Author Topic: Evolution or Creation
R2D2-PENA 
Registered: Aug '01
6636_Alf Tyranus
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:24am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Think about this one!!

What evidence is there that living things were created, rather than evolving? Dr. Arlie J. Hoover, in his book Fallacies of Evolution, gives a simple answer along the following lines:

Sometimes evolutionists ask creationists: “Can you produce clear-cut evidence that definitely suggests creation? Can you indicate some material that can only be explained by creation?”

Of course, this is an unfair demand, and would kill evolution as well as creation, but I venture to suggest that a good sign of creation would be the appearance of something without antecedents. The fossil record reveals something that is disturbing to the evolutionary theory. It shows that complex animals appear rather suddenly in the early strata.

Complex organs appear suddenly

For example, in the Cambrian rocks we find lamp shells, moss animals, worms, trilobites, and shrimp. These creatures have complex organs: intestines, stomachs, bristles, spines, and appendages. They have eyes and feelers, which indicates that they possessed a good nervous system. They have gills, which shows that they both extracted oxygen from the water and had complex blood circulation systems. Nothing primitive or simple about these Cambrian creatures!

Now the big question: Where are the ancestors of these Cambrian fossils? We find no organisms with partially formed intestines, stomachs, bristles, spines, appendages, eyes, feelers, and gills.

Where are all the simpler creatures that should have led up to these complex forms, if “molecules to man” evolution is supposed to be a scientific fact? This problem is so acute that even the modern “father of evolution,” Charles Darwin, admitted that it “may truly be urged as a valid argument” against evolution.

Evolution hasn't occurred

Doesn't the sudden appearance of these Cambrian animals with no antecedents suggest creation rather than evolution? We may state it in syllogistic form this way:

1.-If evolution has occurred, we would find antecedents.
2.-We find no antecedents.
3.-Therefore, evolution hasn't occurred.

It's possible, I admit, that evolution has occurred and that for some strange reason the antecedents have disappeared. But the evolutionist should try to give us a plausible reason why they disappeared and he should certainly stop dogmatizing about his theory in view of these missing antecedents.

 

-----signature-----
Oh Yeah! from this book Evolution 1:1 "In the Beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded."
Homer Simpson: "You got any of those potato chips that give you diahrrea?
I need to do a little spring cleaning"
no matter what you say, Episode 2 ROCKS!!
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Gleng 
Registered: Jun '99
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:28am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
"in the beginning there was NOTHING and then it exploded"

Absolutely nothing to do with evolution. happy

Although I do actually find the BB theory to be a bit suspect, all available evidence seems to point towards a comparable event at the early stages of the universe.

Yes, evolution theory is a bit patchy in places, but there is far more evidence in favour of it than there is against it.

For example, if you only knew half of the periodic table, would the lack of the other half proove that the whole did not exist? Of course not.

I'll take evidence and scientific direction over blind faith any day.

 

-----signature-----
(insert amusing quote here)
-
-- Free The West Memphis Three --
http://www.wm3.org/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
R2D2-PENA 
Registered: Aug '01
6636_Alf Tyranus
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:33am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Fine if the BB theory is independent from evolution, give me scientific proof of the very beginning of the universe. Even Einstein, who is the example of a genius and a excellent scientist and the person to whom everyone is compared to said that science and the universe has proven the existence of God. Einstein died a creationist in case you didn't know.

 

-----signature-----
Oh Yeah! from this book Evolution 1:1 "In the Beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded."
Homer Simpson: "You got any of those potato chips that give you diahrrea?
I need to do a little spring cleaning"
no matter what you say, Episode 2 ROCKS!!
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Simulation 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:36am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation


Gleng, how can you say Evolution is based on observation and hard facts? There is definatly one thing Evolution can NOT have observed or based hard facts on, if Evolution says Dinosaurs lived before man? How can they date how long Dinosaurs live if they don't have a fully accurate reading scale or technolagy to do so. They can only ASSUME. Assume isn't observing, assume isn't hard facts, assume is a belief and/or assumption.

Are you saying science doesn’t have a means to date things? HUH?!

Creationism isn't all hard facts etheir, both have assumptions. Lets just leave it like that.

Creationism = NO FACTS

Are Evolutionists the only ones that can say "We base our assumptions on our facts".

No, I’d say “We base our facts on the evidence”

And Creationists can't do the same thing? What hypocrits!

