'n Vriendelike Veeltalige Internasionale Bymekaarkomplek
A Friendly Multilingual International Social Meeting Point

 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:50 pm

and what language did Adam speak?

Question answered by a Christian..."We don't know
what language Adam spoke
, but he was able to name the animals and
communicate with Eve. So, from the very beginning, man was intelligent
and spoke a language. He wasn't an ignorant caveman who used grunts to
communicate with others."


Ja right, he was born with a Doctorate in Botany, Literature, Zoology, Linguistics etc...etc
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:00 pm

Anyone for a dynosaur rump steak and a Heineken? Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: ....   Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:33 pm

Quote :
Ja right, he was born with a Doctorate in Botany, Literature, Zoology, Linguistics etc...etc
.......

But , he was created by God who knows all the answers ...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:40 pm

Quote :

Anyone for a dynosaur rump steak and a Heineken?
...... a cup of coffee also Ok? ... lol!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Miscellaneous   Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:01 pm



"All
of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it,
the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We
believe as an article of faith
that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its
complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)

"If
living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural
forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however,
that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable
explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
(H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,
UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p.
138)

"To the unprejudiced,
the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you
imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same
ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The
evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most
would break down before an inquisition."
(E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds.,
Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle
Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." (More, Louis T., "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160)

"At
the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there
is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of
conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." (Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164)

"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis
decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its
support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific
kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine
of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted
worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."
(Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms
of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios,
Theos, p. 113)

"The origin of life is still a mystery.
As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I
cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing
evolution]...I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous
mutation...can explain the complex and rational organization of the
brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.
How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and
organizing force?" (d'Aubigne,
Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and
Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios,
Theos, p. 158)

"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."
(Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred
by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated...We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)

"Scientists have no proof that
life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by
the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of
life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask
themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is
the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded
in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of
nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and
furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the
chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an
event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is
unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)

"...we
have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual
adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more
entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said
that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while
really knowing that it does not."
(Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution
and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New
York NY, 1985, p. 44)

"With
the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have
accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a
handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea,
Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close
scrutiny."
(Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in
Invertebrates", Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors), Evolution
and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.
C., 1989, p. 105)

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery."
(Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin
F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record
of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray:
London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)

"An
honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
moment to be almost a miracle. So
many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to
get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are
good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by
a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

"The
number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be
truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is
the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

"The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes." (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)

"None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates." (Stahl, B., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover Publications, Inc., NY, 1985, p. 148)

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove." (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer's lecture

See : The Anointed One .net
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:33 am

Stop and ponder this...We are talking about 4.5 BILLION>>>YES BILLION years!!! NOT several thousand. Of course if you believe the creation is only several thousand years old you would not be able to fathom the concept of evolution...
For Petes sake, whoever wrote that dribble in red below ought to open his mind....

Remember this?
"He wasn't an ignorant caveman who used grunts to communicate with others. Yep...makes me wonder...

Earth
and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus
or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different
lines of evidence. Sheeesh there is SOOOOOO much evidence I just gave you a few pages of it.

This figure of 4.5 is an approximation not a fact....

The fact is.....even many Christians accept the findings...the argument is long over....Sorry to say the scientists and evolutionists won. Bassed on evidence....

"To the unprejudiced,
the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you
imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same
ancestry, (not in a few thousand years, no.) and have we any evidence for this assumption? (rose tinted glasses for you)
The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most
would break down before an inquisition."
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
(E.J.H. Corner "Evolution" in A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley, eds.,
Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle
Books, 1961, at 95, 97 from Bird, I, p. 234)


On the above text Simsi.....Who ever heard of a 4.5 billion yeasr old fossil on earth??
Unless of course it came from somewhere else here's some more evidence...
A galactic fossil: Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old http://www.physorg.com/news98033554.html



Think about it....

Below is more evidence for you Simsi..... and dates.... do the math.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/070418-oldest-trees_big.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070418-oldest-trees.html
"What it looks like is a palm tree, or perhaps a tree fern," said the
study's lead author, paleobotanist William Stein at Binghamton
University in New York.

"It's a kind of morphology that's instantly recognizable among some modern groups [of trees]," he added.


The bottlebrush-like branches likely used photosynthesis, as most modern plants do, and produced spores, Stein said.


The trunk, found in southeastern New York State,
is identical to 385-million-year-old fossilized stumps discovered in
the nearby town of Gilboa about a century ago.
The stumps represent the
earliest known forest.

Until now, however, scientists could only speculate what type of tree the Gilboa stumps, designated Eospermatopteris, represented.


"What we found in the last couple of years was evidence of what the top of these things looked like," Stein said.


The new fossils are described in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.


They indicate the fossil trees belong to a previously known plant group called cladoxylopsids, Stein said.

Scientists suspected the fernlike cladoxylopsids were large, but
experts never had more than the branches to work with, Stein added.
"What we got here is like a double whammy," he said. "On the one hand, we know Eospermatopteris is these great stumps. On the other hand we have real evidence for how big the cladoxylopsids actually were."

genesis
n noun the origin or mode of formation of something. (Genesis) the first book of the Bible, which includes the story of the creation of the world. Yes! It is a "story"

The argument is simple.....The book of Genesis discusses the creation,
stating it took place several thousand years ago and that the first man was Adam and...and...and. That has been
disproved. Case closed.....

I'm open to discussion on the possibility that the story unfolded over a few billion years....
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:49 am

The argument is simple.....The book of Genesis discusses the creation,
stating it took place several thousand years ago and that the first man was Adam and...and...and. That has been
disproved. Case closed.....


Correction...Christian Creationalists state it took place several thousand years ago

Case closed.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:10 am

hehehe case open again....lol

I really don't see the point of defending something that has long since been disproven?
Genesis does not offer factual evidence and if it does it's simply chronologically incorrect.

It's hear say at best.

I am in favour of teaching evolution in schools...It still includes the possibility of a God / Devine Creator

I rest my case.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: ...   Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:14 am

Quote :
It still includes the possibility ....(remember "possibility" has a higher value than "probabilty" ) ...
Quote :
of a God / Devine Creator
I rest my case.
....What I said ...

Will reply to yr rested case in due course ... teehee ...
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against   Today at 3:10 pm

Back to top Go down
 
SA Schools to teach Evolution in 2008------ For and against
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Gulu Walk 2008 - Jerusalem
» JOAS Special Edition 2008
» korean convention book 2008
» Pokemon X and Y: Mega Evolution and New Pokemon Game Looks
» JAMAICA'S NORMAN MANLEY LAW SCHOOL MAKES HISTORY!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sparkling Sparklers :: Sparkling Sparklers Forums :: Godsdiens - Religion-
Jump to: