• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

The evolutionist mindset

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by npetreley, Aug 11, 2002.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    By the way, as for exposing the great and powerful Stephen Jay Gould behind the curtain, here's an opinion from John Maynard Smith, an EVOLUTIONIST:

    And this letter to the editor of the New York Review of Books by an evolutionist might just as well be summed up as "Gould is a self-obsessed loudmouth who contradicts everyone, but mostly himself."

    http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html
     
  2. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Spoken like a true six-toed, inbred, corn-fed, retard, redneck cracker! Squeal like a pig, boy! Seeeewwwwwwww-eeeeeeeeeee!!!

    And WHO found a tooth from a mollusk eating fish and declaired it to be "little Adam"? Why, a creationist!!!
     
  3. LiveFreeOrDie

    LiveFreeOrDie Science Officer

    983
    +1
    Whoops! I guess the order not to publicly criticize Gould did not get successfully communicated to all atheists from EAC central HQ.
     
  4. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Well, there you go. Proof from both sides of the debate as to how useless these fossils can be, even if they are from the skull. Thanks for demonstrating that beyond all argument.
     
  5. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Your absolutely right!!! I now present a list of alternatives, based on bible 'science', on how we can explain so so called "fossils"!!!

    A) They were put there by god to test your faith.

    B) They were put there by Satan to trick you.

    C) They are a hoax by materialistic science.

    Pick and choose, there are NO wrong answers in creationism, after all they play by no rules and have no referee!!!

    What one creationist says is obviously true regardless of what another creationist says.

    I quote-

    "Dinosaur" bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure on academics to publish papers. There is pressure on museums to produce displays. There is pressure on movie producers and the media to make money. The media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists' interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige and attention. There is the bandwagon effect. And then there are people pursuing political and religious agendas.

    A creationist said so, and it must be true.

    Go to this link and swallow everything THIS creationist tells you to.

    http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm
     
  6. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Corn fed!?!?!? I demand an apology. And I'll have you know I have seven toes. So there.
     
  7. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    You're building on the erroneous belief that humans are related to bacteria. That's circular logic. An argument like this won't pass in a court of law.

      :D So is "darwinism." What do you try to prove with this "scientific statement?"
     
  8. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      Okay dokey. How about "A better explanation for the twin nested heirchies and, while you're at it, the nested tree formed by retroviral insertions (as discussed in another thread)."

     
     
  9. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    There is much less to learn from a fossil than people think. All you know is that whatever it belonged to is dead.

    But what Nick is trying to get through your 10" thick skull is that more often than not, a darwinist will make precious evidence for evolution through the help of fossils.

    The Neanderthal fossil (one specimen) was hunched over. Darwinists used this to say that man slowly began to get up from all fours and walking on two feet. Later, the skeleton was diagnosed with spinal arthritis[1]. But this fact is ignored still.

    Fossils aren't from the devil. They don't contradict God's Word at all. It's the way darwinists like to distort scientific facts. Most Creationists will tell you that the fossil record was laid down in the flood.

    =====================

    [1] http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm 
    http://www.ourredeemerlcms.org/neandcon.htm
    http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/neanderthal.html
    http://www.radianthealth.cc/howellinterview_.htm
    http://www.ktti.com/sarrell/scientific_evidence.html

    PS -- I know Nick enough to say he's not a cracker, nor a "redneck" (that's not nice of you either).
     
  10. Caffeine Socialism

    Caffeine Socialism Imagine all the people.

    380
    +0
    Most creationists also say that the world is 6,000 years old, but I don't believe them. Most scientists say that we evolved from earlier organisms, but I believe them because they have evidence to back it up. Try using some source of falsification and system of scientific review other than a literal interpretation of that silly little book of yours.
     
  11. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    I see that you've never been in a situation where your life was on the line. You'd have a different reply otherwise.

    God bless you!
     
  12. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    "Creationists" and "scientists." Wow, that's so high-and-mighty of you. We are some simple folks and you're scientists. :rolleyes:

    I will tell you this: evidence for evolution is lacking. Everything that is put out is quickly refuted. The "evidence" is imaginary. It's a hole in the wall. Don't believe me? I know you believe because you've heard it taught to you so many times. Because you were programmed to comply.

    Hitler was right -- a crowd will believe any lie if you repeat it long enough.
     
  13. WinAce

    WinAce Just an old legend...

    +47
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Ooh, everything was quickly refuted.

    Like the Dmanisi fossil thread.
    Or the endogenous retrovirii thread.
    Or the pseudogene thread.
    Or the evidence from biogeostratigraphy, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, protein sequencing, and a trillion fundamentally different lines of evidence which strangely all corroborate evolutionary phylogenies made from the first three lines of evidence and elsewhere. :rolleyes:

    My advice--if you can't bring anything of value to the debate at all, instead resorting to more ridiculous YEC rhetoric, don't say anything at all.

    Since you're well beyond any meaningful dialogue, I invoke Godwin's Law--the first one who mentions Nazis in a debate is the loser. Science is the clear winner of this topic--like every single other one in this forum. ;)
     
  14. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Now THAT is funny. Evolutionists need to move stuff around the phylogeny tree so often I hear they're going to start using colorforms to produce the charts. I hear the kit comes with 50 or so species, 100,000 blanks and LOTS of dotted lines.


    --- Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

     
  15. WinAce

    WinAce Just an old legend...

    +47
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Strangely, I'm unable to find any 'moving stuff around so often' over the past... 80 years?

    Horse evolution was updated because it was too simplistic, whale evolution is now much more detailed, and humans are still closest to chimps. Birds are still more related to crocodiles than snakes are *wink wink*.

    While revision only makes such models more accurate as ever more data is gathered, phylogenies derived from independent data statistically match so well that I, for one, am very impressed. Oh yes, one can place an orangutan as splitting off from the common ancestor a bit earlier than expected; but seriously, does that warrant your ludicrous implication that they're not very well supported?

    Care to provide a reference as opposed to making stuff up and looking silly?

    Ah yes--comparative anatomy told us whales were related to ungulates many, many years ago by analyzing morphology, skeletal structure and vestigial organs (rudimentary pelvic and leg bones on a whale--that makes perfect design sense).

    Developmental biology seemed to confirm it, with Baleen embryos possessing teeth (like their ancestors were supposed to possess) that later became reabsorbed before birth.

    Then DNA sequencing confirmed it again. Then transitional fossils sharing characteristics of whales and ungulates, in increasingly whale-like order, were found.

    Once again, do you have anything useful to add to the conversation, or are you, like many others here, an immature atheist trolling the forum to make Christians purposefully look like science-fearing relics from the Dark Ages?

    If De Grasse's quote wasn't taken out of context, as usual, he was demonstrably, flat out wrong. We do indeed have various ways of testing hypotheses on the origin of body plans, phylums and other things. It's called making testable predictions :p

    DNA analysis of homeobox genes holds one key to confirming or disproving a hypothesis (if a gene coding for a leg is used for another organ elsewhere, matching what the 'conjecture' predicts, draw your own conclusions). Comparative anatomy is another. Molecular sequencing is another. Predicting transitional fossils (like insects using modified gill pads for wings) is yet another. There are probably other ways of testing this so called 'conjecture', but I'll let the professional biologists here answer that, as well as provide the context to that quote that will once again make you look ridiculous.
     
  16. LiveFreeOrDie

    LiveFreeOrDie Science Officer

    983
    +1
    That's about the most anti-intellectual statement I've heard all year.

    Yes, the "all scientists are liars" story. We've heard it before.

    Strange, I've never heard this "fact" until now. Which creationist web site did you get it from?

    Except there's no evidence that that is really what happened. Why aren't there any primate fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs?
     
  17. Caffeine Socialism

    Caffeine Socialism Imagine all the people.

    380
    +0
    All right, alex, if you know so much about evolution being false, let's hear some evidence for creationism. We supporters of evolution don't need to show you all of our evidence; there's too much. Instead, go to your local library, read the books on evolution, and see how much evidence there really is. I don't actually expect you to do this, but if you ever do try to become open-minded, do what I suggested you do.

    Now for that creationist evidence.
     
  18. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
    Alex, Nick: I've a question for you. Use your "common design/intelligent design/God did it" view to answer the question. Of the following three animals: 

      A shark, a whale, and a dog. Which two will be the closest genetically, and why?

      How about a turtle, an alligator, and a bird? Which two will be the closest genetically and why?
     
  19. Caedmon

    Caedmon kawaii Supporter

    +538
    Catholic
    US-Others
    Alright, show us a respectable university that conducts a graduate degree in "creation science".
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Who cares? You don't understand genetics enough to know the significance regardless of the similarities.

    Ditto.

    Now here's a question for you. How do you explain it when your geologic column has older strata above younger strata? You call it overthrust, even when a whole mountain has to have moved over fragile shale without damaging it in any way. I call it reading what you want to see in the evidence that might support your theory, and coming up with absurd explanations for any of the evidence that contradicts your theory.

    Same goes for your genetic arguments.
     
Loading...