Evolution versus Creationism
- Thread starter taty85cr
- Start date
Earl Palmer
New member
Oh please!!!!! Now you're concerned about becoming the victim of Creationists who will dumb down society with our antiquated beliefs ? Can you post one iota of evidence that there are not now and never have been any people of faith in the legitimate sciences ? And how dare you blatantly lie by insisting that it's people who are evolutionary scientists who are discovering the cures for modern diseases. Evolutionary science is junk science and it consists more of fraud than fact. And only self deluded pseudo intellects will place their faith in it. But everyone neeRAB a religion huh ? For the atheist, it may as well be evolution I guess. :xgood:
Again you both obfuscate with minutia. But I'm tired of trying to convince you that for every explanation gleaned from evo, an opposing perspective exists. And one based in reality I might add. Animals adapt, they don't evolve. A link you accept as legitimate states facts you reject as inconsistent with evolution and yet you refuse to admit that evo is inconsistent. I post actual modern day observations of Rapid Adaptation and you don't even respond to it. You defend a lie as if I'm tearing your religion apart. What's up with that guys ?
sweetshygirl27
New member
Interesting that none of the evolutionist mental giants around here even dealt with the inconsistencies pointed out here.
Living Fossils
Since 1822 thousanRAB of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as "living fossils" - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as "proof" of evolution. But then, to the embarrassment of scientists, these animals were later found to be alive in remote parts of the world.
Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."
Living fossils are living proof of the accuracy with which plants and animals reproduce themselves and the fact that many are not changing at all.
The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.
Living Coelacanths
The Australian and African lungfish are . . . living fossils. They all look "primitive" and have lobed fins. Obviously lungfish can't be our ancestors because they have remain unchanged, again for 400 million years [ET*]. Another animal, the horseshoe crab, would be a great candidate for our ancestor. It looks "primitive" and leaves the ocean to spawn on dry land. However, it, too, is a living fossil, appearing about 425 million years ago [ET*] in the Silurian period, and remaining unchanged.
Similarly, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, and paddlefish all look "primitive" but are living fossils. Yet they are doing nicely in today's environment.
IN 1994. in Wollemi National Park (in the Blue Mountains) the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services found a pine tree once thought to be extinct. They are close relations to plants only found in the so called "Jurassic and Cretaceous" perioRAB. (65-200 million years ago [ET*]). There are very few of these trees left in an isolated area.
The following aquatic animals alive today are also examples of creatures that have not evolved since their fossil ancestors:- lobsters, crayfish and rays (fossils found in Jurassic rock), lampshells, mussels oysters, thumb nail shells (fossils found in Carboniferous rock), sharks (fossilized teeth found in Devonian rock), mackerel, perch, herring, jelly fish, fogs, the nautilus etc.
Of the 12,000 fossilized insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today.
The fossils of bees, ants, cicadas, beetles, termites or cockroaches, and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachniRAB and myriapoRAB.
Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).
If all of these species have not evolved in 50 million [ET*], 100 million [ET*] or even 200 million [ET*] years, then why should we believe that they (or anything) have evolved? Some changes due to speciation have occurred, but not the large scale changes that evolution supposes.
The list goes on; example after example of no change from one type of animal to another in the fossil record. Darwin tried to cover over this embarrassment by saying the fossil record is incomplete, but it wasn't then and it's not now. What we know about living fossils, then and now, is a representative sample of the fossil record.
Living Fossils
Since 1822 thousanRAB of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as "living fossils" - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as "proof" of evolution. But then, to the embarrassment of scientists, these animals were later found to be alive in remote parts of the world.
Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."
Living fossils are living proof of the accuracy with which plants and animals reproduce themselves and the fact that many are not changing at all.
The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.
Living Coelacanths
The Australian and African lungfish are . . . living fossils. They all look "primitive" and have lobed fins. Obviously lungfish can't be our ancestors because they have remain unchanged, again for 400 million years [ET*]. Another animal, the horseshoe crab, would be a great candidate for our ancestor. It looks "primitive" and leaves the ocean to spawn on dry land. However, it, too, is a living fossil, appearing about 425 million years ago [ET*] in the Silurian period, and remaining unchanged.
