Final stumpers for Creationists

[Neo]

Originally posted by BigJon


maybe evolution is right, you have the intelligence of an ape.

I would just like to point out that we did not evolve from apes, but we do share a common ancestor with them.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Neo

Yes, but are you betting on the right God? If Hinduism is really the true religion, you're going to be in trouble.

Look who's talking. You have a ZERO chance right now.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Look who's talking. You have a ZERO chance right now.

I'm taking no greater a chance than you. Did you forget it's also possible that nothing happens at all when we die?

 

[TScott]

Did you forget it's also possible that nothing happens at all when we die?

That's closer to the Hindu idea of Nirvanna. If you live the perfect life and reach Nirvanna, you are rewarded with the blissful nothingness of the void. Otherwise you are born again into the suffering known as life.

 

[jon1101]

In the english, perhaps...

Please explain...

-jon

 

[mac_philo]

Originally posted by God Fixation
Because it is what many people want to hear. They don't want a God that tells them what to do, or what not to do. They want to act like animals and evoloution excuses it.

Yes-- it's a well known fact that the Pope and Stephen Jay Gould only believe in evolution to justify their lascivious, libertine lifestyles.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Look who's talking. You have a ZERO chance right now.

Really? I'd say IF there was a god, and it wasn't YOUR god, he'd probably be a little happier with me than you. I don't worship a false god like you do. I'd think the "real" god would be proud of his creation for not blindly following the mistakes of past civilizations.

 

[papakapp]

Originally posted by TheBear


What does the sentence, "You have a bad chopper.", mean today. Then, what would that same sentence mean, 6000 years ago?


John

Are you refering to the term 'very good'?
Read Isaiah 11:5-9
It seems to me that God considers predatorial animals and 'survival of the fittest' and other evolutionary concepts to be sub-optimal.

 

[rssllue]

I don't know about all of these off-shoot discussions and posts, though interesting they may be, but the original genesis of the thread, if someone still really WANTS answers to their questions for the validity of faith in God creating the heavens and the earth in six days like the Bible says, then I might have an answer to your questions. I am not very knowlegable on this issue yet, but there is a man I know of who is and I encourage you to visit his website and get a hold of him if you want answers to your ponderings. He is Kent Hovind and is at www.drdino.com and he has much to say about science backing up creation and not evolution. Check it and him out. God bless.

 

[blakader]

Originally posted by Franc28
Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions... Evaded by Creationists


1. Is there any evidence for your hypothesis ?

Gould, a twentieth century evolutionist, stated:

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed
)

1b. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? Has Creationism ever made a true prediction

Has Evolution?

2. Where is the physical evidence that evolutionary mechanisms cannot cross the barrier of "biblical kinds" ?
(Creationists routinely claim that "macroevolution" - a made-up term - cannot exist in evolution, while "microevolution" - another made-up term - can exist)

Micro evolution and macro evolution are valid terms. There is toms of proof for micro and none for macro

2b. Where is your evidence of God ?
(Creationists also routinely claim the existence of a supernatural Creator as scientific fact, but without evidence)
The Scientific Big Bang model is evidence of a creator.

3. Explain why we have plentiful evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
(The mere existence of one transitional form, let alone the dozens that we have, disproves Creationism)
Every so called transitional form has been proven not to be

Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man both have the features of modern man. Colorado Man turned out to be a member of the horse family. Java Man (also known as Pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon. Heidelberg Man consisted of only a lower jaw. Obviously, a lower jaw is insufficient evidence for a missing link. One can only speculate as to the makeup of the rest of the skull and skeleton. The Piltdown Man was revealed to be a clever hoax. The Peking Man is now thought to be a large monkey or baboon. The Southern Ape (also called Australopithecus), Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus were extinct apes. The East African Man (Zinjanthropus) was shown to be an ape. Finally, the Nebraska Man, which consisted of only one tooth, was proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

4. Explain why we observe a nested hierarchy of species which is true both at the phenotypical and molecular level.

Sorry I don't know what that means

5. Explain phenotypical and molecular vestigial structures.

Just because we don't know the use of an organ doesn't mean there isn't one. Doctors 100 years ago found 80 or so vestigal organs. Since then uses have been found for all of them

6. Explain suboptimal anatomical functions.
No scientist here

7. Explain protein and DNA redundancy.

Sorry I'm no scientist can't anwer that one

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by blakader
Gould, a twentieth century evolutionist, stated:

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed

lol, that's not evidence.

 

[mac_philo]

It is also a bald-faced lie; Gould has done everything he can to get the word out that creationists are misrepresenting his views, yet here we are again, within another religion-sanctioned lie.

Gould does not say that species are generated fully formed, nor does he have any doubts about the theory of evolution as a hole. He has internal objections to evolution, because he believes in 'punctuated equilibrium.'

Have you ever even read Gould? He couldn't state his anti-creationist position any more literally--he is disgusted by the way creationists appropriate and distort his arguments. Go and read him before you misuse him.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by blakader

Originally posted by Franc28
2b. Where is your evidence of God ?
(Creationists also routinely claim the existence of a supernatural Creator as scientific fact, but without evidence)
The Scientific Big Bang model is evidence of a creator.

This is YOUR opinion. Please elaborate.

