Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I disagree --- I don't believe for one minute that nature can "kick-start" life.6. Therefore it is likely that life arose "spontaneously" as a chemical reaction suite.
Please give a reference for this statement, because it is a lie.It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.
This is what I have already said. That is why carbon 14 dating is not used to date fossils.. yet you claimed it was!The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.[/B] - Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .
Yep. The one forgery that creationists love to recount, even though it goes back to 1912. Why is it so hard for you guys to come up with more recent forgeries, since they are sooooooo very prevalent?Piltdown man - it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. - Wikipedia
Yes. A farmer glued two legitimate fossils together to make more money off of it. Professional paleontologists were NOT fooled. An amateur collector bought it and National Geographic learned a hard lesson about not circumventing the scientific method and peer review processs when it published informtion on the fossil despite the fact professionals had already rejected the fossil as a mosaic.Archaeoraptor - appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ - National Geographic
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are many fossils of Neanderthal and they do not suffer from ricketts. It is also a different species. No fraud here.Neanderthal Man - No longer considered to be pre-man. Neanderthal is fully human but believed to have suffered from rickets due to malnutrition.
Cro-Magnon did not "co-exist" with contemporary man, he is the same as us, just older. No one claims different. Where is the fraud?Cro-Magnon Man - Proven to be completely human and there is clear evidence of religious practices and artistic creativity. This so-called pre-human co-existed with contemporary man.
Wrong. Show us evidence it is a fraud. The original is lost, but we have cast made from it. Also, we have other fossil examples of Homo erectus, in any case. No fraud here either.Java Man - Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.
So? It was never published in scientific literature as a man. The mistake was an honest one. No fraud here.Nebraska Man - An entire skeletal structure was created from a single tooth...Additional research has proven that this tooth was actually the tooth of an extinct pig.
So are we! Lucy is still considered an ancestor of modern man. No fraud here.Lucy - Considered to be related to the arboreal ape.
We are also apes. Zinjanthropus is now considered a dead end, related to our ancestors, but not in a direct line to us. No fraud here either.Zinjanthropus - Proven to be a primitive ape and has no ties to modern man or human development.
These are not the same species, however. therefore, it does not affect the use of the other species as index fossils. Where is the "fraud?"Coelacanth - This was strongly considered by evolutionary scientist to be an index fossil linking early cretaceous which were considered to have become extinct over 80 million years ago. Recently living specimens have been found near Madagascar. - History of the Earth, Henry Morris
So far, you have provided TWO. The first (and oldest) was the only one that had any effect on thinking concerning evolution, and that was temporary. The other, never fooled any professional paleontologist. How does this show that all fossil intermediates are frauds?These are just few.
I see a lot of adaptation, but no new species. I see were scientist have made new species, although they are not really a new species but a like species, through cross pollinization, but that again is not evolution. It did not occur through "natural selection", or "mutation".
Because living organisms are open systems (not evolution itself, this is a process) this means it can accept energy from outside the system. Take a look up at the sky during the day, and you will see the massive nuclear fusion reactor that is providing the energy that life requires to increase its complexity. Without this energy, there would be no life on earth. As long as life does what it does, it will evolve.I was of course referring to enthropy included in the law.
2nd law of thermodynamics:
Entropy - a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Evolution is an open system and therefore would not have the energy to do as it states it does.
So what? Is gravity or germ theory proven beyong a "shadow of a doubt?" I said evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and asked you to do the same for creationism. Obviously, you cannot.Neither evolution not creationism have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
No creationism is not based on physical evidence. It is based on The Bible. There is no potential means of falsifying creationism, in the minds of those who adhere to it. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.It is just as much a scientific theory as evolution. Both use scientific method to explain phenomenoms. The fossil records, show the same types of fossils in different sections. A universal flood would explain sea life in a dessert area. Can they be proven? No. Are they theories? Yes. Both evolution and creationism are theories on the existance of man.
