PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution is Failing

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why are all the evolutionists here so diluted.  You are fighting a losing battle.  Why bother.  Creationism is clearly the majority belief and you are just making fools of yourselves trying so hard to prove you "theory" when you're numbers are dwindling.  Everyday more and more people are learning about and understanding the evidence that the Earth is clearly Young.  And everyday more and more people accept that the Bible must be fact about the creation.  It's only a matter of time before your theory is a silly peice of history that people laugh at when they read about it in history books.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:05 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why are all the evolutionists here so diluted.

Diluted?  I assure you, I am as solid as I ever were.  Even more so in the last 20 years.

You are fighting a losing battle.  Why bother.

Because I have a vested interest in keeping religion out of the science room?

Creationism is clearly the majority belief

Majority?  I'd like to see your figures on that.

and you are just making fools of yourselves trying so hard to prove you "theory" when you're numbers are dwindling.

Again, I'd like to see some figures please.

Everyday more and more people are learning about and understanding the evidence that the Earth is clearly Young.

Please, cite some young earth evidence for us.

And everyday more and more people accept that the Bible must be fact about the creation.

Actually, Creationists are a tiny majority in the Christian sect.  Most Christians don't have a problem with evolution.

It's only a matter of time before your theory is a silly peice of history that people laugh at when they read about it in history books.

Well, you can certainly wish this if you like.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:54 AM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are fighting a losing battle. †Why bother. †Creationism is clearly the majority belief and you are just making fools of yourselves trying so hard to prove you "theory" when you're numbers are dwindling. †


I hate to tell you that Creationists are not in the majority and are their numbers are not rising:



The Christian View on Creation and Inerrancy
† †
The statements describing the churches' stance on inerrancy and evolution have been taken from their web pages or other official documents. Statements have been chosen that seemed to best describe the church position on inerrancy and that best fit the current position, regardless of historic beliefs. Other writings may indicate a stance either more conservative or more liberal than the statements quoted here. Most Protestant churches have historically placed a high value on individual autonomy, diversity of opinion, and questioning authority, so that the official position of a denomination may not fairly represent the beliefs of the membership.
CHURCHES THAT SPECIFICALLY DISCOURAGE A LITERAL READING OF THE GENESIS ACCOUNT:
    *Unitarian Universalist Church. "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and science"

CHURCHES THAT IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY ENCOURAGE OR PERMIT A NONLITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, OR THAT RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH OF EVOLUTION:
    *The Catholic Church. "Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
    *Most Protestant churches hold the Bible to be the sole source of doctrine, but generally do not imply that the entire Bible is to be accepted as dogma.
    *Disciples of Christ. "Faith with understanding; rationality and faithfulness in action, approaching the scriptures with reverent intelligence." This church strongly supports congregational and individual autonomy, and the position of individual churches may vary from this statement.
    *The Episcopal Church USA. "The Bible, interpreted in accordance with the findings of modern biblical scholarship, is the sole criterion in matters of dogma."
    *United Church of Christ. "The right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience are rights and privileges for all." This church strongly supports congregational and individual autonomy, and the position of individual churches may vary somewhat,
    *United Methodist Church. "Methodists acknowledge that scriptural reflection is influenced by the processes of reason, tradition and experience, while aware that Scripture is the primary source and criterion of Christian doctrine."
    *Greek Orthodox. "While the Bible is the written testimony of God's revelation, Holy Tradition is the all-encompassing experience of the Church under the abiding guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit."
    *Other Orthodox Churches hold similar positions.

CHURCHES THAT STRESS THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE, BUT MAKE NO CLEAR JUDGMENT ON INERRANCY:
    *Presbyterian Church USA. "For Presbyterians and others of the Reformed tradition the Bible is the means by which Christian believers come to understand how God has been present with humanity since the beginning of time and is present in our world today."
    *Reformed Church USA. "We believe the Bible is God's Word for every person, made understandable and alive through the Holy Spirit's ministry. It is more than a textbook; it is the living Word of God, the source of all revelation of God's will, and the norm by which all teaching must be checked."
    *Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. "The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God's Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God's revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God's Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world."
    *American Baptist Church, USA. "The Bible, interpreted by the individual, is regarded as the ultimate religious authority in matters of faith and practice."
    *Latter Day Saints (Mormons): "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is divinely inspired scripture, as is the Holy Bible." This church receives interpretation of the Bible from church leaders; interpretation is subject to change.

CHURCHES THAT STRESS INFALLIBILITY, BUT WITHOUT SPECIFIC MENTION OF THE GENESIS ACCOUNT (OTHER WRITINGS MAY TAKE A STAND ON CREATION):
    *Assemblies of God. "The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct."
    *Churches of Christ. "The original autographs of the sixty six books which make up the Bible are considered to have been divinely inspired, by which it is meant that they are infallible and authoritative. Reference to the scriptures is made in settling every religious question. A pronouncement from the scripture is considered the final word."
    *Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. "The Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine."
    *Southern Baptist Convention. "It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter." This church supports congregational and individual autonomy, and some local congregations may take a position either more or less rigid than is quoted here. A position statement has not been found for either of the National Baptist Conventions. In most matters of faith, they tend to follow the Southern Baptists closely.
    *Church of the Nazarene. "We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith."
    *Jehovah's Witnesses: "absolute obedience to biblical precepts". This denomination recognizes the "day-age" reading of Genesis, and hence believes in an "old earth", although evolution is opposed.

