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.
notto said:There is evidence available and abounding in the creation that simply cannot exist if it was created the way it says it was in the bible some 6000-10000 years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htmlmattes said:What evidence? I haven't heard any that disproves the young earth.
mattes, how was evolutionary theory developed? It was developed by examining the evidence! How was modern creationist theory developed? It was developed by reading the first few chapters of Genesis literally. Which one of those is a more scientific approach.mattes said:Why not? Evolution is a theory and they try to support their theory, and wait isnt that the whole point of science?
Big talk.There is more evidence of Creationism then there is in Evolution.
Piltdown horse? Come on, at least get the right names for the hoaxes. It's Piltdown man. Maybe you should read about it:In fact most of evolution's evidence are hoaxes ie. Piltdown Horse
Was not a hoax, it was a genuine mistake. Maybe you should read about it:Nebraska Man
Was not a hoax done to defend evolutionary theory but to defend Haeckel's own personal theory. Maybe you should read about it:Haekel's Embryos
I don't even know what you're talking about here. It's a perfect example of natural selection. Maybe you should read about it:Peppered Moth
I assure you there were no hoaxes printed in any of the biology textbooks I used (and I live in California!)and there still keeping these hoaxes in the textbooks
http://www.christianforums.com/t43339What evidence? I haven't heard any that disproves the young earth
troodon said:Creation science is bad science because it starts with the conclusion (God created the universe 6,000 years ago) and tries to find evidence to support it. That is not how science operates.
Piltdown Man was discredited long ago (by evolutionists) and even at my age, there was no mention of Piltdown Man in any of my textbooks, except as the hoax it was. Nor did I ever see Haekel's Embryos.mattes said:evolution's evidence are hoaxes ie. Piltdown Horse, Nebraska Man, Haekel's Embryos, Peppered Moth, and etc. and there still keeping these hoaxes in the textbooks and not to mention there attempts of cover ups. I hate to say it but evolution is a disease to science. Evolution theory has become a religion and people are going to great extremes to try to prove it.
I would challenge you to find a single geologist who comes to the conclusion that the earth is young based only on the evidence in nature and not on their preexisting understanding that the bible says the earth is young.mattes said:Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence.
It was the scientist who was the digging who was hoaxed; the altered skull was planted and, yes, he fell for it.mattes said:-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a “missing link.” Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.
Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.
Peppered moths do indeed rest on tree trunks, but not for long. They are moths. They fly around a lot.-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks. So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.
That's exactly what you just described! Darwin didn't say, "I think all life descended from less derived organisms so I'm going to go look for examples." He saw the examples (the data), connected the dots (formulated a hypothesis), and tested it by examining other examples (pigeons are mentioned thoroughly in Origin of Species)mattes said:The Evolutionary Theory was created by Charles Darwin after his five year journey as an unpaid naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle. After this voyage formed the basis of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Published in 1859.
1 scientist came to a conclusion after seeing some fossils and some different spieces, Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence.
Your opinion is incorrect for 2 reasons. Number one, because evolution did not start out as the dominant theory. Creationism did. Evolution was 'invented' after examining the evidence and it gained prominance because it was so fricken good at explaining all the evidence. Number two, scientists are not out "[trying] to find evidence to support it". Scientists are out looking for two things. One, they are out looking for evidence to support the controversial specifics of evolution. Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and there is no need to find more evidence for it. What there is a need for is specific evidence to defend and falsify the more controversial specific claims of ancestry (dinosaurs to birds and ungulates to whales for example). Scientists aren't out looking for (and finding btw) feathered dinosaurs to support evolution in general but to support the dino/bird link. Secondly, scientists are looking for evidence to provide more detail about commonly accepted lines of ancestry (therapsid to mammal, fish to amphibian, early Homo to human). We know that is the general ancestral line but we look for evidence as to what specific family, genera, or even species was that ancestor.Evolution science in my opinion is bad science because it starts with the conclusion the Earth is billions of years old and tries to find evidence to support it.
Yes, it was a fraud but what you fail to be taking note of is that the hoax was uncovered by people who accept evolutionary theory. Far from being desparate to find support from their claims, they very willingly cast aside this evidence when they managed to discover it for what it was.-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a missing link. Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.
Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud.
Have you personally examined the specimen? And if not could you point me to a source where a person who has says "one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like"?On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.
Oh really? A very major claim. Back it up. Point me to a text book company who has Haeckel's embryos still in their books.-Haekel's Embryos-
This is a hoax. Haekel drew the first stages of the embryos almost identical. The second row of embryos were real but the first row were faked to look identical to prove the Evolution Theory. The picture of these embryos can still be found in textbooks today even thoe there false.
Yes, I've seen them. If you would actually look at the link I provided you would see that pictures like these are on the page and thus you could have concluded that I have seen them.Heres a picture of Haekel's Embryos:
www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg
Here are some real embryos:
brynmawr.edu/biology/Bio394/embryos.jpg
You know what? I LOVE IT when people you are having a discussion with do not go to the links you provide them. Do the bigger letters help? Here, for your convenience I will reproduce the important part:-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks.
I even had the words "peppered moth" bolded in the link but some people....lucaspa said:Here's the data:
" [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here are the data I presented (from Majerus, 1998, Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action, page 123):
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resting positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exposed trunk:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unexposed trunk[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trunk/branch joint:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Branches[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: 32 of 47 moths (68%) were found on tree trunks[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Resting positions of moths found in the vicinity of traps between 1965 and 1996[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exposed trunk:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]48[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unexposed trunk[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trunk/branch joint:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]66[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Branches[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Foliage[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Man-made surfaces:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: 136 of 203 moths (67%) were found on tree trunks[/font]http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e...april-2002.html
You know what I find hilarious about your claims of fraud? It's that, if you actually believe that peppered moths don't use their camoflauge, you have a situation where this allele gained prominance in the population for no reason whatsoever. Did you even consider that problem?So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.
You have provided 2 examples of hoaxes. Good job. I'll help you out and point out Archaeoraptor as well (although this was a hoax perpetrated on the scientists; not by them). So... you have 3 examples of hoaxes.... that's it. And you dismiss evolution as bad science based on 3 hoaxes?I think not, Evolution Science is bad science because they create hoaxes to try to give evidence to there theory.
troodon said:You know what? I LOVE IT when people you are having a discussion with do not go to the links you provide them. Do the bigger letters help? Here, for your convenience I will reproduce the important part:
I even had the words "peppered moth" bolded in the link but some people....
You know what I find hilarious about your claims of fraud? It's that, if you actually believe that peppered moths don't use their camoflauge, you have a situation where this allele gained prominance in the population for no reason whatsoever. Did you even consider that problem?
troodon said:Oh really? A very major claim. Back it up. Point me to a text book company who has Haeckel's embryos still in their books.
If you can't I will discount your claim as an empty lie
troodon said:How was evolutionary theory developed? It was developed by examining the evidence!
You doubt a scientific study because it contradicts what you believe? Was the methodology wrong or are the scientists just lying?mattes said:I did read the link I doubt its credibility.
How is this not an example of natural selection? The moths, as you admit, use their camoflauge! How do you explain the change in allele frequency without natural selection?I think yes the moths use there camoflauge but its not an example of Darwinism, that was my point.
Please do so.My High School textbook has them in there. I graduated but ill try to get one from my brother and show you.
As Vance said, "What about it?"Really what about Coelacanth?
troodon said:You doubt a scientific study because it contradicts what you believe? Was the methodology wrong or are the scientists just lying?
You even said, "later it was found that the moths do not rest on tree trunks". How was this "found" without a scientific study? What? How? Point me to a study that shows these results. Or did your pastor just tell you this?
Hehe, you got to me before I deleted that pastor part. It was out of line and I apologize. Although the sound of your response makes it seem like you did get it from your pastor. Hmm...mattes said:Well the reason I doubt is ive heard different things about the peppered moth and I am currently studying which is true. I dont go off beliving everything I hear or read I try to hear both sides then make an educated decision. Fair enough statment "or did your pastor just tell you this?" did you just read this one article to make your belief statment?
