So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[RickG]

Because of Henry Morris I am no longer a young earth Creationist. But I didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Young Earth-ness is a human idea that should not be added to the scriptures.

Some religious mucky-muck came up with the idea he could determine the age of the earth using the scriptures. He was mistaken.

Henry Morris is pretty much like all the "appeal to authority" young earth proponents. Everything they claim is way out of the field of their expertise. Very very telling.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Why do you ignore my posts and those of all the others on this forum that provide you with what you request?

I did not ignored your posts of so-called evidence. I read these claims and still did not see any proof of all biological life forms having a common ancestor. I see sea creatures and animals possessing similar features; but these features do not support a common ancestor.

And since some of you consider creationism as garbage; it seems pointless to convince you otherwise. And since some of you consider scientists that believe in creationism as less knowledgeable than evolutionists; it seems pointless to provide you with their evidence as well.

But fact of the matter is that supporters of the Theory of Evolution have yet to provide scientific proof that shows the missing links from transitions of (say) a fish to amphibian as presented by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

But let me say, this: If we cannot keep these comments professional, then let us agree to disagree that we do not believe in each others arguments. But the TROLLING has got to stop. I don't think it is allowed on this forum.

 

[Guy1]

I see sea creatures and animals possessing similar features

Which is exactly what evolution predicts. They have the same ancestor so the animals all look similar. Much like a child looks a bit like their parents and their children look like them and so on.

but these features do not support a common ancestor.

According to who?

And since some of you consider creationism as garbage;

your denial of evidence, like the one right here

I see sea creatures and animals possessing similar features; but these features do not support a common ancestor.

,is a poor case for creationism. Especially when you pretty much admit we're finding what we expect to find if evolution accurately reflected reality.

And since some of you consider scientists that believe in creationism as less knowledgeable than evolutionists;

I don't find them to be less knowledgeable. I'm sure they're experts in their own fields. It's just they have have no qualifications in fields relevant to evolution.

But fact of the matter is that supporters of the Theory of Evolution have yet to provide scientific proof that shows the missing links from transitions of (say) a fish to amphibian

Any evidence that you like. I know I say this a lot but it's the truth. Such evidence is a simple google search away. Simply typing in "fish to amphibian transition" gave me three links at the very top of the page that described the process in detail and named several fossils you can then verify independently. The problem? The moment you look it up and find that there are transitional forms you look at any chart they give you then through a series of mental gymnastics outright reject that they're transitional forms. The problem isn't that there aren't any, it's that you don't like them and as such reject anything I or anyone else shows you.

I'll save you three seconds and just post the links myself:

Fish to amphibian transitional fossils.

Fish to amphibian transition.

A New Approach to Earth History | Fish to amphibian

then let us agree to disagree that we do not believe in each others arguments.

Agreeing to disagree is the most boring option. I'd rather keep arguing and walk away angry than just agree to disagree.

But the TROLLING has got to stop.

Who's trolling here?

I don't think it is allowed on this forum.

Gradyll's still around so apparently the mods don't have a problem with trolling.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's leave the apologetical stuff for the appropriate subforums and make the Creationists stick to the science.

Can't happen. There is no Science in Creationism. It's all about results that can't be repeated. Like parts of Evolutionism, processes that can't be repeated, so are not accessible by science. And things that God has done cannot be repeated on demand.
Easy-peasy to understand.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Can't happen. There is no Science in Creationism. It's all about results that can't be repeated. Like parts of Evolutionism, processes that can't be repeated, so are not accessible by science. And things that God has done cannot be repeated on demand.
Easy-peasy to understand.

Just because something can't be replicated in a laboratory doesn't mean it can't be assessed by science.

 

[Norman321]

There is no Science in Creationism.

There seems to be Scientists that are Creationists though. For example Michael J. Behe argues that the bactrial flagellum, a minature motor made up of over 40 parts, all necessary for function; along with other examples of complexity, offers evidence for his beliefs.

