Evolution is a RELIGION and not Science

[CabVet]

I agree we can observe mutations. but we have never observed one species of animal turn into a completely different species of animal.

saying that beneficial mutations through natural selection accumulate over thousands of years to form new species is a nice theory but you need to prove this is actually possible.

You should read about bacterial speciation, which is the only organism we can actually observe (and do observe) changing due to their fast generation time. And there is plenty of evidence for change over time both from the fossil record and comparison of DNA sequences between species split by geographical barriers with known ages.

 

[And-U-Say]

"saying that beneficial mutations through natural selection accumulate over thousands of years to form new species is a nice theory but you need to prove this is actually possible."

You don't need proof, you need evidence. You seem to be ignoring that there is a small mountain of evidence that supports evolution but none that supports creationism. Why do you ignore the evidence for evolution and at the same time make no demand of evidence for creationism.

You are intellectually dishonest.

 

[MrMoe]

You should read about bacterial speciation, which is the only organism we can actually observe (and do observe) changing due to their fast generation time. And there is plenty of evidence for change over time both from the fossil record and comparison of DNA sequences between species split by geographical barriers with known ages.

the first example evolutionist use to support their theory is usually the bacterial speciation argument. it may have undergone a few mutations but its still a bacteria. Im talking about how an animal can change from an aquatic animal to become a land animal or how a scaled land animal that has solid bones (dinosaur) can change into and feathered warm blooded animal with hollow bones. that's one hell of a trick.

Speciation Questions and Answers

 

[Blackwater Babe]

the first example evolutionist use to support their theory is usually the bacterial speciation argument. it may have undergone a few mutations but its still a bacteria. Im talking about how an animal can change from an aquatic animal to become a land animal or how a scaled land animal that has solid bones (dinosaur) can change into and feathered warm blooded animal with hollow bones. that's one hell of a trick.

Speciation Questions and Answers

Given sufficient time, and enough mutations, its not that much of a trick. No one's saying it happens in "a few mutations ".

 

[CabVet]

the first example evolutionist use to support their theory is usually the bacterial speciation argument. it may have undergone a few mutations but its still a bacteria. Im talking about how an animal can change from an aquatic animal to become a land animal or how a scaled land animal that has solid bones (dinosaur) can change into and feathered warm blooded animal with hollow bones. that's one hell of a trick.

Speciation Questions and Answers

Yeah right, one hell of a trick to transform a bacteria in a snail for sure. Hey, let's replicate what evolution took hundreds of millions of years to do in a few days to satisfy you, really easy! Questions for you, if a changed bacteria is "just a bacteria" is a changed ape just an ape? Are tigers and lions different species? Why do closely related species look alike and have very similar DNA? Could it be that they separated recently?

Oh, an please don't quote creationist websites to counter evolution. Biased websites are biased.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I don't think intelligence plays any part in creationism, at least intelligence is not the firsts thing one thinks of is it.

There are intelligent creationists. Intelligence does not, by itself, preclude one from believing nonsense.

 

[MrMoe]

Yeah right, one hell of a trick to transform a bacteria in a snail for sure. Hey, let's replicate what evolution took hundreds of millions of years to do in a few days to satisfy you, really easy! Questions for you, if a changed bacteria is "just a bacteria" is a changed ape just an ape? Are tigers and lions different species? Why do closely related species look alike and have very similar DNA? Could it be that they separated recently?

Oh, an please don't quote creationist websites to counter evolution. Biased websites are biased.

