What’s your problem?

[LittleNipper]

Firstly, do you even know what a strawman argument is? It is when someone reformulates their opponents theory so that it is more easily refuted. In other words, misrepresenting your opponents views. The evolution of vertebrates in 2 billion years is not a strawman, it is the position of science.

Secondly, if you contend that there are other mechanisms involved in the production of biodiversity other than those that have been observed (mutation, selection, and speciation) then it is up to you to evidence them. Without evidence there is no reason to consider them.



And yet you have a problem with a primate evolving into a primate.

An error in logic and judgment is an error no matter what you're determined to call it. Without any experimental evidence, it is not up to you nor people who call themselves either scientist or free-thinkers to make up a "theory" to fill some naturalistic gap and then promote it as truth at the expense of spiritual considerations......

 

[Loudmouth]

An error in logic and judgment is an error no matter what you're determined to call it.

Well, I call it creationism.

Without any experimental evidence, it is not up to you nor people who call themselves either scientist or free-thinkers to make up a "theory" to fill some naturalistic gap and then promote it as truth at the expense of spiritual considerations......

The mechanisms of evolution (mutation, selection, and speciation) are experimental evidence. They are observed mechanisms. They are not made up. These mechanisms produce specific patterns in biodiversity, namely a twin nested hierarchy. It is promoted as a theory based on empirical evidence, unlike creationism which is promoted as a "truth" devoid of empirical evidence.

If you contend that something other than mutation, selection, and speciation was acting in the past or the present then it is up to you to supply evidence for this mechanism. If you don't then it is you supplying the fantasies and made up stories.

 

[Baggins]

Well, if that be the case,.then you've proven evolution entirely wrong. Monkeys will always only beget monkeys and humans will always only beget humans .

Ah, but you see the clever thing is monkeys can eventually beget human beings because cladistically we are monkeys, we share a common ancestor and we have everything that makes a monkey a monkey.

You still haven't grasped this simple point have you.

I find it amazing that this is seemingly beyond your intellect

 

[Garnett]

The fact is, IF anti-evolutionists have inaccurate understandings of evolution it is NOT the fault of creation scientists, it is the fault of science teachers.
I didn't learn what I learned from creationists. I learned in science classrooms in school and in college. I learned it at museums and from textbooks and from library research available when I was a student.
If the information is now considered flawed, or changed, or inaccurate - so be it.

LOL! Funny how this education seems to encapsulate all the fallacies collected by those Creationist websites that consider it acceptable to lie for Jesus.

The vast majority of people who do not accept evolution did not go, "I need to find out how to justify my personal religious beliefs." Many of us started out questioning what we saw as contradictions in what we were being taught in our science classes, and then those same questions were picked up by others.

I bet the religion came first.

I was actually pro-evolution UNTIL my science classes started contradicting one another. I actually started out trying to convince people that evolution didn't conflict with the idea that there was a creator. The more I dug, the more questions I had.

And yet so few questions about the blatant paradoxes inherent in a "literal" interpretation of the Bible? Bizarre.

Well my dear, It may be a strawman, but no one has been able to knock it down.

Go away and do some reading! A strawman is a false representation of your opponent's argument that is easier to knock down! LOL_ You should know this! It's a creationist's favourite fallacy!

Even if you could accomplish such a feat in 10,000 years with purpose-------do you really imagine that NATURALLY this would account for all the variety of species that exist today and those that went extinct within the last few centuries? Think about it....

Awwww! Is that what you think? That the ToE says all animals on Earth evolved from 1 species in 10,000 years. You need to read up on evolution, but that was obvious already.

If you don't see the ultimate stupidity in your accusation then perhaps you have no clue with reguard to evolution.

Oh no! The steel-clad "rubber and glue" defense. I surrender! Seriously, have you won an argument with this since the playground?

Well, if that be the case,.then you've proven evolution entirely wrong. Monkeys will always only beget monkeys and humans will always only beget humans and there were no , nor can there ever be any missing links or intermediate species.... Dinosaurs did not become birds over time or not. Every specie is as it was established with unlimited variety and the difference being the FALL of Adam and some species have simply gone extinct.

Hmmm. No chance you can do some geniune research before posing anymore? How long before you leave this thread like you've left so many before?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Ah, but you see the clever thing is monkeys can eventually beget human beings because cladistically we are monkeys, we share a common ancestor and we have everything that makes a monkey a monkey.