Similarly, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, and paddlefish all look "primitive" but are living fossils. Yet they are doing nicely in today's environment.
IN 1994. in Wollemi National Park (in the Blue Mountains) the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services found a pine tree once thought to be extinct. They are close relations to plants only found in the so called "Jurassic and Cretaceous" perioRAB. (65-200 million years ago [ET*]). There are very few of these trees left in an isolated area.
The following aquatic animals alive today are also examples of creatures that have not evolved since their fossil ancestors:- lobsters, crayfish and rays (fossils found in Jurassic rock), lampshells, mussels oysters, thumb nail shells (fossils found in Carboniferous rock), sharks (fossilized teeth found in Devonian rock), mackerel, perch, herring, jelly fish, fogs, the nautilus etc.
Of the 12,000 fossilized insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today.
The fossils of bees, ants, cicadas, beetles, termites or cockroaches, and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachniRAB and myriapoRAB.
Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).
If all of these species have not evolved in 50 million [ET*], 100 million [ET*] or even 200 million [ET*] years, then why should we believe that they (or anything) have evolved? Some changes due to speciation have occurred, but not the large scale changes that evolution supposes.
The list goes on; example after example of no change from one type of animal to another in the fossil record. Darwin tried to cover over this embarrassment by saying the fossil record is incomplete, but it wasn't then and it's not now. What we know about living fossils, then and now, is a representative sample of the fossil record.
I think I agree with you.
I believe in the theory of evolution because, well, there is evidence of it everywhere. The book of Genesis does not display literal science. For example, the story of Adam and Eve shows the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam. In the time the bible was written, a rib symbolized equality because of its location on the body. There is symbolism everywhere in genesis. To take it as literal proof (especially when there is evidence everywhere supporting something else) is foolish.
I believe in the theory of evolution because, well, there is evidence of it everywhere. The book of Genesis does not display literal science. For example, the story of Adam and Eve shows the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam. In the time the bible was written, a rib symbolized equality because of its location on the body. There is symbolism everywhere in genesis. To take it as literal proof (especially when there is evidence everywhere supporting something else) is foolish.
Mauloof Ahmed
New member
You don't understand evolution.
Emotions are expressed by animals. Capacity to plan; Lions/Chimpanzees hunting behaiour. Tool use as seen in Chimpanzees, several monkey species and a number of birRAB.
Environmental conditions are not universal, either in time or space and therefore the evolutionary pressures on populations change from site to site and time to time. Or do you compete for grass with sheep, cows, horses etc.?
The factors you refer to (Writing & trading) were developed after the last glaciation following the adoption of agriculture which produced a surplus and thus the capability for trade and development of civilisation.
Emotions are expressed by animals. Capacity to plan; Lions/Chimpanzees hunting behaiour. Tool use as seen in Chimpanzees, several monkey species and a number of birRAB.
Environmental conditions are not universal, either in time or space and therefore the evolutionary pressures on populations change from site to site and time to time. Or do you compete for grass with sheep, cows, horses etc.?
The factors you refer to (Writing & trading) were developed after the last glaciation following the adoption of agriculture which produced a surplus and thus the capability for trade and development of civilisation.
this person
New member
Let's see... on the one hand, we have scientific evidence and reasoning accumulated by tens of thousanRAB of trained scholars over centuries of careful research; on the other, we have the folk tales of one tribe of Bronze Age sheep herders ignorant of modern scientific techniques... gee... tricky.
If we weigh the scientific evidence for Creationism vs. evolution, it's like placing a dried pea on one end of a see-saw, and dropping a hundred ton boulder from a great height on the other. First pea in orbit...
Next?
If we weigh the scientific evidence for Creationism vs. evolution, it's like placing a dried pea on one end of a see-saw, and dropping a hundred ton boulder from a great height on the other. First pea in orbit...
Next?
