Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[Nathan Poe]

When they got all that funding from our pockets.

Does that make it the apple of "science's" eye of the government's? I'd hate to see you lashing out blindly looking for the wrong person to blame.

 

[AV1611VET]

How much? I wonder if you even know.

1¢ is too much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that make it the apple of "science's" eye of the government's? I'd hate to see you lashing out blindly looking for the wrong person to blame.

Who convinced the government in the first place? And who are ones collecting the paychecks?

 

[USincognito]

Is AV still bloviating about Pluto and showing off for everyone who doesn't have him on ignore how miserable his understanding of science is?

evolution fails at the start unless you can accept that something can appear from nothing as an act of nothing with influence from no one.

This is called a straw man.

I simply do not have the faith to believe in evolution, whereas creation itself testifies of God's existence

Good thing you don't have to have any faith to believe in evolution or, indeed, "believe" in it at all. There's plenty of evidence supporting it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is AV still bloviating about Pluto and showing off for everyone who doesn't have him on ignore how miserable his understanding of science is?

Right now I'm picking on S.E.T.I. --- Pluto can wait.

Besides --- 100% of you "scientists" here seem to be in agreement with the IAU's vote anyway - (which strikes me as awful coincidental).

 

[MoonLancer]

1¢ is too much.

since you don't know, How you do you know the value is greater then zero?

 

[AV1611VET]

since you don't know, How you do you know the value is greater then zero?

Huh ???

 

[AtheianLibertarist]

Man, you're WAY BEHIND here, my friend. I've already shown from the Scriptures where the earth was referred to as round, and I have already shown how the earth indeed can have four corners, as well as how they can be located --- several times.

You need to catch up here, sir.I don't need to search anywhere --- I've already shown from the Scriptures that this universe is teeming with life from one end to the other, and every star in-between. You're Drake Equation is WAY BEHIND the Bible.

Congrats? So i have to go read through all your posts to see what you have proven? If you want to have a conversation here, you can't just say "I did it". Show me, don't just state that you have done it. So what if S.E.T.I. comes back with a transmission from another planet? What does that have to do with lazy creationists and getting actual, factual, statistical articles published in renowned journals?

I don't know if I can dumb it down for you anymore

 

[CraigBaugher]

Evolution can be analysed, scrutinized and picked at in every department,
creationism on the other hand can not, you take creationism for what it is, a story,
you either believe the story or you don't, no analysing, scrutinizing or picking at.

Creationists of course will say that creationism makes sense, but only if you believe in magic,
once you can get your head to believe in magic everything about creationism falls into place,
as there's no magic about evolution creationists can not bring themselves to believe it's true.

evolution does not make sense... to believe all the variety of plants came from a single strain of algae, or all insects, reptiles, animals, and man came from a single cell creature, and yet they all show up at about the same time...

Evolution or Creation? I have to go with God...

Theory by definition (as in Darwin's Theory of evolution)
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

So a theory requires what... you to belief in something that cannot be proven... it is a guess...

If it was fact and not theory, it would be called Darwin's Facts of Evolution.

There is just as much and more historical facts surrounding the documented history laid out in the Christian & Jewish bible than there is of evolution.

The only part evolutist point to is the 6-days creation, and that is simply because we cannot rationalize it with our simple minds. So if we cannot comprehend it, it must not be capable of happening. That is because we have such a firm hand on time and space... right?

The fact is, we have not a clue as to what is and is not possible. We cannot even begin to comprehend what is all posible. We are learning, and we are getting a little smarter every year... but how many times through out history, have we rewritten history based on new knowledge... too many times to count...

Thanks... but I will stick with God...

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know if I can dumb it down for you anymore

My friend, you come on here and tell me to get off my high-horse and do some research about what supposedly I believe or don't believe, and now you want me to do your research for you when I show your post to be wrong?

Okay --- as a demonstration of my good nature --- I'll do one for you, so you won't have to do the research:

You say the Bible is wrong for mentioning the earth having four corners?

CLICK HERE PLEASE

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks... but I will stick with God...

And you'll never go wrong! Welcome to CF!

 

[Jester4kicks]

evolution does not make sense... to believe all the variety of plants came from a single strain of algae, or all insects, reptiles, animals, and man came from a single cell creature, and yet they all show up at about the same time...

Sorry, but the rest of your post was little more than uninformed semantics, equivocation, and assumption....

...so let's focus on this little segment where you addressed an issue of fact.