What facts do creationists have?!


1. "The Genesis Solution" writen by Ken Ham and Paul Taylor.

2. "The Great Dinosaur Mystery SOLVED" writen by Ken Ham.


Ken Ham is liar… you didn’t know?


And it does make me wonder how Evolutionists can put faith that there might be other life in the Universe, but can't put faith into God.


We know evolution has occurred here so why wouldn’t it occur somewhere else. There’s really no faith about it.

Giest, the proof of that is in the Bible. It's not fiction, it's basically a acient History Book.

So if I make a book up with a few pieces of history and then throw in tons of nonsense it’s all true?

...this is in the "The Great Dinosaur Mystery SOLVED" writen by Ken Ham.
...So look who's talkin now lol. Here is a link about the flaws of Evolution, and scientific proof. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm


A better name for that website would be “Flawed flaws of evolution”

I see your point Gleng, but still. Evolutionists have not prooved HOW the Big Bang happened. The reason....it's impossible. Because how could the Big Bang occured if there was nothing at ALL before it to produce it, there was no matter before the Big Bang, therefore you can't make something out of pure nothing. Only a Supernatural force/being has the ability to do something like that.

Again, I’d like to see you PROVE nothing existed prior to the big bang!


And to show a sign of the global Flood, the Grand Canyon is the perfect example of the massive effects of this global flood.

The Grand Canyon is definitively NOT the result of a global flood. Don’t believe me? TALK TO A GEOLOGIST!

What about the great preachers such as Billy Graham, Kathyrn Kuhlman, and others that did supernatural things that the human body does not have the ability to do.

Funny how none of this has or can be proved. Pure speculation

There was this one female Holy Spirit preacher "Kathryn Kuhlman" who healed people that God told her to heal, with His Power. She is dead now (she lived during the 20th century), but during her time she would preach in stadiums and large halls, and heal people right in front of the peoples eyes. Such as, this one guy had his Knee-cap surgically removed, and with a touch, his knee-cap reappeared, his leg was good as new again.

Or so the story goes…

There was a lot of marvelous events, such as crippled people being able to walk again and etc. And believe me, there were thousands and thousands of witnesses of these events and SUPERNATURAL things.

Funny how it still remains unproven…

Simulation read the other posts before the one you just posted now, I answered some of your questions. Also I will post about the dinosaurs can not be birds thing later.

You have? Looks like more jibber jabber to me…


PS: The proof about the University of Montana finding fossils that had remaining blood cells in them, and etc. I even stated in a couple posts after that one where I got that information from.

Where? I missed it… It’s peer-reviewed right?

R2D2 – PENA

The problem with those arguments is C14 had been calibrated against other forms dating such as glacier dating. And it has been proven accurate to 50000 years.

Simulation: "I have a working cold fusion generator in my basement"

Can I have a go on it????


Sorry, I need it to power the light over my perpetual motion machine.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Peez 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:41am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
SSO_DarthVader_:
Ok first of, I'm a Creationist. I believe in Creation, not in Secular Humanism/Evolution.
Evolution is a science, and has no necessary connection to Secular Humanism.
Because I believe in my God and the Holy Bible, everything thing in it, 100%. I have strong Faith, it doesn't mean I can be right. But I do have some issues and proof that might change your minds on how you view Creation and Evolution. I'll separate [sic] this artical [sic] into colums [sic] and such so it'll be easier to read.
The fact that you accept the Bible as 100% accurate should be taken as evidence that you will not assess the evidence for evolution in an unbiased manner.
1. "Evolution is 100% fact, Creation is not".
What is "100% fact"?
Actually it's the other way around my friend, Evolutionists DON'T know 100% accuratly [sic] the history of the Earth and the Universe, they can only assume.
Science is based on the concept that we do not know anything with complete certainty. You are the one talking about complete certainty (if that is what you mean by "100% fact"). In science there is never complete certainty. Not about the Earth orbiting the Sun, not about matter being made up of atoms, not about the age of the Earth, and not about the common descent of all living things on this planet. You clearly do not understand science at all. By the way, what is an "evolutionist"? I am no more an evolutionist than I am a heliocentrist or an atomist.
Because they don't have no time machine, and nobody lived long enough back then to write down on HOW it happened, accuratly [sic]. So Evolutionists can only assume and predict on what happened back then.
Scientists can directly detect the effects of events in the distant past, just as your eyes can directly detect the photons that were emitted by an object in the recent past
Of course they have fossils, land markings and such, but that doesn't 100% on how old these things are.
See above.
You don't see a Evolutionist Scientist dig in a fossil field and find a fossil that has a tag on it saying "65 billion years old".
Actually, scientists find just that. The tag is simply written in a language that you do not understand.
However, there was one supernatural being who saw all, and that was the Almighty Lord.
What about Odin, Zeus, Shiva, etc.? (not to mention Satan happy )
He's the ONLY one who saw all of time and even lived before time itself, he created TIME!
Who created him?
He used man to write down, with His own Words to say what happened, when, how, why, and etc.
I guess that your god just didn't know that rabbits do not chew the cud (Lev. 11:6)
It wasn't ONLY just men who decided to have fun by writing fictional stories and myths to screw up the whole Religion of Christianity.
Christianity? Wasn't part of the Bible written before your Messiah showed up?
If they were to do that, God wouldn't allow it.
The way that he didn't allow the Koran to be written?
Some might say that "well that MIGHT be true, but it's still not scientific".
Well, I agree with the second part.
Oh really, lets see hot shot.
Is that supposed to make you sound smart?
It's a KNOWN FACT that Creationists have MORE STABILE proof then do Evolutionists.
LOL!! grin I haven't heard anyone use the "it's a known fact" argument since I was in grade school. An the all caps is sure to convince people. So, you say that there is proof for creationism? Then your belief is not based on faith. But you stated that it was, thus you are not even consistent with yourself.
Here are a few examples...
A) Creationists have the Bible, that is 100% fact, and that it was writen [sic] by man who was Inspired and Used by God.
If this is what you call "proof," then you are desperate indeed. You might want to think about why this bible of yours includes bats with birds (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11), states that some fowl are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21), that some insects have four legs (Lev. 11:22-23), that the earth won't be moved (1Chron.16:30), that a fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44), to name a few.
B) The Big Bang couldn't have occured [sic] because before the Big Bang, there was no time, including NO Matter.
Your understanding of physics is as impressive as your understanding of biology.
But for something to evolve or be created, it has to at least have Matter to produce it.
I already asked where your god came from.
It's basically saying "Abra Cadabra" and BOOM! It's there, magic.
Nope. Try reading about the physics instead of making up your own version.
But Evolution thought isn't based on supernatural powers, including magic.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. If one or more gods created the universe, this would not change the fact that all the evidence indicates that living things on this world share a common ancestor, and the theory of evolution is the only known scientific explanation for the pattern of evolution that is indicated.
So I guess magic is out of the question.
Not for creationists.
Which leads to "No explination [sic] on HOW the Big Bang can occur without Matter".
As I mentioned, you are using your own cartoon version of physics. his is known as a "straw-man" argument.
C) Creationists have writen [sic] proof that Dinosaurs exsisted [sic] with Man, because it says so in the Bible.
You are getting repetitive, this is the same as your "point" A.
How? Well the term "dragon" in the Bible was used mostly to describe Dinosaurs.
According to you, apparently. Are you suggesting that dinosaurs breathed fire? that "dragons" were often herbivores? that dragons were often smaller than men?
Not satisfied?
Just based on your using one word to mean another? No.
Well in the book of Job in the Bible, Job 40:15 it states...
"Behold now Behemoth, which I made with thee."
...Behemoth was a name to describe a particular Dinosaur, not including another term for another particular Dinosaur "Leviathan". "Well then if they were dinosaurs, why doesn't it say it just say it?", well my friend have you heard of "New-Naming?".
And I can just as easily say that "Behemoth" meant sea serpent and "Leviathan" meant whale. So what? Do you know that dinosaurs were not all huge?
The term "Dinosaur" didn't exsist [sic] all the way back then, it wasn't till later on (probally [sic] around the 1800's) that the term was created. See what I mean?
Why didn't it exist, if humans did see dinosaurs?
D) There have been some cases on fossils (expecially [sic] dinosaur fossils) that prooved [sic] Creationism existed.
Are you being intentionally silly, or are you perhaps confused? What are you trying to say? What do you mean by "Creationism existed"?
For example, scientists at the University of Montana found T-rex bones that were not totally fossilized! The sections of the bones that were like fresh bone also contained what seemed to be blood cells. If these bones really were millions of years old, then the blood cells would have already totally disintegrated. Also, there shouldn't be "fresh" bone if it is really millions of years old.
By all means provide a reference for this information.
Also, a creation scientist found "fesh [sic]" frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska. Now even evolutionists would not argue that this deposit of bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out. The bones were not fossilized! They should not be in this state if they really were millions of years old.
Anyone can make up stories, or even quote someone else who has made up a story. Give references.
AND, I forgot when it was, but it was a couple years ago or so, I saw it on a news channel (dont [sic] remember which one). They had something on about that scientists have found a actual dinosaur HEART. The evolutionist scientists proclaimed that it was some millions of years old (forgot the number). But creationist scientists disagreed because a heart that "Preserved" can't be that old. If it was, it would have been decintagrated [sic].
LOL!! grin Are you trying to sound like you are desperate? "I forgot when..." "on a news channel" "...(don't) remember which (channel)" "...something about..." Please.
E) God was there to observe and see EVEYRTHING, he created EVERYTHING. Unlike evolution, it didn't have any sort of being that lived before or with dinosaurs!
Back to "point" A, it seems. You reaslly don't have much to go on, do you?
...There is far more proof, but half of it is not to my knowledge and the rest I don't feel like typing since this is the important stuff.
This is the most important stuff, is it?
A) the Bible said so.
B) I, knowing nothing about physics, do not think that the Big Bang could have happen (though this has nothing to do with evolution).
C) the Bible said so.
D) I think that I remember somebody saying that the scientists were wrong.
Very impressive "proof".
2. "Well maybe God used evolutionary process" What!? What are you thinking man, you high on something? WAKE UP! There is no mention in the Bible God used evolutionary process.
In fact, there is no mention of the process used at all.
AND God doesn't need evolutionary process to help Him create the Universe.
Once again you are demonstrating your complete ignorance. Evolution has nothimg to do with the creation of the universe. The only things that the Big Bang and evolution have in common are that they are both scince and they both contradict your (ill- informed) world-view.
He doesn't need help at all because He's God, and He created everything.
So you say.
If He can create the universe, then He sure doesn't need help with evolving animals or evolutionary process. (And believe me, God doesn't get tired!)
How insightful. By the way, there are many Christians who accept evolution. For example, I knew a biology professor who accepted evolution and taught it in his class. That professor was a Jesuit priest. But wait, he must not have been a "real Christian" (TM).
IF God was to use Evolutionary Process, then that would demolish His own Words! For in in [sic] the beginning, God created...
A) Earth, Space, Time and Light on day 1.
B) Atmosphere on day 2.
C) Dry Land and Plants on day 3.
D) Sun, Moon and Stars on day 4.
E) Sea Creatures and Birds on day 5.
F) Land Animals and Man day 6.
Pity that doesn't fit the evidence (e.g. sea creatures existed before land plants).
...it doesn't get any easier then this.
God created LAND Animals and Man on the same day, he created Sea animals and birds though before man......but ONLY A DAY before.
Why are you shouting? It makes no more sense just because you are using all caps.

