Creationism is a joke
- Thread starter Glockmatic
- Start date
That quote is from the Sarah Palin thread and was said by raywaters11.
Humans and apes came from the same branch. One species split into two, one lead to humans and the other split other times to form the other great apes. We did not evolve from a chimp or gorilla. The other species that we evolved from are extinct and we have their fossils.
Posted by Snowman.
The Earth is in fact billions of years old. There are zircon that date to 3 billion years old.
Humans (and all mammals/birds/lizards) came from the oceans. If you look at the fossil records it shows that most life during the carboniferious period are fish and insects. It's not until later periods that life on land becomes diverse.
Humans and apes came from the same branch. One species split into two, one lead to humans and the other split other times to form the other great apes. We did not evolve from a chimp or gorilla. The other species that we evolved from are extinct and we have their fossils.
Posted by Snowman.
The Earth is in fact billions of years old. There are zircon that date to 3 billion years old.
Humans (and all mammals/birds/lizards) came from the oceans. If you look at the fossil records it shows that most life during the carboniferious period are fish and insects. It's not until later periods that life on land becomes diverse.
Evolution doesn't work like that. All the animals in a species don't just suddenly evolve together. Whatever we (and chimps, and bonobos) evolved from is extinct. One population of our ancestors evolved human-like features, another population evolved chimp-like features, to adapt to their surroundings.
Here's a (relatively) quick lesson in taxonomic rank.
Carolus Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy (and a creationist) came up with the basic taxonomic rank that formed the basis for modern taxonomy.
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species
Humans are part of the domain eukarya, the kingdom animalia, the phylum chordata, the class mammalia and the order primates.
Monkeys are also primates, but they are in a different superfamily to humans and apes. Humans are part of the superfamily hominoidea, which splits into two families, hylobatidae (which includes gibbons) and hominidae (which includes great apes and humans). Hominidae then splits into two subfamilies, ponginae (orangutans) and homininae. Homininae divides into two tribes, gorrilini (gorillas) and hominini. There are two genera in hominini, pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and homo (humans).
So primitive humans (homo) are most closely related to chimps and bonobos, who come from the same tribe.
Actually, I don't remember ever being taught evolution in school. Science was never my favourite subject anyway.
A lot of people become atheists because of the bible. The fact that it contradicts proven scientific fact is often enough for people to wake up and realise that they've been deceived (or that they've been deceiving themselves).
Go ahead, disprove the evidence.
Here's a (relatively) quick lesson in taxonomic rank.
Carolus Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy (and a creationist) came up with the basic taxonomic rank that formed the basis for modern taxonomy.
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species
Humans are part of the domain eukarya, the kingdom animalia, the phylum chordata, the class mammalia and the order primates.
Monkeys are also primates, but they are in a different superfamily to humans and apes. Humans are part of the superfamily hominoidea, which splits into two families, hylobatidae (which includes gibbons) and hominidae (which includes great apes and humans). Hominidae then splits into two subfamilies, ponginae (orangutans) and homininae. Homininae divides into two tribes, gorrilini (gorillas) and hominini. There are two genera in hominini, pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and homo (humans).
So primitive humans (homo) are most closely related to chimps and bonobos, who come from the same tribe.
Actually, I don't remember ever being taught evolution in school. Science was never my favourite subject anyway.
A lot of people become atheists because of the bible. The fact that it contradicts proven scientific fact is often enough for people to wake up and realise that they've been deceived (or that they've been deceiving themselves).
Go ahead, disprove the evidence.
Snowman: The world is nowhere near 20,000,000 billion years old. The world is approximately 4.6 billion years old, formed when pieces of ice and debris circling the sun collided and formed planets. Shortly thereafter, the earth was struck by debris/asteroid that catapulted mass into the air and formed into our moon. It took about 700 million years before the planet was able to harbor life.
Or you can believe something like a supreme being formed the earth in 7 days, the birds and the fish of the sea and then Adam and Eve and whoops, no mention of dinosaurs or anything.
Because people weren't aware of the dinosaurs existence when that story was made up.
Or you can believe something like a supreme being formed the earth in 7 days, the birds and the fish of the sea and then Adam and Eve and whoops, no mention of dinosaurs or anything.
Because people weren't aware of the dinosaurs existence when that story was made up.
here's a little bit right now. i'll post more later on. :thumb:
With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific
Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic
points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just
a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is
wrong with evolution.
1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a
measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the
past.
2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously
existing organisms. (We "discover" new kinds that we have never cataloged
before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)
3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence.
All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed.
(The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their
decay and degradation.)
4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind
is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing
links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.
5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does
not come from nonliving material. Life does not spontaneously generate
itself.
6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in
nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially.
Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the
"upward" progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by
evolutionists.
7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of
creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it
in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same
appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.
8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean
order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There
is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight
down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the
textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in
nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside
down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where
evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older"
layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule
and not the exception throughout the fossil record.
9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the
fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record.
In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical
position rather than in a horizontal position.
10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the
fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have
very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures
supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms
began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.
11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so
glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as
simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more
complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree
trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a
picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types
represented from the beginning with their own
individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that
we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.
12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of
all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a
plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links"
are missing because they are missing.
13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artist's depiction, conception or
illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artist's illustration
of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination
are not evidence.
14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex
languages than we do today. The engineering feasts of the past cultures are
well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times.
There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone,
bronze and iron tools in all "ages" of past human activity. Indeed, there
is nothing new under the sun.
The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.
15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect
there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be
greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than
themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity
without the input from a greater intelligence.
16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to
evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy
Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own
existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been
anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it
is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came
into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding
energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or
complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes
nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution
cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to
describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all
activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work.
The universe is running down, not up.
17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely
illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure.
Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or
destroy what was previously ordered.
18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to
be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding
outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing
them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.
19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states
that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own
kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from
one kind into another kind.
20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of
undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input
from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order
and/or complexity.
21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order
to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that
intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman
would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.
22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such
as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically
impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to
form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!
23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the
driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective
benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for
a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the
existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to
eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given
population.
24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The
missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do
not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells
within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become
avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in
humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.
25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design
features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial
list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis,
Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human
brains for that matter).
26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the
same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have
within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system,
digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system,
command and communi- cation system.
27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a
cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must
already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70
proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete
DNA to fabricate those proteins.
28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind
intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we
see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and
consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through
intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by
random chance.
If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that
they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the
same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of
that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.
We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it
gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it
must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside.
The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little
electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must
make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological
system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective
countermeasures without killing us at the same time.
29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive
organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution.
It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive
organs or structures in a human body!
30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of
sex, symbiosis or altruism.
I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the
true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will
never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.
Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?
A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!
With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific
Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic
points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just
a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is
wrong with evolution.
1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a
measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the
past.
2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously
existing organisms. (We "discover" new kinds that we have never cataloged
before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)
3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence.
All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed.
(The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their
decay and degradation.)
4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind
is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing
links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.
5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does
not come from nonliving material. Life does not spontaneously generate
itself.
6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in
nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially.
Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the
"upward" progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by
evolutionists.
7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of
creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it
in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same
appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.
8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean
order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There
is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight
down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the
textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in
nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside
down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where
evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older"
layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule
and not the exception throughout the fossil record.
9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the
fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record.
In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical
position rather than in a horizontal position.
10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the
fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have
very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures
supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms
began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.
11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so
glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as
simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more
complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree
trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a
picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types
represented from the beginning with their own
individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that
we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.
12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of
all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a
plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links"
are missing because they are missing.
13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artist's depiction, conception or
illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artist's illustration
of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination
are not evidence.
