Missing link revealed.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

What?!

What type of statement is that? Scientists have motives for asking you to believe, same can be said for others. Even then if the information and evidence is there what good does it do to have an "motive"?

I do believe everyone does something for an reason, this I don't see what your trying to say here.

Like for me, I present the case against evolution because I clearly believe that the "theory" is not what the scientists would have you believe. My motive would be for people to ask and look at both sides.

I believe the main point here I'm trying to make regardless of bias, motive, whatnots etc. you look at the information provided then judge if it's worthy.

Cool! I'll let you know that I still side with the scientific community.

The links you posted earlier only reveal some of the opinions held in the scientific community regarding Ida rather than an argument against evolution.

Oh and something about the reliability of carbon dating... Which was from a website which was completely biased.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

Yea but all cells don't share this trait.
As for Bacteria, there are mutations in them but these have been shown not to be adaptive. For instance, the bacteria wasn't introduced to an anti-biotic for the mutation to occur. There were studies done that showed how mutations already existed in Bacteria for certain anti-biotics, 100 years before those bacteria were exposed to them.
There are a few processes other than Mutation, which Bacteria perform to get resistant to an anti-biotic.
There are things called 'Plasmids' inside bacteria. These carry codes for the bacterias survival. (Some of the enzymes in this assist in the breakdown of antibiotics and so you have at least one process by which bacteria grow immune to them.)
Any other process does not further the cause of "Macro Evolution" and so you can't use this mutation process to justify Evolution.

As I said before... I'm not a scientist.

But because some bacteria showed a resistance to certain anti-biotics long before they were invented doesn't mean anything. All it means is some bacteria have been resistant to antibiotics before they were invented.

And when these bacteria become resistant via the process you describe... what do you think happens when the bacteria reproduces? The genetic code of the cell changes so that it is resistant does it not?

Is this not evolution? The evolving of genetic code? I mean I don't know how you can make a distinction between micro and macro evolution based on this.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

Exactly, so you'd have to be at the end of a certain discovery to be entirely sure of something. We can never be sure of this with science.
For instance, Newton thought his theory on gravity was all that was, as did people who believed in it. Einstein came and gave us relativity and hence Curved space theory, giving us another theory to do with the gravitational pull. As we advance, so undoubtedly will these theories.
So if an individual is self correcting, that is fine. They however can not use science to be the infallible entity that so many people take it as.

Science is not an entity it's a field of study and a process. It certainly is a more reliable process than say... I don't know... reciting a dubious thousand year old document and taking it's word as truth.

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y

That is the thing, i've given these reasons already in the main Evolution thread and others.
Either way, it is hard not to mention religion when talking about Evolution, since it is the Crutch for most Atheists to use against most religions.
Lastly, it is faith in evolution because the so called evidence, is flawed.

Evolution is not necessary for an atheist to attack religion. All an atheist needs to do is to scrutinize religion itself. If it were allowed on here I'd do so but I'm not.

I'll say it again... if you applied just a fraction of the scrutiny which you apply to science in your lame attempt disprove the theory of evolution as you did to your own religion I'm quite confident that you'd be an atheist too. (Of course I expect you to deny this so no need to reply)

[burkhartdesu]

Why is it impossible for spirituality and science to coexist?

[ivi0nk3y]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

As I said before... I'm not a scientist.

But because some bacteria showed a resistance to certain anti-biotics long before they were invented doesn't mean anything. All it means is some bacteria have been resistant to antibiotics before they were invented.

And when these bacteria become resistant via the process you describe... what do you think happens when the bacteria reproduces? The genetic code of the cell changes so that it is resistant does it not?

Is this not evolution? The evolving of genetic code? I mean I don't know how you can make a distinction between micro and macro evolution based on this.

Um, genetic code didn't Evolve. It is transferred from one bacteria to the next.. without any cell needing to reproduce. This is a natural process of Bacteria. It is not a mutation as naieve people like to assume.
In Lamens terms.. (to be kind to your alleged unscientific nature), The bacteria did not alter itself because it saw a threat to itself, when faced with an anti-biotic.
Also.. reproduction is not a process of Evolution lol. Kids who have brown hair, haven't evolved from their parents who had brown and blonde hair. That is Natural Selection.. as I have outlined before. NS exists without the Theory of Evolution.
If you didn't yet read up on the Evolution, or more aptly, Neo-Darwinist Evolution.. I believe you should, because your understanding of it seems sorely lacking at the moment.
Since mutations are the backbone of Neo-Darwinism.. this process I just described is contrary to it.
I didn't think I needed to spell out the link between the two but its a pious/religious practice to be Chariatable.

Eitherway, you do like to contradict yourself don't you? I'm trying to tell you clearly how bacteria do not prove Evolution exists, so you tell me that you're not a scientist.
Cool.
Surely if you have the patience to explain something 'scientifically', you must also have the patience and virtue to listen to another persons scientific explanation, without needing to complain how you're not a scientist.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Science is not an entity it's a field of study and a process. It certainly is a more reliable process than say... I don't know... reciting a dubious thousand year old document and taking it's word as truth.

Evolution is not necessary for an atheist to attack religion. All an atheist needs to do is to scrutinize religion itself. If it were allowed on here I'd do so but I'm not.

I'll say it again... if you applied just a fraction of the scrutiny which you apply to science in your lame attempt disprove the theory of evolution as you did to your own religion I'm quite confident that you'd be an atheist too. (Of course I expect you to deny this so no need to reply)

Science is a reliable process because you say so?
Lol.
For arguments sake, the hundreds of Muslim scientists that exist (and who existed to further science, years before any Westerner saw these disciplines), are all somehow blind because they follow a 'dubious' thousand year old 'document'.
You really think if it was so dubious, that these intelligent people would also be Atheist, as you say.
Nevermind the thousands of scholars and authors who it has taken to study these 'dubious' documents, who can only see how much logic and sense there is there. The millions of ordinary intelligent people who see sense in what they believe, everyday. Solutions to humanity, that neither Science nor those extremely academic Atheists (who have brightened up humanity so much in the past 20 years or so. Lol.), can ever provide.
Yea I guess your ever confident persona will like to assume that I will denounce my religious ways after my 'lame attempt' to disprove the theory of Evolution, if I spent as much time studying my religion. (which coincidentally, I have.)
Tell me please.. how is it that throughout the years, not a single Atheist has been able to successfully convert a counterpart Muslim (just as intelligent and schooled), to his/her way of thinking, or dent the religion in any way.
Indeed, such a failed attempt at attacking me shows your own immunity to any sort of sense.

Now, please demonstrate the arrogance I was talking about earlier on in this thread, some more.

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

Why is it impossible for spirituality and science to coexist?

That's because Marxists hijacked the whole 'process' years ago, so it would suit their materialistic ways of thinking.

[Nyororin]

I`m sorry, this thread really seems to have nowhere to go other than religious debate.

I`m closing the thread.