[retsoksirhc]

The bottom line is i respect all people's faith. But plse dont make such claims that evolution is scientific fact when there is hardly any solid evidence for it. The scientific problems and inconsistancies of this theory are so overwhelmly obvious that it is facing collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution, regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.
There is a clear agenda here, evident from some of the quotes we have heard from evolutionists.

Professor LT More University of Cincinati said " Our Faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation."

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." said by D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University

Why do you consider evolution an alternative for creation? There are lots of people that believe both... I hardly think it fair to say that they only support evolution because it's the alternative to creation.

[lobrobster]

really..? That first guy looks like an ape to me.

I'm more than willing to answer your questions if you genuinely care about truth. But if your goal is to simply dispute science for the sake of creationism, then you don't really care about what is true and I'm not going to waste any more time.

Think of a tree with multiple branches. Now one branch (branch A) sprouts two new branches (branch B, and branch C). Branch B are humans and Branch C are apes. The common ancestor we share is branch A. But branch B does not come from branch C or visa versa. Branch C is simply the closest ancestor to branch B. In addition, branch A has descended from branch X. So branch A is the transitional species that gave rise to branches B and C.

One reason evolution is so hard to grasp is that it takes place over hundreds of millions of years! We are not used to dealing with such large time scales. But you can see evolution is progress right now! You're becoming a biologist. Have you learned anything about bacteria and antibiotics yet? Why do you think some bacteria will become immune to an antibiotic over time? The answer is because they are evolving. New generations of the bacteria reproduce to create new a strain which becomes immune to a particular antibiotic.

There is tons of other evidence. You didn't answer my question... Do you believe in DNA? Or is that just another scientifically created 'myth'? I honestly don't see how you're going to become a biologist (or any type of scientist) without accepting very concrete evidence.

I have provided you with a legitimate answer to every one of your questions or claims. If you want to completely dismiss them without thinking further about it, there is nothing left for me to say.

[michealb]

I'll play along. Let's assume evolution is wrong for the moment so we can focus on something else. Where is the one fossil that supports creationism? What is the evidence that supports creationism? Why the inconsistency in design plan? If there is a natural knowable solution for everything else why did god change his design for the beginning? Is it not within his power to make a knowable natural design for the beginning and the journey? If it is not within his power doesn't that mean he is limited? If he is limited, does he deserve worship? If he is limited does the disprove the bible version of god?

[sassyT]

[

QUOTE=michealb]So if evolution is a myth what are the alternatives? If you think it's creationism where is the evidence? Where is the one fossil that supports creationism over evolution?

Lol.. are you serious right now? Every fossil that exists in the world is in support of creation because all the different kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata with zero proof of ancestors. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"ancestors.
If all these transitionals exist then why did Richard Goldschmidt have to come up with his hopeful monster theory and the paleontologist Stephen Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium in order to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record?
The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal is a huge problem for evolutionism. So thus far all fossils found are very much in support of Creation.

How can a perfect all knowning being design an imperfect world? Even if it was humans that messed it up, if he designed us he should have known we were going to mess it up and designed us so that we wouldn't mess it up.

Is this the only argument you can come up with agaists Creation? Lol This is a philosophical argument against creation not a scientific one. But to answer your question all that God creatd was perfect. One of the perfect things that God made was creatures who had the free will to choose good or evil. Man decidided to choose evil and thus bore the concequense. Simple.

[sassyT]

[

QUOTE=lobrobster]I'm more than willing to answer your questions if you genuinely care about truth. But if your goal is to simply dispute science for the sake of creationism, then you don't really care about what is true and I'm not going to waste any more time.

Lobro, don't get me wrong, I am not deputing science I am disputing a the myth of a one cell creature that crawls out of a prehistoric mythical soup and magically starts to transform into fish, birds, elephants, monkey, humans, trees, flowers, plants, fuits, grass etc , better known as evolution.

[sassyT]

Think of a tree with multiple branches. Now one branch (branch A) sprouts two new branches (branch B, and branch C). Branch B are humans and Branch C are apes. The common ancestor we share is branch A. But branch B does not come from branch C or visa versa. Branch C is simply the closest ancestor to branch B. In addition, branch A has descended from branch X. So branch A is the transitional species that gave rise to branches B and C.

Lobro you don't need to explain this, I already know, I have studied evolution. How ever you want to slice it, the proposition upon which human evlolution is based is we came from an ape like creature at one point or another.

this is a represtation of Lucy, a supposed ansestor to humans.
I don't about you but that looks like an ape to me. So you can argue all you want..

