The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Surely the chicken must have come first. I feel that a creature before the chicken must have evolved slightly, creating a egg laying animal. This is because when I turn the question around I see that the egg must have come from somewhere - right?!
Page:
Let's not even get onto ID then....
Alfonse, it hasn't really. As Geffdof said, it's perhaps impossible to verify totally.
Alfonse, it hasn't really. As Geffdof said, it's perhaps impossible to verify totally.
Geffdof wrote:
> Science should be repeatable, measurable and observable. Non of
> which apply to evolution. The origin of the world cant be
> repeated, and it takes millions of years to measuring and
> observing it cannot be done because you'd be dead before
> anything changed.
If empirical evidence was the only type of science we'd be living in the stone ages still.
I wonder if you consider global warming to be bad science too. ;)
> Science should be repeatable, measurable and observable. Non of
> which apply to evolution. The origin of the world cant be
> repeated, and it takes millions of years to measuring and
> observing it cannot be done because you'd be dead before
> anything changed.
If empirical evidence was the only type of science we'd be living in the stone ages still.
I wonder if you consider global warming to be bad science too. ;)
Meh. Evolution has been proved and has now established itself as scientific fact.
Geffdof wrote:
> It seems really far fetched and highly implausible for a start,
> but basically its not a good form of science.
To me, sounds like creationism the same.
> It seems really far fetched and highly implausible for a start,
> but basically its not a good form of science.
To me, sounds like creationism the same.
It seems really far fetched and highly implausible for a start, but basically its not a good form of science.
Science should be repeatable, measurable and observable. Non of which apply to evolution. The origin of the world cant be repeated, and it takes millions of years to measuring and observing it cannot be done because you'd be dead before anything changed.
Science should be repeatable, measurable and observable. Non of which apply to evolution. The origin of the world cant be repeated, and it takes millions of years to measuring and observing it cannot be done because you'd be dead before anything changed.
Geffdof wrote:
> Ironically (im a science student at uni) I find the evolution
> theory rediculous as a form of science.
Why, exactly?
> Ironically (im a science student at uni) I find the evolution
> theory rediculous as a form of science.
Why, exactly?
It does actually. Genesis details the family line from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5 and then from Noah to Abraham in Genesis 11. It then has detailed records of Abrahams decendents right up to the birth of Jesus.
The thing is though, it list people living until they are 200 - 300 years old, which is odd to say the least so it seems more than a bit dubious. Its assumed by theologians that peole lived longer at the creaton of the earth and people have gradually shortened their life span. Its only because of modern medicine that life expectancy has risen again. (Even Im sceptical of that).
Anyway, our dating system and idea of how long a year is was only invented in the 1500's anyway so who's to say the length of a year was anywhere near the same.
The thing is though, it list people living until they are 200 - 300 years old, which is odd to say the least so it seems more than a bit dubious. Its assumed by theologians that peole lived longer at the creaton of the earth and people have gradually shortened their life span. Its only because of modern medicine that life expectancy has risen again. (Even Im sceptical of that).
Anyway, our dating system and idea of how long a year is was only invented in the 1500's anyway so who's to say the length of a year was anywhere near the same.
Kawada wrote:
> Doesn't creationism say that the earth is only about 6,000 years
> old or something?
I don't think the Bible has an official timeline.
> Doesn't creationism say that the earth is only about 6,000 years
> old or something?
I don't think the Bible has an official timeline.
The fossils argument is a dead end anyway. No scientist would use fossils as evidence of the earth's age as radiometric dating can be used on pretty much anything.
As a test? Thats just stupid.
Its usually used as evidence for the flood. I'm assuming you know the story of Nohas ark. Well if there was a sudden downpour of enough rain to flood the earth you would get alot of mud which would fosilise the animals.
Its usually used as evidence for the flood. I'm assuming you know the story of Nohas ark. Well if there was a sudden downpour of enough rain to flood the earth you would get alot of mud which would fosilise the animals.
Page: