Creationism V Evolution.

[RickG]

That is your opinion not mine. God knows the end from the beginning. Mistakes and errors have nothing to do with it. Is that so difficult for you to understand? Clearly the universe is going from simple to complex. But that has nothing to do with errors, mistakes and mutations. It has to do with design and planning. Everyone talks about Biology but no one has studied design. You can feel free to use your theory to build whatever you want to build. But so far no one has got it to work to make anything.

I did not express an opinion. I asked you to explain!

Originally posted by RickG: Transition fossils are not necessary. Please explain why there are no horse, rabbit, or human fossils in Devonian strata. Explain why there are no dinosaur fossils in Oligocene strata. Why does the fossil record mimic what evolution would show?

To find all fossils scattered (co-mingled) throughout the geologic column rather than separated as they are, would prove evolution false. Simple as that.

 

[MostlyLurking]

We are told that: (1 Cor 3:19-21 NKJV) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." All of man's wisdom is foolishness with God.

Yes. That explains your post.

It also explains the folly and dishonesty of "creation science" leaders who deny what God has placed within creation.

As a Bible-believing disciple of Jesus Christ, I deplore such abuse of the scriptures. Proof-texting combined with breaches of the 9th Commandment dishonors the very scriptures wherein is your rebuke.

I'd have more respect for your position if you were to write, "I find the evidence unconvincing." But by claiming there is NO evidence----as if the world's evolutionary biologists are studying something which doesn't exist---that is just another disregard for the 9th Commandment.

Meanwhile, you keep dodging the question of the original post. Seeing how you would rather pursue another question of your own, start a thread of your own. (And seeing how you like to deal with new questions, how about providing evidence for a young earth and a global flood? If you have evidence, why don't you show it?)

 

[MostlyLurking]

We are told that: (1 Cor 3:19-21 NKJV) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." All of man's wisdom is foolishness with God.

Should the scriptures be used as debate fodder?

Proverbs, 3:12 and tells us, "The scoffer, the worst form of fool, is not only to be avoided, but is to be driven away.

 

[Norman321]

So, what will better explain the evidence?

Nothing better explains the evidence. That is why evolution stands up in court. It is a fairly convincing argument that the job of teaching would be more difficult without the theory of evolution. ID people said they have a theory that better explained the evidence but they were not able to present their case in a way to convince anyone.

 

[Norman321]

If you have evidence, why don't you show it?)

I have presented way more evidence on this forum then you have.
DNA evidence, archeology evidence and the list goes on.

 

[Guy1]

Nothing better explains the evidence. That is why evolution stands up in court. It is a fairly convincing argument that the job of teaching would be more difficult without the theory of evolution. ID people said they have a theory that better explained the evidence but they were not able to present their case in a way to convince anyone.

Indeed. I'm still waiting for a better explanation of this "gravity" thing. I'm not entirely convinced by the evidence. There are so many unanswered questions like: "What exactly happens at a quantum singularity?" , and "Why doesn't it fit in with the other forces?" String theorists said they have a theory that better explains the four forces, but they still are not able to present their case in a way we can test it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is that the anti-evolution Christians equivalent to the infamous "When did you quit beating your wife?" tactic?

Hey, did you ever get so wasted that they wouldn't even let you into Rehab?

 

[DaneaFL]

I have presented way more evidence on this forum then you have.
DNA evidence, archeology evidence and the list goes on.

I must have missed when you answered everyone's previous questions so could you please oblige me and answer mine?

1. Why don't they ever find a rabbit in a rock layer below a T-Rex and why do they only find human fossils in the very highest layers? Why do they never find any fossil that isn't exactly where we would expect it to be according to the laws of common ancestry?

2. Do you accept common ancestry at all? If so, at which generation does it stop? If not, why can different 'kinds' of animals breed and produce fertile hybrids?

Thanks for you time answering these for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ&feature=plcp

I guess I just don't understand your thinking process since most creationists already accept evolution to a point.

 

[juvenissun]

Have you never wondered why all of the creationists probing questions about evolution come to nothing?
why none of the so called creationist revelations about evolution go anywhere?

I'll tell you why, they are not genuine criticisms of evolution they are all designed to fool creationists into believing there is something wrong with evolution, they are not meant to seriously challenge evolution, creationist leaders know very well that the ToE is so well established and so well documented and evidenced they could never even hope to dent it, that was never their intension, ever, they do it to keep creationists believing in creationism and paying them money, they know that creationism is a belief and evolution is a fact, they don't fight it they use it.

It was never about evolution being wrong it was always about fooling creationists.

We keep hearing about the next big thing that is going to destroy evolution but nothing ever comes from it, the world is going to be changed by these fantastic revelations, educators, scientists, geologists and archaeologists are all going to change their minds [just as long as they are not too closed minded to see the truth] but nothing ever happens. nada, zilch, zero.

Let me ask you, could it be you creationists who are being duped? could you be the ones being fooled?

We had the creationist movies that were going to obliterate evolution because they told everyone just what a load of rubbish evolution really was, where are they now? they have all disappeared without a trace, not even a ripple left in the sand.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION ARE DESIGNED TO FOOL CREATIONISTS NOT CHALLENGE EVOLUTION.

So, why don't we see any sign of evolution on human?

Is this an argument against evolution? Where is the answer? Is it challenging enough?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. That explains your post.

It also explains the folly and dishonesty of "creation science" leaders who deny what God has placed within creation.

As a Bible-believing disciple of Jesus Christ, I deplore such abuse of the scriptures. Proof-texting combined with breaches of the 9th Commandment dishonors the very scriptures wherein is your rebuke.

I'd have more respect for your position if you were to write, "I find the evidence unconvincing." But by claiming there is NO evidence----as if the world's evolutionary biologists are studying something which doesn't exist---that is just another disregard for the 9th Commandment.

Meanwhile, you keep dodging the question of the original post. Seeing how you would rather pursue another question of your own, start a thread of your own. (And seeing how you like to deal with new questions, how about providing evidence for a young earth and a global flood? If you have evidence, why don't you show it?)

I am not. So, don't you run away from my challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Why don't they ever find a rabbit in a rock layer below a T-Rex and why do they only find human fossils in the very highest layers?

How do you know they haven't already?

 

[RickG]

How do you know they haven't already?

Because anyone who did would win the Nobel Prize for disproving evolution and would become famous beyond their wildest dreams.

Perhaps that person could be you, get out and search for it. By doing so you might, that is just might, come to the understanding that the fossil record is laid out world wide in a sequence that describes evolution without any compromise. Understand that doing so doesn't mean you have to accept, just recognize those facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because anyone who did would win the Nobel Prize for disproving evolution and would become famous beyond their wildest dreams.

Even Wikipedia says finding a rabbit in the Precambrian isn't going to disprove evolution.

So before I go winning any Nobel Prize, I'm sure my find would be tied up in red tape until my great-great-great grandson dies of old age.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, why don't we see any sign of evolution on human?

Is this an argument against evolution? Where is the answer? Is it challenging enough?

No. A simple peruse of the research shows that humans are evolving. For instance, humans are evolving to have a longer reproductive period - pushing back the onset of the menopause and advancing the onset of puberty (source).

 

[NailsII]

We hear a lot about evidence, but we never see any of it. If there is so much evidence and "TOE" is so well documented, then why can't you show us anything in the way of evidence to try and show us what your saying is true.

Have you ever been to a museum?
Have a look at this one in London

So there should be many transitions, thousands of transition fossils and yet you can not even show me one. ..........

If Darwin's theory works for you and your comfortable with it fine. But do not expect me to go along with it. Because I am waiting for something better to come along that better explains the evidence.

how many fossils would you like to see?
This museum claims to have over 30 million exhibits (granted, they are not all fossils, it has minerals as well).
American museum of Natural History

So, why don't we see any sign of evolution on human?

Is this an argument against evolution? Where is the answer? Is it challenging enough?

I take it you would dismiss all other animals in the genus homo as being human ancestors: human evolution - genus homo (wikipedia)

so maybe we have to look at more recent events.
Why do humans have such variations in their major histocompatability complex?
Human leukocyte antigen
why do humans appear to be in seperate ethnic groups (which are not so seperate under close scrutiny?
human variation - wikipedia
Finally, walk down the high street on a busy shopping day.
How different are all the people you see?
Different height, weight, colour, hair and eye colour - the variation is pretty impressive.
This is all down to evolution.

Even Wikipedia says finding a rabbit in the Precambrian isn't going to disprove evolution.

So before I go winning any Nobel Prize, I'm sure my find would be tied up in red tape until my great-great-great grandson dies of old age.

A philosopher is quoted on wikipedia saying that AV - and who would believe a philosopher anyway?

 

[GrannyM]

Even Wikipedia says finding a rabbit in the Precambrian isn't going to disprove evolution.

So before I go winning any Nobel Prize, I'm sure my find would be tied up in red tape until my great-great-great grandson dies of old age.

Your obdurate failure to understand how science works is actually rather charming. Science will stick to a theory that is useful, and works, until something better comes along. So, at the beginning of the 20th Century, stresses and strains in Newton's physics were becoming apparent. There were places where it didn't work, most obviously, in its account of how light propagated itself, and in its account of gravity. But science kept that theory until the patch provided by Einstein's relativity came along.

But gravity is still an issue: Both relativity and quantum mechanics can't both be right, yet, we keep both, because they are useful within their separate spheres, large, and small.

And so it is with evolution. It works. It's predictions can be validated. It helps scientists develop drought resistant crops and to develop new ways to fight disease. And so, it will be retained until a better theory comes along that explains what evolutionary theory now explains, plus whatever rabbit they find in the Cambrian.

 

[RickG]

Even Wikipedia says finding a rabbit in the Precambrian isn't going to disprove evolution.

So before I go winning any Nobel Prize, I'm sure my find would be tied up in red tape until my great-great-great grandson dies of old age.

Wiki citation please. There must be some qualifying statement involved which would really not make the "wabbit" Precambrian.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiki citation please. There must be some qualifying statement involved which would really not make the "wabbit" Precambrian.

He might be referring to this. It explores how the 'fossil' could be a hoax, a mistake, etc. Piltdown man was uncovered as a hoax precisely because it didn't fit with our growing knowledge of human evolution (one wonders how that could be, if evolution were false...).

 

[BobRyan]

Have you never wondered why all of the creationists probing questions about evolution come to nothing?
why none of the so called creationist revelations about evolution go anywhere?

I'll tell you why, they are not genuine criticisms of evolution they are all designed to fool creationists into believing there is something wrong with evolution,

Blind-faith believers in evolutionism need to actually try to embrace objectivity and critical thinking before they come to Christians boards to try out their ideas.

The obvious flaw in that OP statement above is that Darwin himself argued that evolutionism is not at all compatible with Christianity.

Hello Richard Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers et al. ===

They all point out the obvious - evolutionism is not at all compatible with Christianity.

And not one of them can prove the salient point of the evolutionist argument when it comes to prokaryotes supposedly turning into eukaryotes or the amoeba turning into a horse given enough generations of time and chance up there on mt "improbable".

These are facts impossible to ignore - if one is not simply pursuing a slash-and-burn policy in favor of blind-faith evolutionism.

No wonder Richard Dawkins himself exhibits that 11 seconds of totally flummoxed silence when asked the evolution -101 softball lob question "provide one single example of genetic information added to a genome".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Blind-faith believers in evolutionism need to actually try to embrace objectivity and critical thinking before they come to Christians boards to try out their ideas.

The obvious flaw in that OP statement above is that Darwin himself argued that evolutionism is not at all compatible with Christianity.

Source? And, what do Darwin's beliefs and statements have to do with the OP?

Hello Richard Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers et al. ===

They all point out the obvious - evolutionism is not at all compatible with Christianity.

And not one of them can prove the salient point of the evolutionist argument when it comes to prokaryotes supposedly turning into eukaryotes or the amoeba turning into a horse given enough generations of time and chance up there on mt "improbable".

Because no one advocates that. If you want a rational discussion of the evidence, it helps if you know what you're talking about.

These are facts impossible to ignore - if one is not simply pursuing a slash-and-burn policy in favor of blind-faith evolutionism.

These facts are either demonstrably false, or not pertinent to the veracity of evolution.

No wonder Richard Dawkins himself exhibits that 11 seconds of totally flummoxed silence when asked the evolution -101 softball lob question "provide one single example of genetic information added to a genome".

Ah, yes, because that is what disproves evolution. If you want an example, the word is 'mutation'. Dawkin's 'flummox' is because he realised the interviewers true intentions, that they had lied about the nature of the interview. See this article for an exhaustive description of what actually happened, and why Dawkins was really silent for those 11 seconds - any objective look at the facts surrounding the interview, as well as the footage before and after, shows unmistakably that the silence wasn't due to the question.