CHURCHES THAT SPECIFICALLY MENTION BELIEF IN THE GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT:
    *Seventh Day Adventist. "Believe the Genesis creation account: God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week."
    *Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod. "Where Scripture speaks historically, as for example in Genesis 1 and 2, it must be understood as speaking of literal, historical facts."
    *Christian Science: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life" "The true theory of the universe, including man, is not in material history but in spiritual development. Inspired thought relinquishes a material, sensual, and material theory of the universe, and adopts the spiritual and immortal." Some statements of the founder of this denomination appear to give at least partial credit to Darwinian evolution. However, on balance, the writings seem to tend more towards creationism.


DENOMINATIONS NOT DEMANDING BELIEF IN INERRANCYMEMBERS (MILLIONS)
    *Unitarian 0.21
    *Roman Catholic 60.28
    *Disciples of Christ 0.93
    *Episcopalian 2.54
    *United Church of Christ 1.47
    *United Methodist 8.54
    *AME/AMEZion 4.73
    *Antiochian Orthodox 0.30
    *Orthodox Church USA 2.00
    *Greek Orthodox 1.99
    *Armenian Orthodox 0.41
    *Presb. Church USA 3.67
    *Presb. Church America 0.26
    *Reformed Church 0.31
    *Evang. Luth. Ch. Amer. 5.19
    *American Baptist 1.77
    *Other liberal Baptist 2.50
    *LDS (Mormons) 4.71

TOTAL NOT PROFESSING INERRANCY 101.77
---
DENOMINATIONS DEMANDING BELIEF IN INERRANCY MEMBERS (MILLIONS)
    *Assemblies of God 2.37
    *Other Pentecostal 6.50
    *Luth. Ch. Miss. Syn. 2.59
    *Southern Baptist 15.66
    *Other conservative Baptist 11.70
    *Adventist 0.82
    *Wisc. Evang. Luth. Synod 0.41
    *Jehovah's Witnesses 0.71
    *Christian Science †(Est.) 0.5


†TOTAL PROFESSING INERRANCY 41.52

Source of membership data: Current issues of World Almanac, and Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Of those denominations surveyed, membership in churches not demanding a belief in inerrancy outnumbers membership in those that do by more than 2:1. Membership in churches professing belief in inerrancy is 15% of total U.S. population. The actual number of members accepting this belief is expected to be lower, because there are typically more church members who tend to accept a less rigid stance, than those professing a more rigid posture than their church's official position.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html


The Islamic View:
† †
From these verses of the Quran which I have quoted emerge the following conclusions:
( 1 ) The material from which man has been created is not eternal. It was created by God.
(2) Man's creation involved an evolutionary process extending over a long period of time. He was not created in a moment.
(3) Man was created from an origin of his own species. It is not correct that he evolved from a species of monkeys or apes which is the theory advanced by Darwin.
(4) One of the evolutionary stages through which he passed was something akin to stone or rock.
(5) He next passed through a stage of animal life but intelligence had not yet developed in him although he moved about, ate and drank like other animals.
(6) He became an intelligent being able to speak and communicate.
(7) In his final stage he devised a system of life and started on the road to civilization and culture. Instead of each individual living for himself, as is the case with other and lower animals, he began to work in cooperation with others of his species evolving a system and law of life.


The Jewish View www.jewish.com
† †
For many centuries the classical Jewish tradition has taught that the Torah teaches us WHY God created the world and THAT God created the world, but not HOW God created the world. While there are Orthodox (and even non-Orthodox) Jews who do not accept evolution, most of Judaism, including many Orthodox thinkers, recognize that religion and science ask different questions, and that there is no reason for a faithful Jew to reject scientific teachings. So yes, we accept evolution.




And everyday more and more people accept that the Bible must be fact about the creation.

Hopefully everyday more and more people are accepting the teachings of the Bible, but most of them are probably not accepting Creationism along with it.

Sarah



(Edited by Sarah2006 1/9/2003 at 2:50 PM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 2:47 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Itzpapalotl

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 01:05 AM on January 9, 2003 :
†Everyday more and more people are learning about and understanding the evidence that the Earth is clearly Young. †And everyday more and more people accept that the Bible must be fact about the creation. †It's only a matter of time before your theory is a silly peice of history that people laugh at when they read about it in history books.


people have been predicting the demise of evolution and the old earth since 1840.

"Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:

"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38

For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood."

There is a good article on it here:

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/moreandmore.htm

It is a good laugh to read but not for creationists.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:34 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Ribosome77

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You creationists are all wrong. †Evolutionism is not Failing. The DEBATE is failing. †It only seems to the creationists that they are winning, but thats because no one is willing to debate them anymore except Internet junkies like ourselves in forums like these. †

†Someone on these forums keeps posting that 9 of 10 scientists accept evolution. †Its more like 10 of 10. †Get this straight people: there are NO scientists who spend there carreers doing PROGRESSIVE BIOLOGICAL research (that is, either discovering previously undescribed genes, proteins...ect, †or using such data to invent new technologies) who are creationists.

† All creationists who claim to be professional biologists (like the goofs you keep quoting)spend their carreers doing †"research" where the whole point is to disprove evolution and do nothing else. †Creationists never get NIH money or publish in real journals like Science, Nature, Cell, JAMA..ect. These guys are simply unimportant.

† Just read the news today. Cloning, Pig-organ transplants, potential cures for Alzheimers, HIV, cancer....All coming from research done by hundreds of thousands of real scientists, ALL OF WHOM reject creationism whole-heartedly. All of this research is based in a foundation of evolutionary principles which cannot be denied, else the research could not possibly proceed. The proof is in the pudding my freinds.

We dont care about what you think, we don't feel like wasting our time. †We will continue to carry the technological progress of civilization on our backs with our research. You can stay behind if you want to. Give it up people.


(Edited by Ribosome77 1/14/2003 at 11:53 PM).
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:51 PM on January 14, 2003 | IP
stealthdonkey

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If evolution is losing support why are there more evolutionists per capita now then there were 100 years ago?
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:55 PM on October 11, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the last great creationist among scientists died about a hundred years ago.  There have been no great creationists in biology since then.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:28 AM on October 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you know how stupid that is, that the reason we creationists "believe" we are winning is because no one will debate us... Gee I wonder why? Because you all your "smart" scientists are smart enough to realize that they will lose any debate. The reason they lose is because there theory is crap and the reason we win is because we are right!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:30 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's because creationists don't debate.

They spout piles of misinformation that their audience wants to here, any one point of which might take half an hour of detailed explanation.

Science is about careful attention to details and accuracy, not selling snake oil.

I hope you are happy with your snake oil.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:59 AM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have some figures for you For about the last 12 or 13 years, about 45% of Americans agree with young earth creationism. The theistic evolution question is agreed to by a very substantial proportion of Americans, something in the range of 35%. And the atheist response is around 10%, which of course also reflects the amount of religiosity in American society.
The National Science Foundation has asked a question: Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals--true or false? Fewer than half of Americans agreed that is true. The National Science Foundation also asked a question: Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time--true or false? Less than half of Americans know this is false (48% in 1995; 51% in 1997). Basically, less than half or barely half of Americans realize the "Flintstones" was not a documentary!
theres some figures for you and this is from a school not a religious school but a public schools database
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:37 PM on November 24, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism  

Copyright 2002  G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.

In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years.  This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making.  The claim is  that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it)  is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall.  This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years.  This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution.  Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal.  In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area  for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.  Now for the claims in chronological order.

1825

"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6


And many more. . .
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:17 PM on November 24, 2003 | IP
enmity283

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Taken from http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm

Albert Chan points out that...
Creationists hate faith. They count on evidence, words, logic, and arguments to uphold their views. All this reflects how weak (or even absent) their faith is. "See, we can prove that evolution is wrong, so that automatically means that the Bible is correct ." This implies a notion that [Genesis] is correct... just because evolution has (in their minds) been "proven" wrong. But then it follows that the Bible can in principle be proven wrong. (Something which can be proven right can in principle be proven wrong.) If [creationists] argue that they do have faith, and that the Bible is right regardless of the validity of evolution, then why on earth would they care about whether evolution is right or wrong?
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 09:29 AM on January 1, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You must realise they do have faith. They do not care about disproving evolution for themselves, they already know it to be false.

They are merely going into all this science stuff (which is uncharacteristic for them) just to convince other people.

Yes it is all about preaching and converting I am afraid
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:46 AM on January 2, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When you can show me evidence of the Fossils of Adam and Eve then I will believe in creationism.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 9:10 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Again, what kind of statement is that?  Give me fossil evidence of Darwin.  We've dug up tons of skeletons, how would we know which ones are Adam and Eve?  You think its carved on the bones?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:29 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Again, what kind of statement is that?  Give me fossil evidence of Darwin. "

Sure, all you have to do is dig up his grave in Westminster Abbey.

"We've dug up tons of skeletons, how would we know which ones are Adam and Eve? "

Since Creationists claim that Adam and Eve were perfect, I 'd expect that their skeletons would stand out substantially from any other human skeleton.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:52 AM on February 7, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What i was saying is that their are thousands of fossils supporting evolution and none supporting creationism.  When they find some fossils supporting creationism then I will believe it.  So they need to find some ancient human fossils that can be identified as jesus or Adam or Eve.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 10:11 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Sure, all you have to do is dig up his grave in Westminster Abbey.


How do you know that its Darwin?  What if they sneaked another carcass in there?  Does it say "Darwin" on his skull?  How would we tell what Adam's skeleton is?  This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a while.  
And one more thing, most dead things completely rot, leaving no fossils behind.  Fossils can only me made under special conditions.

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 11:35 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you could tell by dental records.  their are so many possible ways to identify a skeleton.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 3:11 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA.

I'm sure there are plenty of his descendants around to develop a source model of his DNA.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:14 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am confused what does finding darwin's skeleton have to do with anything?
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 3:23 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm confused what does finding Adam and Eve's skeletons have to do with the creation/evolution topic?
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 8:22 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm guessing it's a parody of your request to see a "tranistional" fossil.

Since you won't tell us what one is, there is no way that you will accept anything presented, thus making the entire exercise futile.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:57 AM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, a transitional fossil, I mean something smack in between reptile, and a mammal.  Or even a reptile to a bird.  A reptile has 4 legs, a flying dinosaur or a bird has two feet and two wings.  Why aren't there any fossils of half-legs half-wings.  

Here are a couple of quotes from leading evolutionist scientists.

1."The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction.  There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile tobird was achieved."

W.E. Swinton (British Museum of Natural History, London), 'The Origin of Birds',  Chapter I, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J. Marshall (editor), Vol. I, Acedemic Press, New York, 1960, p.1.

2."It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved,  assumed additional functions, but how they arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis.". . . .
"The problem has been set aside, not for want of interest, but for lack of evidence.  No fossil structures transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation." .... "It seems, from the comlex consturction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures.  So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition."
Barbara J. Stahl  (St Anselm's College, USA) in Vertebrate History:  Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975, pp. 349 and 350.