Rebelled Devils
New member
Then why do we have antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria that weren't antibiotic resistant before?
The cental paradigm of molecular genetics is not minutia.
You presented no opposing viewpoint, you merely called the process that the rest of the world calls evolution by another name, expecting that to be an argument why evolution doesn't occur.
The information you provided did not support your point of view, it refuted it.
This has already been pointed out to you.
You have been asked questions that you have ignored:
What is Rapid Adaptation?
What is the difference between adapting and evolving?
You presented no opposing viewpoint, you merely called the process that the rest of the world calls evolution by another name, expecting that to be an argument why evolution doesn't occur.
The information you provided did not support your point of view, it refuted it.
This has already been pointed out to you.
You have been asked questions that you have ignored:
What is Rapid Adaptation?
What is the difference between adapting and evolving?
wateripple
New member
Begging the question: You assume there is that God in the first place. The Hindus say your God doesn't exist. You would say theirs don't. Who's right?
Or you could be mistaking another God for such actions...Oh Noes! I must think about my religion instead of just blindly spouting off! oh Noes!!!!
Well you would reject someone who failed to meet the most basic criteria. Would you hire a artist as a IT technician? No. Likewise Jesus failed to meet the criteria that was laid out in the Jewish Prophecies. Therefore He ain't the Messiah. But if we're going to say that Jesus who failed to meet the Criteria is the Messiah because we want to, why we can't we say that Muhammad was the Jesus Messiah? Since actually basing what they did with what it said they would do doesn't matter, why can't I call OTTO the Jewish Messiah?
You haven't proven anything other then your own intolerant Dogma and absolute refusal for belief examination.
You COMPLETELY failed to prove anything other then your own ignorance in the religion thread about proving one's belief, what makes you think you could do it here?
Or you could be mistaking another God for such actions...Oh Noes! I must think about my religion instead of just blindly spouting off! oh Noes!!!!
Well you would reject someone who failed to meet the most basic criteria. Would you hire a artist as a IT technician? No. Likewise Jesus failed to meet the criteria that was laid out in the Jewish Prophecies. Therefore He ain't the Messiah. But if we're going to say that Jesus who failed to meet the Criteria is the Messiah because we want to, why we can't we say that Muhammad was the Jesus Messiah? Since actually basing what they did with what it said they would do doesn't matter, why can't I call OTTO the Jewish Messiah?
You haven't proven anything other then your own intolerant Dogma and absolute refusal for belief examination.
You COMPLETELY failed to prove anything other then your own ignorance in the religion thread about proving one's belief, what makes you think you could do it here?
David Devoted
New member
What an irrational mishmash of delusional reasoning. The fact is that if God chose to create "life" on other planets either in this Solar System or within our scope of observation, then they would surely exist, and He would have spoken of it in the bible. The unexplainable reality is that YOU claim that we not only evolved by accident, but spontaneously came into existence by some freakish fluke of nature referred to as Abiogenesis. So it is up to you to explain why this so called scientific reality called Abiogenesis and Biological Evolution hasn't happened on any other known planed in all of time and space? I mean let's face it, it isn't due to any shortage of Solar Systems, Galaxies or the Planets within them as there has proven to be an infinite number of them for this accidental and random process to begin on.
So my simple answer to you is that the God of all Creation decided to make Man in His image ON EARTH just as the bible tells us. If the bible said that God decided to create life on all 9 planets in this Solar System or on 10 other various Planets in our Galaxy, only then would you have a valid question or argument since we haven't been able to find even one other life sustaining Planet anywhere. So the bible is batting a thousand so to speak. It is the argument that random selection works or is a viable theory that is very much in question because in all of the uncountable Planets that exist in Time and Space, as far as we have been able to show with all of our Space Telescopes, Satellites and Deep Space Probes, life exists only on Planet Earth.
PS How many handles does obvious child need?
