So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[BobRyan]

If you read 'the details" in my post I clearly point out that anyone who allows themselves to watch that video by those two well known well respected atheist scientist will see "the solution" they came up with -- desperate as it is - to try and avoid I.D. The pure-imagination factor in their "solution" is difficult for even the most sleepy Christian to ignore.

It is all or nothing with them - they are desperate to get out of the I.D. conclusion - while Christians apparently "sleep".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[AV1611VET]

I just figured I'd share this with everyone.

I like that definition of 'kind', i.e. 'animals that share a common ancestor.'

So tell me again how that can't fit the creationist pattern?

 

[Guy1]

Ugh, you again. Well it was nice while it lasted.

I like that definition of 'kind', i.e. 'animals that share a common ancestor.'

So tell me again how that can't fit the creationist pattern?

Because you presuppose that all animals are created separately. And universal common ancestry eventually forces us to categorize every last creature in the world as the same "kind." Last I checked, you don't like the thought of being lumped together with anything you don't consider human.

 

[GrannyM]

I like that definition of 'kind', i.e. 'animals that share a common ancestor.'

So tell me again how that can't fit the creationist pattern?

Read through this whole thread trying to get a feel for this place. I'm finding it hard to navigate.

Anyhow: Wish you hadn't left CARM in a puff of silliness; you'll be missed there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read through this whole thread trying to get a feel for this place. I'm finding it hard to navigate.

Anyhow: Wish you hadn't left CARM in a puff of silliness; you'll be missed there.

Awww, Granny!

You're so sweet!

Thank you so much, but my heart is truly here!

Don't get me to cryin' now!

 

[MostlyLurking]

Darwin himself stated that there is no compatibility between darwinism and Christianity. So also do well known evolutionists like Dawkins, Provine and P.Z. Meyers.

Interesting. You look to Darwin, Provine, Dawkins, and PZ Meyers for expertise on Christianity. Amazing!

Think about the logic (lack thereof) of your thinking:

1) You reject their expertise in their field of specialized study: Evolutionary biology.

2) Yet, when it comes to knowledge of Christ and the teachings of the Bible, you trust ATHEISTS!

Does that seem slightly backwards to you? (Cherry picking, anyone?)

No serious student of the Bible can bend and wrench the Bible enough to shoe horn it into evolutionist mythologies.

So "no serious study of the Bible" disagrees with you about the Bible and evolution. To make such a statement, someone would either have to be ignorant of the world of Biblical scholarship OR just plain dishonest when they make up things to say.

Need I list the many leading Biblical scholars of our day who embrace the harmony between the Bible and evolution? You really should meet some of them. After all, perhaps if you learned from them a little bit of Biblical scholarship, you might stop looking to anti-religion atheists like Dawkins and PZ Myers [not Meyers] as your experts about the Bible!

[Have you considered a career in stand-up comedy? Meanwhile, a few semester at a Bible college might help you. Or perhaps any kind of college. Can you define evolution? Do you know what the theory of evolution states? No.]

 

[MostlyLurking]

You're skirting very close to rule-breaking here. You're not allowed to imply that other peoples' faith is incorrect or unreal.

No doubt. But he is so conflicted that he's actually consulting ATHEISTS like Dawkins and Myers to learn about Christianity but he IGNORES them when it comes to learning from them about the very topic they know best: evolutionary biology. So no wonder his frustration leads him to doing little more than resorting to ad hominem attacks. It bothers him that Christians who know far more about the Bible and science than he does think his ideas are ridiculous.

 

[MostlyLurking]

Because you presuppose that all animals are created separately. And universal common ancestry eventually forces us to categorize every last creature in the world as the same "kind." Last I checked, you don't like the thought of being lumped together with anything you don't consider human.

What is interesting about the "kind" concept is that most Christians [in contrast to Christians like me who recognize evolutionary processes as excellent explanations for what we observe] can't come up with a definition of "kind" which is consistent with other things they claim about kinds.

For example, see if you can pin them down on the meaning of "kind":

1) Some will say a kind includes all animals which share a common ancestor

2) Yet, because they believe that Noah's Ark was global, they insist that ALL of the world's NEPHESH animal kinds had to fit in the ark. But they know that is more animals than can fit in such a barge. So they will broaden "kind" to include entire taxonomic families and even super-families. Therefore, they give examples like "The cat kind included one pair of cats from which ALL cat species descended: lions, tigers, mountain bobcats, leopards, cheetahs, house cats, sand cats, and many more."

3) But how does a single CAT KIND diversify into so many species? Evolution is the answer----but because "evolution" is a dirty word, they just call it "variation". [And Ken Ham even claims that a kind of super-evolution produced all of these species in just 200 years after the ark! A poster at the Creation Museum says so! He just avoids the word. So Ham believes in a kind of evolution a million times more rapid than what biologists describe!]

4) And yet at the same time, many YECs claim that a kind covers all species which can mate and "bring forth" fertile offsprings. So by that definition, the aforementioned cat species are NOT of the same kind because they can't interbreed!

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of Young Earth Creationism! Yes, it is a place where contradictions are a part of life. (The Bible calls it "the double-minded man.) I know that world well because I grew up in a YEC household and I was only a youngster when we went to see Henry Morris and John Whitcomb speak about "creation science"!

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON



Minor thread clean up. Some posts of yours were deleted. Sorry 'bout that.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[SkyWriting]

What is interesting about the "kind" concept is that most Christians can't come up with a definition of "kind" which is consistent with other things they claim about kinds.

For example, see if you can pin them down on the meaning of "kind":

1) Some will say a kind includes all animals which share a common ancestor

2) Yet, because they believe that Noah's Ark was global, they insist that ALL of the world's NEPHESH animal kinds had to fit in the ark. But they know that is more animals than can fit in such a barge. <snip>

Your not quoting anybody. A good clue your just sermonizing about imaginary conversions.

The definition is "all animals which share a common ancestor".
This answer give no numerical estimate at all.
So point 2 is moot.
When you make mistakes like that you fall flat every time.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Humans are apes. Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What in the hell is that garbage?! This doesn't tell us nothing about any transitions from apes to man. This is just a bunch of skulls from various places around the earth. This link poses more problems such as:

1) Whether these skulls were related to each other;
2) Whether these skulls were the results of mutations;
3) Whether the former creatures of these skulls had offsprings;
4) Whether some of these skulls were doctored to suit evolution fantasy.

This reminds of the article: [FONT=&quot]Humanzee[/FONT]

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

Again, the problem with the phenomenons of evolution is that their so-call knowledge does not make sense at all to anyone with eyes. And evolutionists try to fill in their missing links with imaginary animals or none at all. They think that they found all of the necessary knowledge but really have none (Like you).

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

That the reasonable answer is Intelligent Design. That mankind is not the only creature in the universe that has the capability of designing something with intelligence.

"Insert genus names here" I'm not qualified to talk about transitional forms in such detail.

"Insert genus names here"? That is not my quote. I don't know what you're talking about.

"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." ---- OneThatGotAway

Define "Genetically corrupted."

Corrupted enough to not make it on the boat.
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." ---- Genesis 6:12

The Sons of God did something wicked to about 99.9% of mankind and the land creatures to cause their flesh to become corrupt or NISHCHATHAH. Now the corruption could have taken at the DNA level or lower; but the fact remains that these abominable creatures were not fit for preservation. No giants or dinosaurs made the cut because of their genetic aberrations.

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

Creationists do not take evolution seriously; creationists supports sciences like biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc. But Theory of evolution mixes science with fantasy.

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

The Evolution Theory failed to bridge common ancestors among all biological life forms scientifically; that is your sorry excuse for evidence is considered fantasy at best.

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

REAL Scientists Who Believe in Creationism: Do They Exist?

There them country bumpkins go again!

One of the biggest fallacies promoted by devoted Darwinian evolutionists is that Intelligent Design is not real science, and that those who promote it are not real scientists. Creationists are portrayed as uneducated country bumpkins committed to taking the world back to horse and buggy days. Technology has fought God, and technology won. Man does not need God, because he controls his own destiny, so say Darwin&#8217;s disciples. Need further proof? Google Intelligent Design and click on the images link. The first three pages are primarily funny cartoons devoted to the ridicule of Intelligent Design and its followers. Powerfully funny, except also very false.
There are many scientists today that reject Darwinian evolution and embrace Intelligent Design. Additionally, there is a rich history of scientists who believed in a Creator. As a matter of fact, every major branch of science that we have today can trace its history back to founders that embraced the notion of a Creator. Indeed, history demonstrates that science has flourished the most in societies that believed in a Creator.
The following list contains many creationist scientists, but it is in no way exhaustive. You may notice the presence of many famous ones who were founders:
Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist)
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist)
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
For more information, click here:
Do real scientists believe in Creation? â&#8364;¢ ChristianAnswers.Net
For even more extensive lists, click here:
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
That&#8217;s a lot of impressive credentials in my book.

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

Really? Just because YOU think it is an unfounded idea doesn't make it so. To make such a stupid claim, you would have to explore the entire universe! If mankind has the ability send and collect samples millions of miles from earth; then, how is it not possible for other intelligent life forms to do the same? This is a plausible theory that I believe many scientists (especially cosmologists) have considered.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

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

Probably not? Man, you have not visited all the planets in the universe to even remotely think that the probability is that we are the only intelligent designers in 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?" ---- OneThatGotAway

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

Too far fetch? Really? Surely, you're joking, right?

SETI project: We're listening again, E.T.

E.T., you can phone home again. Forty-two radio telescope dishes near Mount Shasta will again start listening for sounds of intelligent life in the universe this fall after donors -- including actress Jodie Foster -- came up with more than $200,000 to save the Mountain View-based SETI program, made famous by the movie "Contact."

A Cautionary Tale: Our Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe
"The Drake equation is a probability law which estimates the abundance of intelligent life in our Galaxy, the Milky Way. It is quite simple in appearance, and anyone can play with the variables in order to make their own personal estimate.

"The variables encountered in the equation include the proportion of intelligent to non-intelligent life; the proportion of stars which would be capable of sustaining life in their environment to those who cannot; the number of planets a star is probable to have existing in this habitable zone, if the star were to harbour planets.

"Although the scientific results of this equation are in great debate, it was developed by Prof. Frank Drake in order to open discussion on the topic for the famous meeting at the Green Bank radio observatory in 1961.

"Current estimates ranging from the opinions of pessimists to optimists, are of the order of it being next to impossible to communicate with other lifeforms in our Galaxy, to a possible ten different alien civilisations who are currently in the same positions as us with appropiate technology who could be trying to communicate with us and others like us."

"Hence the popularity of the SETI project (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). The equation brings many interesting topics to light such as how long intelligent civilisations may continue on living, with most estimates being of short duration. One hypothesise is that once nuclear power is developed by a civilisation, they will quickly destroy themselves through their new technology."

"To date there have been 684 confirmed planets discovered orbiting a total number of 474 stars other than our Sun. With thousands more proposed from the Kepler mission awaiting comfirmation. More recently the Kepler mission has discovered the first planet known to be orbiting two stars."

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

Other scientific circles would probably say that your ideas came from your rectum and it STILL stinks:

Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology

The observable evidence of design is not limited to design in biology, but extends to the entire observable universe.

From the IDEA Center

Consider the article, Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle[1] found at the the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA)[2]

There is an abundant wealth of evidence from the workings of physics, chemistry, and properties of the universe, our solar system, and earth which indicate that life on earth did not happen by accident--it was planned. These arguments are typically called "anthropic principles," where physical properties or parameters seem to be "just right" or "fine-tuned" to allow for life--and not necessarily just for life as we know it.

From William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California

Consider the article, The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle[3] by William Lane Craig.[4] Dr. Craig states:

In recent years, however, the scientific community has been stunned by its discovery of how complex and sensitive a nexus of conditions must be given in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life on Earth. The universe appears, in fact, to have been incredibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception for the production of intelligent life on Earth at this point in cosmic history. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, various discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of intelligent carbon-based life on Earth at this time depends upon a delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that were any one of these quantities to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

From Michael Behe, PhD. Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University

In response to the question, "How does your view of intelligent design in biology fit with the findings and theories of cosmology and physics?" Michael Behe, author and Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, provided the following answer:

The conclusion of intelligent design in biology fits very well with unexpected results in the past few decades from physics and astronomy, which show that the universe, its laws, physical constants, and many details, are &#8220;fine-tuned&#8221; for life on earth. For example, if the charge on the electron or the properties of water were much different, life as we know it would be precluded. Biology has now discovered that the fine tuning of the universe for life actually extends into life. The term &#8220;consilience&#8221; denotes the situation where results from several scientific areas point in the same direction, reinforcing our confidence that the conclusion is correct. Biology has attained consilience with results from cosmology and physics. --Question & Answer With Michael J. Behe, author of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism [5]

 

[OneThatGotAway]

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?

Don't get the point twisted. Biologists who believe in evolution does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in intelligent life in the universe. And they are NOT 99.9% that do not believe in intelligent E.T.'s In fact, you do not have this data on how many scientists believe in intelligent E.T.'s. Why even scientists who do not believe in creationism believe in intelligent life forms in the universe.

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

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.

I don't need to ask you a damn thing from you; because I see the fruit you bare from that dark and stanky hole of yours! Since you think got me figured out, you should take a look at the filth that is spewing our of your mouth as well as yourself in the mirror; because it is nothing new under the sun. Who cares whether you are indifferent or not! You opened up this topic, attacking creationism as stupid; when in fact you should have checked out the stupidity of evolution. That is the point of this topic.

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.

Millions of other intelligent people on this earth believe otherwise; and some of them are scientists.

"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!" ----OneThatGotAway

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

No it did not and you know it. The gaping holes in their transition are obvious.

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

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.

Well, your predictions are flawed and still filled with missing links to make a connection from say, "ape to man"; because there is no scientific evidence of any ape-man creature.

But here is another prediction that is true that has spoken with The Intelligent Designer (God):

"The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good." ---- Psalm 14:1

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

Except for taxonomy, comparative anatomy, etc.
Still not enough technology to fill the missing links from ape-to-man and other biological life forms. And Computer-generated imageries is not enough to convince the masses that the missing link have been found.

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

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

Wrong again. My problem with evolution is that it tries to present itself as science like biology, geology, and physics; and their so-called evidence is filled with fantasy, CGI, and missing links. If I were an athiest, I still would demand the same conclusive evidence from the Evolution Theory.

"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). ----OneThatGotAway

We're arguing evolution.

Wrong! We're arguing whether creationism is more reasonable than evolution. Remember, you opened the topic ridiculing Kent Hovind; thus, creationism.

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

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

And everyday, these scientists are still searching for evidence of a (for instance) a so-called ape-man creature and other missing links. In the meantime, they rely on fantasies and CGI to fill the gap for their so-called evidence of a common ancestor. Thousands of college students and scientists are not buying it.

"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)."----OneThatGotAway

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

You're right when it comes to biology and physics; however, when it comes to the Evolution Theory, I stand by my statement. The Evolution Theory mixes facts with fantasies, which borders on a religion of its own. And I think you need to explore the difference between science and fantasy in the Evolution Theory.

"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)." ----OneThatGotAway

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.

We are desperate by no means; you see (as Mick Jagger puts it): "Tiiiiiiimmme is on my side, Yes it is!" God has presented Himself to me as well as millions of people on this earth; and I am very confident that He will reveal Himself to the rest of the world on Judgement Day. And he will show, how the Evolution Theory was not part of His plan during creation. In fact, he will show how the supporters of the Evolution Theory try to fool the masses with their so-called missing links and CGI.

"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" ----OneThatGotAway

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

Well, if you're not going to listen to me; then you better listen to your master and Saviour, since you call yourself a Christian:

"And he [Jesus Christ] answering said, Thou shalt love YAHWEH thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. ---- Luke 10:27

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. ---- John 13:34-35

And that love includes respecting one another....."so-called brother".

 

[mathetes123]

1) "Creationist" used to simply mean "one who believes God created everything". But due to the growing influence (and especially the notariety) of the Young Earth Creationist movement, the general public now tends to assume that a "creationist" is a Young Earth Creationist.

2) As a result, most people assume a creationist believes:

* the earth is 6000 years old
* evolution is evil
* the Big Bang Theory is evil
* Noah's Flood was GLOBAL

3) Matthew 19:4 simply says that God created men and women long ago "in the beginning" of humanity. It doesn't say how long ago that was. It doesn't say whether that "beginning" was the same as the beginning of the universe or billions of years later. It says nothing about the processes involved or how long it took or how many intermediate forms have been linked "the dust of the ground" with humanity.

4) As to a Gallup poll finding that 40% of Americans [or whatever, I didn't bother with the link] believe that God created humanity in its present form/morphology, why is that significant? I'm not sure what point you are making with that.

Obviously, what 40% of the population thinks about ANY question or topic is irrelevant to whether something is or isn't true.

So I'm curious what conclusion or general message your post was meant to convey.

.

Scripture says six literal days for creation.

 

[FaithIsAll]

What in the hell is that garbage?! This doesn't tell us nothing about any transitions from apes to man. This is just a bunch of skulls from various places around the earth.

It makes you wonder why it's so big in the world doesn't it? and it's believed by anyone who is anyone.
Do you think it has anything to do with evidence? I heard they had evidence, what do you think?
although it doesn't matter what we think does it? in fact it doesn't matter what anyone thinks does it?
evolution is just going to keep on doing it's thing no matter what, as long as there's life there's evolution.

 

[RickG]

Got anything other than an "appeal to authority" list and a bunch of copy paste from non science sites?

There is nothing wrong with not believing in evolution. But to present deliberately misrepresented material about evolution or anything for that matter, is nothing short of bearing false witness.

 

[Guy1]

What in the hell is that garbage?!

A wikipedia article.

This doesn't tell us nothing about any transitions from apes to man.

It was meant to correct you. Humans are apes. So asking for a transition from apes to humans is incredibly redundant.

It's a big article so maybe you missed the important bit. Here ya go: "Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6]"

This is just a bunch of skulls from various places around the earth.

They better be from various places around the Earth. The theory would be in serious trouble if we found them all in one place.

This link poses more problems such as:
1) Whether these skulls were related to each other;

The similar morphological features suggests they are.

2) Whether these skulls were the results of mutations;

I can assure you they are. The only other mechanism to explain such changes is injury, and that just adds more questions into the mix.

3) Whether the former creatures of these skulls had offsprings;

The fact that they look similar when compared

4) Whether some of these skulls were doctored to suit evolution fantasy.

The fact that the scientists who discovered them haven't been flogged by academia gives good reason to believe they weren't fabricated.

Again, the problem with the phenomenons of evolution is that their so-call knowledge does not make sense at all to anyone with eyes.

I have two relatively functional eyes, and I understand the theory. The problem is you can't understand it if you don't want to.

And evolutionists try to fill in their missing links with imaginary animals or none at all.

None at all really. There's no point in imagining an animal for a gap when you'll just find it in less than two years.

They think that they found all of the necessary knowledge but really have none (Like you).

Do I sense resentment towards people you perceive to be smarter than yourself?

That the reasonable answer is Intelligent Design. That mankind is not the only creature in the universe that has the capability of designing something with intelligence.

How would we falsify it? (If you say transitional form I will lose what little respect I have left for you.)

"Insert genus names here"? That is not my quote. I don't know what you're talking about.

I altered your quote to shorten the post. I'm not qualified to argue the details when it comes to fossils. I'm a mere molecular bio undergrad with intent to get into biotech.

Corrupted enough to not make it on the boat.
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." ---- Genesis 6:12

The Sons of God did something wicked to about 99.9% of mankind and the land creatures to cause their flesh to become corrupt or NISHCHATHAH. Now the corruption could have taken at the DNA level or lower; but the fact remains that these abominable creatures were not fit for preservation. No giants or dinosaurs made the cut because of their genetic aberrations.

Get something more concrete. No scientist will ever take you seriously if you define terms with an old book.

