Creation Science Evangelism

[troodon]

That is easy. Some of them fit into the dinosaur 'kind' and some of them fit into the bird 'kind' and the rest either are their own individual 'kind' or fit within some other non-dinosaur and non-bird 'kind'.

As there is no definition of what exactly a 'kind' is, I (and anyone else) can make up whatever categorical demarcation we want to, thus defeating evilution at every turn. Bwa ha ha.

great answer; as vague as I would expect from a real YEC

In retrospect I should post those without the names; the names make it a lot easier to catagorize them. Oh well, next time.

 

[Arikay]

LOL.

Yes we have seen mutations add things. Matter of fact there is a bacteria that mutated to be able to eat nylon, a recent man made substance.

I have both saxon and norman blood running through me.

Obviously, germs exist. The question to be answered for our discussion is whether germs evolve or mutate. I imagine there may be some germ theorists who subscribe to the hypothesis of evolution but I doubt if they have ever observed a germ evolve into anything other than another form of germ. In other words, a mutation.

Now, if you still want to tell me that human beings like myself are some sort of mutation of ancestral primates, I don't have to believe you do I?

After all, I have Anglo-Saxon blood running through my veins.

What about you? What is your inheritance?

And by the way, don't give me any more of that 'real' stuff again.
Reminds me of realigion.

 

[john crawford]

Post 135

What's a fact? I've never seen one.
Do they taste good?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Tell me how you think genetics confirms evolution?

Well, for example, the genetic similarities between chimps and humans (especially things like transposon and endogenous retroviral insertions in their respective genomes) confirms the physical evidence that these two species once shared a common ancestor.

Go here for an excellent post on the subject.

Evolution does not have evidence that supports it.

This is completely false. The theory of evolution was formulated because of the evidence, not in a vacuum.

The fossil record does not support it.

Ironic since the fossil record is one of the reasons the theory of evolution was formulated in the first place. See troodon's post above, for example.

 

[john crawford]

Of course, your version of "observable" discounts creationism as well, but thats ok.

Your version of "observable" also discounts most forensics. I guess we should let criminals out of jail because they were convicted with meta physics.

Forensic science is based on scientific observation and helps land criminals in jail. Don't get metaphysical on me now.

 

[chris320]

Your post betrays your igorance of the subject of evolution.

Read through this article at TO, then come back and tell us again how there is no evidence for evolution.

If you read up on creation science, you will find out that the intermediate and transitional forms have all been proven to be false or mutations. What you gave me is the same thing I heard when I was in 8th grade. That is not proof, just propaganda that is not supported by evidence.

-Chris320

 

[David Gould]

If you read up on creation science, you will find out that the intermediate and transitional forms have all been proven to be false or mutations. What you gave me is the same thing I heard when I was in 8th grade. That is not proof, just propaganda that is not supported by evidence.

-Chris320

Okay. What would you accept as evidence for evolution?

Be as specific as possible.

 

[Arikay]

LOL.

In forensics they make the same "observations" that evolution does. Putting together evidence from the past.


(Anyone else leaning to our friend here being a troll?)

Forensic science is based on scientific observation and helps land criminals in jail. Don't get metaphysical on me now.

 

[Jet Black]

That is called having babies.

-Chris320

no, that's called evolution.

 

[chris320]

Well, for example, the genetic similarities between chimps and humans (especially things like transposon and endogenous retroviral insertions in their respective genomes) confirms the physical evidence that these two species once shared a common ancestor.

No, what it says is that humans and chimps have some genetic similarities. So do cats and dogs - 4 legs, tail, etc.

This is completely false. The theory of evolution was formulated because of the evidence, not in a vacuum...Ironic since the fossil record is one of the reasons the theory of evolution was formulated in the first place. See troodon's post above, for example.

Darwin himself said evolution had not fossil support.

 

[troodon]

If you read up on creation science, you will find out that the intermediate and transitional forms have all been proven to be false or mutations.

Not the transitions I posted. Why are you ignoring them chris320?

 

[john crawford]

So, god is pulling me down to earth?

Wow, the force of god has killed so many people. Plunged planes into the ground, and given a hand to many suicides.

Very observant of you. Spoken like a true scientist.
The Truth shall make you free.
Three cheers for metaphysics!

 

[chris320]

no, that's called evolution.

In your dreams it is.

-Chris320

 

[Jet Black]

If you read up on creation science, you will find out that the intermediate and transitional forms have all been proven to be false or mutations. What you gave me is the same thing I heard when I was in 8th grade. That is not proof, just propaganda that is not supported by evidence.

-Chris320

well producing a mesonyx or Hyracotherium must be a pretty HUGE mutation, and it is funny the way the same mutation must have happened lots of times. why do these HUGE mutations not happen now?

 

[Jet Black]

In your dreams it is.

-Chris320

single celled organism -> multicellular organism ..... pretty big change eh?

 

[David Gould]

Darwin himself said evolution had not fossil support.

Assuming this isn't taken from another out of context quote (from memory, it is but anyway ...) don't you think that maybe we have found out a little more since Darwin's day?

In addition, the truth of evolution does not depend on Darwin.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If you read up on creation science, you will find out that the intermediate and transitional forms have all been proven to be false or mutations.

I've read plenty of creationist material (more that you, I'd wager), and I've seen no such thing.

For example, in attempting to dismiss the fossil intermediates for human evolution, creationists often try to claim they are merely extinct apes or humans. Yet, there is clearly no consensus on these classifications by creationists. Pretty ironic, huh?

What you gave me is the same thing I heard when I was in 8th grade. That is not proof, just propaganda that is not supported by evidence.

Given the immediacy of your reply, I doubt you even looked. If you are not willing to read and learn, then there is no point is discussing anything with you.

 

[Jet Black]

Not the transitions I posted. Why are you ignoring them chris320?

quick, an evil atheistic evolutionist has posted evidence.... stick your head between your legs, put on blindfold, insert fingers into ears and..... lalalalalalalalalalalalalaaaaa

 

[Pete Harcoff]

(Anyone else leaning to our friend here being a troll?)

Yup.

 

[chris320]

Not the transitions I posted. Why are you ignoring them chris320?

"Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat!" answersingenesis.org/docs/1357.asp

-Chris320