Darwin hoped that transitional fossils (missing links) would be found, but none exist.  We can discuss archeaoptrx (however you spell it) for pages, just let me know if you want to do that.

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 1:20 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"It seems, from the comlex consturction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures.  So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition."


Well, not in 1975, but now they are well known.
The feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:26 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I assure all of you creationalist that your not going to convince anyone here that you are right and all the hundreds of years of scientific advancement is false. And I will also assure you that eventually your kind will be extinct. While those of faith may always choose a belief in a higher bieng, logical people will always reject creationalism.Why, because Creationalism is not in any way logical.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:53 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Extinct?  I forget who, but a leading scientist once said that evolution will be one of the fairy tales of the future.  But who cares what someone says?

Why, because Creationalism is not in any way logical.


You love to say this, but you can't show me where.

Logical people will always reject creationalism.


All these people believed in Creation.  Are you saying you are smarter than them and that they weren't logical?

Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler,  Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel (Mendel's laws), Kelvin (William Thompson), Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Nicolaus Steno, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Wernher von Braun, Frank Borman, Jack Lousma, John Glenn, Charles Duke, James Irwin, Robert Jastrow, John Polkinghorne, Walter L. Bradley, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer...to name a few.


One more thing, did you read the article you posted on here for evidence?  (The feathered dinasaurs at Linuang)  Part of it was ammunition against yourself!  It showed how some of them were frauds, and that there is still debate and nothing has been confirmed, etc, to that tune.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 3:49 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"All these people believed in Creation.  Are you saying you are smarter than them and that they weren't logical?

Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler,  Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel (Mendel's laws), Kelvin (William Thompson), Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Nicolaus Steno, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Wernher von Braun, Frank Borman, Jack Lousma, John Glenn, Charles Duke, James Irwin, Robert Jastrow, John Polkinghorne, Walter L. Bradley, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer...to name a few."


They believed in creationism because they didn't have evidence to examine, for many of them the theory of evolution hadn't even been proposed yet!  Why don't you throw out some famous names from the present.  I'll bet those people didn't believe in Cosmic Background Radiation either, or quantum theory, what does that prove?  Modern science advances, we know much more today than we did 100 years ago.  We have much more evidence today than we did in the past.  I think the arguement your presenting is ludicrous.  So what if people in the past were creationists, they didn't have our knowledge, the evidence we have today or the tools to evaluate that evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:18 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Many of these scientists are still alive today, and most of the scientists knew all about the evolution theory.

Why don't you throw out some famous names from the present.


Like I said, many of them are alive today.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 5:13 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting list.

Isaac Newton  Non-Christian heretic

Nicolaus Steno  Despite his conclusion that seashells on mountaintops were not placed there by God or by Noah's flood, Steno maintained his allegiance to his Catholic faith. Indeed, Cutler argues that his rejection of literal readings of the Bible as they pertained to the origin of the Earth played a part in his decision to convert from Protestantism.

Albert Einstein  Jewish with atheist leanings.

Kelvin (William Thompson)  First mathematical calculation of earth's age in the millions of years, erred on the low side because radioactivity had not been discovered yet.

Benjamin Franklin Non-Christian , he would probably be a Unitarian today.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.

Robert Jastrow Self progessed agnostic

Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, "We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed."

Max Planck Planck's response to an inquiry about his attitude toward religion: "I have always been deeply religiously disposed, but I do not believe in a personal God, not to mention a Christian God. You would find more about this in my essay on 'religion and science'."

I'll have to look up some more later.

Did you carefully research this list or just copy it?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:44 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the thing about adam and eve was they were the first humans created right?  so if you found their skeletons you could prove they were created.  Comprende?
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 6:34 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

A couple things about this thread.

First and foremost...science is not determined by concensus.  We do not poll the average uneducated american to see if they accept the latest physical theories of quantum mechanics in order to make statements about their factuality.  Nor do we poll the average american, wholly uneducated to the mechanisms and principles of evolution, in order to pronounce about the validity of the theory.  The opinions of the ignorant are not meant to determine the validity of science.  For that matter, the opinions of the educated are also not meant for that purpose.  Only the strength of the empirical evidence.

Regarding the following quote  "the reason we creationists "believe" we are winning is because no one will debate us... Gee I wonder why? Because you all your "smart" scientists are smart enough to realize that they will lose any debate."

Not at all.  It is not a debate at all, but a one-sided discussion with someone blinded by the bias of faith, unwilling and unable to commit themselves to the scientific method.  Hence, it is a pointless waste of time debating someone on a subject that a) has been fully resolved, and b) creationists are unwilling to consider.

Finding examples of famous people in the past who believe in creation is also not evidence creation is true.  We all believed in Genesis at one time or another in the past.  The scientific method lead to us accepting reality on the literal interpretation.  It is of no great surprise that all great scientists several hundred years ago accepted creation...they also accepted that the world was flat.  Live and learn.


Understanding the reality of an old earth and evolution does not mean you reject your faith or a belief in god.  

