has been temporarily banned.

When you provide some scientific evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old +/- a few hundred years, we can talk about that then. Much of what you rely on faith as evidence can be dis-proven through science. No need for anyone to provide the evidence as it is out there for anyone to access, and if provided you would probably ignore it anyway because you have already stated that any science that contradicts what the Bible says is wrong, or words to that effect.

In case you didn't notice, we are talking in a forum, not in court. Big difference.

He has provided evidence of other things yet you won't or haven't bothered addressing those, so why should I think you would address other evidence, as again you said you don't believe anything that contradicts the Bible.

Psst, I think the word you wanted was lose. Just a pet peeve. So many people mix those up and I can't understand why. Another one is using mute instead of moot, as in a moot point.

Have a great day and please note that I am not speaking out of spite, anger or anything, just having a discussion like I would have with my friends. Just because we disagree on things doesn't mean I don't like you or that I hate you. We just disagree on certain things.
Then by all means provide that proof you claim. Science has not nor will it ever be able to prove the origin of the universe. They can only guess so a guess is hardly evidence. And their dating method was invented by a man to achieve a desired result so it cannot be taken for more then that. If I invent a machine that tell me what i want I cannot say I am right and the rest is wrong. SO wheres the proof that the world is not what my faith claims?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-25-2009, 02:19 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Then by all means provide that proof you claim. Science has not nor will it ever be able to prove the origin of the universe. They can only guess so a guess is hardly evidence. And their dating method was invented by a man to achieve a desired result so it cannot be taken for more then that. If I invent a machine that tell me what i want I cannot say I am right and the rest is wrong. SO wheres the proof that the world is not what my faith claims?
Which proof do you desire first? If you need links to these Evolutionary facts, I can provide whatever it is you require. Make a list.
Lets get something perfectly clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE in Evolution. I accept it. There's a big difference. No faith required.
Hey, just so you know, Computers, Automobiles, Planes, Television, Rockets ETC ETC ETC were invented by men, so don't trust them! They cannot possible work because men are fallible! Haha.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-25-2009, 02:48 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
Which proof do you desire first? If you need links to these Evolutionary facts, I can provide whatever it is you require. Make a list.
Lets get something perfectly clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE in Evolution. I accept it. There's a big difference. No faith required.
Hey, just so you know, Computers, Automobiles, Planes, Television, Rockets ETC ETC ETC were invented by men, so don't trust them! They cannot possible work because men are fallible! Haha.
The evidence I need is actual proof of a evoultion from primordial ooze to a complex human being with cited peer reviewed sources.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-25-2009, 03:07 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
The evidence I need is actual proof of a evoultion from primordial ooze to a complex human being with cited peer reviewed sources.
I already stated that Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. And the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis is no where near as good as current hypothesis are on the subject of Abiogenesis. It's not like simple chemicals suddenly form a complex bacterium. In reality, it goes in a much different sequence: simple chemicals > polymers > replicating polymers > hypercycle > photobiont > bacteria, and they're making way on that currently in labs.

But I can certianly provide evidences of Common Ancestry/Evolution... oh wait. Haha. I have. But if you require links, this ought to do it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
All of the peer reviewed sources are contained within that you would ever want. Have fun.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-25-2009, 03:12 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
I already stated that Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. And the "Primordial Soup" hypothesis is no where near as good as current hypothesis are on the subject of Abiogenesis. It's not like simple chemicals suddenly form a complex bacterium. In reality, it goes in a much different sequence: simple chemicals > polymers > replicating polymers > hypercycle > photobiont > bacteria, and they're making way on that currently in labs.

But I can certianly provide evidences of Common Ancestry/Evolution... oh wait. Haha. I have. But if you require links, this ought to do it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
All of the peer reviewed sources are contained within that you would ever want. Have fun.
I am familiar with that article and no none of those are peer reviewed they are all secondary sources that are nothing more then more theories and interpretations of theories. That article has been shown a very weak example of macro evoultion. Surprised you would use such a flippant example.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-25-2009, 03:26 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
I am familiar with that article and no none of those are peer reviewed they are all secondary sources that are nothing more then more theories and interpretations of theories. That article has been shown a very weak example of macro evoultion. Surprised you would use such a flippant example.
!!!
Haha. If you say so boss.

But uh, lets remember what a Theory is as defined by Science (not coloqially, like the word "gay" has been altered over time with misuse): An explanation for a collection of facts. And yes that website directs you to "peer reviewed sources" just like you requested. So quit moving the goalpost please. Thats a logical fallacy.

If a Theory is so bad... why don't you stop using Gravity then?
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-25-2009, 03:29 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
!!!
Haha. If you say so boss.

But uh, lets remember what a Theory is as defined by Science (not coloqially, like the word "gay" has been altered over time with misuse): An explanation for a collection of facts. And yes that website directs you to "peer reviewed sources" just like you requested. So quit moving the goalpost please. Thats a logical fallacy.

If a Theory is so bad... why don't you stop using Gravity then?
Post the links for the peer reviewed and will talk. Till then it is you living in a fallacy.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-25-2009, 04:05 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Post the links for the peer reviewed and will talk. Till then it is you living in a fallacy.
I posted them you silly goose. Deny them all you want, I don't care.
Denying fact is what you seem to like to do.
Did you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Just... you know, FYI.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-25-2009, 04:08 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

oh geez....I thought this disease was dead?
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-25-2009, 04:09 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B. View Post
oh geez....I thought this disease was dead?
Disease?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.