14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex
languages than we do today. The engineering feasts of the past cultures are
well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times.
There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone,
bronze and iron tools in all "ages" of past human activity. Indeed, there
is nothing new under the sun.
The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.
15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect
there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be
greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than
themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity
without the input from a greater intelligence.
16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to
evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy
Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own
existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been
anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it
is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came
into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding
energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or
complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes
nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution
cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to
describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all
activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work.
The universe is running down, not up.
17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely
illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure.
Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or
destroy what was previously ordered.
18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to
be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding
outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing
them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.
19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states
that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own
kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from
one kind into another kind.
20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of
undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input
from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order
and/or complexity.
21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order
to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that
intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman
would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.
22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such
as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically
impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to
form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!
23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the
driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective
benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for
a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the
existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to
eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given
population.
24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The
missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do
not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells
within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become
avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in
humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.
25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design
features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial
list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis,
Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human
brains for that matter).
26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the
same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have
within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system,
digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system,
command and communi- cation system.
27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a
cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must
already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70
proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete
DNA to fabricate those proteins.
28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind
intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we
see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and
consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through
intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by
random chance.
If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that
they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the
same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of
that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.
We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it
gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it
must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside.
The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little
electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must
make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological
system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective
countermeasures without killing us at the same time.
29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive
organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution.
It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive
organs or structures in a human body!
30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of
sex, symbiosis or altruism.
I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the
true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will
never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.
Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?
A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!
heres a little more for ya. we'll continue tommorrow. im off to bed
[YOUTUBE] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
Because evolution takes MILLIONS of years to happen and it is so minor that we cannot see it in our lifetime. We humans have only been around for about 10,000 years which is a fraction of time in evolutionary terms.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
Given enough time that bacteria could evolve into something else. We can also look at virus' like avian flu which evolved to transmit from birds to humans.
As said before, humans have been around for only 10,000 years, we cannot observe something that takes millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations to happen.
What is missing does not mean it does not exist. The problem with fossils are that they must be in the perfect condition in order to become fossilized, so this leaves us with some lifeforms that didn't fossilize after their deaths so we don't have their fossils. Does that discredit evolution? No it doesn't.
Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science from Wired.com
"A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life. "
A mutation in DNA (the blueprint for cells) that tells the skin to make a small indentation in a patch of light sensitive cells would allow the life form to see better which allows it to survive better and allow it to procreate and pass along the DNA with that mutation in it. Over the course of a few million years this can create a sophisticated eye that can allow the eye to focus an image.
Life in the past is different from life in the present. Do you see any t-rex's around? A hyracotherium's hoof is completely different from a modern day horses hoof, and the modern horse is much larger than the hyracontherium.
The places where layers are "reversed" can be answered even by a highschool geology teacher. After millions of years plates shift, the rocky mountains in Canada and the US are examples of that. The earth under goes over the land at that time so it's all shifted. Digging in an undisturbed area shows a correct column of time.
A tree or animal getting buried after an earthquake or landslide would have a chance of getting fossilized, and wouldn't have to go through millions of years to have layers of rock being built ontop of it since it happened instantly.
I think the trilobite eye is a perfect example of evolution by natural selection. There are many species of trilobites with many different kinds of eyes and some without eyes. This was an evolutionary "arms" race which lead to perhaps the first complex eyes.
An example of branching off of a species is a donkey and a horse. We know that they are similar because of their DNA. They are so similar that they can procreate (and create Mules). Tigers and lions can do the same thing. Human and chimp DNA are more similar than a horse and donkeys, which leads to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid.
Horse evolution is well documented with fossil evidence.
Artist renditions are not evidence...
I don't even need to refute this. There is evidence in your local museum that will do the work.
That's not even a scientific law
This doesn't even make sense.
The only process needed for evolution is reproduction, and seeing as all living life forms are reproducing in the present time, I don't see how the second law of thermodynamics is broken.
Nuclear fission
We can see molecular clouds, protostars, and young stars in all stages of formation. NASA website has many pictures of them.
Posted a link above with the scientist that make primitive life. Look at virus' that change constantly and evolve into new forms.
This doesn't make sense.
Wrong.
With the big bang there was the creation of hydrogen and helium and a huge amount of these two. We know this because hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in the universe. With the birth of stars this allowed for heavier elements to be created from the pressures of the star.
There is no such thing as a half evolved eye or half evolved wing, and we ourselves are transitional because there is no end goal. There are examples of eyes from a patch of light sensitive cells to complex eyes like the mantis shrimps. All of the eyes are useful to survival.
Archaeopteryx
The human eye is FAR from being perfect. Our eyes are basically backwards, blood cells block our vision causing blind spots, images are backwards and our brains have to flip them etc.
...ok?
deoxyribozyme can replicate and function without protein.
Weak argument
The human ear has a vestigial muscle that we can't use, there is no reason for it.
Sex = reproduction. The key to evolution.
Symbiosis = one species helping another usually for benefits so they can procreate.
Altruism = Helping another in a small community means a greater chance of survival so you can -- ya you guess it, PROCREATE.
If we taught what you copy and pasted we might as well live in the 12th century. Modern medicines are based on the fact that evolution occurs in virus'.
There are no such thing as facts that support creation.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
Given enough time that bacteria could evolve into something else. We can also look at virus' like avian flu which evolved to transmit from birds to humans.
As said before, humans have been around for only 10,000 years, we cannot observe something that takes millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations to happen.
What is missing does not mean it does not exist. The problem with fossils are that they must be in the perfect condition in order to become fossilized, so this leaves us with some lifeforms that didn't fossilize after their deaths so we don't have their fossils. Does that discredit evolution? No it doesn't.
Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science from Wired.com
"A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life. "
A mutation in DNA (the blueprint for cells) that tells the skin to make a small indentation in a patch of light sensitive cells would allow the life form to see better which allows it to survive better and allow it to procreate and pass along the DNA with that mutation in it. Over the course of a few million years this can create a sophisticated eye that can allow the eye to focus an image.
Life in the past is different from life in the present. Do you see any t-rex's around? A hyracotherium's hoof is completely different from a modern day horses hoof, and the modern horse is much larger than the hyracontherium.
The places where layers are "reversed" can be answered even by a highschool geology teacher. After millions of years plates shift, the rocky mountains in Canada and the US are examples of that. The earth under goes over the land at that time so it's all shifted. Digging in an undisturbed area shows a correct column of time.
A tree or animal getting buried after an earthquake or landslide would have a chance of getting fossilized, and wouldn't have to go through millions of years to have layers of rock being built ontop of it since it happened instantly.
I think the trilobite eye is a perfect example of evolution by natural selection. There are many species of trilobites with many different kinds of eyes and some without eyes. This was an evolutionary "arms" race which lead to perhaps the first complex eyes.
An example of branching off of a species is a donkey and a horse. We know that they are similar because of their DNA. They are so similar that they can procreate (and create Mules). Tigers and lions can do the same thing. Human and chimp DNA are more similar than a horse and donkeys, which leads to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid.
Horse evolution is well documented with fossil evidence.
Artist renditions are not evidence...
I don't even need to refute this. There is evidence in your local museum that will do the work.
That's not even a scientific law
This doesn't even make sense.
The only process needed for evolution is reproduction, and seeing as all living life forms are reproducing in the present time, I don't see how the second law of thermodynamics is broken.
Nuclear fission
We can see molecular clouds, protostars, and young stars in all stages of formation. NASA website has many pictures of them.
Posted a link above with the scientist that make primitive life. Look at virus' that change constantly and evolve into new forms.
This doesn't make sense.
Wrong.
With the big bang there was the creation of hydrogen and helium and a huge amount of these two. We know this because hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in the universe. With the birth of stars this allowed for heavier elements to be created from the pressures of the star.
There is no such thing as a half evolved eye or half evolved wing, and we ourselves are transitional because there is no end goal. There are examples of eyes from a patch of light sensitive cells to complex eyes like the mantis shrimps. All of the eyes are useful to survival.
Archaeopteryx
The human eye is FAR from being perfect. Our eyes are basically backwards, blood cells block our vision causing blind spots, images are backwards and our brains have to flip them etc.
...ok?
deoxyribozyme can replicate and function without protein.
Weak argument
The human ear has a vestigial muscle that we can't use, there is no reason for it.
Sex = reproduction. The key to evolution.
Symbiosis = one species helping another usually for benefits so they can procreate.
Altruism = Helping another in a small community means a greater chance of survival so you can -- ya you guess it, PROCREATE.
If we taught what you copy and pasted we might as well live in the 12th century. Modern medicines are based on the fact that evolution occurs in virus'.
There are no such thing as facts that support creation.
We have seen speciation. This is a more famous example.
CB910: New species
And as Glock said, nobody expects to. We do have transitional fossils showing fins turning into legs, for example. And we've observed microorganisms develop the ability to break down man-made compounds.
This topic is not about abiogenesis.
Mutations can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. In humans alone, there are mutations that improve resistance to AIDS or increase bone density, both beneficial in certain circumstances.
8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean
order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There
is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight
down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the
textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in
nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside
down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where
evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older"
layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule
and not the exception throughout the fossil record.[/quote]
Out of place fossils are only found where there is evidence of disturbance, e.g. a thrust fault, an earthquake etc.
The "large animal skeleton" he's talking about was a whale, and it wasn't vertical.
CC335: Vertical whale fossil
He's referring to horizontal gene transfer, which was another form of gene transfer found in early life. It's not evidence against evolution.
CB822: A rooted "tree of life"?
There are countless examples of transitional fossils.
CC200: Transitional fossils
The earliest known languages are not the earliest languages. Spoken languages obviously leave no trace. The earliest known languages were far less complex than modern languages.
Again, not a thread about abiogenesis (although this is actually an argument against the Big Bang)
CF101: Origin of the Universe
This is not a thread about the Big Bang.
This is not a thread about stellar evolution.
Fully-formed life cannot spontaneously generate (which is what creationists believe happened).
Completely irrelevant.
Having "half an eye" can be very useful. There are organisms that have relatively basic sensors for detecting light. And a lot of creatures have eyes that would make our own look "half evolved" (bees can see UV light, pit vipers can see infrared, octopuses don't have blind spots, hawks have better long range vision, snakes don't need to blink etc.).
And half a wing can be used to glide or swim or provide shade or attract mates.
Actually, scientists have shown that scales can become feathers:
"avian scales produced identifiable feathers due to one single amino acid change. These 'protofeathers' were already feathers, and with no intermediate scale/feather needed"
Firstly, natural selection is far from "random".
Secondly, there are lots of examples of people assuming something natural was actually man-made. Look at the Cydonia Mensae, how many people are convinced that is man made?
That's not proof of creationism, it's evidence of how well evolution works.
There are countless vestigial organs in other creatures, which make no sense from a creationist standpoint.
I assume by "sex" the original author means "gender", in which case there are plenty of theories behind the development of gender (one gender would make a species more susceptible to disease, for example).
CB910: New species
And as Glock said, nobody expects to. We do have transitional fossils showing fins turning into legs, for example. And we've observed microorganisms develop the ability to break down man-made compounds.
This topic is not about abiogenesis.
Mutations can be harmful, neutral or beneficial. In humans alone, there are mutations that improve resistance to AIDS or increase bone density, both beneficial in certain circumstances.
8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean
order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There
is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight
down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the
textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in
nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside
down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where
evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older"
layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule
and not the exception throughout the fossil record.[/quote]
Out of place fossils are only found where there is evidence of disturbance, e.g. a thrust fault, an earthquake etc.
