Evolution or Creationism?

[Loudmouth]

Now I already know this nonsense comes from the evolutionist Bible Talkorigins. Again even Mark Leakey admit it no where as simple as Talkorigins make people believe.

Don't you find it interesting that you try to compare evolution to your religious beliefs in order to cast doubt on it?

How can you say there is stasis when fossils become more human-like over time?

 

[Smidlee]

Don't you find it interesting that you try to compare evolution to your religious beliefs in order to cast doubt on it?

You are not fooling me I know evolution is your religious belief.

 

[RickG]

Those transitional fossils required a very powerful Imaginator in order to slap a butch of bones together and dogmatically claim it's your ancestor.

Transitional fossils are unnecessary to observe evolution. Try explaining the distribution of the fossil record throughout geologic sedimentary strata with evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are not fooling me I know evolution is your religious belief.

My daybook describes my plans for the day. Does that make my daybook a Bible?

Just how far are you ready to go with this?

The USGA Golf Rules describe how humans should act on the golf course. Is that a Bible?

All you are showing is that you hold your own religious beliefs in such low regard that you would use them as a term of derision.

 

[RickG]

The USGA Golf Rules describe how humans should act on the golf course. Is that a Bible?

All you are showing is that you hold your own religious beliefs in such low regard that you would use them as a term of derision.

No, but thou shalt not break the rules.

 

[Smidlee]

Now come on. You don't preach golf like you do evolution. But I agree golf can becomes someone religion but very unlike.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now come on. You don't preach golf like you do evolution. But I agree golf can becomes someone religion but very unlike.

All you are doing is showing how you hold your own religious beliefs in low regard, so low that you would use religion as a term of derision. It is a form of intellectual suicide bombing.

Do you ever see scientists calling creationism "just another science"? No? Ever wonder why? It's because scientists hold science in high regard and would not use it as a term of derision.

 

[Smidlee]

All you are doing is showing how you hold your own religious beliefs in low regard, so low that you would use religion as a term of derision. It is a form of intellectual suicide bombing.

Do you ever see scientists calling creationism "just another science"? No? Ever wonder why? It's because scientists hold science in high regard and would not use it as a term of derision.

Everyone is a "scientist" by nature.

 

[RickG]

Everyone is a "scientist" by nature.

What? Care to expound?

 

[dad]

What post-flood man? Where is your evidence for this flood, and evidence that changes came about around this flood?

What you might call ancestors of man or early man.

The burden of proof lies with you. If you can't present evidence to back your claims, then your claims will be rejected.

There is no proof that what you call early man was not a rapidly evolving post flood man. You are in no position to demand anything.

All around you. It is seen in every telescope and in every rock.

Your belief system is seen there..by you. Whoopee do.

 

[dad]

Then do we see progressively more human-like fossils as we move through time?

.

Which one is the first human...and why would you have apes in the same line up?? Pretty shabby. Post flood man was human, but what you call 'looking more human' is merely looking more present nature human!

 

[dad]

Scripture makes no such claim. And if your reference is to that after the flood people did not live as long as before, that is not a change in any physics or chemistry or their processes.

Scripture tells of many things that were different actually. The reasoned conclusion is that nature was different. From the timeframe of the flood, we know about how much time species had to evolve from the ark kinds. A present nature would not do it! You are faced with unbelief...or belief. Period.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which one is the first human...and why would you have apes in the same line up?? Pretty shabby. Post flood man was human, but what you call 'looking more human' is merely looking more present nature human!

Since we evolved there is no "first human" the line would be arbitrary at best. And I don't see what you are complaining about. Since we are apes all of the skulls that you see are ape skulls.

 

[dad]

Why should I stop?

Because now some are onto you and what you have been doing in lumping apes in with post flood man.

Since you have presented zero evidence, I have lost nothing.

You have zero evidence evolution in the former nature was slow! You have lost all.

Do you deny that man shares features with apes?

So do ants. Whoopee do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scripture tells of many things that were different actually. The reasoned conclusion is that nature was different. From the timeframe of the flood, we know about how much time species had to evolve from the ark kinds. A present nature would not do it! You are faced with unbelief...or belief. Period.

And yet you cannot find any evidence for your "different nature" in the scriptures. Your beliefs are neither scriptural nor scientific.

 

[dad]

Since we evolved there is no "first human" the line would be arbitrary at best. And I don't see what you are complaining about. Since we are apes all of the skulls that you see are ape skulls.

No first human? Ha. Too much monkey business for me to mess around with.

 

[Zosimus]

Cars don't reproduce..... I hope this isn't shocking information to you.

So you've never seen a car reproduce and thus conclude that cars don't reproduce.

But let me guess... you've never seen the super simple single-celled organism that was the foundation of all life, but you are firmly convinced that it existed.

And let me tender another guess... you don't see any conflict between those two positions.

 

[crjmurray]

So you've never seen a car reproduce and thus conclude that cars don't reproduce.

But let me guess... you've never seen the super simple single-celled organism that was the foundation of all life, but you are firmly convinced that it existed.

And let me tender another guess... you don't see any conflict between those two positions.

I don't know what the origin of life was therefore I hold no opinion on it. I do know that cars don't reproduce, which puts us into two categories of people. The kind that thinks cars don't reproduce and the kind that thinks they might. And I very much doubt I'll be proven wrong by someone who thinks a couple of Toyota tundras will mate and produce a corolla.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because now some are onto you and what you have been doing in lumping apes in with post flood man.

Why should I stop doing that?

You have zero evidence evolution in the former nature was slow!

All of the evidence demonstrates that the past was exactly like the present. You can't show me a single observation in the fields of astronomy, physics, or geology that show anything different.

 

[Loudmouth]

But let me guess... you've never seen the super simple single-celled organism that was the foundation of all life, but you are firmly convinced that it existed.

We convict plenty of people of murder without an eyewitness to the murder. Have you heard of forensic evidence? Do you understand how we can test hypotheses with evidence?