By the way, we are all transitional fossils.  Any fossil ever found is a transition.  You and I are transitions of future people.  Believing a transitional fossil is something rare or unique is just silly.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:50 PM on February 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To the Guest who provided the list that debunked E-mc2's list of supposed creationists, thank you very much!  I hope E-mc2 learned their lesson and stop parroting erroneous creationist drivel.  I mean E-mc2 was trying to falsify the Big Bang and then had the gall to say Albert Einstein was a creationist!  They guy whose equations gave rise to the Big Bang!  If E-mc2 had any intellectual integrity, he would apologize for
being a dupe and posting that pack of lies but some how I doubt it...
I thought I'd add this to the list:

Thomas Edison

"My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it. [Thomas Edison, Do We Live Again?] "

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [Thomas Alva Edison, Columbian Magazine] "

"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope. [Thomas Edison] "

Sorry E-mc2, doesn't sound like a creationist to me, better take him off your list...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:36 AM on February 10, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A couple more. . .

Francis Bacon

. . . some of the moderns have indulged this folly, with such consummate inconsiderateness, that they have endeavoured to build a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the Book of Job, and other parts of Scripture. . . . And this folly is the more to be prevented and restrained, because not only fantastical philosophy but heretical religion spring form the absurd mixture of matters divine and human.

John Polkinghorne

"What really upsets me about the extreme creationist position, and the imposition of an extreme creationist position on the educational system, is that they are attempts, in my view, to suppress an aspect of truth. And thatís a terrible thing to do. Of course, these people can have their own belief, but when they try to impose them on society, then they are doing religion a very deep disservice. Itís a sign, I think, that they are not really serving the God of truth."
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:47 AM on February 10, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

E-mc2, just tell me where you get your information about these "creationalist scientist", sounds like balogne to me. I think you will find that any scientist who truly considers themself a "creationalist" will not have ANY legitimacy to the scientific community. Their motives are to simply find any shred of evidence to discredit scientific theory and legetimize thier own silly beliefs. Maybe you should do a little research about these people you praise so much. You might find exactly what your afraid of, the TRUTH.
                                          Dave
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:46 PM on February 10, 2004 | IP
postmodernist

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

creationism/evolution
Can't you just put them together?

"As we developed through the years from ape to man (i know what happend because i used to be an ape but now im a so called human) we found our many friends Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and Isaac. Why do people question our creationism/evolution when we are standing right here?"
- Priest Ape/Human


-------
Ebaumsworld.com
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 11:36 PM on July 2, 2004 | IP
NokX

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here's my view of both creation and evolution...

both agree that something came from nothing, correct?

creation believes that God (who is time and has been and always will be) created life.

evolution believes that by chance a chain reaction of events happened and "life" was made and happened to survive the elements and decided it wanted to be something else and changed into all the billions of species we now know today.

creationists lack the physical "proof" of God, which scientifically, needs to exist in order for the theory to work.  because science doesn't delve into the "unknown", only the known.

evolutionists lack the key ingredients to evolution itself...transitional fossils.  not one single fossil has been found to show the transition of one species to the next.  sure, many assumptions of what one would look like have been made...but none found.  which is astonishing considering (according to evolutionists) the earth has been around for 4.x billion years.  you'd imagine there would be countless examples.  don't believe me?  what was a cat before it is what we know it today?  no one knows.  any animal for that matter.

i think both have their shortfalls...

creationism requires faith, belief, etc...  however, it does have quite a bit of scientific proof that evolution wasn't possible...for now.

evolutionism requires scientific proof, which...by just the one example above is lacking a pretty key element.

it's always gonna be a debate cause evolutionists don't want to aknowledge God and creationists don't see the proof for evolution and believe strongly God made it.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:05 PM on July 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolution believes that by chance a chain reaction of events happened and "life" was made and happened to survive the elements and decided it wanted to be something else and changed into all the billions of species we now know today.

Well, all we need now is the tin man and the cowardly lion, and we'll be set.

evolutionists lack the key ingredients to evolution itself...transitional fossils.  not one single fossil has been found to show the transition of one species to the next.

*sigh*
a plethora of information

however, it does have quite a bit of scientific proof that evolution wasn't possible

This is the part where you say "such as..." and actually provide an example

evolutionism requires scientific proof, which...by just the one example above is lacking a pretty key element.

Yeah, I couldn't find a single example of a transitional fossil

it's always gonna be a debate cause evolutionists don't want to aknowledge God

wrong, unless you want to explain why the majority of christians have absolutely no problem reconciling their faith with science.

and creationists don't see the proof for evolution and believe strongly God made it

Too bad the only thing that you said that was correct was the final 10 words you posted.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 11:41 PM on July 7, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyone that says there a Christian but also belives that evolution is true is retarted. those are the kinda people this wolrd can do without. they belive whatever they are told. true christians belive that God made the earth in 6 days and on the 7th day he rested. nowhere in the bible does it say that God made a single cell bacteria and let it evolve into what we have today. it states in genisis that God was the creator of every animal and every plant in the universe.

so for all of you christian evolutionist make up your mind, pick either evolution or the Path of God.


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 12:47 PM on July 11, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the majority of Christians DO accept evolution, creatinists are definitely the lunatic fringe...  Hey you're the one believing unquestioningly what you're told, even though it has already been proven wrong.  The earth was NOT made in 6 days 6000 years ago.  And do you have any evidence, any real evidence whatsoever that God made the earth?  Didn't think so...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:11 PM on July 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aren't true christians supposed to welcome people to the faith?  Obviously you aren't a true christian, since you would rather boot people out


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:30 AM on July 12, 2004 | IP
sketerpot

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from postmodernist at 11:36 PM on July 2, 2004 :
creationism/evolution
Can't you just put them together?


Bah, just the sort of ignorant, let's-just-make-stuff-up-and-declare-it-valid blather I would expect from a postmodernist.