~~{Comic Flash}~~
~~Did God Use Evolution?~~
"Did our Creator use a process that requires millions of years of DEATH, and brutal Killing, and Survial [sic] of the Fittest? Until finally God saw what he had made and behold, it was Very Good?"
I cannot imagine a god that would flood the entire planet, drowning billions of helpless animals, children, pregnant women, etc. using a method that involved brutal killing.
3. "Why are you so worried about Evolution anyway? It's just a science." Well if you would look and study it more, then you would know how it effects our very world today.
Evolution (or Secular Humanism) states that there is no God, or supernatural force. Therefore, there is no such thing as sin.
Evolution is a science, secular humanism is a philosophy, they are not the same thing. Evolution does not say that there is no god (nor that the god of the Bible is the right or wrong one).
Here is what Secular Humanists/Evolutionists are basically saying...
Question: "This life is the only one you're going to get, so enjoy it while you can. Do what makes you happy."
Perhaps you could quote a secular humanist on this, instead of making it up.
Answer: Your wrong, there is a After-Life. God created heaven and hell. You should obey God's Word, and his laws of living as best as you possiblally [sic] can.
So be good not because that is the right thing to do, but rather because you will go to hell if you don't. Very noble.
By the way, what has this got to do with the veracity of evolution?
Question: "Why worry about trying to figure out what is right and wrong if there is no ultimate, eternal meaning to life anyway?"
Again, a staw-man version of a secular humanist, which (even if accurate) has nothing to do with evolution, and even if it did, it would not bear on whether or not common descent happened. ou have given up on the evidence, and are trying to scare people away from evolution.
much irrelevant preaching snipped out

