another forgery from EVOS

[notto]

Kenneth,

What is the 'wimpiest' argument for evolution you have covered in your class and why do you feel it is not adaquate.

 

[toff]

Data and all who feel the same way,
The fantasy of evolution has only gotten stronger in the minds of those who are deluded by it, be it the majority of scientists or not. There are plenty of us who know the truth...and it is that you are a design and creation of the Almighty. We've told you all in the clearest ways we know how. I'm enrolled in an "Organic Evolution" class (read my last post), and believe me, the arguments and "evidences" from the textbook are wimpier than I even expected. They're not fooling me for a moment.

Nobody in here has disputed that we are a design and creation of the almighty. People have suggested that evolution is the tool he used to design and create us. Simple.

Yes, you've told us in the clearest ways you know how. Unfortunately for you, you DON'T know how to tell us using science...which, since evolution is a science, is the method you NEED to use. Find some scientific evidence FOR creationism (you'll be the first) or some against evolutionary theory, THEN tell us. Until then, you're just flapping your gums.

 

[napajohn]

gone.

 

[Tye]

Hey all, I'm a "young earth creationist." My questions about an old earth are numerous. Perhaps there are explanations I've never heard. My question is if man has been here for "millions of years" why do we not have more people on earth?

 

[Dragondrawer]

Guys, listen to this.
The fossil that they found was supposedly supposed to be a "missing link". A bird/Dinosaur mix...definately something that evolutionists would want to sink thier greedy little claws into.
But guys...it's JUST A BIRD. Here's why.
1. The elongated tail bone-you think it's not found in birds today, but it is. Take the swan, for example. It DOES have an elongated tailbone.
2. Hollow bones- Hello...? Um..bird.
3. Claws on the ends of the wing- Yeah...so do Ostriches. Are they birds, or are my eyes decieving me, evolutionists?
4. Teeth in the beak- Eh, okay. So there aren't any living birds today that actually have teeth in thier beaks. So what? This still disprooves evolution. Birds, if they really evolved from dinosaurs, dont have teeth anymore. THAT IS NOT AN IMPROOVEMENT. Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does. If you really think that not being able to have the ability to rip things instead of having to peck your way at them is an improovement...um..you need to study the new thing called "common sense".;
Sorry guys, but it's just a bird. I dont think it's a false fossil..it's a cool critter, but it's no "missing link". And I DO think that they attached the new stuff to the fossil just to make money, not to bash anyone.

 

[Arikay]

Dragon, I think you are late to the discussion. Its already been shown that its a fraud, no one uses it as a missing link since it was shown to be a fraud. Evolutionists were the discovers of this fraud.

No the theory of evolution DOES NOT say that animals will evolve into "higher life forms" only that they will adapt to their environment. Please, before you start making claims, ask questions, there are plenty of Biologists here that are happy to answer any questions you have.

BTW, if I remember right, scientists have gotten birds to grow teeth.

 

[Tye]

Archaeopteryx is the name I think.

 

[Tye]

From what I understand, evolution has 6 different definitions. The one noone seems to have a problem with is micro evolution or adaptation or small changes within a kind.

 

[Tye]

My main problem with evolution is that it doesn't answer the origin of life very well and the current theories today seem to go against the Law of Biogenesis.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Are you for real? This very thread that you started was a lie and you refused to admit that you were wrong and continued to propagate that lie and still have refused to retract your comments! This isn't the only example either, but it is sufficient and one of the main reasons why hardly anyone here can take you seriously anymore.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

From what I understand, evolution has 6 different definitions.

Don't start regurgitating nonsense from Kent Hovind. That won't get you anywhere.

The one noone seems to have a problem with is micro evolution or adaptation or small changes within a kind.

Except no one actually knows what a "kind" is, thus creationists can shift the definition of kind into whatever they need it to be to cry "that's not evolution."

My main problem with evolution is that it doesn't answer the origin of life very well

The theory of evolution does not serve as an explanation for the origin of life.

and the current theories today seem to go against the Law of Biogenesis.

False.


It would be best if you started a NEW thread with your claims rather than doing so in this thread.