You still haven't grasped this simple point have you.

I find it amazing that this is seemingly beyond your intellect

He can probably understand if he wanted to. It’s an ongoing display of willful ignorance at this point. Cognitive dissonance compounded by the fact that accepting the TofE would ensure that he would be kicked out of his church and probably be shunned by friends and family. He’s only here to earn brownie points by evangelizing to us evil atheists and railing against evilution.

During the time I have participated here he has dodged every offer to have an actual legitimate discussion about the issue. He will simply abandon a discussion when it’s time to concede a point only to come back later with the same tired old stuff.

I must admit though, I like him around. I think he has turned more people to atheism than I ever could.

 

[puresoul]

I'm going to post something from a pamplet I got some time ago, then I'll add some other things:
---------------------------------------
Evolution: The evidence For and Against

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England ...Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the nest 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties... scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandel: Piltdown Man was a hoax...tests proved tat its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction

The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The framed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extict pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,00 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magzine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?

Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of researcg, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

How to Make $250,00

If you really think that there is scientific evidence backing evolution, Dr. Kent Hovind (an authority on the theory) has a long-standing offer. He will give $250,00 "to anyone who can offer any scientific proof for evolution." See if you can find some. Bet you can't. You can find Dr. Hovind's offer at: drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

Faith the Facts

You can't prove evolution. It is something you have to accept by "faith." You have believed what you have heard. You have seen and had faith in evolutionary drawings of reversed osteoporosis. Charles Darwin (the founding father of the faith) said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like a wildfire. People made a religion out of them!" They still do. Their language is language of faith. They use words like "believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probable, possibly..." Evolution can only be accepted on blind faith...because it cannot be proven.
On the other hand, you can prove God's existence. A building is proof that there was a builder. A painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You don't need to see him to believe he exists. His painting is all the evidence you need. It wouldn't be there if he didn't exist. Creation proves absolutely that there is a Creator. There wouldn't be a creation if there wasn't a Creator. A child can understand that.
You can also prove that the Bible is God's supernatural revelation to man. All you have to do is sudy the irrefutable evidence of Bible prophecy (see Matthew 24, Luke 21, 2 Timothy 3, Ezekiel 38-40 , Joel 2, etc.). Go to lost-ark.com to see incredible scientific and medical facts in the Bible, proving that it is supernatural in origin. "But..." you say, "What about all the mistakes in the Bible?" There aren't any. It's all God-inspired. I've been reading it evety day for more than two decades, and I haven't found evan one so-called "Mistake."

Who Then Made God?

God (like space) has neither beginning nor end. He created time and subjected man to it and because we are subject to time, logic demands that everything must have a beginning and an end. However, God dwells outside of time, in "eternity." Again, you can prove this by studying Bibleprophecy, and seeing how God knows the beginning of time from the end.

Human Suffering Proves There's No God

Human suffering actually does the opposite. It certifies that the Bible is true. Scripture says that if a nation obeys God, it will have long life, health, and prosperity. When a nation is given to lawlessness--violence, sexual immortality, etc., God removes His blessings so that it will seek Him. Abraham Lincoln knew and proclaimed this. Check out deuteromy chapter 28 and you will see why the U.S. has so much cancer and so many natural disasters.

If Evolution is True, the Bible is False

Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, and pigs don't produce rabbits. Birds produce birds. Fish produce fish. Each species brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory. That's a fact. Why then should we believe that man originates from another species? If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false, because the Scriptures say that each animal brings forth after its own kind. The whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory-tale of evolution.

The "Big Bang" Disproves the Bible

Try and think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bobm create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, humming birds, polar bears--thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose and mouth?
Here's an interesting experment: empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn't work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,00 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellium liposuction.

Evolution of the Sexes

Notice that almost all forms of complex life have both male and female--horses, cats, dogs, humans, moths, monkeys, fish, elephants, etc. The male needs the female to reproduce, and female needs the male to reproduce. One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to the evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females?If you believe that perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly, male and female evolved over a long period of time, what then made evolution change its initial plan and require the necessity of male and female?
There is another little problem for evolutionists. did the first fish that crawled onto dry land millions of years ago have lungs or gills? If he had gills, he would have gasped and died the moment he crawled onto dry land. If he had lungs, why did he evolve them while he was in the ocean? Also, he had to find a female (to carry on the species) who had also crawled onto the land, and she would have had to have evolved lungs also.
Would you remotely consider the possibility that the Bible is right when it says that God created male and female? Why do you prefer to choose to belive a ridiculous theory than belive the truth with so much evidence around you? Is it because the Bible has moral dictates you disagree with?
-----------------------------------------
...There is more to that, but it's mainly "repent now" type of stuff that I'm sure a debating Atheist won't want to hear now.
Now... I'm sure that you might think that alot of christians will stay away from scientific explaination stuff. Well, that person is not a true, practicing Christian. A real one would dive into these issues head on, and tacle them until they have proved them wrong. If someone is hiding themself from it, then they secretely agree, but don't want to admit it.
Plus, alot of this science stuff is actually just mortal proof of God. So you see a brain inside your head instead of a glowing light? That doesn't mean that we don't have souls, because God wants to test us in this physical world. If everything was out in the open and life was a breeze, then why not just believe we're in Heaven right now, eh? Earth (and part of space) is a time controlled demention that has the limitations of the demention. He put humans here for a reason: To test us. See if we will trust in Him or fall for the little objects that He has put in our path to test us. Same for all of the things that seem to shake a persons faith. Our life here is a test and a mission, not a little ball we were put here by Him to annoy us. God lets Satan tempt us now because He honestly wants to see what we do. He wants us to become stronger in our faith.

Let's say, a boy dropped a ball on the ground... Who can fly. (This is just an example, the first thing that came to mind) He dropped the ball and left, and is now hiding in a high tree. One boy says when he sees it that spirits appeared out of nowhere and gently put it on the floor and flew up into the sky. The other boy argues that it wasn't put there by anything, but simply evolved from the rocks, grass, and dead bugs that are around it because there are no foot prints.
As the two are arguing over this, a girl walks by them and says that a boy put the ball there, and that there are no foot prints because the boy flew over the ground. She says that he flew over the ground to make sure his foot prints were not seen by them.... Get it? God cannot be seen all the time. He remains hidden to test us... And you fell for it!

Wanna give me more of this so-called "proof?" Bring it on! I, and maybe others, will just prove you wrong.

 

[TheInstant]

Wanna give me more of this so-called "proof?" Bring it on! I, and maybe others, will just prove you wrong.

puresoul, everything you have just posted about evolution is either a distortion of the truth or downright false. I can explain why, but first I would like to know whether you are willing to stick around and maybe learn something.

 

[puresoul]

puresoul, everything you have just posted about evolution is either a distortion of the truth or downright false. I can explain why, but first I would like to know whether you are willing to stick around and maybe learn something.

I have learned alot. I know the truth. I cannot read and argue with it today because I have to get off, it's getting late here. I'll be here tomorrow, though.
By the way, you seem to not accept things. You've said it's a distortion of the truth and blah, blah, but if there really was proof of God right in your face, would you truly accept it or keep making up things. I've dealt with people like you before, and they are extreme: They will only listen to and concider things true if it agrees with them. I will concider everything and argue with everything, though I am not a perfessional at debating because I don't have much experience, because I am a true Christian, and believe in Christianity, and whatever you throw at me won't shake me, but make me stronger. I will listen and accept things from each side for at least a little bit and also research everything you are arguing for and against. I am open-minded and not scared of a little debate. Bring it on! I'll bring it too... But I have to get off, I've been online too much. I'm just letting you know so you won't think I haven't got anything to say back yet. I'll kick your butt when I get up tomorrow morning, don't you worry...

 

[Baggins]

Wonder if well ever see this 'butt kicker' again.

If we do and the above is the level of his understanding he is going to have a cerebrally painful few days

 

[TheInstant]

I have learned alot. I know the truth. I cannot read and argue with it today because I have to get off, it's getting late here. I'll be here tomorrow, though.

Okay, I'll go through you're original post above and respond before then.

By the way, you seem to not accept things. You've said it's a distortion of the truth and blah, blah, but if there really was proof of God right in your face, would you truly accept it or keep making up things.

I specifically said that what you said about evolution is wrong, not God. This forum is about scientific findings, not apologetics.

've dealt with people like you before, and they are extreme: They will only listen to and concider things true if it agrees with them.

Wow, I'm so glad you know all about me from one comment I made on an internet forum.

I will concider everything and argue with everything, though I am not a perfessional at debating because I don't have much experience, because I am a true Christian, and believe in Christianity, and whatever you throw at me won't shake me, but make me stronger.

This is not an evolution vs. Christianity debate. I'm not going to try to shake your faith in Christianity.

I will listen and accept things from each side for at least a little bit and also research everything you are arguing for and against. I am open-minded and not scared of a little debate.

Good, this is what I wanted to hear. Some people post PRATT lists like yours above and then run off never to return. That's why I wanted to make sure you were willing to stay and debate before I took the time to respond.

Bring it on! I'll bring it too... But I have to get off, I've been online too much. I'm just letting you know so you won't think I haven't got anything to say back yet. I'll kick your butt when I get up tomorrow morning, don't you worry...

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[USincognito]

Oh this is great, but since I can't tell if it's a drive by Poe'ing yet, I'm just going to comment on the bolded parts.

I'm going to post something from a pamplet I got some time ago, then I'll add some other things:

(puresoul's pamphlet in bold, my replies in blue)
---------------------------------------

Evolution: The evidence For and Against

Obviously you understand nothing about the relavency of the Piltdown hoax, nor the importance of how it was exposed. I'm currently preparing for a formal debate on the subject, so I'm not going into detail here, but you don't understand the issue at all.

Science Fiction

Nebraska man was never tauted by the scientific community, you've been misinformed by your little pamphlet. Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Neandertalensis are legitimate non Sapiens human species.

How to Make $250,00

The fact that your pamphlet includes Hovind's fraudulent "challenge" tells me more about the publisher than I need to know. You should take your own link and see what Hovind actually wants people to do.

Faith the Facts

As soon as you've delved into Apologetics, you're playing the Atheists Gambit and are weakening your position, tenuous as it was to begin with.

Who Then Made God?

General Apologetics is down the hall. The Atheists Gambit is a losing hand in a scientific discussion.

Human Suffering Proves There's No God

See the last two comments.

If Evolution is True, the Bible is False

It's ironic that while title of this paragraph is the Atheists Gambit in summary, it then goes on to try and address science with a strawmen. Dogs giving birth to kittens would invalidate the Theory of Evolution. That's not what the theory claims, so your straw man falls apart on it's own.

The "Big Bang" Disproves the Bible

Cosmology has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, but since the pamphlet brings it up, Big Bang actually supports a Creation more than harms it. It's only ignorance and a knee-jerk reaction against science that cause many Christians to reject Big Bang Theory.

Evolution of the Sexes

Whip tailed lizards are one all female parthenogenetic species I can think of off my head. How does "He made them male and female" explain the existance of this species? Did the male fall off the Ark?

Wanna give me more of this so-called "proof?" Bring it on! I, and maybe others, will just prove you wrong.

Yeah, they've been trying to do so for 150 years now and it hasn't happened yet, so I'm sure the cutting and pasting of factually incorrect, ignorant and straw man filled pamphlets will suddenly and miraculously cause the demise of science as we know it.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[gluadys]

And if you can change a fruitfly into anything living other then a fruitfly----man it would make world news-------and you know it would.

It sure would. It would sound the death knell of evolutionary theory.

 

[TheInstant]

All right, let’s take a quick look at this pamphlet.

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England ...Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the nest 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties... scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandel: Piltdown Man was a hoax...tests proved tat its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Yes, Piltdown Man was a hoax perpetrated against the scientific community. The summary above makes it sound as if it was universally accepted and unchallenged, which was not the case. There were some scientists who were very skeptical of the find. However, it was not shown that the fossil was a hoax until more accurate dating methods and a better understanding of human evolution were available (very little fossil evidence for human evolution was available at the time of the hoax, which is not the case now).

Read more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

It should be noted that, while this fraud is certainly not a proud moment in the history of science, it is at least an example of science’s ability to self-correct.

The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The framed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extict pig.

Nebraska Man was not fraud, it was a mistake.

The “reconstruction” the pamphlet is referring to was an illustration for a (non-scientific) popular magazine. It was an artist’s representation and was never intended to be regarded as scientifically accurate.

Read more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

"Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers.

So, are scientists unable to make inferences from fossil fragments? At any rate, other (more complete) homo erectus fossils have been found. So no, this one is not a fraud.

"Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modern man.

I believe that there is some debate about whether Heidelberg Man was homo erectus or archaic homo sapiens. That hardly makes this a hoax.

puresoul, why do you think this pamphlet classifies these fossils (besides Piltdown Man) as frauds when they are not? Not to mention that there are many (better) fossil examples of human evolution. Why does the pamphlet only mention these? Doesn’t that seem a little dishonest?

Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,00 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magzine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off."

What is the article about? For all we know, it could be about what circumstances lead to unreliable dating (yes, there are such circumstances, but fortunately scientists know what they are and can avoid them). Why does the pamphlet only mention the title of the article and not what the article actually says?

Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

Humans are bipedal apes.

Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of researcg, National Center of Scientific Research).

This quote is out of context. Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species).

This quote doesn’t seem to exist anywhere except for creationist websites (or, I suppose, in creationist pamphlets such as this one). Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

If my memory serves me correctly, that quote is from 1959. And why would someone on the Atomic Energy Commission be in a better position to comment on evolution than, say, a biologist?

So here we have some quotes, all shown to be either out of context, old, or said by someone in a field not relevant to evolution. My question to you, puresoul, is, if creationist do in fact have evidence against evolution, why must they resort to such dishonest tactics as these?

If you really think that there is scientific evidence backing evolution, Dr. Kent Hovind (an authority on the theory) has a long-standing offer.

We really should stop right here. “Dr.” Kent Hovind is in no way an authority on the theory of evolution, and the fact that this pamphlet claims that he is is enough reason to dismiss it entirely. But let’s move on anyway.

He will give $250,00 "to anyone who can offer any scientific proof for evolution." See if you can find some. Bet you can't. You can find Dr. Hovind's offer at: drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

Here is a good page detailing Hovind and his “offer”: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

Scroll down to “What is the $250,000 Offer” and you will see that he has set it up in such a way as to make it impossible. One of the many things wrong with the offer is that he demands whoever provides evidence of evolution also provide evidence that God had no part in it, which besides being impossible is not something that is claimed by evolutionary theory in the first place.

You can't prove evolution.

Science doesn’t deal in proof, but the theory of evolution is extremely well-evidenced.

It is something you have to accept by "faith."

Why is faith required to accept something supported by so many independent lines of evidence?

You have believed what you have heard. You have seen and had faith in evolutionary drawings of reversed osteoporosis.

What?

 

[TheInstant]

(continued)

Charles Darwin (the founding father of the faith) said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like a wildfire. People made a religion out of them!"

I believe this is from Lady Hope’s account of Darwin’s “deathbed conversion”. If it is, it should not be taken seriously. Perhaps someone else on the forum knows for sure if that is the source for this “quote”.

At any rate, it doesn’t matter if Darwin or any other scientist made any amount of statements against evolution. Evidence, not random quotes, is what counts.

They still do. Their language is language of faith. They use words like "believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probable, possibly..." Evolution can only be accepted on blind faith...because it cannot be proven.

These words appear in all of science, not just evolution, because science is tentative (new facts could always arise).

On the other hand, you can prove God's existence. A building is proof that there was a builder. A painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You don't need to see him to believe he exists. His painting is all the evidence you need. It wouldn't be there if he didn't exist. Creation proves absolutely that there is a Creator. There wouldn't be a creation if there wasn't a Creator. A child can understand that.
You can also prove that the Bible is God's supernatural revelation to man. All you have to do is sudy the irrefutable evidence of Bible prophecy (see Matthew 24, Luke 21, 2 Timothy 3, Ezekiel 38-40 , Joel 2, etc.). Go to lost-ark.com to see incredible scientific and medical facts in the Bible, proving that it is supernatural in origin. "But..." you say, "What about all the mistakes in the Bible?" There aren't any. It's all God-inspired. I've been reading it evety day for more than two decades, and I haven't found evan one so-called "Mistake."

Who Then Made God?

God (like space) has neither beginning nor end. He created time and subjected man to it and because we are subject to time, logic demands that everything must have a beginning and an end. However, God dwells outside of time, in "eternity." Again, you can prove this by studying Bibleprophecy, and seeing how God knows the beginning of time from the end.

Human Suffering Proves There's No God

Human suffering actually does the opposite. It certifies that the Bible is true. Scripture says that if a nation obeys God, it will have long life, health, and prosperity. When a nation is given to lawlessness--violence, sexual immortality, etc., God removes His blessings so that it will seek Him. Abraham Lincoln knew and proclaimed this. Check out deuteromy chapter 28 and you will see why the U.S. has so much cancer and so many natural disasters.

None of this has anything to do with evolution. Accepting evolutionary theory does not mean rejecting God.

Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, and pigs don't produce rabbits.

Of course they don’t. Who said they did?

Birds produce birds. Fish produce fish.

Who said otherwise?

Each species brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory. That's a fact. Why then should we believe that man originates from another species?

Because the evidence suggests it?

If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false, because the Scriptures say that each animal brings forth after its own kind. The whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory-tale of evolution.

Then why do so many Christians accept evolution?

Try and think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bobm create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, humming birds, polar bears--thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose and mouth?

1) The Big Bang was not an actual explosion.
2) The Big Bang is not evolution.

Here's an interesting experment: empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn't work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,00 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellium liposuction.

This is not at all a valid comparison to evolutionary theory. Why do creationists so often have to resort to these straw-man arguments?

Notice that almost all forms of complex life have both male and female--horses, cats, dogs, humans, moths, monkeys, fish, elephants, etc. The male needs the female to reproduce, and female needs the male to reproduce. One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to the evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females?

They evolved together.

If you believe that perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly, male and female evolved over a long period of time, what then made evolution change its initial plan and require the necessity of male and female?

Evolution does not have a “plan” in the sense the pamphlet seems to be referring to. But the course evolution takes is constantly altered by selection pressures.

There is another little problem for evolutionists. did the first fish that crawled onto dry land millions of years ago have lungs or gills? If he had gills, he would have gasped and died the moment he crawled onto dry land. If he had lungs, why did he evolve them while he was in the ocean?

Ever heard of amphibians?

Also, he had to find a female (to carry on the species) who had also crawled onto the land, and she would have had to have evolved lungs also.

Populations evolve, not individual organisms.

Would you remotely consider the possibility that the Bible is right when it says that God created male and female?

This is not incompatible with evolution.

Why do you prefer to choose to belive a ridiculous theory than belive the truth with so much evidence around you?

What evidence would that be? This pamphlet certainly didn’t supply any.

Is it because the Bible has moral dictates you disagree with?

No.

So this brings us to the end of the pamphlet. Like I said, nothing but distortions of the truth or downright falsehood. I did find the title, “Evidence For and Against” amusing, since the pamphlet had neither.

By the way, puresoul, I only vaguely touched on a lot of the issues here, but if you would like to discuss any of it in more detail I would be happy to.

Wanna give me more of this so-called "proof?" Bring it on! I, and maybe others, will just prove you wrong.

We’ll see.

 

[Elduran]

Now that's what I call refuting creationist tripe!

Nice work guys, every single argument there blown out of the water.

 

[Jet Black]

I'm going to post something from a pamplet I got some time ago, then I'll add some other things:

sorry kid, but this pamphlet of yours is just chock full of errors. I'll point some of them out to you.

"Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth.

lots of other far more complete fossils of Homo Erectus have been found.

Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magzine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off."

blatant quote mine of an article title. who knows what the article says.

Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

neanderthal chromosomal DNA has never been recovered. I found one claim that it has been, but that came from a white supremacist site. If you want to get your info from racists, be my guest.

Try and think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bobm create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, humming birds, polar bears--thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose and mouth?

I wansn't aware that apples have mouths. Anyway, that is a distortion of the Big Bang. It wasn't an explosion.

Here's an interesting experment: empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn't work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,00 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellium liposuction.

strawman.

There is another little problem for evolutionists. did the first fish that crawled onto dry land millions of years ago have lungs or gills? If he had gills, he would have gasped and died the moment he crawled onto dry land.

what a load of rubbish. Have you never heard of lungfish, mudskippers, and loads of others that exist right now, that violate your silly rule?

If he had lungs, why did he evolve them while he was in the ocean? Also, he had to find a female (to carry on the species) who had also crawled onto the land, and she would have had to have evolved lungs also.

strawman.

See if we will trust in Him or fall for the little objects that He has put in our path to test us.

God's a liar?

Wanna give me more of this so-called "proof?" Bring it on! I, and maybe others, will just prove you wrong.

your argument is replete with errors and strawmen.

 

[Garnett]

As the two are arguing over this, a girl walks by them and says that a boy put the ball there, and that there are no foot prints because the boy flew over the ground. She says that he flew over the ground to make sure his foot prints were not seen by them.... Get it? God cannot be seen all the time. He remains hidden to test us... And you fell for it!