 

[TerraIncognita]

There seems to be Scientists that are Creationists though. For example Michael J. Behe argues that the bactrial flagellum, a minature motor made up of over 40 parts, all necessary for function; along with other examples of complexity, offers evidence for his beliefs.

Behe's bacterial flagellum has been thoroughly vetted since he first proposed it, and he is, at this point in his career considered a pariah by his peers. We have an excellent understanding of flagellar evolution, and the best explantion is NOT IC.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

There seems to be Scientists that are Creationists though. For example Michael J. Behe argues that the bactrial flagellum, a minature motor made up of over 40 parts, all necessary for function; along with other examples of complexity, offers evidence for his beliefs.

Behe has not published a single thing in a peer-reviewed paper that supports creationism. He has no data to back up his claims. All of the things that he has brought up as "irreducibly complex", including the bacterial flagellum, are not irreducibly complex.

Here, I even picked out a layman article on it for you:
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

 

[MostlyLurking]

Behe has not published a single thing in a peer-reviewed paper that supports creationism. He has no data to back up his claims.

Behe is definitely an odd duck. After all, he accepts common descent and therefore, apparently, most or all evolutionary processes. [Yet, he is a hero to many creationists, even those who know that he accepts common descent!]

It seems that his main preoccupation is to insist that God intervened whenever we can't understand something complicated "in any other way." Of course, that is simply the argument, "I can't explain it in any other way than God-did-it so I want everybody else to agree with me on that."

Now if I'm wrong about that, I am very interested in a clarification. If some ID theory fan out there thinks I'm wrong (and that's very possible) please explain Behe's view to me.

But I see Behe's argument more philosophy than science. (After all, he simply says, "When I look at living things, I think about this: "...........and that is philosophy at best. But more likely it is just casual anecdotal talk.)

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Behe is definitely an odd duck. After all, he accepts common descent and therefore, apparently, most or all evolutionary processes. [Yet, he is a hero to many creationists, even those who know that he accepts common descent!]

It seems that his main preoccupation is to insist that God intervened whenever we can't understand something complicated "in any other way." Of course, that is simply the argument, "I can't explain it in any other way than God-did-it so I want everybody else to agree with me on that."

Now if I'm wrong about that, I am very interested in a clarification. If some ID theory fan out there thinks I'm wrong (and that's very possible) please explain Behe's view to me.

But I see Behe's argument more philosophy than science. (After all, he simply says, "When I look at living things, I think about this: "...........and that is philosophy at best. But more likely it is just casual anecdotal talk.)

Yeah, Behe is odd. He's an outsider to his scientist colleagues and doesn't fit in well with creationists either.

I just visited the website for biology department of Lehigh University (Behe's residence), and found the following (hilarious) bit on the department chair's website:

Official Claimer: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As an evolutionary biologist and a scholar committed to the scientific method, I strongly reject the ideas of Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and any other form of creationism as scientific explanations for the origin and adaptations of biological systems. My views are completely consistent with all but one of my colleagues in this Department and with the overwhelming majority of biologists…everywhere.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Murray Itzkowitz, Ph.D.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just because something can't be replicated in a laboratory doesn't mean it can't be assessed by science.

If others are not able to replicate your data then that is outside of the possibility of scientific investigation. And even if they do replicate your data....they may draw a differing conclusion about what your research has turned up.

You're correct, where the research is conducted is of no consequence.

 

[Norman321]

Behe has not published a single thing in a peer-reviewed paper that supports creationism. He has no data to back up his claims. All of the things that he has brought up as "irreducibly complex", including the bacterial flagellum, are not irreducibly complex.

Perhaps Behe fumbled the ball but Stephen Meyers picks up on IR saying that IR explains the evidence better then any other current scientific theory. The evidence does not explain itself. So ID and IC better explains the scientific evidence compared to Neo Darwinism. Either way the argument that IC has no scientific evidence becomes a misnomer, because IC has all the same evidence that Evolution has. Even if you say Scientists prefers one theory over the other. In the same way that Golieth was prefered over David.