So my simple answer to you is that the God of all Creation decided to make Man in His image ON EARTH just as the bible tells us. If the bible said that God decided to create life on all 9 planets in this Solar System or on 10 other various Planets in our Galaxy, only then would you have a valid question or argument since we haven't been able to find even one other life sustaining Planet anywhere. So the bible is batting a thousand so to speak. It is the argument that random selection works or is a viable theory that is very much in question because in all of the uncountable Planets that exist in Time and Space, as far as we have been able to show with all of our Space Telescopes, Satellites and Deep Space Probes, life exists only on Planet Earth.
PS How many handles does obvious child need?
nickhil2003
New member
Thank you, but I'm just a simple pragmatist 
Now you just show how impossibly naive you are if you accept those very different pictures that the naked eye can discern could not possibly have come from the same type of creature in life. Really moose, you claim I'm the ignorant one as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept it without question because your impressed by their scientific vocabulary. Duhhhhh, they use big word so they must be smart huh ? :xgood: :xdonno:
Now you just show how impossibly naive you are if you accept those very different pictures that the naked eye can discern could not possibly have come from the same type of creature in life. Really moose, you claim I'm the ignorant one as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept it without question because your impressed by their scientific vocabulary. Duhhhhh, they use big word so they must be smart huh ? :xgood: :xdonno:
Agreed. I realy don't get Archie's acceptance of the flood as being literal, despite all the facts against it - especially when he claims he accepts Geology as a legitimate science. The flood could be, as you said, a complete metaphor. I personally think it was the adoption of the flood myths of other cultures that existed before the Hebrews, and those came from times when a large flood occured and wiped out their village, and eventually expanded over time and retellings to being a worldwide flood. Archie's belief in the flood is just as credible as me saying that the Flood was a race of parasitic creatures that take over humans from the Halo game series.
junglemonkey0097
New member
Not at all Mucusaur, Just because the truth of the bible can't be proven scientifically, it doesn't mean it isn't the spiritual record of truth regarding the origins of Man. Am I capable of explaining every question we have ? NO! But that surely shouldn't be a reason to reject it as the absolute truth that it is. I guess that's where the faith comes in, huh ? :xangel:
danceloveeex3
New member
To start with, I'm not implying you don't know what you're talking about. If I were to imply it, I wouldn't state it directly. I'm saying that you don't know what you're talking about.
You asked me if I thought bacteria deserved the same rights as humans when discussing evolution. You implied that I was comparing bacterial evolution to the evolution in order Primates. And your assumption that something besides Homo Sapiens should have evovled higher functions is incorrect. If they don't need it to survive in the ecological niche they live in(see the competitive exclusion principle mentioned in the next part), then there is no reason for them to evolve it.
It's not that it's happy being single-celled. The reason bacteria don't trend towarRAB being multicellular is the fact that they have found a niche and filled it. One of the basic tenents of biology is the competitive exclusion principle.
principle of competitive exclusion (biology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
They don't know there place in the chain of life because they can't think. But, I never argued they were sentient. It's not the epitome of perfection for them, but it is what allows them to survive in their niche. The epitome of perfection for bacteria, fungi, and viruses is to be completely drug resistant and they are evolving to that.
Read the definitions clearly. It's a trend towarRAB complexity OR perfection.
They face ecological and environmental problems from man. Lower primates didn't suffer any challenges. One day, some of them decided to descend from the trees. As soon as they realized they had more space, they straightened up their walk. As soon as they found they couldn't kill something, the one that figured out how to make tools survived while the one who didn't died. It isn't necessary because of the competitive exclusion principle. A species will evolve to fit its niche. Then it will evolve to be more fit in its niche and to keep predators away. The apes that came out of the trees found their niche, filled it, and evolved to be more fit in it.
The evolution of species hasn't stopped. Humans are steadily getting taller.
Why are we getting taller as a species?: Scientific American
Species trend toward what makes them more fit to live in the ecological niche that they occupy.
Way to obfuscate what you said. I'll quote you, "...and the ability to manipulate the raw materials of the world we inhabit to serve our neeRAB."
By using it to build there homes, doesn't that constitue manipulating to serve their neeRAB? Or, in your world, does a beaver make a house for other animals out of the trees it fells?