The "large animal skeleton" he's talking about was a whale, and it wasn't vertical.
CC335: Vertical whale fossil
He's referring to horizontal gene transfer, which was another form of gene transfer found in early life. It's not evidence against evolution.
CB822: A rooted "tree of life"?
There are countless examples of transitional fossils.
CC200: Transitional fossils
The earliest known languages are not the earliest languages. Spoken languages obviously leave no trace. The earliest known languages were far less complex than modern languages.
Again, not a thread about abiogenesis (although this is actually an argument against the Big Bang)
CF101: Origin of the Universe
This is not a thread about the Big Bang.
This is not a thread about stellar evolution.
Fully-formed life cannot spontaneously generate (which is what creationists believe happened).
Completely irrelevant.
Having "half an eye" can be very useful. There are organisms that have relatively basic sensors for detecting light. And a lot of creatures have eyes that would make our own look "half evolved" (bees can see UV light, pit vipers can see infrared, octopuses don't have blind spots, hawks have better long range vision, snakes don't need to blink etc.).
And half a wing can be used to glide or swim or provide shade or attract mates.
Actually, scientists have shown that scales can become feathers:
"avian scales produced identifiable feathers due to one single amino acid change. These 'protofeathers' were already feathers, and with no intermediate scale/feather needed"
Firstly, natural selection is far from "random".
Secondly, there are lots of examples of people assuming something natural was actually man-made. Look at the Cydonia Mensae, how many people are convinced that is man made?
That's not proof of creationism, it's evidence of how well evolution works.
There are countless vestigial organs in other creatures, which make no sense from a creationist standpoint.
I assume by "sex" the original author means "gender", in which case there are plenty of theories behind the development of gender (one gender would make a species more susceptible to disease, for example).
Snowman, why does God have a sex? Why is a he? Why not a hermaphrodite? Why not sexless?
Even if you manage to disprove evolution that still won't prove that your "side" is the truth. And proof of a supernatural being that created the universe does not automatically exlude evolution.
There are theists that believe in the theory of evolution. You need to remember that you're not reading the original copy of the Bible and even if you were you wouldn't understand it. Hypothetically the Bible is the perfect truth so if you change it even slighty it will no longer be that. The perfect truth would not survive any translation to a different language and it most definitely would not survive different interpretations. Now obviously God dictated the book so it would be easy to understand for any person so you might argue that the messages itself would survive in the version of the Bible that you read. So the messages of the truth were retained but you still do not have the perfect truth, all the tiny, little details. If evolution fit into the bounds of Christianity Christians would have accepted it but to most it doesn't so they don't accept it. That is the entire basis of your argument: it does not match what's written in the Bible. But you're not capable of knowing that since you don't have all the tiny, little details. If you have problems with certain aspects of evolution (it is a theory after all, there are some very set "facts" but a lot of it is still an educated guess) that's fine but you're saying "it's not the truth because I have the perfect truth right here, in my altered version of the Bible". You don't have the perfect truth in your hands so stop claiming you do.
Which leads me to my next point. Most Christians (expect those that believe in evolution) will stand together against the evils of evolution but when it comes to what the the truth really is you're all divided. Even amongst yourselves you can't reach a common ground. Have the Christians who believe in the theory of evolution been corrupted by Satan?
And then there's Judaism. The Christian Old Testament is an altered version of the Tanakh. Who's right about those books within the Judeo-Christian faith? The Jews or the Christians that succeeded them? Then there's Qur'an, which is claimed to be the final word of God. Are they wrong? Theistic Hinduism that preceeded it all? Scientology? The ancient Egyptian religion that survived longer than most of todays leading religions?
And my last point. What would classes on creationism be like? Whose point of view would you teach? That of the Christians (since the US is a "Christian nation")? That would discriminate against other religions and then there's still the problem of which version of Christianity would be taught. You want to provide theistic people with classes that teach "their" point of view but unless you cater to each and every religion you'll never accomplish that. Learning about all religions seems like a good idea to me (then maybe you won't have people beating up a brown-skinned person for "looking like a Muslim") but that would simply be sociology, not an alternative to "science". What's left of teaching creationism then?