No you did not back up anything with citations, except the first part. This was filled with quote mines, even if you didn't make it difficult to respond by how you formated your response. I won't bother with it. *added* I decided to tackle this part as well in a separate post below.Actually everything I wrote in my post is shown and cited, not by just those that believe in creationism but scientist envolved with the evolutionary theory.
I'd like to see you provide evidence of this "twisting." So far you have not.I love it when evolutionist do the same things they claim others are doing. That being twisting meanings and ignoring anything that goes against their beliefs.
Yes, you have stated you cannot prove your "theory." I agree. That does not change the fact that the theory of evolution is based entirely on facts, nor does it imply it is a poor theory.I have stated I can not prove my theory, it is the evolutionist who has no hard facts, except those that they claim to be true even if disproved, that have a problem.
We cannot "prove" anything in science. We can provide evidence that is sufficient to accept evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and that is what we have done. Even more important, we have been unable to falsify it.The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method. That is a fact, whether you believe the facts is your choice.
Mine are based on scientific evidence, and yours on your interpretation of scripture. As long as you acknowledge the difference, I have no problem with that.You have your beliefs on what you believe to be true, and I have mine it really is just that simple.
Another sad example of a creationist denegrading his own "faith" in Jesus as Christ by comparing it to our "faith" in scientific theories. They are not the same.When you get down to it, both are believed by faith. Faith in what you believe to be true is.
The fossil record shows a long series of extinctions and new appearances of fossil species that cannot be explained by a single "flood" event. It also shows that man has only been on this planet for a very short period of time (relative to the age of the earth).The facts are facts. The fossil records do not point toward evolution, but the appearance of what we have now, minus extinctions.
I have shown you a long list of observed speciation events.There are no new species walking out of the jungles,
Wrong again. Show me a single evolutionary process that violates any physical law. Is it mutation? Is it genetic recombination? Is it natural selection? Is it genetic drift? Is it gene flow?and the laws of Physics do not support the evolutionary theory.
Why don't you take your own advice? I would further suggest you stop listening to people who are deliberately lying to you in violation of God's Laws because they know you will believe whatever reinforces your religious beliefs. If you really want to learn what evolution is and what the evidence really is, I recommend this website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/Closing your eyes and and tapping your heals together will not erase the facts.
What date is this from? Funny how the date is missing... probably because the LCW (Lying Creationist Weasel) website you got this from knows it is an out of date source. *added* This seems to have actually been from "Discover" magazine, April 1993. You can't even cite it correctly. It is dated, but even in 1993, this information was outdated. So much for "Discover" magazine I guess."The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ... the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." - Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News Discovery p. 40
An out of context quote mined from "The Blind Watchmaker!" Congratulations! You cut and paste well. Did you read the "Blind Watchmaker?" Did you bother to read the full paragraph this was mined from? Of course not."We find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." - Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
I already gave you a website that shows fish with legs. Here:Actually the fossil recoreds have shown the same fossils in the different stages, not to mention that there are no fossils showing a fish with legs, or a shory necked girafe.
What is a pro-evolutionary "paper?" This website cites peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject. You know... what the experts have published on these fossils. Maybe you can cite what other experts who have examined these fossils and disagree have to say... oh wait... there aren't any..A pro-evolutionary "paper" says there are transitions. Not a good source.
The "proof" lies with the cited scientific literature.a scientific consensus has emerged - from the above article
Consensus -
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Not a proof but a general agreement by those involved. I.e.those believing in evolution agree on the matter.
Yes, how could you doubt what the experts in this field tell you? Could it be your own Bible-based preconceptions at work?Wow another evolutionist saying they believe in evolution. How ever could we doubt?
Wow... another quote mined out of context! What is this quote refering to? Is it referring to whether or not man evolved? Or is it referring to the details of Man's evolution, which have not all been resolved yet?The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate - From the above article in Wikipedia.
No, it means exactly what it says. We have some very good examples of extinct whales that have... get this... legs. Funny how we find exactly what the theory of evolution predicts... isn't it?We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids - From the above article.