As far as your peer reviewed argument, Meyers claims to have peer reviewed publications. He defends every argument so you may not be able to come up with anything that he is not able to defend.

 

[USincognito]

And you suffer from creationism ignorance.

Actually LHM has shown quite the familiarity with Creationism and the fact that it suffers from an utter dearth of support.

Also, you believe that the evidence presented by evolutionists is enough to proved that all biologcial life have a common ancestor.

Again, loaded words aside, LHM has shown himself to be conviced of the veracity of evolution because that evidence not only exists, but is undeniable except for those who wish to ignore it or handwave it away.

Sorry, but they have not provided evidence of any transition.

Insert O'rly owl here...

That's OK, we are all entitled to our religious beliefs here on this forum.

It's funny when newbie Creationists act like words don't have meanings and they can define them as they wish to suit their desperate needs to "win" a debate.

Lot of bold verbosity in that post OTGA, but very little science. And by "very little", I mean none.

 

[USincognito]

Because of Henry Morris I am no longer a young earth Creationist.

Really? That's quite bizarre given that Henry Morris basically reinvented YECism by recycling George McCready Price's SDA based YECism sans the SDA theology.

 

[USincognito]

I did not ignored your posts of so-called evidence.

Yes you did. Just admit it. I know pride wants to prevent you from doing so, but just go ahead and be honest with us.

I read these claims and still did not see any proof of all biological life forms having a common ancestor.

First part - no you didn't. Just be honest and admit that you didn't read any of the links provided to you. Second part - the reason why I know you didn't is that if you had read the links provided you'd at least have tried to provide a science based rejection of the evidences given to you rather than just go with emotion and perception.

 

[USincognito]

Can't happen. There is no Science in Creationism.

Really? I mean I agree with you, but why do so many Creationists attempt do don a lab coat? Why did Kent Hovind call his ministry Creation Science Evangelism? What does the Institute for Creation Research research if not ostensibly scientific claims?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Which is exactly what evolution predicts. They have the same ancestor so the animals all look similar. Much like a child looks a bit like their parents and their children look like them and so on.

But evolution fail to bridge the gaps between animals that look different. All of mankind looks similar. There is no evidence of an ape transitioning to a man or vice versa.

According to who?

According anyone with eyes to see.

your denial of evidence, like the one right here ,

"I see sea creatures and animals possessing similar features; but these features do not support a common ancestor."

is a poor case for creationism. Especially when you pretty much admit we're finding what we expect to find if evolution accurately reflected reality.

Wrong again Guy. In fact, the similar features supports a creator with unlimited powers, i.e. YAHWEH God Almighty. But what you are not finding is the missing link that connects all biological life forms together.

Vertebrata: Living fish has jaw but no common ancestor with that of a bird. Because a bird has wings and feathers; however, these fishes have none. These fishes only have common ancestor of previous fishes with jaws. There were birds around during times of the ancestor fishes and their common ancestors were birds with vertebrates. This fish simply supports the truth that God created fishes with the vertebrate features.

Gnathostomata: Living fishes with lobed fins had ancestor with lobed fins. This fish simply supports the truth that God created fishes with these lobed fin features. Still, none of the birds had a common ancestor with a fish-bird-like creature during this time. Birds where still flying around during these times.

Sarcopterygii: The lobe-finned fishes & terrestrial vertebrates. This fish simply supports the truth that God created fishes with these features. The so-call transition is no where near the features of neither a bird nor a fish-bird creature. Still, there were birds flying around during the life of these fishes and there were no common ancestor fish-bird creature between the fishes and birds.

Terrestrial Vertebrates: Stegocephalians: Tetrapods and other digit-bearing vertebrates. There is no scientific evidence that these creatures evolved from each other. Now here is a leap without any scientific transition from a fish to an amphibian or an amphibian to a bird. This classification tells me that all three creatures existed side by side without any common fish-frog, frog-bird, or amphibious-bird creature. This confirms to me that God created these creatures separately.

The same argument can be said for the rest of this wild imaginary line:

• Amniota: Mammals, reptiles (turtles, lizards, Sphenodon, crocodiles, birds) and their extinct relatives

• Diapsida: Lizards, Sphenodon, crocodylians, birds, and their extinct relatives

• Archosauromorpha

• Dinosauria (Owen 1842): Dinosaurs including birds

• Theropoda: Bipedal predatory dinosaurs

• Coelurosauria: Birds, tyrannosaurs, velociraptors, etc.

None of these creatures shows a transition from a fish to a bird. This is pure conjecture because scientist cannot obviously create them.

And let us not forget that God destroyed the genetically corrupted creatures in the Great Flood. That is why the dinosaur-like creatures were not preserved in Noah's ark.

I don't find them to be less knowledgeable. I'm sure they're experts in their own fields. It's just they have have no qualifications in fields relevant to evolution.

And that is why both scientists (believers in creationism and believers in evolution) are in a stalemate until God re-appears. Both theories cannot be scientifically proven; both requires a leap of faith in that what happen thousands (millions, billions, whatever) of years ago, actually happen. Scientists who believe in creationism believe that connections in which evolutionists provided still have gaping holes in connecting all biological life.

What I don't understand is, why do not evolutionists entertain the idea that these biological life forms could have come from different planets by different intelligent beings. Are we the only life form that is able to transport things across the universe? Is it too far fetch for evolutionists to teach that other life forms visited this earth; each containing a different fish, bird, animal, or man? Is this theory beyond the scope of science? If you disagree; then, you can see why I see evolutionists stifling the nature of science and being myopic towards this one view.

Any evidence that you like. I know I say this a lot but it's the truth. Such evidence is a simple google search away. Simply typing in "fish to amphibian transition" gave me three links at the very top of the page that described the process in detail and named several fossils you can then verify independently. The problem? The moment you look it up and find that there are transitional forms you look at any chart they give you then through a series of mental gymnastics outright reject that they're transitional forms. The problem isn't that there aren't any, it's that you don't like them and as such reject anything I or anyone else shows you.

The same can be said for you regarding a creator creating these beings. You TOO go through your mental gymnastics and conclude that there is no God. The Google Searches of say "fish to bird transition" comes up with the same theories with gaping links. And they got the nerve to call it truth and complete! Far from it to be called science. These so-called fossil connections doesn't tell us whether these creatures were ancestors of each other; because scientists simply doesn't have the tools to verify them. And think otherwise is being dishonest and (in some cases) downright deceptive! You too, see what you want to see and that is evolution without God.

Agreeing to disagree is the most boring option. I'd rather keep arguing and walk away angry than just agree to disagree.

Well you can argue all you want about history; but scientists cannot reach back that far to tell what all had happened in history. Their tools are limited; hence, their beliefs (theories) requires at least two major speculations: God did it (Intelligent Design) or No One did it (chance).

Who's trolling here? Gradyll's still around so apparently the mods don't have a problem with trolling.

I say again, be respectful to each other as YOU want to be respected. I'm not Gradyll and I've never heard of him. So whatever he has done should have nothing to do with me.

 

[Guy1]

But evolution fail to bridge the gaps between animals that look different. All of mankind looks similar. There is no evidence of an ape transitioning to a man or vice versa.

Humans are apes. Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According anyone with eyes to see.

The problem is when the person seeing the phenomenon lack the necessary knowledge to make sense of it (Like you.)

Wrong again Guy. In fact, the similar features supports a creator with unlimited powers, i.e. YAHWEH God Almighty. But what you are not finding is the missing link that connects all biological life forms together.

What predictions can we make using this model? What is the practical difference between this and the other, more reasonable answer?