We didn't all grow with the same environmental pressures. A lizard that lives in a cave is not subject to the same environmental pressures as a lizard that lives in the desert. The logical reason for why every species shouldn't naturally seek the intelligence is because they don't need it to survive. If that happened and they became as intelligent as humans, then we would all become vegitarians because we couldn't ever kill an animal.
principle of competitive exclusion (biology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia Humans trend towarRAB complex thought and the ability to manipulate the natural world because before they could do that, life was short, nasty, brutish, and dirty. As soon as they could build fire and shelter, life got a little bit longer and a little less nasty. They kept finding things they could do to improve the quality, and those who got it lived and those who didn't died.
And I'll admit I was wrong to change the word. So, take one when you get it, and let that go.
That's is a bald-faced lie. Granted, it's a lie of ignorance, but it is still a lie. I've considered the inconsistencies. I used to be on your side of the aisle. Perfection, in a biological sense, is when the organism is adapted perfectly to live in its ecological niche.
You asked me if I thought bacteria deserved the same rights as humans when discussing evolution. You implied that I was comparing bacterial evolution to the evolution in order Primates. And your assumption that something besides Homo Sapiens should have evovled higher functions is incorrect. If they don't need it to survive in the ecological niche they live in(see the competitive exclusion principle mentioned in the next part), then there is no reason for them to evolve it.
It's not that it's happy being single-celled. The reason bacteria don't trend towarRAB being multicellular is the fact that they have found a niche and filled it. One of the basic tenents of biology is the competitive exclusion principle.
principle of competitive exclusion (biology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
They don't know there place in the chain of life because they can't think. But, I never argued they were sentient. It's not the epitome of perfection for them, but it is what allows them to survive in their niche. The epitome of perfection for bacteria, fungi, and viruses is to be completely drug resistant and they are evolving to that.
Read the definitions clearly. It's a trend towarRAB complexity OR perfection.
They face ecological and environmental problems from man. Lower primates didn't suffer any challenges. One day, some of them decided to descend from the trees. As soon as they realized they had more space, they straightened up their walk. As soon as they found they couldn't kill something, the one that figured out how to make tools survived while the one who didn't died. It isn't necessary because of the competitive exclusion principle. A species will evolve to fit its niche. Then it will evolve to be more fit in its niche and to keep predators away. The apes that came out of the trees found their niche, filled it, and evolved to be more fit in it.
The evolution of species hasn't stopped. Humans are steadily getting taller.
Why are we getting taller as a species?: Scientific American
Species trend toward what makes them more fit to live in the ecological niche that they occupy.
Way to obfuscate what you said. I'll quote you, "...and the ability to manipulate the raw materials of the world we inhabit to serve our neeRAB."
By using it to build there homes, doesn't that constitue manipulating to serve their neeRAB? Or, in your world, does a beaver make a house for other animals out of the trees it fells?
We didn't all grow with the same environmental pressures. A lizard that lives in a cave is not subject to the same environmental pressures as a lizard that lives in the desert. The logical reason for why every species shouldn't naturally seek the intelligence is because they don't need it to survive. If that happened and they became as intelligent as humans, then we would all become vegitarians because we couldn't ever kill an animal.
principle of competitive exclusion (biology) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia Humans trend towarRAB complex thought and the ability to manipulate the natural world because before they could do that, life was short, nasty, brutish, and dirty. As soon as they could build fire and shelter, life got a little bit longer and a little less nasty. They kept finding things they could do to improve the quality, and those who got it lived and those who didn't died.
And I'll admit I was wrong to change the word. So, take one when you get it, and let that go.
That's is a bald-faced lie. Granted, it's a lie of ignorance, but it is still a lie. I've considered the inconsistencies. I used to be on your side of the aisle. Perfection, in a biological sense, is when the organism is adapted perfectly to live in its ecological niche.
M
"m" ... :)
Guest
In addition, even on this planet 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. All in all, not a good track record. Or very intelligent.