The theory of evolution is an explanation made to suit the facts. Creationism is a bunch of old myths that can easily be demonstrated to be false. Why the hell would anybody want to put them together?
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 1:43 PM on January 13, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

People like the guy who started this thread think creationsim is the majority belief probably live in the bible belt. They are also like people from the northeast who think the entire country hated bush. That is only because we are a laregely democartic area. You think that creationsm is so strong because you are surrounded by people who believe in it. trust me most of this country believes in evolution and the athiest population is getting bigger and bigger
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 4:40 PM on January 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a few comments to make here.

I have come to the conclusion that people are looking for transition fossils, and not finding them. Earlier somone mentioned everything is. But what the creationists want is an exact creature with half of each... what do you want a one winged bird?
owever on this same point, human beings are a perfect example of a transistion creature. We are no where near perfect, that means there is alot of evolution left in out species. An example of this, is my favorite piece of evidence for evolution becaue it is so simple. We have evolved from tailed creatures this can be seen by us having a tail bone there for a human skeleton is a transition between a tailed monkey and an untailed super human or homosuperior


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 8:54 PM on January 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if creationism is majority belief in america, it doesn't mean it is in the rest of the world. Here in britain for example there is pritty much no denial for it, even from christians, the whole six days thing is a completly misunderstood idea on both sides of the arguement, it is a translation error. The same word was uesd for Day and Time period so re read genesis, the world was created in six time periods, there for if humans are made in a time period it could be of any length i.e. enougth time for god guided evolution(I would like to point out I am Athiest). In the same way that the actual original vbersion of the bible said moses parted the read sea not the red sea, but thats another discussion. But the point is that there are so many minor flaws (and some mager) in the bible that it can't be taken litraly.

Ok so the majority of middle america belive in creationism, ok but most of them don't know where europe is. I was watching a TV programme before your election asking americans to point at differnt places on a world map. He asked one of these people where britain was, and he pointed at the rocky mountains! Come on! And you wonder why the rest of the world thinks your stupid, personaly I don't take that steriotypical view point, but you basicaly need to get rid of your backwater myths of creationism and acept that we came about by evolution and prove you have some sense. The only reason you don't want to acept evelution is because you are scared of death, you don't want death to be the end so you cling onto your beliefs hoping for somthing better, well this is is what you see is what you get, get used to it, its not going to change.

Ok lets pretend that evolution has just been disproven, that doesn't mean creationism is correct, and even if it did it doesn't mean that christian creationism is correct. The fact is that even if evolution is disproven (which isn't going to happen) another scientific theory would take its place.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:05 PM on January 14, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And lets realize that there are many christians that believe in God but don't actually velieve that we were all made in gods image and Eve from man's rib.

As Bill Mahr said it sounds like the bible began as a game of mad libs

"and god created Eve out of his...rib.."
"GOOD ONE"

To the rational minded this story is obvious nonsense, and what about the dinosaurs???
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 04:01 AM on January 15, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from E-mc2 at 3:49 PM on February 9, 2004 :
Extinct?  I forget who, but a leading scientist once said that evolution will be one of the fairy tales of the future.  But who cares what someone says?


"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years... were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." - Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904

Welcome to 100 years ago! My, aren't we belated?

You love to say this, but you can't show me where.


It says the earth was made in 6 days. Astrophysics doesn't agree with this, therefore it's not logical. It says plants grew from earth in one day, the third day. This also is not backed up by evidence and so is not logical. It says the sun was madeo n the 4th day, this is AFTER the plants, this is also not logical. There's no logical progression to a god from anything in the Universe, nor does the genesis myth fit with what's actually known about the universe, thus, creationism is illogical.

Man is not as old as all other animals put together, nor do women come from male ribs. Snakes do not talk. Genesis 2 is a different account to genesis 1, it is patently illogical to conclude that creationism and its spinoffs are in any way logical.


All these people believed in Creation.  Are you saying you are smarter than them and that they weren't logical?


How many of these believed in the 6 day creation as described by the bible again? Prove your case with in-context quotes.

Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler,  Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel (Mendel's laws), Kelvin (William Thompson), Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Nicolaus Steno, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Wernher von Braun, Frank Borman, Jack Lousma, John Glenn, Charles Duke, James Irwin, Robert Jastrow, John Polkinghorne, Walter L. Bradley, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer...


One more thing, did you read the article you posted on here for evidence?  (The feathered dinasaurs at Linuang)  Part of it was ammunition against yourself!  It showed how some of them were frauds, and that there is still debate and nothing has been confirmed, etc, to that tune.


Feathered dinos have been found, so don't lie. Bearing false witness is, you know...a sin.

both agree that something came from nothing, correct?


False. Evolution is to do with  genetic heritable change and natural selection. Not something coming from nothing.

creation believes that God (who is time and has been and always will be) created life.


By MAGIC.

evolution


Is a seperate discipline to abiogenesis.

believes that by chance


This is misleading, chemistry does not work "by chance" it works by electron shell configurations.

a chain reaction of events happened and "life" was made and happened to survive the elements and decided it wanted to be something else


Like hydrogen and oxygen "decide" to be water? Do yourself a favour, don't talk about things you have no idea about.

and changed into all the billions of species we now know today.


Yes, common ancestry, as shown in the genome.

creationists lack the physical "proof" of God, which scientifically, needs to exist in order for the theory to work.  because science doesn't delve into the "unknown", only the known.


