Creation vs Evolution

[Papewaio]

Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.

Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.

[crossroad]

Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.

What about, Falling in love. Falling asleep. Fall (the season). Are these under the influence of gravity?

[Papewaio]

Wow! I have never seen a creationist who was a literalist before...

A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.

Falling is descent under gravity. All objects have mass and in the presence of sufficiently massive objects such as planets or moons they experience a strong attraction due to gravity. This is known as weight. If the force of gravity is not equalized by an opposite force directed away from the planet, the object will start to fall towards the center of mass of the system--in effect, towards the center of the planet. The acceleration of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the planet. The planet will also fall towards the center of the system but, if the object is much less massive than the planet, this motion is imperceptible.

[crossroad]

I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.

[AntiochusIII]

I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.

Erm, virus has no "job." It's entire existence is justified by itself. Call that a circular logic, but that's how nature is. Survival is the end, surviving is the means. And by surviving viruses multiply and evolve, changing and keeping ahead. If it happens that viruses use parasitic means to survive, then, well? We aren't that different.

And viruses aren't even considered a living organism.

How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?

Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that. I don't know why I'm returning because debating with Creationists and Holocaust-deniers are two most annoying debates one could ever get into.

Let's just say you have not provided any evidence to support your thesis whereas we do, and au revoir.

[crossroad]

Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that.

All I said was, viruses will always be viruses. You shouldn't take this thread so hard.

How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?

Ahh, transitional fossils. Out of the billions, yes billions, of fossils discovered around the world, how many are transitional? 80%? 50%? 10%? 1%? Try a hand full! Sorry, I don't know the exact number, but the fact that its not somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 90% really bothers me. Darwin was convinced that evolution would be proven in the fossile record, and was devistated when he found that it was not. Not even 1%? Out of billions!!!

Then, where did these so called transitional fossils come from? When I was in school, we learned about Lucy - The famous missing link that swept the science world by storm. American anthropologist Donald Johanson became famous, an over night success, but failed to mention that Lucy was a fake. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...12/i3/lucy.asp

I suppose that some of you will want to post "examples" of "great discoveries", but unless you can post a million of them (which, by the way, would be less than one tenth of one percent of the billions discovered) it wont be very convincing.

Learn more about transitional fossils:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter3.asp

[Tribesman]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp


Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site