Creationists do not take evolution seriously;

Which explains why your lot never bothered to understand it.

creationists supports sciences like biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, etc.

Which version? Old Earth? Because at least that one involves a minor lobotomy as opposed to the outright separation of both hemispheres.

But Theory of evolution mixes science with fantasy.

If you call "reality" a "fantasy", then yes. Though I suggest you use less confusing terms.

The Evolution Theory failed to bridge common ancestors among all biological life forms scientifically;

I don't' get what's being said here. No matter what we find what is predicted throughout the world. Changes building up in organisms that eventually lead to a new species. The rest is simply the icing on the cake.

that is your sorry excuse for evidence is considered fantasy at best.

Here's a nice link to a web project listing transitional forms (Thanks Granny!): Tree of Life Web Project

Now I'm going to give you a massive handicap and take this next list's word for it. I will assume that the people on here literally are YEC's and are not being misrepresented, that they were all born after evolution was accepted by the scientific community (They weren't but I feel nice today!), and that these people are qualified in the fields listed next to them.

I'm going to remove the people that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution now (Leaving in the ones who are at least vaguely associated as an added bonus). Ready? GO!

You may notice the presence of many famous ones who were founders:

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science) Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

Now let's be clear. I did not scrutinize this list. I didn't check to see if I was being misinformed, or where their evidence is to back up the claim that these people are their kind of creationist (As opposed to one that affirms your god as the creator of the universe and nothing more); I didn't even check to see if these people were qualified.

I just removed those who weren't even vaguely involved in the theory (Chemists stay by a hair. To get a more definitive answer out of those I'd need to know what specific branch they study.)

Really? Just because YOU think it is an unfounded idea doesn't make it so. To make such a stupid claim, you would have to explore the entire universe!

Not quite since we're talking about theories that describe phenomena regarding life on Earth.

If mankind has the ability send and collect samples millions of miles from earth; then, how is it not possible for other intelligent life forms to do the same?

I'm sure it's possible , just not very likely. You see, our kind of intelligence, might not be any extraterrestrial's kind. That said I don't see any evidence of intelligent life forms of any sort aside from ourselves and a few others on this planet.

This is a plausible theory that I believe many scientists (especially cosmologists) have considered.

How would one falsify ID? Test for it and differentiate the results from evolution? What predictions could we derive from it? These are a scant few of the questions one needs to be able to answer to even consider proposing a hypothesis.

I'm not even going to bother answering your subsequent posts. I don't quite have the kind of patience necessary to respond thoroughly (Blame puberty).

 

[SkyWriting]

...One of the biggest fallacies promoted by devoted Darwinian evolutionists is that Intelligent Design is not real science, and that those who promote it are not real scientists. Creationists are portrayed as uneducated country bumpkins committed to taking the world back to horse and buggy days.

It's not that "Intelligent Design" is not real science. It's not, but that's not the issue.
The issue is that a hypotheses must be testable and reproducible in order for
"The Scientific Method" to be used to test a theory.

And we know God doesn't appreciate non-believers trying to test Him.
SO....
The idea of Intelligent Design falls outside of the ability
to use the Scientific Method to test it.

This is no reflection at all on the training and background of "Creation Scientists."
They can all have multiple PHD's in Physics. But they will not be able to
reproduce the Creation process as described in the scriptures.

All intelligent thought should point to an intelligent Creator as the source.
But nobody can prove that or even write up an experiment to simulate the
process. If they could, they'd be showing that Creation had a natural,
stupid, and random source. Not what we believe to be the case.

 

[SkyWriting]

Got anything other than an "appeal to authority" list and a bunch of copy paste from non science sites?

There is nothing wrong with not believing in evolution. But to present deliberately misrepresented material about evolution or anything for that matter, is nothing short of bearing false witness.

Oh.....it's not that important.
More like saying there are more Kleenexes, when there aren't.
Hardly false witness.

 

[SkyWriting]

It was meant to correct you. Humans are apes. So asking for a transition from apes to humans is incredibly redundant.

Not if there is no proof of any connection. And history is a fickle mistress.