[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by GodlessSinner

That article isn't saying "newtonian mechanics is wrong".

Science does go wrong, but that doesn't mean that science is untrustworthy etc. When science is wrong about something, it improves itself. Science is constantly changing as new evidence is discovered. Science is only about finding out stuff through the use of the scientific method. It has no dogma, no agenda.

So science gets it wrong on a regular basis, but I'm supposed to trust it? They use words like "common belief is...", "current theories state....", "we postulate that...." and I'm supposed to buy it hook line and sinker?

Oh and science does have a very strong agenda; to delete God. They want God out of the picture, they will believe absolutely anything as long as it makes God irrelevant, this is why we say they are satanists. Oh, I'm sure that there's some who don't realize what they are doing. I'm sure there's even some who think they are Christian, but they're going to be rudely surprised when they are tossed into the abyss of Hell!

Just because it may require big expensive equipment to prove something, it doesn't mean it is any less valid. Without the equipment/conditions etc we would not be able to find out the many facts we know today e.g. the speed of light. Without the correct equipment how do you find that out? You don't have faith in what scientists say because faith is a belief based on little/no evidence. What scientists claim is based on evidence, and if it is not sufficient evidence, it will be put aside by work peers (peer review). Like I said, science is only interested in finding out facts (based on evidence).

What scientists claim is not based on evidence. If it was evidence I would be able to replicate their experiments, that's one of the basis for GOOD Science. At least the Creation Scientists we have on this board can give us science we can do at home to prove their right. Secular scientists, on the other hand, tell us to "trust them" because they're the ones with all the magical equipment.

"A field spaniel is a different species than a cocker spaniel" - I don't know the differences between those two, but they are different species.

So every breed of dog is a different species in your mind. Have you discussed this with a biologist? Can you then explain why they are all known as Canis Familiaris? FYI both dogs were known as cockers in the early 18th century. The reason I picked those two breeds (note BREEDS, not SPECIES) is because Cockers were bred to be the pets and companions of wealthy women, whereas the Field spaniel was bred to still be the hunting Cocker.

The reason wild foxes don't evolve into dogs is because only natural selection is at work. With the other case, it was artificial selection (by the Russian guy) and possible a little natural selection.

Yet you claimed this was proof of evolution.

Originally Posted by GodlessSinner

If you were to read up on the study by some Russian guy who's name I don't remember, you see how wolves have evolved into dogs by means of natural and artificial selection. They are basically domesticated wolves.

I corrected you saying it was foxes, not wolves. Oh and there's a huge difference between a domesticated wolf and a dog. Show me a wolf that will hunt for you, or herd for you, or actually do anything "for YOU". I would also like to see evidence that these wolves are actually domesticated and not just tame. I have lived around wolf-dogs and I would not trust one (oh, and 90% of what people call wolf dogs, aren't it's just when you can get $50 for a husky/shepherd cross or $1500 by calling it a wolf cross.... Well you get the picture.)

"Your take on it is if a Christian breeds for temperament it's selective breeding, if a scientist breeds for temperament, it's evolution!" - I'm not sure what you mean by that

You claimed that a scientist bred wolves into dogs. I asked why this is different from breeding a Labradoodle, you said that it was because I selectively bred the dogs. Well what exactly was the "wolf guy" doing?

[GodlessSinner]

Science's only agenda is to dismiss anything that has no evidence (e.g god).

If you had a lot of money and scientific training, you could replicate many experiments. Creation science is based on the bible, which is not evidence I am afraid.

I will admit now that I am a complete amateur with evolution, I have a lot to learn and read up about, which I am going to do. Even if Evolution was disproved, it doesn't mean "god dun it", it also doesn't mean "my god dun it".

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by GodlessSinner

Science does go wrong, but that doesn't mean that science is untrustworthy etc. When science is wrong about something, it improves itself. Science is constantly changing as new evidence is discovered. Science is only about finding out stuff through the use of the scientific method. It has no dogma, no agenda.