 

[toff]

Guys, listen to this.
The fossil that they found was supposedly supposed to be a "missing link". A bird/Dinosaur mix...definately something that evolutionists would want to sink thier greedy little claws into.
But guys...it's JUST A BIRD. Here's why.
1. The elongated tail bone-you think it's not found in birds today, but it is. Take the swan, for example. It DOES have an elongated tailbone.
2. Hollow bones- Hello...? Um..bird.
3. Claws on the ends of the wing- Yeah...so do Ostriches. Are they birds, or are my eyes decieving me, evolutionists?
4. Teeth in the beak- Eh, okay. So there aren't any living birds today that actually have teeth in thier beaks. So what? This still disprooves evolution. Birds, if they really evolved from dinosaurs, dont have teeth anymore. THAT IS NOT AN IMPROOVEMENT. Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does. If you really think that not being able to have the ability to rip things instead of having to peck your way at them is an improovement...um..you need to study the new thing called "common sense".;
Sorry guys, but it's just a bird. I dont think it's a false fossil..it's a cool critter, but it's no "missing link". And I DO think that they attached the new stuff to the fossil just to make money, not to bash anyone.

Sorry, mate, you're wrong. It IS an intermediary - a bird with reptilian features. No, evolution does NOT clearly state that we evolved into higher lifeforms. It states that organisms evolve to better suit their environment. Birds evolved a pecking way of feeding, as opposed to the 'ripping' way of reptiles...and in their environment, it was a better way. They weren't "better"...they were "better suited to their environment". No offense, but you need to study evolutionary theory a bit before you make posts like this that are simply wrong and show that you don't understand the idea you are attempting to disparage.

 

[toff]

My main problem with evolution is that it doesn't answer the origin of life very well and the current theories today seem to go against the Law of Biogenesis.

The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Do you have a 'problem' with gravity, since it doesn't answer the origin of life?

 

[Data]

Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does.

Where do people get this idea from anyway?

 

[toff]

From what I understand, evolution has 6 different definitions. The one noone seems to have a problem with is micro evolution or adaptation or small changes within a kind.

The English word 'evolution' has a number of definitions - basically, it means change. In the biological sense, it has ONE definition - a change in frequency of allelles within a gene pool. It is creationists who attempt to invent different kinds of evolution (micro- and macro-), in an attempt to confuse the debate. They are the same thing - the only difference is one of degree. Lots of 'micro's add up to 'macro's.

 

[Arikay]

Tye, I take it you come from www.drdino.com?

have you looked at my recent post that looks at one of his truth radio programs? It addresses some of the claims you are making.

 

[Tye]

I'm sorry. I totally understand what has been said but I don't get it. Like toff was saying, it's the degrees that I have a problem with. I don't see how small degrees warrants big degree assumtions

 

[Physics_guy]

Hey all, I'm a "young earth creationist." My questions about an old earth are numerous. Perhaps there are explanations I've never heard. My question is if man has been here for "millions of years" why do we not have more people on earth?

Actually modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. Of course there were precursors to modern humans that existed for millions of years before them, but they were not strictly speaking humans (they were not homo sapien sapien).

As for your question, I think you need to rethink how population growth works in any species - including humans. Populations cannot grow beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. We as humans routinely increase this carrying capacity through technology such as agriculture, but even then we are faced by limitations in the amount of people we can feed and sustain in the world, even given today's technology. Furthermore, wars and disease can wipe the population back substantially and have many times in the past.

 

[Data]

I'm sorry. I totally understand what has been said but I don't get it. Like toff was saying, it's the degrees that I have a problem with. I don't see how small degrees warrants big degree assumtions

To begin with, Hovinds degree was not from a university at all, and not in the feild that he is arguing in. Biology. His degree is a fake.

Then, we have people on this board with degrees, and real PhD's, in biology. Lucaspa is a college professor even.

Check it out, patriot university.

 

[Tye]

Yes, I've spent a good amount of time at looking over Kent Hovind's material and many other creationist sites. No I did not see your posts Arikay. I'm new to all this posting and internet chatting. Can anyone tell me the beginning of evolutionary theory and what its talking about. What was the first "evolution?" This is like my other question talking about the beginning of life and Biogenesis.