[templelane]

Sassy why does the thought that we came for an ape-like ancestor upset you so much? In your beliefs women can from a rib*. How is that an improvement on an ape?

EDIT *and man from dust
I had to go check in the bible, it's been a while...

[NeedKarma]

Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"ancestors.

Didn't god create all the animals at once? Or did he create more as needed? If so then where is that mentioned in the bible?

[retsoksirhc]

Evolution is rubbish. That's why there is no genetic diversity in the world. African people aren't black, europeans aren't white, and hispanics aren't brown. Asian people aren't short. We're all exactly the same because evolution doesn't exist.

[lobrobster]

i have studied evolution.

You need to study it again.

So you are denying that a dog is more closely related to a wolf than a bat, right? I would assume so, since you don't accept that species are derived from other species.

Tell me... How do you explain the fact that humans have an appendix and a tail bone? Or that I (a male) have nipples? Or that there are birds that no longer fly? Or that snakes have remnants of hips and legs? Also more importantly...

How do you account for the fact that over 99% of all species that have ever existed on the planet earth ARE NOW EXTINCT!!? What was the Creator thinking?

How do you account for AIDS and all new strains of virus? Do you think God just whips them up one after the other in order to kill man? Does God say, "Darn! Man invented a cure for that one, let's see if he can come up with something to beat THIS!".

You've got a LOT more studying to do!

[sassyT]

One reason evolution is so hard to grasp is that it takes place over hundreds of millions of years!

yes, how convenient, its no wonder scientist changed the age of the earth from 70million to 4.5 billion to facilitate for evolution. Anything can happen given billions of years right? Yeah, based on your logic, given a billions of years a monkey might just fly out of my ***.

We are not used to dealing with such large time scales. But you can see evolution is progress right now! You're becoming a biologist. Have you learned anything about bacteria and antibiotics yet? Why do you think some bacteria will become immune to an antibiotic over time? The answer is because they are evolving. New generations of the bacteria reproduce to create new a strain which becomes immune to a particular antibiotic.

The relationship between bacteria and antibiotics ays nothing for evolution. Antibiotics interfere with a number of everyday cellular processes that bacteria rely on for growth and survival. Antibiotics stop working because bacteria come up with various ways of countering these actions not because it evolves into a something else. It is still a bacteria.
If anything this only demonstates microevoltion (a fact) which is small mutation and variations which occur within spicies. It says nothing for macro. So the bacteria may mutate and become a variation (resistant straint) of the bacteria but it does not cease to be a bacteria. So according to you theory given a billion years a bacteria will evolve into a virus, a totally different species. That is just taking a leap i am not willing to make.

There is tons of other evidence. You didn't answer my question... Do you believe in DNA? Or is that just another scientifically created 'myth'? I honestly don't see how you're going to become a biologist (or any type of scientist) without accepting very concrete evidence.

Of course i believe in DNA, but the question is what does dna say for evolution? Nothing.
If anything it makes a strong case for an intelligent designer who created a marvelously complex, efficient ‘information system’ for encoding life. Because evolutionist have seen that fossil record does nothing for their theory, they are desperate to find other ways to resuscitate their dying theory.
Similarly in DNA just shows a common creator. If God created animals,humans and plants that are going to inhabit the same environment, is it not logical that he would create them with similar matter? It is not enough to explain how DNA might have gathered into strands by random chance; you must also explain the machinery to interpret DNA. In other words, it’s not enough to explain how random letters could eventually fall into the order S-E-E-T-H-E-D-O-G-B-A-R-K. These letters still don’t mean anything unless you have a pre-existing language system for interpreting those letters! ‘See the dog BARK’ has meaning, but only to a modern English-speaker.

I have provided you with a legitimate answer to every one of your questions or claims. If you want to completely dismiss them without thinking further about it, there is nothing left for me to say.

Just because i don't find your explantions satisfactory does not mean i am dismissing them with out thinking about it. I think i have addressed everything you have said and have challenged your beliefs and ideas. The false ideas that are being propagated by athiestic evolutionists who are on a quest to promote humanism. Sadly people don't do any research and they just believe what these people say because they come in the name of "science". I do a bit of digging before i just believe in stuff. ;)

[NeedKarma]

I officially pronounce this thread a lost cause.

