Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[Oncedeceived]

Apparently we don't have free will and have to become what we are raised to be.

Right.

 

[EternalDragon]

Write a paper that refutes ToE. Get it peer reviewed and go collect your Nobel prize.

People write against evolution theory all the time. And they are unrightly attacked for it.

University of Iowa Chemist Rebuked by Faculty for Acknowledging "Holes" in Darwinian Theory - Evolution News & Views

 

[Split Rock]

People write against evolution theory all the time. And they are unrightly attacked for it.

University of Iowa Chemist Rebuked by Faculty for Acknowledging "Holes" in Darwinian Theory - Evolution News & Views

1. That was not published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.
2. The guy is a chemist.

Is that really the best example you can come up with to support "People write against evolution theory all the time?"

 

[frogman2x]

That's it, talk about anything just as long as you are not made to think about what it is you believe.
I have heard it takes special training to make yourself believe blatant lies, is that true?

Evidently you have had enough training to accept the blantant lies you beleive.

Maybe you are just ignorant of the truth. Be specific. What blatant lies are you referring to?

Mention your best example and I will explain it to you.

 

[frogman2x]

If you'd actually read what I linked, it would explain to you why it happened so quickly in this particular instance. Regardless, evolution doesn't say how quickly a population can evolve - usually, dramatic changes take a long time.

The use to until they were embarassed by the fossil record.

Sometimes they don't. It depends on the species in question, the change in question, how long it takes the species to reproduce, et cetera.

IOW, you dont have a clue. Why not just admit it?

And of course they're still lizards. If they weren't, it wouldn't be evolution. If they evolved into something that wasn't a lizard, that would invalidate everything we know about genetics.

This response always amuses me. Something stays the same and that is evidnece of evolution. If they don't evolve into something that is not a lizard, how does their evolution continue?

When did we ever 'observe' dogs coming from wolves? Is there any record of domestication? No. Nobody put it down in writing, and for a while there was debate on exactly where dogs came from. We know it happened through the same techniques we can use to determine ancestry with other animals.

Then pray tell what is this technique.

Also, are all cats the same kind? How did you determine that?<<

I haven't said they are the same kind. If they can breed and produce offspring, they are the saem kind/

There are many, many methods of dating besides carbon dating - carbon dating can't even be used to date objects in the millions, anyway. If you feel there was something in the past that made everything different and would make dating by any means utterly useless, then the burden is on you to show whatever that is. You could very well be right, but there's absolutely no reason to take you concern into consideration.

All radio metric dating methodsd ae basen on some assumpstions.

Dating can be checked in a number of ways - on objects of known age, for instance, and against other methods of dating that rely on different methods. They match up.

Most of the time, if ever, they do not.

Science has to keep changing as we get new information. If it wasn't, there would be any point to research. The ability to adapt and change in the face of new information is a strength, not a weakness - science couldn't advance, otherwise.

Actually it is a weakness, because something they thought was true was discoved not to be. The new discovery might also b e found false as science progresses.

Religion hasn't been proven wrong because there's no real method to disprove the supernatural. There's no way to falsify it.

So why do you reject it , if you do?

 

[keith99]

People write against evolution theory all the time. And they are unrightly attacked for it.

University of Iowa Chemist Rebuked by Faculty for Acknowledging &quot;Holes&quot; in Darwinian Theory - Evolution News & Views

I found it quite interesting that both the original article and the response are much more measured and polite than this post or any of the ones responding to it.

I found it interesting the original article said

There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through, but it is highly possible that evolution was the tool that God used to bring humans into being.

But gives no hint into what the writer thinks those holes are.

Oh and the original piece and the response are both much more measured and polite than the article in the link provided.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidently you have had enough training to accept the blantant lies you beleive.

Maybe you are just ignorant of the truth. Be specific. What blatant lies are you referring to?

Mention your best example and I will explain it to you.

Bloxer's tenure here has expired.

(He's been erased.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bloxer's tenure here has expired.

(He's been erased.)

 

[AV1611VET]

He'll be back though ... reincarnated as who knows what from where?

 

[Oncedeceived]

He'll be back though ... reincarnated as who knows what from where?

Oh yes, very true.

 

[nuttypiglet]

He'll be back though ... reincarnated as who knows what from where?

so you can't block by IP address?

 

[nuttypiglet]

So with the best condition for creating fossils is a flood, but there was no flood, how did so many dinosaurs all over the world get preserved into sedimentary rock? what is the best theory for this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So with the best condition for creating fossils is a flood, but there was no flood, how did so many dinosaurs all over the world get preserved into sedimentary rock? what is the best theory for this?

Notice how you said "best," and not "only"?

And have you taken into account the 99.9% of dinosaur remains which didn't get fossilized?

 

[lasthero]

So with the best condition for creating fossils is a flood, but there was no flood, how did so many dinosaurs all over the world get preserved into sedimentary rock? what is the best theory for this?

A-Flood's are just about the most common natural disaster in the world. That many animals have died and been preserved in them is not surprising.

B-The VAST majority of animals on this planet haven't fossilized. It's a rare process, and the only reason we have so many is because what we have is insanely small percent of every animals that's ever died.

C-If there was a global flood, we'd probably see many more fossils than we actually, since so many died in one event. But we don't.

But keep grasping for straws.

 

[AV1611VET]

C-If there was a global flood, we'd probably see many more fossils than we actually, since so many died in one event. But we don't.

Two things here:

1. Over 1500 people died when the Titanic sank; yet when the Titanic was discovered, not one skeleton was recovered. That's 1500 people concentrated into a small aread the size of the Titanic, yet not one body recovered. Using your logic, can we say the Titanic never existed?

2. How do you know that what you have on record didn't die in the Flood? You could very-well have your evidence and not realize it.

 

[lasthero]

1. Over 1500 people died when the Titanic sank; yet when the Titanic was discovered, not one skeleton was recovered. That's 1500 people concentrated into a small aread the size of the Titanic, yet not one body recovered. Using your logic, can we say the Titanic never existed?

The Titanic wasn't buried, it sank. Fossils are typically created when things are buried. The burying preserves them and allows perminilization to take place. Not only that, but it has to be buried quick, which happens in a flood. The Titanic has been exposed to open water for decades. It's not even close to the same thing.

Also, most of the people who died on the Titanic were likely wearing lifejackets. They float.

How do you know that what you have on record didn't die in the Flood?

I didn't say they didn't. But if there was an actual global flood, I would expect to find more fossils than we do, because floods are good for fossilization - they bury things quickly.

 

[lasthero]

The use to until they were embarassed by the fossil record.

Referring to any specific incident, or just blowing smoke.

IOW, you dont have a clue. Why not just admit it?

The link - that you refuse to read - explains why the change occurred so quickly. What more do you want?

Something stays the same and that is evidnece of evolution.

It didn't stay the same. It's different. It had a change. And that's all evolution ever proposed - small changes in organisms over time. But if it can grow a new organ, who's to say what else it could grow? What's to stop it from getting more and more changes as time goes? What's to stop it from acquiring so many changes that you can't even rightly say it's the same thing as the original population it came from?

Then pray tell what is this technique.

DNA distraction, reading the genetic distance between individuals.

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's all there, if you're interested. Which you're not, probably, but just in case.

All radio metric dating methodsd ae basen on some assumpstions.

What 'assumpstions'? That the way the universe works doesn't completely change for inexplicable reasons? The same 'assumpstions' that all scientists have to make to do...anything?

Most of the time, if ever, they do not.

They do.

Radiometric Dating

This is a great link on the subject. Again, I know you probably won't read it because you're clearly not interested in honest discourse, but just in case.

Actually it is a weakness, because something they thought was true was discoved not to be.

So? Should scientists never change their minds in light of new evidence? How could science ever progress that way?

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't say they didn't. But if there was an actual global flood, I would expect to find more fossils than we do, because floods are good for fossilization - they bury things quickly.

So it's quantity that's bothering you?

I'll tell you what ... take a sandbox full of ants and place it at the bottom of an olympic-size swimming pool and fill the swimming pool up with water.

Now siphon the water out of the swimming pool* and look for ants in the sandbox.

Percentage-wise, how many ants would you expect to find in the sandbox?

(Please answer this.)

* Notice I said siphon [upward] -- not drain [downward].

 

[lasthero]

(Please answer this.)

I will when I get to do the experiment. Don't have a swimming pool or a sandbox with ants.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

The idea that we were not created, cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always constant change on where we originated from, how old the Earth actually is, etc...There is always new evidence of life existing, even when we believed it was extinct.

To state creationism is a fairy tale is a sign of ignorance, period. I didn't say evolution was false, because I don't believe it to be. However, I still believe we were created.