In other words we find entire skeletons of whales of today, and partial and parts of others that recreated into what we believe they looked like and there for they were whales.
This sounds a lot like brontosaurus, oops we meant Apatosaurus, which ended up being one in the same.
It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
- Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .
I disagree --- I don't believe for one minute that nature can "kick-start" life.
I believe living things are gestalts, with the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
God changes dead chemicals into living beings.
As stated earlier, it this is your hypothesis then you merely have to prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) God and then prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) that God would do this thing, might help also to show the mechanism. Of course that would require you to further "Model" God.
By all means. You are free to do that. People have been trying for nigh unto 4 or more millenia to do that very thing.
You might want to prove yours as well, my friend:As stated earlier, it this is your hypothesis then you merely have to prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) God and then prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) that God would do this thing, might help also to show the mechanism. Of course that would require you to further "Model" God.
Especially if you want me to abandon my faith for yours.Thaumaturgy said:6. Therefore it is likely that life arose "spontaneously" as a chemical reaction suite.
Not hardly --- Jesus beat them to it --- in spades.People have been trying for nigh unto 4 or more millenia to do that very thing.
You want me to tell you what that means?John 1:18 said:No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
I almost repped you for this, but some people don't like me repping them.God did it! Now take your pills. Tomorrow is another day
I almost repped you for this, but some people don't like me repping them.
Someone saying GOD DID IT, even in jest, gives me goose bumps - (it really does).
Goose bumps!
I caught that too... but I'm willing to wager that AV is going to come back over the top with some smug explanation.
Proverbs 25:20 said:[As] he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, [and as] vinegar upon nitre, so [is] he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.
You might want to prove yours as well, my friend:
Especially if you want me to abandon my faith for yours.
Not hardly --- Jesus beat them to it --- in spades.
You want me to tell you what that means?
Good --- I don't have to either, then.Actually I don't have to.
Why do Creationists think quote mining, PRATTs and poisoning the well are a goo... er.. response?
I love it when evolutionist do the same things they claim others are doing. That being twisting meanings and ignoring anything that goes against their beliefs. I have stated I can not prove my theory, it is the evolutionist who has no hard facts, except those that they claim to be true even if disproved, that have a problem. The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method. That is a fact, whether you believe the facts is your choice. You have your beliefs on what you believe to be true, and I have mine it really is just that simple. When you get down to it, both are believed by faith. Faith in what you believe to be true is.
The facts are facts. The fossil records do not point toward evolution, but the appearance of what we have now, minus extinctions. There are no new species walking out of the jungles, and the laws of Physics do not support the evolutionary theory.
Closing your eyes and and tapping your heals together will not erase the facts.
"We find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." - Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230
Steadfastly claiming this again and again won't make it true. The facts that demonstrate our common ancestry with other species are myriad, but I personally think that this is a rather beautiful illustration of one tiny piece of the evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Note that there is far, far more. Of particular interest is the fact that we have the same bits of broken DNA. For instance, we share with all other mammals all of the genes to make Vitamin C. The problem is, in us and all other primates, one of the many genes involved in making Vitamin C is broken: it's missing a single base pair, and so does not function. As a result, all primates have to eat Vitamin C, while other mammals can make their own. Why do we share all of the genes to make this essential vitamin, but at the same time have the exact same broken gene?
Then there's also the endogenous retroviruses. These are little bits of virus DNA that are remnants of past infections of our ancestors. Not only do we share many such viruses in the exact same locations as other animals (directly indicating that we had common ancestors: there's no other realistic way to get the same virus DNA in the same location than that they are copies of the same original infection from the same original ancestor), but the pattern of commonality is also precisely what we expect from other measures of how species are related.
Now, do you want to take that back? Or do you somehow think that you can refute the mountains of conclusive genetic evidence for common ancestry? Heck, do you even think you can refute one piece of the genetic evidence that links us to the other apes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?