4. "Well the Adapt-To-The-Enviroment [sic] HAS to be right, is it?" You might feel even more discouraged with Evolution, but the answer is "NO". It would be LOGICAL if that happened, but there is one thing that that [sic] prooves [sic] it that the process couldn't have exsist [sic].
The Dinosaurs! Before the World-Wide Flood, Noah loaded every land animal onto the Ark, including Dinosaurs. (Remember, God temporarly [sic] preserved some of the animals on the Ark from trying to [?] each other during the Flood).[/b]
The fable of Noah's arc is silly, and is contradicted by the geological record even if engineering such a boat was possible. But we don't even have to go there, you already pointed out that God is all-powerful, doesn't get tired, and doesn't use cruel methods to achieve his ends. Why didn't he just kill off the evil humans without messing about with an arc, a flood, billions of pointless deaths, etc.?
After The Flood, Noah released all the animals from the Ark. Dinosaurs exsisted [sic] even AFTER The Flood. But the question remains, HOW did they become extinct?
Actually, I was more interested in how they got the kangaroos back to Australia.
Well so far, which is the only logically explanation is. The Dinosaurs died because after The Flood, the climate and the conditions of the soil and etc, have changed a lot. So then the Dinosaurs slowly died off, because of the envoirment [sic].
How careless of god, after having Noah carefully preserve them.
Evolutionists say "They evolved into Birds" or whatever they can think of, to try to make evolution exsisting [sic]. But they have no scientific proof what so ever that they evoled [sic] into birds. Therefore, the Creationists and Creationism is still in the lead as being the "more logical" science then Evolution.
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that birds evolved from certain dinosaurs, and more is being discovered. As for creationism, it explains nothing at all. It is just dogmatic acceptance of the mythology of an ancient tribe.
5. "The Earth and the Universe can't be just 6,000 years old. It seems too short."
Exactly who said that?
Well my friend, even though on a sheet of paper, the number does look awfully low. But if you LIVE through those years everyday, it will feel that you lived a eternity.
Oh, now I see the light! Since you put it that way, I cannot imagine how the earth could be older than 100 years. O.K., maybe 200, but that's it. The Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe 200 years ago, and included the appearance of much greater age. Yup, that MUST be it!
Look in the Bible, the timeline ISN'T that LONG to be millions or billions of years.
So, we're back to that "proof" again. Why do you think that we should accept the Bible as entirely, literally true in every detain? (when many Christians don't)
And in the Bible, it features about the beginning of time in the book of Gensis! It starts to the very beginning of time, and to the very end of time in the Bible. It's like a giant History book!
Kind of like the Star Wars story, a big history book. Yup.
6. "Evolution is based on Science, Creation is based on faith." The correct answer is, they BOTH are based on Faith!
Evolution is not merely based on science, it is science. Creationism is not.
Because Evolutions don't have 100% evidence of the past history on the so-called millions of years time period, so they assume, they believe......they have FAITH that it's right.
If by that you mean that scientists accept that there is a possibility, no matter how tiny, that they are wrong about evolution, then that is certainly true. But then, scientists admit this lack of certainty about everything, even the existence of the universe. That being said, scientists consider the common descent of all living things on this planet to be a fact, that is there is so much evidence that it would be perverse to treat it as anything but true.
Samething with Creationists, they have FAITH that it's fact, and that it's real. But Creationists have more REASON and more PROOF to believe they are right then Evolutionists.
You are so confused that it is pathetic. First, creationists do not accept the possibility that they might be wrong, which makes them different than scientists. They base their beliefs on a supposedly authoritative text instead of the evidence, which makes them different from scientists. They are not prepared to change their views, which makes them different from scientists. They make absolute claims, which makes them different from scientists. They do not make testable predictions, which makes them different from scientists. There is a big difference between basing your entire world-view on faith (like creationists), and simple faith that what you see is real (like scientists). But you cannot even see that if they have faith then they do not need proof, and if they have proof then faith is not an issue.
The bottom line is..... BOTH SHOULD BE EXCEPTED BY FAITH, AND FAITH ALONE.
No, not at all. The only way that creationism can be accepted, if you know all the facts, is by faith. Evolution is supported by all the evidence, and I invite everyone to inform themselves. If your faith is strong, then they should not be afraid to learn about science.
But Evolutionists proclaim it's not a beleif [sic] or faith, it's Science. How can Evolution be a science, if they didn't have a intellegent [sic] being where the dinosaurs lived in the so-called millions of years ago to know what they assume they know is a fact?
By examining the evidence that we have.
At least Creationists have the Pride, Honor, and Morals to say that what they do is Science, but is also Faith Based. Evolutionists live in denial, PEROID.
Pride goeth before the fall, or so I'm told.
If any of you have any questions or comments about this post, I would like to hear them.
You obviously know little or nothing about science in general and evolution in particular. You asked.