Now your just using sarcasm as a defense. the great thing about sarcasm it makes you sound smart without actually having to responding to the argument put forward.

closely related species look alike and have similar DNA because the have a common designer. just like there are many shapes and sizes of cars but in all cars you will find similar features like four wheels and rear view mirror at the front, why? because that design works.
you suggest its because they separated recently I say its because they have a designer who used a similar blueprint.
can you give me a good answers why your conclusion is right and mine is wrong?

and of course a creation website is going to be biased. I havent been to an evolution site that hasn't been biased
both camps are biased against their cause.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Now your just using sarcasm as a defense. the great thing about sarcasm it makes you sound smart without actually having to responding to the argument put forward.

closely related species look alike and have similar DNA because the have a common designer. just like there are many shapes and sizes of cars but in all cars you will find similar features like four wheels and rear view mirror at the front, why? because that design works.
you suggest its because they separated recently I say its because they have a designer who used a similar blueprint.
can you give me a good answers why your conclusion is right and mine is wrong?

and of course a creation website is going to be biased. I havent been to an evolution site that hasn't been biased
both camps are biased against their cause.

If thats the case, then why are them some specied that are very similar, but have utterly different DNA, sharks and dolphins, for example? If your "common creator + common design= similar DNA" explaination holds water, why do elasmobranches and cetaceans not have similar DNA?

 

[MrMoe]

If thats the case, then why are them some specied that are very similar, but have utterly different DNA, sharks and dolphins, for example? If your "common creator + common design= similar DNA" explaination holds water, why do elasmobranches and cetaceans not have similar DNA?

thats because a dolphin is a mammal and a shark is a fish. they would need completely different wiring (DNA).
They are both vertebrates and live in the water, but other than that they are very different animals.
the fact that they look similar is a matter of opinion.similarities in appearance cannot be used as solid evidence to prove or disprove either of our beliefs in creation or evolution.

 

[Belk]

Now your just using sarcasm as a defense. the great thing about sarcasm it makes you sound smart without actually having to responding to the argument put forward.

closely related species look alike and have similar DNA because the have a common designer. just like there are many shapes and sizes of cars but in all cars you will find similar features like four wheels and rear view mirror at the front, why? because that design works.
you suggest its because they separated recently I say its because they have a designer who used a similar blueprint.
can you give me a good answers why your conclusion is right and mine is wrong?

and of course a creation website is going to be biased. I havent been to an evolution site that hasn't been biased
both camps are biased against their cause.

I'll ask you the same question I ask all the newcomers to the debate.

Are biologists incompetent or is it a world wide conspiracy that has kept evolution as one of the most used and evidenced theories in science for over 200 years? Bonus points if you can come up with a third option.

 

[Jazer]

let's replicate what evolution took hundreds of millions of years to do in a few days to satisfy you, really easy!

Did you ever hear of the theory of "Punctuated equilibrium" In evolutionary time things do take place "in a few days". You have extinctions that are often followed by an explosions.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So, if you're creating marine animals, wouldn't you be better using water breathers? Evolution explains cetaceans, Creationism can't.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Did you ever hear of the theory of "Punctuated equilibrium" In evolutionary time things do take place "in a few days". You have extinctions that are often followed by an explosions.

The punctuated equilibrium theory still requires millions of years, it doesnt happen in a couple of days.

 

[CTD]

So, if you're creating marine animals, wouldn't you be better using water breathers? Evolution explains cetaceans, Creationism can't.

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." - Gen 1:21

Wow, that was easy.

 

[sandwiches]

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." - Gen 1:21

Wow, that was easy.

I'll quote my own signature:
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Your post, case in point.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." - Gen 1:21

Wow, that was easy.

That doesn't answer my question in the least. Why make marine animals that are air breathers if you don't have to?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I'll quote my own signature:
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Your post, case in point.

Just saying "God did it" does'nt answer my question.

 

[CTD]

When persons sharing a belief system involving blind faith actively seek to force it upon others; When they persecute persons who don't share the same beliefs, or who fail to subscribe to a critical tenet; what term do you suggest fits? Give me a more accurate term, and there's a chance I'll use it.

 

[CTD]

That doesn't answer my question in the least. Why make marine animals that are air breathers if you don't have to?

Nobody can read.

Riiiiiiiiiiight

 

[CTD]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."-Evolutionist Richard Lewontin

Others have better definitions of the term 'science', of course. Presupposing atheism true isn't terribly impressive; certainly not a means of discovering truth; not even a convincing means of evading it.

What Some Scientists Say About Evolution