Evolution versus Creationism

It's hard not to call you a liar when your favorite pastime appears to be lying.


Is it lying or ignorance? Either way, you're wrong and pretending not to be. Please do some research on Tiktaalik.


Like, you know, Tiktaalik?



When have we ever said that we evolved by accident? That's just your pathetic strawman position because you've got nothing, Archie.


Or we can explain that it's extremely hard to make that determination when these other planets are so damn far away... but you wouldn't understand that, either.


No real answers, huh? Need you be reminded of Baby Fae? Or does that fall into the realm of your selective ignorance as well?
 
then why continue along the same path? these types of threaRAB are long and frustrating and never resolve anything. as you have admitted, creation has no basis in reality on which to stand. the way you make a creationist see this is by allowing him to come to this conclusion himself. you cannot force evolution down his throat, regardless of how right you are. and that approach is effective no matter how entrenched in his belief he is

contrary to popular belief, reasoning does appeal to creationists. their very belief in the bible is based on a level of reasoning that satisfies the questions they ask about the universe. and they continually seek evidence that will reinforce what they believe.

but feel free to carry on in the discourse and nevermind my interruption
 
Archangel, I'm talking to you.
Now, don't look away. Listen, please, to what I am asking you and I challenge you to answer in a direct manner.

1. Where in your link above does it say anything that refutes evolution or promotes your ideas? Please provide a quote.
2. Look at that link and go to chapter 12.
3. You have been asked before and ignored this. Please explain how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics without evolution. You supply some made up terms like "rapid adaptation" and "generational conjugation". Please, really I mean it, explain what you understand those to mean. Where did you get those ideas?

Really arch. If you can't explain this to us or yourself, how can you continue to believe in your own ideas?

I know you don't care what people think of you. Your ilk must shed that concern early on or you cannot continue. So, although it's clear you have zero credibility on this forum regarding this topic at least, don't you have a shred of self respect that commanRAB you to be honest with yourself about this?
 
The bottom line unkerpaulie, is that in whatever you believe in life, whether it be evolution or creationism, it takes placing your faith in to believe it. And all of the huge assumptions you have mentioned above are just that. Unprovable assumptions based on unprovable scientific methoRAB that people place their faith in that they are accurate and reliable results. I know the methoRAB that produce the results you base your beliefs on aren't accurate or reliable at all. This is the crux of the disagreement between evo and Creationists. Some things just can't be proven scientifically by Man. To believe we can accurately date the age of rocks is just so much self delusion, yet millions of people accept it as more reliable than believing that this organized chain of life we enjoy is intelligently designed by a loving creator. And the reality is that if the age of rocks is fundamentally incorrect then every single other assumption in the science of evolution is also wrong because the aging of the World itself is the original so called fact that all other assumptions are based on.
 
while youre "pretty pictures" consist of an ape turning into a human is that right? well I would like proof of that too. or are you mesmerized by the fact that you evolved from a monkey... wow.. typing monkeys...
 
Not something creationists are known for.

Go on....

I wonder how one "dilutes" oneself. HMMM?


[sarcasm]You creationists are doing the same thing! You're fooling yourselves into thinking that creationism, or as I like to call it, "cretinism" is true! (despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary)[/sarcasm]

Methinks it's quite fair to say that most of the "secularists" have leared quite a bit about the ridiculous claim of creationism, etc.

CftxP said:
If you only once tried to devote as much time on Creation as you do for evolution, you'll see that there is no possible way that evolution is true!

Wait right here - can you show us that there IS a "creation"?
Oh, and let's twist it around a bit for you - How can their be a creator without someone who creates HIM, and how can that creator be if no one creates him, etc.


Funny, as a Christian that accepts the fact of evolution, I never say "there is no god". I believe that God started the universe and let it change and made life through the complicated, intricate, beautifully complex process of evolution.


Have. Many times. Not foolish enough to interpret it literally when the very Creation, the very Universe that God created tells us that a literal interpretation cannot possibly be true.

### does this mean? :confused:

How white of you.

Look at Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Cain, Lot (the incest dude), etc. - do you really want to be related to THEM?


I don't think preaching to everyone will really get you anywhere.


Your point?

You'd hate to hear me say this, but many of the early geologists were Christians (I am a Christian and a geologist in fact) that set out to try to find evidence for the Noachian Deluge, but ended up showing that the evidence is jst the opposite, and that there is no evidence the Noachian Deluge ever happened.

Done it. Many, many times. Many different versions. Many of the books that were cut out over the years according to each person's agenda at the time (starting with the council of Nicea).


However, some prophecies in the bible ever came true. Tyre for instance (if I remember correctly)



Ah, so Israelites are still commiting genocide and ethnic cleansing (except for the virgin women - gotta keep them as sex slaves). Better tell the UN that.
Click to expand...
 
OK, let me go real slow so you self professed mental giants can follow along. I read chapter 12 and am very familiar with the party line. That is why I used the link so I could show you from a source you respect how evo contradicts itself within its own research. Chapter 18 clearly say's that bacteria have sex and during the process of conjugation, genes are exchanged through a mating channel that links two bacteria. Electron Microscopy showed that bacterial viruses (the exact life form used in the example to show evolution above) carry on a similar process. This means that even bacteria reproduce in an understandable and definable way, and passes the combined traits of the parents DNA to the oRABpring which explains the inheritance of resistant traits in the oRABpring just as we inherit the combined traits of our parents.

It's just that the skills of viruses and bacteria lend towarRAB resisting existing anti-biotics and growing into new strains because they carry the strengths of their parents. But it's a misinterpretation of the evidence to imply that it's evolution. It would more accurately be defined as Rapid Adaptation. And here's another article to try to either wrap your head around or reject as creationist balderdash. I really don't care. But either way, I'll bet you can't reasonably refute it with evo so you'll just mock it like everything else you can't explain.

Darwin
 
It's my first day and I'm already wishing forums had an ignore button.

This really is my first day, and I am frankly flabbergasted. Is this (Archie-types) an ongoing problem here, or an isolated individual? I feel like I'm arguing with my 6 year old niece.

I'm asking everyone out there who has been there for a while. Seriously. As a former Christian, I have numerous Christian frienRAB whose conversation and opinions I respect and think I could learn something from - but, well...Jesus, is this the norm around here?

This is not a rhetorical question.
 
Sweetie... these fossils represent are different species of lungfish. They illustrate a sequence of morphological intermediates from the earliest to the most recent, a thing you said didn't exist. I'm pointing you towarRAB several examples of its existence, so if you knowingly persist in your error, it becomes a deliberate lie.

And from other fossil sequences, we can see that they've also evolved into rather different species, such as the land vertebrates -- there are intermediate fossil sequences there, too. Tiktaalik is just one example you refuse to learn anything about.

As for why do lungfish still exist if other species evolved from them? Sweetie, it takes a real twit to fail to realise that one species can evolve from another without the original going extinct. 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. A very few last a long time, most have much shorter lifespans. Perfectly reasonable, from an evolutionary perspective.
 
That's precisely my point. Bacteria doesn't evolve but builRAB up tolerances based on the antibiotics designed to kill it. That speaks to its immune system though, not evolution. Just as insects who have very short lifecycles have built up immunities to insecticides in 4 or 5 years time which boggled the mind of scientists until they realized that 5 years to some insects is 50 generations because of their short lifecycles. In 50 generations human beings can also build up resistances to many poisons if we were exposed to them in acceptable doses. So it isn't evolution, it's adaptation.
 
Back
Top