Peez

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Gleng 
Registered: Jun '99
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:41am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 3/12/02 10:46am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Gleng
Some more evidence

"Fine if the BB theory is independent from evolution, give me scientific proof of the very beginning of the universe."

I can't. And neither can you.

What I can do though is give you some info on possible explainations of the birth of the universe, which rely on the physics that have been observed in the existing universe.

Edit:
Quote: "Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a God"

In case you didn't know wink

 

-----signature-----
(insert amusing quote here)
-
-- Free The West Memphis Three --
http://www.wm3.org/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
R2D2-PENA 
Registered: Aug '01
6636_Alf Tyranus
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:46am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Possible explanations!!!! i want proof, give me proof and i will believe you otherwise its faith in an unknown.

Until you can scientifically prove your point its just as much faith as mine, the difference is what i already stated above.

Observation is a part of the scientific method but as we all know not everything in science is accurate and aplicable to all situations, so watching an atom explode doesn't prove big bang.

 

-----signature-----
Oh Yeah! from this book Evolution 1:1 "In the Beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded."
Homer Simpson: "You got any of those potato chips that give you diahrrea?
I need to do a little spring cleaning"
no matter what you say, Episode 2 ROCKS!!
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SSO_DarthVader_ 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:46am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 3/12/02 1:33pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Commander Antilles
Simulation EDIT, Kathyrn Kulhman was on TV! National TV man, during the 70's. How can you say "Or so the story goes...".

What the hell made you say that statement if it was on TV and thousands of people witnessed it? I have it on video tape for cry out loud. So before you post your "Inferior, illogical and hot headed posts" you better start talking like a REAL MAN, and deal with this debate in a calm way. You give Evolutionists a bad name.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SSO_DarthVader_ 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:53am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 3/12/02 10:57am (1 edits total) Edited By: SSO_DarthVader_
Peez I have friends who have different versions of beliefs of Evolution. There is not just ONE way of evolution.

Also the posts after the one that you made comments about, showed some references and such.

Creationists do have facts, here are some evidences Mr. Hot Shot...



EVIDENCE #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.

"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind." ([22], p.19)
"Nowhere do we see animals with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures." ([22], p.19-20)
"If continuous evolution is a universal law of nature, as the evolutionist claims, then there should be an abundance of evidences of continuity and transition between all the kinds of organisms involved in the process, both in the present world and in the fossil record. Instead we find great gaps between all the basic kinds, and essentially the same gaps in the fossil record that exist in the modern world." ([18], p.34)
There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.
"All of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed. The same is largely true even for most families and genera. There are literally an innumerable host of `missing links' in the record." ([18] , p.33)
"There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present." ([22], p.20)
"...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
"The occasional suggested examples of missing links (such as the famous archaeopteryx - supposedly linking the birds and reptiles) can usually be recognized on closer study to represent merely another type of one of the basic kinds it supposedly links (the archaeopteryx was a true bird, by any reasonable definition, with feathers and warm blood)." ([18], p.33-34)
"Even if a creature shared characteristics belonging to two separate groups, however, this would not necessarily make it a transitional link as long as each of the characteristics themselves is complete and not in the process of transition from one type of structure or function into another type of structure or function." ([22], p.25)
"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process."
Other evolutionists claim that the links are missing only because the changes are so small that they are not noticed. The problem here is that they are assuming that at every point in the evolution process the being would appear as complete or whole. Actually, they would appear as in transition as when a house is being built.
"The point to remember...is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time." ([11], p.57)


EVIDENCE #2
Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
It can be noted that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there. Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered. Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop, while evolution wants to go in the opposite direction. "Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved.