Apparently, your problem with the Theory of Evolution is that you cannot believe that all the varieties of plants evolved from a common ancestor, nor that all living creatures could have done the same.

(I'm simply paraphrasing from above, but please feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted your objection)

If that is the case... let me ask you this:

Do you agree that modern domestic horses are related to each other?

If so, do you agree that horses and zebras are related to one another?

If so, do you agree that horses, zebras, and tapirs are related to one another?

(Oh... here's a tapir if you've never heard of it)

If so.... how far back are you willing to acknowledge this relationship.... and why do you draw the line at that point.

If any of your answers were "no"... why do you draw the line there? If the answer to the first question was "no", is it your contention that all species were created, as they are today, roughly 6,000 years ago and have not changed one bit since their creation?

Please enlighten me.

 

[Jester4kicks]

My friend, you come on here and tell me to get off my high-horse and do some research about what supposedly I believe or don't believe, and now you want me to do your research for you when I show your post to be wrong?

Okay --- as a demonstration of my good nature --- I'll do one for you, so you won't have to do the research:

You say the Bible is wrong for mentioning the earth having four corners?

CLICK HERE PLEASE

That's actually a really neat trick, it at least made me pause for a moment to wonder why it doesn't make sense.

Here's the problem, even if we assume that an infinite number of "corners" couldn't exist, based solely on exactly how the orange was cut.... you're still applying false reasoning.

By cutting a sphere into 4 equal parts, each of those parts will only have one center of gravity on the surface of what was the original sphere. However, once reasembled, all 4 points would be on a straight line around the sphere. You can either think of all points existing along the equator, or all point existing along the prime meridian... whichever is easier.

Here, allow me to demonstrate:

In either case, there is no reference point to give the object "depth". The earth with only 4 corners can only be two-dimensional.

Ergo, even by your analogy... the earth would still be flat.

In order to create a three-dimensional earth, you need 6 points. Representing length, width, and depth.

Like so:

Sorry AV... nice try though.

 

[consol]

evolution does not make sense... to believe all the variety of plants came from a single strain of algae, or all insects, reptiles, animals, and man came from a single cell creature, and yet they all show up at about the same time...

Yes it was good of God to create at least 250,000 different types of insect,(that we know of)
of course God didn't make them at the same time he created everything else because they mostly rely on death to survive,
(and there are some little darlings out there that would need a really sad brain to design)
so God must have made them after the fall, no problem for a God though, after all Gods can do anything, can't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry AV... nice try though.

The four centers of gravity (more appropriately, centers of mass) would be found within the lines 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, and 4 and 1. Thus your 5 and 6 on your diagram would be two of the centers, with 7 and 8 representing two more.

You're using a 2-dimensional picture to illustrate --- do it with a 3-dimensional object, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[darkshadow]

Evolution can be analysed, scrutinized and picked at in every department,
creationism on the other hand can not, you take creationism for what it is, a story,
you either believe the story or you don't, no analysing, scrutinizing or picking at.

Creationists of course will say that creationism makes sense, but only if you believe in magic,
once you can get your head to believe in magic everything about creationism falls into place,
as there's no magic about evolution creationists can not bring themselves to believe it's true.

Actually evolution makes no sense. The fossil records point against it, carbon dating has been shown inaccurate, all the "missing links" like Lucy have been shown to be fakes, and there is no continuing of evolution, that being no new species walking out of the jungles and just showing up. Not to mention that the Second Law of Thermodynamics goes completely against the evolutionary theory. Now that being said can I prove creationism anymore then you can prove evolution with out a shadow of a doubt? The answer of course is no. Evolution and Creationism are both theories, and can not be proven by the Scientific Method. The only difference is faith. We as Christians believe in a God and his Word, and therefore believe what is said by faith. Just as one who believes in evolution believes by faith, since there is no hard evidence, that we evolved.

 

[Split Rock]

evolution does not make sense... to believe all the variety of plants came from a single strain of algae, or all insects, reptiles, animals, and man came from a single cell creature, and yet they all show up at about the same time...

Wrong. They do not show up about the same time. Unless you consider 3.5 billion years ago and less than one million years ago to be " about the same time."

Evolution or Creation? I have to go with God...

You really don't have to make that choice. It is not a dichotomy. Most christians have no problem accepting evolution.

Theory by definition (as in Darwin's Theory of evolution)
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

That's the one that we scientists use. Forget the others.

So a theory requires what... you to belief in something that cannot be proven... it is a guess...

No.. not in science. See definition above.

If it was fact and not theory, it would be called Darwin's Facts of Evolution.

No. Theories do not graduate to facts in science. Facts are nothing more than data. They are nothing by themselves. If you mean common venacular "fact," then yes evolution is as much a "fact" as you will find in science.

There is just as much and more historical facts surrounding the documented history laid out in the Christian & Jewish bible than there is of evolution.

What are you referring to? The Garden of Eden? That is not "documented fact," it is a story intended to teach theological points.. it is not a "history." Are you claiming the writers of Genesis witnessed any of it?

Thanks... but I will stick with God...

Go right ahead. You do not need to discount evolution, in order to stick with God.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually evolution makes no sense.

Do tell.

The fossil records point against it,

Wrong. The fossil record has provided us with transitionals between:

fish and tetrapods
http://www.devoniantimes.org/index.html

dinosaurs and birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

reptiles and mammals
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html

non-human apes and man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

primitive whales and modern whales
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=cetacea;siteid=cetacean_04
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

primitive horses and modern horses
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

and many others.

carbon dating has been shown inaccurate,

It is not, and oh, by the way, carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

all the "missing links" like Lucy have been shown to be fakes,

That is a boldfaced lie. Isn't that a sin?

and there is no continuing of evolution, that being no new species walking out of the jungles and just showing up.

Would you like to see Lucuspa's list of Observed Speciations?

Not to mention that the Second Law of Thermodynamics goes completely against the evolutionary theory.

Wrong. Thermnodynamics deals with the transfer of Heat. Hense the term, "Thermo" (heat) "Dynamics" (movement). It does not deal directly with living organisms.

Now that being said can I prove creationism anymore then you can prove evolution with out a shadow of a doubt? The answer of course is no.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all that is required. Can you prove creationism beyond a reasonable doubt?

Evolution and Creationism are both theories, and can not be proven by the Scientific Method.

Sorry. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief. No parity for you.

The only difference is faith. We as Christians believe in a God and his Word, and therefore believe what is said by faith. Just as one who believes in evolution believes by faith, since there is no hard evidence, that we evolved.

How would you know there is no hard evidence? Everything you wrote in this post shows you do not have a clue as to what the evidence actually is.

 

[USincognito]

Actually evolution makes no sense.

Only to those who do not understand it or the evidences supporting it.

The fossil records point against it...

Split Rock has given you several transitional series showing this not to be the case. Do you have any reasons why we should take your word for it?

carbon dating has been shown inaccurate...

Carbon dating is actually quite accurate and within, say, the last 20,000 years or so we have a variety of other dating methods with which to calibrate it. Most fossils are dated by other methods though.
Geologic Time courtesy of your tax dollars.

all the "missing links" like Lucy have been shown to be fakes...

When and by whom? Most Creationist organizations don't even lead off with the "fake" argument any more because their have been too many finds. They instead try to claim that they're either "fully ape" or "fully human", but different Creationist groups classify homind fossils differently.

and there is no continuing of evolution, that being no new species walking out of the jungles and just showing up.

Straw Man. We do find that speciation events have occured recently, but there's no magic species generator pumping out new species like you seem to think.

Not to mention that the Second Law of Thermodynamics goes completely against the evolutionary theory.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

“The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.”
This law says that the entropy (“disorder”) of the universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the biblical framework above, as is suffering (or “groaning in travail” [Rom. 8:20–22]). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.

 

[tanzanos]

Actually evolution makes no sense. The fossil records point against it, carbon dating has been shown inaccurate, all the "missing links" like Lucy have been shown to be fakes, and there is no continuing of evolution, that being no new species walking out of the jungles and just showing up. Not to mention that the Second Law of Thermodynamics goes completely against the evolutionary theory. Now that being said can I prove creationism anymore then you can prove evolution with out a shadow of a doubt? The answer of course is no. Evolution and Creationism are both theories, and can not be proven by the Scientific Method. The only difference is faith. We as Christians believe in a God and his Word, and therefore believe what is said by faith. Just as one who believes in evolution believes by faith, since there is no hard evidence, that we evolved.

Likewise I do not believe in the Bible because it supports two headed Gods. It also supports the right to kill your wife for not sleeping with you. Also it clearly supports killing people who do not believe in Vishnu. Any book that supports rape and murder and exhorts the use of rape as a tool to attain nirvana is definitely not my cup of tea!


PS: If you think I am wrong about the Bible then you have no idea how wrong you are about Evolution.
Also; Do you aim to kill disobedient children After all it does specifically say so by God's own command that you have to kill disobedient children.