3. Explain why we have plentiful evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
(The mere existence of one transitional form, let alone the dozens that we have, disproves Creationism)
Every so called transitional form has been proven not to be

Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man both have the features of modern man. Colorado Man turned out to be a member of the horse family. Java Man (also known as Pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon. Heidelberg Man consisted of only a lower jaw. Obviously, a lower jaw is insufficient evidence for a missing link. One can only speculate as to the makeup of the rest of the skull and skeleton. The Piltdown Man was revealed to be a clever hoax. The Peking Man is now thought to be a large monkey or baboon. The Southern Ape (also called Australopithecus), Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus were extinct apes. The East African Man (Zinjanthropus) was shown to be an ape. Finally, the Nebraska Man, which consisted of only one tooth, was proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Care to cite any of your sources on this vast wealth of knowledge you have provided to us???

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by mac_philo
It is also a bald-faced lie; Gould has done everything he can to get the word out that creationists are misrepresenting his views, yet here we are again, within another religion-sanctioned lie.

I'd like to object more strongly to this, but I'm obliged to grant that the people sanctioning this almost certainly *do* know that it's a lie.

I'm not a huge fan of Gould's ethical record in scholarship, but he deserves way better than this.

 

[blakader]

Originally posted by No gods


This is YOUR opinion. Please elaborate.

The Big bang is evidence of some creation event. It couldn't just happen from nothing. For from nothing comes nothing. Since time disn't exsist before the big bang something outside of time was the creator. The God of the bible fits nicely

THe other quote was from

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION
by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation

Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992

Morris, Science and the Bible

 

[blakader]

Originally posted by mac_philo


Gould does not say that species are generated fully formed, nor does he have any doubts about the theory of evolution as a hole. He has internal objections to evolution, because he believes in 'punctuated equilibrium.'

Hmmm here is a nice theory of evolution. But wait the fossil record doesn't show the evidence. Thats ok because of 'punctuated equilibrium' Whew close one

The theory doens't hold up. You have to presuppose evolution is true to belive in 'punctuated equilibrium'
Thats not good scientific reasoning

 

[mac_philo]

Note the classic, paradigm example of the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism.

I point out that he misappropriated Gould, and that he frankly lied about what Gould is saying.

Does he respond honorably? Does he say, "You're right; Gould does not say that. But here is why I am right anyway regarding the content..."?

No. He ignores the fact that he lied, and states something impenetrable about how you have to 'assume' evolution to prove it, and that it is a nice 'theory.'

Witness it carefully, my peers. This is the type of "scholarship" that the school boards in Kansas and Ohio are trying to use to corrupt innocent students.

 

[blakader]

Originally posted by mac_philo
Note the classic, paradigm example of the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism.

I point out that he misappropriated Gould, and that he frankly lied about what Gould is saying.

Does he respond honorably? Does he say, "You're right; Gould does not say that. But here is why I am right anyway regarding the content..."?

No. He ignores the fact that he lied, and states something impenetrable about how you have to 'assume' evolution to prove it, and that it is a nice 'theory.'

Witness it carefully, my peers. This is the type of "scholarship" that the school boards in Kansas and Ohio are trying to use to corrupt innocent students.

Ok If I'm so wrong about Gould why don't you tell me what he meant. I thought it was a great quote tell me what he really said then.
Btw I in no way lied about what Gould said. As far as I know thats as an acccurate quote. A Lie is knowingly telling an untruth

But forget Gould
Did not Stephen Hawking noted theoretical astrophysicist declared that the universe could not exist without a creator.

A tiny fraction of a second before the "big bang," all the rules of physics cease to operate. BUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THAT? No one can explain...except God.

Even Fred Hoyle, who is a stolid anti-creationist, admitted the statistical impossibility of macro evolution. "Impossible" is his word, not mine. In fact, he was so convinced that life could not have originated on earth by chance (and so against the concept of a divine creator) that he started popularizing the theory of panspermia -- the idea that aliens planted life here, or some asteroid carried alien DNA to earth, where it evolved from there.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by blakader

But forget Gould
Did not Stephen Hawking noted theoretical astrophysicist declared that the universe could not exist without a creator.

No, not that I know of. Hawking speculates about wormholes and such, but he doesn't speculate about creators.

A tiny fraction of a second before the "big bang," all the rules of physics cease to operate. BUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THAT? No one can explain...except God.

But God hasn't explained it. There is a book signed by God (in human hand-writing) that claims that God did create the universe, but He never takes the trouble to explain it.

Even Fred Hoyle, who is a stolid anti-creationist, admitted the statistical impossibility of macro evolution. "Impossible" is his word, not mine. In fact, he was so convinced that life could not have originated on earth by chance (and so against the concept of a divine creator) that he started popularizing the theory of panspermia -- the idea that aliens planted life here, or some asteroid carried alien DNA to earth, where it evolved from there.

"Anti-creationist" is not a field of science. Hoyle was an astrophysicist and got his name on some pretty important papers in that field, but he isn't qualified to speak about the possibility or probability of biological evolution. He did comment on his views of it, but never gave the scientific evidence that he was correct in this speculation.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by blakader

Ok If I'm so wrong about Gould why don't you tell me what he meant. I thought it was a great quote tell me what he really said then.
Btw I in no way lied about what Gould said. As far as I know thats as an acccurate quote. A Lie is knowingly telling an untruth

Arguably, making a sufficiently weak effort to find the truth could make a statemint into a lie.

It's pretty easy to find out what Gould says. He certainly shares the underlying model of natural selection leading to changes and eventual speciation.