Yes, God has to exist and the MAGIC which he used to create everything in 6 days.

evolutionists lack the key ingredients to evolution itself...transitional fossils.  not one single fossil has been found to show the transition of one species to the next.  


Outright lie:Most of them are. Transitional fossils are fossils that exhibit traits of more than one other species (and will probably diverge into those species). For instance, all ceratopsidae share traits with protoceratops, who came earlier, and from the looks of it, diverged into all the others. Archaeopteryx is a dinobird, of which there are several examples. Archy itself may not be the common ancestor for all birds (as some quotes may say) but it is definitely a transitional.

Some examples of transitionals:

Archaeopteryx; Basilosaurus and Ichthyostiga

Human transitionals: Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

Transitional from mammal to primate: Cantius, Palaechthon, Pelycodus, Purgatorius. Transitional from reptile to mammal: Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops. Transitional from reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor. Transitional from amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, PrTransitional from fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Sterropterygionoterogyrinus.

sure, many assumptions of what one would look like have been made...but none found.


Don't lie, I have little patience for it.

what was a cat before it is what we know it today?  no one knows.  any animal for that matter.


Why don't you do the research and read this before you embarass yourself further?

creationism requires faith, belief, etc...  however, it does have quite a bit of scientific proof that evolution wasn't possible...for now.


No, it doesn't. It has lies, misinformation and ignorance and incredulity, that's IT.

evolutionism requires scientific proof, which...by just the one example above is lacking a pretty key element.


Wrong, if you'd even been bothered to/been ABLE to read Origin of the species by Charles Darwin [link], you'd see the facts the theory had right from the offset.

it's always gonna be a debate cause


It ceased being a scientific debate over a century ago, now it's just the creationists hoping people are ignorant to accept them.

evolutionists don't want to aknowledge God


Really? So that's why Roman Catholicism accepts evolution and there are several catholic "evolutionists" or rather, biologists? Google Ken Miller.

and creationists don't see the proof for evolution and believe strongly God made it.


That doesn't mean they've got a decent argument though, they're just ignorant of the actual facts.

Even if creationism is majority belief in america, it doesn't mean it is in the rest of the world. Here in britain for example there is pritty much no denial for it, even from christians, the whole six days thing is a completly misunderstood idea on both sides of the arguement, it is a translation error.


No, it's not.  Genesis 1 is intended to be read as a story with 7 actual days, not ages.

The same word was uesd for Day and Time period so re read genesis, the world was created in six time periods, there for if humans are made in a time period it could be of any length i.e. enougth time for god guided evolution(I would like to point out I am Athiest). In the same way that the actual original vbersion of the bible said moses parted the read sea not the red sea, but thats another discussion. But the point is that there are so many minor flaws (and some mager) in the bible that it can't be taken litraly.


So you think Adam was alive for several ages? Is Yom Kippur a jewish festival that lasts an age?


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:37 PM on January 15, 2005 | IP
whytry

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The hallmark of the fossil record is stasis followed by sudden appearance. Transitions cited on websites such as talkorigins are silly examples of the Darwinist taking the data and interpreting in light of the theory of evolution--of course this interpretation then gets used as evidence for evolution. For example, if we find two specimens with similar structures, we therefore conclude that they must have common ancestry. This of course preassumes evolution and thus cannot be used as a proof of evolution. Thus, the FACT we take from the fossil record is stasis followed by sudden appearance NOT gradual evolution of species--this is simply not seen consistently throughout. I do not claim this as a disproof of evolutionary theory, but it is certainly not a proof of evolution: one cannot presuppose something in order to get the interpretation one wants and then use that interpretation as evidence of the presupposition. It is illogial.

That we can classify species according to similarity of anatomy is not a proof of evolution. That we find genetic similarities among organisms is not a proof of evolution. That organisms are distributed around the globe in a certain pattern is not a proof of evolution. This is foolishness.

Let's be very clear that evoluion is the supposed natural mechanism responsible for the origin of all species. This elusive mechanism to produce such change must first be described and then clearly shown to be a viable mechanism. Point mutations and other genetic transcription errors acted upon by natural selection is a hypothesis that leaves much wanting and has not been shown to be sufficient to effect the changes that it must have effected.

It is not good enough to proclaim minor changes can occur due to mutation acted upon by natural selection and then to brazenly proclaim "prove that these minor changes cannot eventually bring about major changes by the gradual accumulation of the minor changes". No please prove that they can. It is much easier to prove a positive than a negative. In fact it is nearly impossible to prove a negative because there is almost always some probability for events we label "impossible" even if they are most unlikely.

So, Darwinists, throw away these nonsense "proofs" that you try to host up ever so eloquently before the masses, quit bullying people with ad hominem attacks about gross ignorance, and do some actual research to get answers to questions we have all been longing to know.
 
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 12:15 AM on January 17, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from whytry at 12:15 AM on January 17, 2005 :
The hallmark of the fossil record is stasis followed by sudden appearance.


No, it's not. The fossil record shows, surprise surprise, fossilisation of organisms that were in the right place and made of the right stuff to be fossilised.

Transitions cited on websites such as talkorigins are silly examples of the Darwinist taking the data and interpreting in light of the theory of evolution--of course this interpretation then gets used as evidence for evolution. For example, if we find two specimens with similar structures, we therefore conclude that they must have common ancestry.


No, other factors are taken into account, for example biogeography and the ages of the seperate species.

This of course preassumes evolution and thus cannot be used as a proof of evolution. Thus, the FACT we take from the fossil record is stasis followed by sudden appearance NOT gradual evolution of species--this is simply not seen consistently throughout.