[sassyT]

Sassy why does the thought that we came for an ape-like ancestor upset you so much? In your beliefs women can from a rib*. How is that an improvement on an ape?

EDIT *and man from dust
I had to go check in the bible, it's been a while...

Lol it doesn't upset me I don't know why you got that impression. I just find it comical.

[michealb]

Do you think god created all the creatures at once or as species die out does he create new ones to fill their place? If he created them all at once wouldn't we get to a point when there was no life on earth? Why are bunny rabbits and t-rexs never found together. Why are there never any human tool marks on dinosaurs fossils. Surely our ancestors would have had to defend themselves against a T-rex. What about junk DNA/ancestral DNA why would a perfect designer leave junk and DNA from completely different animals in it system? Was god high when he made the platypus or was he not perfect and had left over parts?

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

You need to study it again.

So you are denying that a dog is more closely related to a wolf than a bat, right? I would assume so, since you don't accept that species are derived from other species.



Tell me... How do you explain the fact that humans have an appendix and a tail bone? Or that I (a male) have nipples? Or that there are birds that no longer fly? Or that snakes have remnants of hips and legs? Also more importantly...

How do i explain it? An intelligent designer made them like that. Why should i assume that just because a dog and a wolf are similar that evolution is true. Where is the connection here?
The vertebral column is a linear row of bones that supports the head at its
beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a tail. In case you didn't know the coccyx is more than the end of the spinal column, it is the attachment point of nine muscles that allow for a number of movements.
Tell Ashley Murry of Wilmington, who has to wear a diaper for the rest of her life because was born without a coccyx, that a coccyx is not necessary.

So the myth goes that we lost the tail because we did need it anymore.. i disagree because i think that a tail would still come in handy. Like right now i sure would like to have a tail to be able to take a sip from my tea cup without interrupting my typing.. lol

FYi Nipple are not just for feeding babies. Whether on a man or a woman, nipples are especially sensitive and are a source of sexual stimuli. So what's your point?

How do you account for the fact that over 99% of all species that have ever existed on the planet earth ARE NOW EXTINCT!!? What was the Creator thinking?

What does extintion say about evolution? Nothing. What does extinction say about a an intelligent designer? Nothing. So i don't know why you keep making these points that contribute nothing to this debate.

How do you account for AIDS and all new strains of virus? Do you think God just whips them up one after the other in order to kill man? Does God say, "Darn! Man invented a cure for that one, let's see if he can come up with something to beat THIS!".

You've got a LOT more studying to do!

So Aids proves evolution and disproves and intelligent designer. I am seeing a great logical fallacy in your arguments. This sort of argument (‘Why would God have done X?’) is really a cheap rhetorical device rather than a real argument for evolution. This appeal to pseudo-theology is a poor substitute for actually demonstrating that an organ arose by time, chance and natural selection.
So please if you still want to continue to have an intelligent debate with me about origins as explained by evolution, don't keep asking me why God did this or that. If you really want to know why the world is messed up like it is today, and what part God played in it, read the Bible.

[michealb]

We keep asking why god did something because the point of this thread isn't whether evolution is true or not. It's whether there is a god or not? So since the bible says that the creator is perfect, so by extension everything the creator makes must also be perfect. Our imperfect world makes it illogical that we have a perfect creator. So if the bible is wrong about the creator being perfect what else is the bible wrong about?

[tomterm8]

I Believe theres is a God, The Almighty Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. You are right Not all religion have a true God. There is only one true Chruch which is in the Bible. That God Is true. There Many religion claiming they are Christian but they just pretending.

In this case, God must be schizophrenic, because each faith has conflicting beliefs and practices.

[snowgirl]

What is God?

[tomterm8]

What is God?

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sassyT]

We keep asking why god did something because the point of this thread isn't whether evolution is true or not. It's whether there is a god or not? So since the bible says that the creator is perfect, so by extension everything the creator makes must also be perfect. Our imperfect world makes it illogical that we have a perfect creator. So if the bible is wrong about the creator being perfect what else is the bible wrong about?

This is your "logical" conlusion. The bible also says that since the fall of man the universe has been cursed and is running down and decaying, which is consistent with science. However evolution requires that every thing run up. They tell us everything is evolving and getting better and yet that is not consistent with what is observed. Your claim that the bible is wrong about a perfect Creator is merely based on your convienient refusal to acknowlege why the bible says the universe is imperfect, NOT because it is a fact. So there is no argument here, just a subjective opinion on your part.