LOL. This story sounds just like the Emperor's New Clothes. I bet none of these stupid Evolutionists could see those either!

 

[shinbits]

Do you understand that it doesn’t happen fast enough to cause one family of individuals to speciate within a population and that it requires long term isolation in order for a population to speciate?

Okay. But this all goes back to the assumptions that have to be made.

It must first be assumed that mutations even happened. There is no way at all to know this, it can only be assumed.
Then it must be assumed that the mutations were passed on and remained in the gene pool.
Then it must be assumed that enough mutations happened over millions of years, to cause enough change in a population to become a new species.

We also must assume what adaptive pressures may have been there to adapt to. There is definately no way to know that.


There is so much that is speculative about evolution.

 

[Jet Black]

welcome back.

Okay. But this all goes back to the assumptions that have to be made.

It must first be assumed that mutations even happened. There is no way at all to know this, it can only be assumed.

true, but then we can only assume the sun appeared to rise in the east and set in the west. The fact is that we know it does now, and we have no reason to suspect that it did not in the past. Mutations do happen because replication is imperfect because of physical processes we understand. There is no reason (unless you are dad) to assume that in the past, the laws of physics would be massively different in such a way as to stop mutations. We know that humans have a wide range of genes and alleles. Far more than could be contained in two people, or even a thousand people. we know that many of the changes are only small ones, and some are big, so where did these changes come from? they must have come from mutations.

Then it must be assumed that the mutations were passed on and remained in the gene pool.

well why wouldn't they be? Lets say a mutation happened. During cell dividion a copy of the DNA is made and divided between the two cells. so if a mutation occurs in a parent cell, then all the daughters will have the mutation too. Since we can infer that mutations happened from aove, they must have been transmitted through the generations.

Then it must be assumed that enough mutations happened over millions of years, to cause enough change in a population to become a new species.

enough mutations can happen in a couple of hundred years for this. Take the london underground mosquitoes for example. They are morphologically fairly similar to the mosquitoes that live above ground, except these attack people, whereas those above ground attack birds, and the two are generically incompatible. Look at the Israeli Naked molerat. Those at one end of the range are chromosomally incompatible with those at the other. Ring species such as salamanders in the US and the black backed gull, and I think it is a type of *** around russia, are incompatible at their ends. So speciation can occur as a result of accumulation of differences. It has been observed many times.

We also must assume what adaptive pressures may have been there to adapt to. There is definately no way to know that.

adaptice pressures are often just changes in the environment. We have substantial evidence of the climate having been very different in various places in the past. All those huge oil fields were once forests, the valleys and basins in the UK stand testament to the fact that the UK was once covered in glaciers, and many of the rocks and fossils in the UK stand testament to the fact that it was once a warm tropical ocean. There is a coral reef buried underneath texas, the limestone of the white cliffs of Dover show that it was once underwater. We find fossils of tropical terrestrial animals in the UK, we find huge amounts of evidence that the climate, and hence selective pressures have changed over time. In fact, we see this even now. Raccoons have been reported to be seeing an increase in brain size for those living around urban areas (most likely due to the additional complexity of getting food selecting for those that are smarter) rats have seen some quite significant changes in sewers, as have many birds, whose song are much higher pitched now to overcome the relentless noise of city life. Dogs have taken on many new behaviours - looking people in the eye and so on, and are far more capable of instinctively recognising human cues than even chimps are.

There is lots of evidence that pressures have changed, and still are.

There is so much that is speculative about evolution.

The sorts of speculations you are bringing up there are just as specuative as anything. Just as speculative as saying the earth orbitted the sun 10,000 years ago or that things fell to the ground. Those speculations raised above are just extending what we know happens and what we have significant evidence of having happened in the past.

 

[shinbits]

welcome back.
true, but then we can only assume the sun appeared to rise in the east and set in the west. The fact is that we know it does now, and we have no reason to suspect that it did not in the past.

That's because we can observe that that's how the sun appears to rise now. But we have no observations now on which to assume that life came out of the sea and developed legs.

Mutations do happen because replication is imperfect because of physical processes we understand.

Aren't mutations infrequent? Because if what you say is the case, then mutations are not infrequent, but happens each and everytime an offspring is made.

This being the case, I can go back to my earlier point of there being far too many different types of genes in the gene pool that would be passed on, and differention offspring to the point that they are too different to even be called a population.

It's hard to believe in evolution.