Creation vs Evolution

[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

[crossroad]

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]

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]

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]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

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

[crossroad]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

Animals go extinct every day.

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

Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

[InsaneApache]

I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.

Many evolutionists believe

Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).

This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Why does this blind spot exist?

[crossroad]

I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.

Many evolutionists believe

Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).

This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Why does this blind spot exist?

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you see a crime occur, you know it happened.
If you hear the evidence in a court room, you believe it happened based on the evidence.

[Ser Clegane]

God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

[crossroad]

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

[doc_bean]

Animals go extinct every day.

So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?

Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.

Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even.

The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.

[crossroad]

So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?.

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.

Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even.

The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.

Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[Ironside]

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.

Damn, I was coming to that

[crossroad]

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".

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.

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

[_Martyr_]

So, the world is 6000 years old?

[crossroad]

So, the world is 6000 years old?

Probably a few more than that. Could be 60 billion! I don't know what God did with His possessions before Creation.

[yesdachi]

There is a nice line in the bible that says “The righteous will live by faith.” Anyone trying to prove gods existence is going against gods will? No?

[Kanamori]

If there's no support, then there's no reason to warrant a conclusion. Creation may have happened as described, but until I'm shown the logic behind it, I have no justification to that belief. I also have no proof of many other things, and no disproof, and I wonder why one would believe one reasonless conclusion above all the others and w/o all the others.

[_Martyr_]

Probably a few more than that. Could be 60 billion! I don't know what God did with His possessions before Creation.

Im not talking about some empty universe that God was sitting around on his own in. Im talking about the birds and the trees, the mountains and lakes and of course, humans. How old are all of these? The Bible indicates an age of about 6000 years. Is this correct do you think?

[rory_20_uk]

Rubiduim used in a geochronometer makes the earth 4.55 billion years old. Apparently the half life of Rubidium isn't known for sure, so how one can measure something with a "ruler" of unknown length I don't know.

I wonder where the old God from the Bible went. He was something to believe in! Phophets of Baal? Kill them all! Egyptians? Wipe 'em out! Numerous tribes living in the wrong place - massive slaughter! Ethiopians attack - 1 million killed!

OK, so you had no idea how to please God as His temper made him like a psychotic off medication but He was certainly there!

Then after an interlude of something like 450 years we then get the "flower power" attack where apart from some people cured of a disease and some wine God has run out of steam. Insults that would have meant the purpetrator was the centre of a vitrified crater are now forgiven.

Personally I think God got married. Suddenly it all becomes clear - the teenager has grown up and has settled down. 450 years off whilst the newly weds got settled in, and then He's Mr Respectable.



Death as a way of advancement? Oh, so that's why Christians have killed so many people - they're helping them! Obvious really...

Yeah, Creationism came first, and was found to be marred with errors and unworkable. Eventually the Christians realised they couldn't kill everyone that disagreed with them (nor for want of trying!), so they backed off and regrouped.

Then the breakthrough - intelligent design!

Propaganda - what propaganda? You yourself seem to agree that survival of the fittest takes place. So, considering that that is a key part of evolution, what part are you not so keen on?

[Tribesman]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

They lacked faith .

[Ironside]

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

If 6 billion humans died tomorrow and some archeologists would find 60.000 of them in a million year it would be a fantastic find. That's 0,001% of all humans living at the time. The reason why it's plenty of fossiles isn't that the dead specimens commonly forms fossiles, but because it has lived a lot of them during a very long period. How many 500 year old skeletons of elephants exist?

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.

The dogs evolved from wolves and a chihuahua and a grand danois can hardly mate with eachother naturally. Now in nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.
Now I've been mention human involvment in many cases, but what exactly makes it impossible for God to use the same methods (AKA divine controlled evolution) as Pape pointed out?

Science and God isn't mutually exclusive, but as long as you cannot scientifically prove the existance of God, they aren't in the same field.

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

The interesting thing about Ignicoccus is that it's periplasm is so large that it looks like it has a nucleous, like the eucaryotes. What's making it even more interesting is that some specimen have "parasites" (non-symbiotic, but the Ignicoccus doesn't seem to be hurt by it) on the outside that cannot live except on it's host. If this develops into a symbiotic relationship, then mitocondrical structures isn't far away.
So is it transitional?

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.

You're aware that increased levels on carbondioxide and more importantly oxygen would decrease the life span? Oxygen is cancerogenic and choking kills you by carbondioxide poisoning, not oxygen shortage.
This lush world would probably make human bigger too (better abillities to sustain a larger biomass often leades to larger creatures), but that's another issue.
And the suggestion about a bottleneck of long living people creating short living people feels a bit odd.

[naut]

n nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.

Such as mules, a sterile hybrid.