Give me one example of something in the fossil record that can be better explained by sudden appearence in its own right rather than descendence from previous organisms. Give the theory that would account for such a thing happening.

I do not claim this as a disproof of evolutionary theory, but it is certainly not a proof of evolution: one cannot presuppose something in order to get the interpretation one wants and then use that interpretation as evidence of the presupposition. It is illogial.


Evolution and common descent are presupposed since they are the only theory that adequately accounts for everything we see, both in the present and the fossil record. The fossils are predictions given by the theories of phylogenics and other related fields, they are proof that they're right. The field of biological evolution is seperated into several subfields that you cannot equate with the whole as you are doing. Proof of one aspect of evolution isn't necessarily proof for another part that has nothing to do with that evidence. Adaptive immunologies, for example, is not evidenced by the fossil record, but reconstructive phylogenics is, which in turn is used as evidence for common descent. Adaptive immunologies are often hereditary and are also used for common descent evidence. Don't equate predictions that are verified for a theory with begging the question.

That we can classify species according to similarity of anatomy is not a proof of evolution. That we find genetic similarities among organisms is not a proof of evolution.


Right, the similarity of your genome to your parents and your siblings isn't proof you're part of the same family.

That organisms are distributed around the globe in a certain pattern is not a proof of evolution. This is foolishness.


Restating your assertion is not a refutation of the facts.

Let's be very clear that evoluion is the supposed natural mechanism responsible for the origin of all species. This elusive mechanism to produce such change must first be described and then clearly shown to be a viable mechanism. Point mutations and other genetic transcription errors acted upon by natural selection is a hypothesis that leaves much wanting and has not been shown to be sufficient to effect the changes that it must have effected.


Says who? What leading biologist claims this, because if they had proof of it, they'd win a nobel prize. Or is it just your opinion based in nothing but your a priori bias against evolution?

It is not good enough to proclaim minor changes can occur due to mutation acted upon by natural selection and then to brazenly proclaim "prove that these minor changes cannot eventually bring about major changes by the gradual accumulation of the minor changes". No please prove that they can.


Simple, keep adding 1 to your previous number and see how much change can accumulate. Take as long as you want.

It is much easier to prove a positive than a negative. In fact it is nearly impossible to prove a negative because there is almost always some probability for events we label "impossible" even if they are most unlikely.


The point of minor changes is that they have shown in our lifetimes impressive results. For instance, vancomycin reliance in several microbes, when vancomycin didn't even exist more than 70 years ago. Same thing with nylon. Multiply such variability by longer sections of time and there's nothing to stop it creating the biodiversity we see today.  That's why you've got to show evidence of "kind" barriers.

So, Darwinists, throw away these nonsense "proofs" that you try to host up ever so eloquently before the masses, quit bullying people with ad hominem attacks about gross ignorance, and do some actual research to get answers to questions we have all been longing to know.


Don't equivocate evolution with the specific fields in it, you're simply trying to define the evidence out of existence, when the theory was made to explain that evidence! It's like saying "prove the events of the bible without referencing the bible."


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:38 AM on January 17, 2005 | IP
whytry

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

>>No, it's not. The fossil record shows, surprise surprise, fossilisation of organisms that were in the right place and made of the right stuff to be fossilised.

If the sentence following "No, it's not." is suppose to elaborate on why the hallmark of the fossil record is NOT stasis followed by sudden appearance it falls well short. In fact it doesn't even address the issue. Red Herring.

>>Give me one example of something in the fossil record that can be better explained by sudden appearence in its own right rather than descendence from previous organisms. Give the theory that would account for such a thing happening.

The point is that I can make up any theory I want and then interpret the data in light of my theory, but I cannot use my interpretation to prove my theory. Don't forget we are looking at history.

>>Right, the similarity of your genome to your parents and your siblings isn't proof you're part of the same family.

Are we talking about evolution as a mechanism to produce change or are we looking at similarities and guessing (evolution) why they are similar. I can make up anything I want to explain similarity of organisms. Prove that the mechanism (evolution) can actually produce the change.

>>Says who? What leading biologist claims this, because if they had proof of it, they'd win a nobel prize. Or is it just your opinion based in nothing but your a priori bias against evolution?


Oh, so it has been shown to be sufficient? What leading biologist (who is honest) would say this?

>>Simple, keep adding 1 to your previous number and see how much change can accumulate. Take as long as you want.

I'll take it you can't prove it if this is the response.

>>The point of minor changes is that they have shown in our lifetimes impressive results. For instance, vancomycin reliance in several microbes, when vancomycin didn't even exist more than 70 years ago. Same thing with nylon. Multiply such variability by longer sections of time and there's nothing to stop it creating the biodiversity we see today.  That's why you've got to show evidence of "kind" barriers.


If I say "birds will someday fly in outer space", most would say that is stupid and silly, but if I rephrase as "birds will fly in outerspace in several million years" then it suddenly becomes a possibility to the Darwinist. Maybe, the Darwinist's mental functions break down when confronted with large numbers, but mine certainly do not. If it's ridiculous now it will still be ridiculous in 10 years, 100 years, million years. Darwinists thinks long periods of time are the elixir to all their ills. Well, you have to do more than throw large numbers in my face to convince me.

And the onus is on YOU to show that mutation followed by natural selection is capable of producing new information to the extent that it resulted in the origin of species. You can guess and hope and pray and wave big numbers aroung all you want, but at some point you will actually have to show it CONCLUSIVELY.




 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:09 AM on January 18, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.