Just because it may require big expensive equipment to prove something, it doesn't mean it is any less valid. Without the equipment/conditions etc we would not be able to find out the many facts we know today e.g. the speed of light. Without the correct equipment how do you find that out? You don't have faith in what scientists say because faith is a belief based on little/no evidence. What scientists claim is based on evidence, and if it is not sufficient evidence, it will be put aside by work peers (peer review). Like I said, science is only interested in finding out facts (based on evidence).

But what your scientists do not realize is that every time they make a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage!!

[GodlessSinner]

Originally Posted by Jo Freddie

But what your scientists do not realize is that every time they make a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage!!

That explains it! All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by GodlessSinner

Science's only agenda is to dismiss anything that has no evidence (e.g god).

Well it's nice to see you admit that they are trying to take God out of the equation.

If you had a lot of money and scientific training, you could replicate many experiments. Creation science is based on the bible, which is not evidence I am afraid.

And the fact that most people don't? That's like the Catholic church and their "you have to be a priest to talk to God" crap. You operate on faith, whether you know it or not.

I will admit now that I am a complete amateur with evolution, I have a lot to learn and read up about, which I am going to do. Even if Evolution was disproved, it doesn't mean "god dun it", it also doesn't mean "my god dun it".

Hey, you're the one who was putting forward all of this evidence, now that I've torn it apart (to the point you don't know the difference between breed and species) you decide that insulting God is the way to go.

Originally Posted by GodlessSinner

That explains it! All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Again, you prove my point. You'll swallow anything as long as it means you don't have to answer to God for your sinful lifestyle.

[Jo Freddie]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

Again, you prove my point. You'll swallow anything as long as it means you don't have to answer to God for your sinful lifestyle.

BIG you are just upset because in two short posts I manage to show the fallacy of the old earth theory, why scientists are just the playthings of Our Lord Noodle, and the true nature of God - The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[cooldude1]

What about dogs?
Why is it that you can breed two difference breeds of dogs and get a litter of puppies that have both traits of each of it's parents.
That would mean because generation A (Parents) don't look the same as generation B (Kids) that evolution did in fact happen and in only ONE generation.(That's less then a million years if you didn't know)

If evolution didn't happen you wouldn't look anything like your parents as their physical traits would have no effect on your physical traits. Yet for some reason most people look a lot like their parents.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Originally Posted by cooldude1

What about dogs?
Why is it that you can breed two difference breeds of dogs and get a litter of puppies that have both traits of each of it's parents.
That would mean because generation A (Parents) don't look the same as generation B (Kids) that evolution did in fact happen and in only ONE generation.(That's less then a million years if you didn't know)

If evolution didn't happen you wouldn't look anything like your parents as their physical traits would have no effect on your physical traits. Yet for some reason most people look a lot like their parents.

If the parents are monkeys and the kids are a different species then that would be evidence of evolution. What you are saying has nothing to do with it.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by cooldude1

What about dogs?
Why is it that you can breed two difference breeds of dogs and get a litter of puppies that have both traits of each of it's parents.
That would mean because generation A (Parents) don't look the same as generation B (Kids) that evolution did in fact happen and in only ONE generation.(That's less then a million years if you didn't know)

If evolution didn't happen you wouldn't look anything like your parents as their physical traits would have no effect on your physical traits. Yet for some reason most people look a lot like their parents.

Evolution is false. God created mankind.

[GOD=life]

Originally Posted by cooldude1

If evolution didn't happen you wouldn't look anything like your parents as their physical traits would have no effect on your physical traits. Yet for some reason most people look a lot like their parents.

The whole premise of evolution is that children have to be completely different from their parents in order for any evolution to take place at all. Otherwise there'd be just 1 species, not billions. Thus, your argument actually disproves evolution.

God created all the different species and created us in His image.

But if you want to believe in fairy tales with monkeys and whatever, then that's your choice.

[barton]

Hate to point out the obvious but dogs are not humans. Dogs are lesser beings and, as stewards of the Earth, God empowered us humans with the ability to alter His creation. Good grief, you don't even have to read very far into the Bible to figure this out!

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

It only stands to reason that dog breeders are able to create new breeds.

More importantly, you don't seem to have a very firm understanding of evolution anyway. That kinda makes it hard to debate the finer points.