Isn't the debate about creationism and evolution just a matter of interpretation?

A

Arabella

New member
Creationists and evolutionists have access to the same biological data. So that means the only difference is in how the data is interpreted?

One side sees design (divinity) behind the scientific data. The other side takes a purely secular view.
 
IF evolution had any possible basis of fact there would be fossils of every possible creature and humans in clearly defined and logical layers instead of the jumble and tumbled mass mess which is the exact thing one would find after a global flood as the debris fields of study of other floods has prove time and time again.

given the long time frame, etc. why has the gulf of mexico not filled in by now after how many ??of years?

carbon dating is very inaccurate...

it is a very tiresome argument that is not really worth our time and energy regarding a thinking process that is maybe of the past 100 years or better of a theory of 4.5 or 65 million years of whatever.

no proof other that inflated fluff and doctored evidence.
 
No, it's a matter of one side refusing to accept reality and lying (whether knowingly or not) about the data so that it gives their view some form of legitimacy with lay-people. Creationists don't have a single honest argument on the subject
 
No;

There is plenty of evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION:.
First, the 'Cambrian explosion'...... the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists today agree.....

." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

"Evolution REQUIRES intermediate forms between species and paleontology DOES NOT provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.
 
Evolution is joke can you show me one thing that changed or Develop into something else a so called missing link? No there never been one found yet let me ask something did the frist fish that tried to live on land have lungs or gills? If had lungs how live underwater if had lungs how did lie on land? Let it lived than was this male or female if male or female who this fish have young? think about this how stupid is to believe in evolution has a dog ever anyting but a dog why can't we see evolution today why did it stop? this just stupid creation is much easier to believe since we see the created everywhere around us. Lastly evolution want us to believe something can from nothing not even the big bang want to belive this to created something you must have something not nothing.
 
Back
Top