Insert genus names here

I'm not qualified to talk about transitional forms in such detail.

And let us not forget that God destroyed the genetically corrupted creatures in the Great Flood. That is why the dinosaur-like creatures were not preserved in Noah's ark.

Define "Genetically corrupted."

And that is why both scientists (believers in creationism and believers in evolution) are in a stalemate

Not really. It's more of a one-sided push by creationists to be taken seriously by science.

Both theories cannot be scientifically proven;

Mine has been (Which is why it's called a theory), your pathetic excuse for a hypothesis cannot.

Scientists who believe in creationism believe that connections in which evolutionists provided still have gaping holes in connecting all biological life.

Provide me an actual scientist that believes the biblical creation myth (Aside from the inventor of the gene gun. I know of him)

What I don't understand is, why do not evolutionists entertain the idea that these biological life forms could have come from different planets by different intelligent beings.

It's an unfounded idea really. We have a more reasonable explanation that is regularly tested and confirmed through a process of systematic concordance.

Are we the only life form that is able to transport things across the universe?

On Earth? Yes. In the universe? Probably not.

Is it too far fetch for evolutionists to teach that other life forms visited this earth; each containing a different fish, bird, animal, or man?

Yes, it is. It's completely unfounded and is laughable, at best, as a hypothesis.

Is this theory beyond the scope of science?

Fancier circles would say you've pulled this out of your rectum. I'm sure you know what I'd say though.

If you disagree; then, you can see why I see evolutionists stifling the nature of science and being myopic towards this one view.

Evolutionists as in the 99.9% of biologists that accept evolution, or are you including laypeople? And how? By not making wild, unsubstantiated claims to cling to a deeply held belief?

You TOO go through your mental gymnastics and conclude that there is no God.

Try asking me on my stance on the issue before you start pulling these claims out of that deep, dark, stinky crevice of yours. I'm indifferent to the existence of any gods or supernatural beings. Their influences are indistinguishable from natural forces. Sure, earthquakes could be caused by an earthquake god; but evidence suggests that plate tectonics are responsible. At this point it doesn't really matter if it's a god or continental plate is the culprit; the reasonable assumption is both grounded in reality and allows us to make accurate predictions.

So sure, a god could exist for all I know. But it's effects are absolutely indistinguishable from millions of other far more reasonable explanations that tie in together relatively well.

The Google Searches of say "fish to bird transition" comes up with the same theories with gaping links. And they got the nerve to call it truth and complete!

It comes up with the transitional forms your were asking for.

Far from it to be called science. These so-called fossil connections doesn't tell us whether these creatures were ancestors of each other

It's what we predict. Descendants will look similar to their ancestors. We can use this and other methods to trace lineages back quite far into the past.

because scientists simply doesn't have the tools to verify them.

Except for taxonomy, comparative anatomy, etc.

You too, see what you want to see and that is evolution without God.

So your problem with evolution is that it doesn't make unnecessary assumptions to plug a deity into itself?

Well you can argue all you want about history;

We're arguing evolution.

but scientists cannot reach back that far to tell what all had happened in history.

Except for the ones that do so every day.(Assuming you mean evolutionary history)

Their tools are limited;

hence, their beliefs (theories)

I think you need to learn the difference between a belief and a scientific theory.

requires at least two major speculations: God did it (Intelligent Design) or No One did it (chance).

There are no speculations here. Only a desperate attempt to keep one's religious beliefs (ID) and a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life by proposing that random mutations are selected out in a non-random manner by environmental forces.

I say again, be respectful to each other as YOU want to be respected. I'm not Gradyll and I've never heard of him. So whatever he has done should have nothing to do with me.

I didn't come here to be respected, I came here to argue.

 

[someguy14]

Not only is this some bizarre non-sequitor, but did you even happen to notice the top of your search result?

kjv

 

[jpcedotal]

I believe in creationism. Real science always points to a Creator, or at least does not intentionally try to take God out of the equation...which is impossible.