"All the `information' for the development of each particular organism was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce `after their kinds'." ([18], p.25)
"There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind'." ([18], p.25)
"The genetic system permits a wide variety of specific features (eye color, height, shape of skull, etc.) within the limits of a particular kind. These characteristics vary in accordance with the Mendelian laws of heredity. Depending on factors such as possible isolation and inbreeding, some of these characteristics become fixed and a definite `race' established."
"Although the number of varieties or races that may be established from an original kind is undoubtedly quite large, it is clear that there are definite limits to this or even speciation has no true evolutionary significance. New varieties are established, but not new kinds." ([18], p.26)
"For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species." ([22], p.7)
In light of these facts, evolutionists have turned to mutations (small, random and almost always harmful changes in the genetic code) in the gene pool to explain their theory, "The general picture of how evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant gene. Among these mutations most will be deleterious, but a minority will be beneficial. These few will be retained...". James F. Crow, a modern leader for evolution. ([19], p.47) Two problems with claiming mutations to be the source of positive change are as follows: "an accumulation of literally millions of such micro mutations would be necessary to change one basic `kind' of plant or animal into another" and "an even more serious difficulty is the fact that practically all observed mutations are harmful, and usually even fatal, to the creature experiencing them. Truly beneficial mutations are so rarely observed, and even these are so questionable, as to leave their very existence still in doubt. Even evolutionary geneticists readily acknowledge that 99.9% of all observed mutations are harmful." ([18], p.27-28)
Mutation are small, random, and harmful or at best neutral to the organism, and rare. All four of these characteristics make mutations impossible to bringing evolutionary change. Any change that is random, because it is done to a highly ordered organism, will be harmful or neutral. A random change done to a wristwatch will not improve the watch. It will harm it or at very best, be neutral to it. An earthquake does not develop a city, it brings destruction to it. ([22], p.7 and [18], p.27)
"Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation." ([11], p.32)
"But, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial mutation might occur; still the fact remains that for every beneficial mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones so that the net effect, or result, over time will be that the harmful mutations always win and will ultimately cause the organism, or even species, to degenerate or die." ([22], p.8)
"...mutations are incapable of producing evolution because they can only alter and effect the existing structure of genes: they cannot create new genetic material or new genetic potential."
"...only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger, her baby would not, as a result, be born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring." ([22], p.9)
Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is natural preservation not natural selection (evolution). ([22], p.11)
Put another way, in regard to mutations, we can say, "Species avoid genetic deterioration due to natural attrition among the genetically unfit. Darwinists claim that the same force of attrition has a building effect so powerful that it can begin with a bacterial cell and gradually craft its descendants...to produce such wonders as trees, flowers, ants, birds, and humans." ([11], p.16)
Breeding reproduces those animals with desired features. It is not evolution of the specimens. It is also within kind not crossing kinds, and all changes through breeding are lost after just a few generations. Breeding also, of course, cannot produce new genetic material or the potential for such. Cloning is the artificial stimulation of mitosis (cell division). It is not the creation of life. ([4], p.37)
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35)
"...an excess inflow of `ordering energy' into the system from outside may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized. Thus...a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure. But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in entropy, are only local and temporary.""Negative entropy (is required) for its maintenance." ([18], p.46)
A seed, for example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.
Regarding the first law of thermodynamics (stating that a constant amount of energy is maintained) it is observed, "...all matter in the universe is some form of energy...(and) the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant (or the same), and, therefore, energy itself is neither destroyed (that is, reduced to nothing) or created from nothing by any natural process. ([19], p.32)
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible. ([18], p.46)
Regarding the validity of the laws, we note, "These laws are based upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no known exception to either of them."
It is noted that the `urge' to evolve is not at all found in chemistry. ([4], p.357)
In light of all of these scientific objections to natural selection, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory since he asserted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


EVIDENCE #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.

"The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech." ([11], p.102)
"The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order." ([22], p.15)
"...the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!" ([22], p.15)
"...research has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between organic and inorganic matter." ([4], p.373)
"The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption." ([22], p.14 5)
We find that the same elements that supposedly created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then produce life again? ([4], p.373)
The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells.
We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.
Life is more than the sum of its parts. This may be why, at least in part, science cannot define life. It can only give the characteristics of living things.
Darwin wrote, "The first appearance of new beings...is a mystery of mysteries."
All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing (and neither can common sense account for it) and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.
In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity. Therefore, those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply disseminate into space not draw together to form anything.
Morality is generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.
Famous evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and animals, "Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an "embarrassment, something to be explained away." ([15], p.22)
Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have "Found this argument (natural selection) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties." ([15], p.26)
Regarding people's intellectual powers and moral sense among other things, Wallace also asserted that these "could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and..., therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them." ([11], p.310) He also concluded, "...a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose." ([15], p.26)
Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded "Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special." ([15], p.26)
Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative." ([19], p.362)
We find human's dominance over animals as utter and complete making a common ancestry virtually impossible. Wallace and Broom asserted, "The whole purpose, the only raison d'etre (reason for being) of the world...was the development of the human spirit with the human body." ([15], p.26)
Broom asserted, "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in (and therefore)...the evolution of man must have been planned by some spiritual power." ([14], p.42)
Regarding the 99% similarity chemically to apes figure, why is our dominion over the apes so extensive if the 99% is so significant?
Perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory had he realized these three gaps in the order of living things. He stated, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent." ([10], p.33)



...more evidences can be found here http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Geist 
Registered: Oct '99
6270_Darth Vader
Date Posted: 3/12/02 10:58am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
It strikes me as odd how one person can tell another to "stop acting like a dumb f**k hot head man," then suggest that he "deal with this debate in a calm way."

 

-----signature-----
"The key to enlightenment, then, is recognizing the basic goodness of all things.
Youth and old age, life and death, happiness and sorrow, all have their place
and we must learn to let them come and go in their time, without attachment or aversion."
- Diz
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Gleng 
Registered: Jun '99
Date Posted: 3/12/02 11:02am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 3/12/02 11:05am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Gleng
R2D2-PENA: Ok, I think we've reached a stalemate here. Although I still doubt creationism primarily because of the lack of proof of a god in all other situations, lack of hard evidence in the birth of the universe still does not equate to the existance of a god. You are as much entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. So I think we'll have to agree that we're in an irresistable force/immovable object situation happy

SSO_DarthVader_: You might want to do a little bit of editing a couple of posts up, swearing tends to get people banned wink

Thanks for the great discussion guys, I'm going to bed. It's 5:41am here and I have to get up for work in a few hours grin

Edit: typos and stuff

 

-----signature-----
(insert amusing quote here)
-
-- Free The West Memphis Three --
http://www.wm3.org/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SSO_DarthVader_ 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 3/12/02 11:02am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 3/12/02 1:35pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Commander Antilles
The reason why he's acting like a Dumb **** because some of the questions he asked have already been said in the posts after the ones he mentioned. And that the way he's posting on every line is in a type of yelling. Seems to be a hot head.


Hey I was "scientific" about it. I observed, and I layed down my assumptions and facts wink .


PS: I didn't mean to insult, I just got fusterated the way he was acting, sorry.

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Gleng 
Registered: Jun '99
Date Posted: 3/12/02 11:07am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation - Date Edited: 3/12/02 11:13am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Gleng
Don't get banned! happy

Edit: Seriously, I've really enjoyed this discussion. Let's not finish it off with a flame war.

 

-----signature-----
(insert amusing quote here)
-
-- Free The West Memphis Three --
http://www.wm3.org/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
SSO_DarthVader_ 
Registered: Mar '02
Date Posted: 3/12/02 11:17am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
Ok I'll stop. I think someone should close this topic, it gets annoying fighting over something that MIGHT not change people's minds, just break there hearts...

 

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
R2D2-PENA 
Registered: Aug '01
6636_Alf Tyranus
Date Posted: 3/12/02 11:18am Subject: RE: Evolution or Creation
I'm calm here, i really don't get angry about this.

Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering!!!

 

-----signature-----
Oh Yeah! from this book Evolution 1:1 "In the Beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded."
Homer Simpson: "You got any of those potato chips that give you diahrrea?
I need to do a little spring cleaning"
no matter what you say, Episode 2 ROCKS!!
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History