"The theory of evolution is wrong. God created all beings just as they are. Now repeat these words until the bell rings"
There is no empirical evidence for creationism so all you can teach is an interpretation based on altered versions of the books. There is no room for that in a system that teaches empirical evidence. If you want to know more about creationism go to your place of worship, read your pick of the Holy Books, find like-minded people and discuss the book amongst yourselves. If you want it in school form a Bible group and discuss it during your lunch break.
This is off-topic but...
I understand that people who believe in the Devil will want to destroy his works but for agnostics and atheists it's scary when people become so preoccupied with trying to save peoples' souls that they're no longer concerned with saving someone's life.
Kind of as an after-thought, would you be a failure/sinner/whatever if you read the Bible with an open mind but still didn't believe it?
Even if you manage to disprove evolution that still won't prove that your "side" is the truth. And proof of a supernatural being that created the universe does not automatically exlude evolution.
There are theists that believe in the theory of evolution. You need to remember that you're not reading the original copy of the Bible and even if you were you wouldn't understand it. Hypothetically the Bible is the perfect truth so if you change it even slighty it will no longer be that. The perfect truth would not survive any translation to a different language and it most definitely would not survive different interpretations. Now obviously God dictated the book so it would be easy to understand for any person so you might argue that the messages itself would survive in the version of the Bible that you read. So the messages of the truth were retained but you still do not have the perfect truth, all the tiny, little details. If evolution fit into the bounds of Christianity Christians would have accepted it but to most it doesn't so they don't accept it. That is the entire basis of your argument: it does not match what's written in the Bible. But you're not capable of knowing that since you don't have all the tiny, little details. If you have problems with certain aspects of evolution (it is a theory after all, there are some very set "facts" but a lot of it is still an educated guess) that's fine but you're saying "it's not the truth because I have the perfect truth right here, in my altered version of the Bible". You don't have the perfect truth in your hands so stop claiming you do.
Which leads me to my next point. Most Christians (expect those that believe in evolution) will stand together against the evils of evolution but when it comes to what the the truth really is you're all divided. Even amongst yourselves you can't reach a common ground. Have the Christians who believe in the theory of evolution been corrupted by Satan?
And then there's Judaism. The Christian Old Testament is an altered version of the Tanakh. Who's right about those books within the Judeo-Christian faith? The Jews or the Christians that succeeded them? Then there's Qur'an, which is claimed to be the final word of God. Are they wrong? Theistic Hinduism that preceeded it all? Scientology? The ancient Egyptian religion that survived longer than most of todays leading religions?
And my last point. What would classes on creationism be like? Whose point of view would you teach? That of the Christians (since the US is a "Christian nation")? That would discriminate against other religions and then there's still the problem of which version of Christianity would be taught. You want to provide theistic people with classes that teach "their" point of view but unless you cater to each and every religion you'll never accomplish that. Learning about all religions seems like a good idea to me (then maybe you won't have people beating up a brown-skinned person for "looking like a Muslim") but that would simply be sociology, not an alternative to "science". What's left of teaching creationism then?
"The theory of evolution is wrong. God created all beings just as they are. Now repeat these words until the bell rings"
There is no empirical evidence for creationism so all you can teach is an interpretation based on altered versions of the books. There is no room for that in a system that teaches empirical evidence. If you want to know more about creationism go to your place of worship, read your pick of the Holy Books, find like-minded people and discuss the book amongst yourselves. If you want it in school form a Bible group and discuss it during your lunch break.
This is off-topic but...
I understand that people who believe in the Devil will want to destroy his works but for agnostics and atheists it's scary when people become so preoccupied with trying to save peoples' souls that they're no longer concerned with saving someone's life.
Kind of as an after-thought, would you be a failure/sinner/whatever if you read the Bible with an open mind but still didn't believe it?
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.