Nice attempt to re-write history. When Darwin started the voyage he was a creationist. As you noted, he collected all that data on the voyage but it wasn't until he was back in England that he came up with evolution and natural selection. In fact, while he was collecting the samples of birds and tortoises on the Galapagos, he had no idea all the birds were finches. He only found that out once he was back in England 3 years after he collected the samples.mattes said:The Evolutionary Theory was created by Charles Darwin after his five year journey as an unpaid naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle. After this voyage formed the basis of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Published in 1859.
1 scientist came to a conclusion after seeing some fossils and some different spieces, Wow evolution science was really developed by examining the evidence. Evolution science in my opinion is bad science because it starts with the conclusion the Earth is billions of years old and tries to find evidence to support it.
If that were the case, the proof of the hoax would have been the teeth. Instead, it was the fluoride content of the bones. Remember, this was a hoax perpetrated on scientists, not by scientists. They would have detected as crude a hoax as you imply.-Piltdown Man-
This is a hoax. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a missing link. Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it.
Later, it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human-like.
Haeckel's drawings are not evidence about evolution, but evidence pertaining to a particular theory about the way evolution happened. The pictures can't be found in any textbooks written within the last 10 years.-Haekel's Embryos-
This is a hoax. Haekel drew the first stages of the embryos almost identical. The second row of embryos were real but the first row were faked to look identical to prove the Evolution Theory. The picture of these embryos can still be found in textbooks today even thoe there false.
Heres a picture of Haekel's Embryos:
www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/embryos.jpg
Here are some real embryos:
brynmawr.edu/biology/Bio394/embryos.jpg
You've been reading Icons of Evolution. Sorry, this is a fabrication. The moths do rest on tree trunks. I have the exact data if you want. The pictures were staged because live moths don't rest long enough for the photographer to set everything up. But the moths were glued where the real moths landed. What is not known is the exact selection pressure, i.e, predation, but it is a classic Darwinian model.-Peppered Moth-
Is suppose to be a classic example of Evolution in action.The moths were changing to the same colors of the trees. Well it was later found out that the moths do not rest on tree trunks. So that comes to the conclusion that the pictures were set up. I think I heard the scientist were gluing dead moths to tree trunks and taking pictures of them. scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model but its still being displayed in the text book as if it is.
Have you read Origin of the Species? Have you read any textbook on evolutionary biology? Unless you can answer "yes" to both, your haven't studied both sides.mattes said:Well the reason I doubt is ive heard different things about the peppered moth and I am currently studying which is true. I dont go off beliving everything I hear or read I try to hear both sides then make an educated decision.
Creation Science is not what people like Whewell, Newton, Sedgwick, Linneaus, etc. had. Creation Science dates from 1968 when Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood. While Creation Science is a scientific theory, it is not a valid theory. That is, it was falsified by 1831.mattes said:Excuse me? I don't think you know what your talking about. Creation Science is very much science. In fact the all major branches of science were started by creationists.
ROFL!! That is SOOO wide of the mark. None of the medical advances made in the last 50 years could have been made if evolution was not true.There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless.
Before you make that statement about evolution, I suggest you "check out both sides". You can start by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and entering "evolution" as your search term. I would say that over 129,000 articles in a medical database since 1965 constitutes "legitimate evidence". Don't you? Or should we throw all of the database out as illegitimate?So I would say maybe Evolution Science is not science, Evolution is only a thoery a bad one at that it doesnt have legitament evidence to support it.
Before you speak out against Creation Science look at both sides of the story.
lucaspa said:ROFL!! That is SOOO wide of the mark. None of the medical advances made in the last 50 years could have been made if evolution was not true.
Here are some areas where evolution and natural selection have proved very useful. We can discuss them in detail if you want. LOL! Sorry, I'm still laughing at your claim.
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?