Creation vs Evolution

**crossroad** · 06-16-2006, 06:42

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** · 06-16-2006, 06:55

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 06-16-2006, 07:48

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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.

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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** · 06-16-2006, 08:05

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

**crossroad** · 06-16-2006, 08:25

Originally Posted by 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

Don't like that one? How about these:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

If you would like more, just let me know.

**Tribesman** · 06-16-2006, 08:55

wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .

creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?

**Ironside** · 06-16-2006, 09:31

Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.

Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus

**doc_bean** · 06-16-2006, 09:42

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

Why are Creationists always so insecure, why can't there be a God and evolution ?

**Louis VI the Fat** · 06-16-2006, 09:45

Originally Posted by Ironside

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus

Nah, ignorianticcus is the transitional species between a procaryote and eucaryote cell.

Originally Posted by crossroad

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.

You won't find this convincing, but there's not a shortage of transaitional fossils at all. In fact, every fossil points in that direction. Because one thing that creationist fail to understand, is that all creatures are transitional in evolutionary thinking.

**crossroad** · 06-16-2006, 16:30

Originally Posted by Ironside

Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.

Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".

Originally Posted by Ironside

Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.

I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.

Originally Posted by Ironside

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus

Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...dosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp