Creation vs Evolution

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I'm still waiting for someone to present a case for creationism.

Actually english is more expressive simply because it contains more words, it has absorbed from many cultures rather than isolating itself.

I'd also like to know what site bilbo is ripping all this nonsense from.

I'll tackle one of those dodgy carvings for you that you presented as evidence You are seeing what you want to see to suit you're thinking. Anyone seen a newt? you know those pre-historic lizard looking types with a tale and a ridged back..................

Hey Missy, unfortunately I don't think you would ever be convinced no matter what evidence was put before you. You already reject the idea of a creator so cannot see the evidence before you without looking at it through evolutionary eyes.

show me the evidence for a creator. All you're doing is ripping in to one theory without any evidence for your own. Mong.

Tell you what, the idea that that 'picture' is actualy another sort of lizard, hence a newt or Komodo dragon are much more likely than the nonsence you're coming up with.

Actually evidence against evolution IS evidence for a creator. If the fossil record clearly shows that no animal or plant species shows any evidence whatsoever of gradual evolution then the only other possible explanation is that these creatures first appeared on earth instantly and fully formed, i.e either created instantly or brought here in their completed forms from outer space.

Bollocks is it. I disprove evolution and I'm queen of the universe. I disprove evolution therefore I don't have to prove my own theory. Now that's scientific.



hmm now let’s see, a ridged backed lizard, a newt another another big ass lizard that eats people. hmm





[img width=700 height=525]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/straightleftknee/komododragon.jpg[/img]

[Kev]

Again missy, if you actually bothered to follow any of my links you will have seen the Ankgor Wat lizard carvings which actually look exactly like lizards.

Also there bear carvings, baboon carvings, parrot carvings, swan carvings all look exactly like the animals they are supposed to be.

The 'stegasaurus' looking creature does not look even remotely like a newt or crested lizard, actually the majority of skeptics have dismissed the 'stegausaurus' as being a rhino despite the presence of spiky plates all along its back like a stegasuaurus and a long tail like a stegasaurus

And whilst we are on the subject I printed 4 examples of dinosaurs being seen by man. do you think the other 3 were newts as well?

Plus you still havn't addressed the fact that evolutionists themsleves admit that there is no evidence whatsoever for evolution have taken place to be found in the fossil record.

I'm clearly attempting to have a dialogue with somebody who has not the slightest understanding of evolution beyond 'knowing' that it is true becuase they teach it in schools and put it on the telly.

This quote may interest you, although I doubt it.

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school.

That is an official evolutionist statement printed in Newsweek after the international Evolutinary convention in Chicago in 1980.

The offical report went to say

The missing link between man and the apes … is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule. … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.

So straight from the evolutionists mouths themselves it is absolutely official and true according to evolutionists themselves that the theory of evolution as you understand it, were taught at school and is promoted in the media is now known to be untrue.

Don't misunderstand me, they still believe 100% in evolution just that all the evidence for it up until 1980 had been false. They now believe evolution works according to very different principles, most notably punctuated equilibrium rather than phyletic gradualism, and that this is why they can't find any evidence for it at all.

Again if you actually read any of the literature yourself you would see that I am correct.

[Fenster]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

[Kev]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

This is outside my realm of knowledge. I am only interested in what science and actual physical evidence can teach us about our universe.

I find it stange that you feel somehow that the evidence for evolutionary theory being true would be bolstered by a claim made in an ancient book regarding a man buildig a boat. If this troubles you, then you are clearly looking to accept evolution on philosophical grounds rather than based on empirical evidence.

For information on the ark visit here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp


To me Noahs ark will always be a matter for personal faith, although I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence to support a global flood.

It is interesting that scientists have recently attempted to explain Mars' peculiar geography by positing a huge global flood on that planet millions of years ago, especially strange seeing as there is no water on Mars.

Yet on our planet of which 75% is covered with water they reject the possibility out of hand

http://uanews.org:16080/cgi-bin/WebO...ArticleID=3995

[Howlin Mad Missy]

wonder why cave men never drew stick figures of a t-rex....................................

[Fenster]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

This is outside my realm of knowledge. I am only interested in what science and actual physical evidence can teach us about our universe.

I find it stange that you feel somehow that the evidence for evolutionary theory being true would be bolstered by a claim made in an ancient book regarding a man buildig a boat. If this troubles you, then you are clearly looking to accept evolution on philosophical grounds rather than based on empirical evidence.

For information on the ark visit here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

To me Noahs ark will always be a matter for personal faith, although I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence to support a global flood.

If you take a literal interpretation of the bible you cant pick and choose the bits that suit you. Thats all.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I don't think bilbo exists. I am god.

[Kev]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

This is outside my realm of knowledge. I am only interested in what science and actual physical evidence can teach us about our universe.

I find it stange that you feel somehow that the evidence for evolutionary theory being true would be bolstered by a claim made in an ancient book regarding a man buildig a boat. If this troubles you, then you are clearly looking to accept evolution on philosophical grounds rather than based on empirical evidence.

For information on the ark visit here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

To me Noahs ark will always be a matter for personal faith, although I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence to support a global flood.

If you take a literal interpretation of the bible you cant pick and choose the bits that suit you. Thats all.

Actually I completely agree with you. I don't claim to not believe in evolution based on any religious belief I'm not religious at all although I personally do believe in a creator.

I don't go to church, I never pray and don't live a christian life.

My conviction that evolution has never been proved to happen in the past, cannot be demonstrated to occur in the present, and is actually biologically impossible stems purely from years of immersing myself in the scientific literature.

It is unfortunate that disbelief in evolution is automatically linked to being a relgious zealot but that is just the way the evolutionary community likes to label any dissenters.

The fact is there have been many scientists who do not believe in evolution whose credentials are impeccable but whose work is not well known as anything that deviates from the absoutle belief in the evolutionary explanation of origins will have an extremely hard time getting published in respected scientific journals.

To say you do not believe in evolution is social death for any scientist within the biological and paleoanthropological sciences.

There work does get published and spread around, but it sadly inevitable that it relies on the biggest critic's of evolution, biblical creationists to publicise these writers works.

It's actually an irony in many ways as biblical creationists end up championing the works of writers who actually reject the biblical accounts of creation and such things as the flood story of Noah, whilst the evolutionary community now rejects these scientists and writers because they are only being promoted by the biblical creationists.

But as I've said many times over the course of my posts, the study of creation or intelligent design vs evolution is a fascinating one.

I'm suprised that so many people are so hostile to an alternative explanation for our origins without even checking out the facts for themselves.

It is a subject very much worthy of further study.

[Kev]

I don't think bilbo exists. I am god.

Well done, it's nice to see your wit and humour matches your keen intellect

[luvfightgame]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

This is outside my realm of knowledge. I am only interested in what science and actual physical evidence can teach us about our universe.

I find it stange that you feel somehow that the evidence for evolutionary theory being true would be bolstered by a claim made in an ancient book regarding a man buildig a boat. If this troubles you, then you are clearly looking to accept evolution on philosophical grounds rather than based on empirical evidence.

For information on the ark visit here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

To me Noahs ark will always be a matter for personal faith, although I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence to support a global flood.

If you take a literal interpretation of the bible you cant pick and choose the bits that suit you. Thats all.

I do take a literal interpretation. I don't have a problem explaining and defending my beliefs, but it's a different topic. Same invitation, start a thread and I will give my opinion.

[luvfightgame]

A literal interpretation of the bible? So you cant pick and choose your bits, right?

Personally i couldn't care less what people believe but please explain Noah's ark the 50,000 species of animal, 1 million species of insects....and the DINOSAURS all living together for over 6 months?

luvfightgame is correct, this is a question outside the realms of science.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove one way or the other specific details of a man building an ark.

You dont have to explain it

Noah's ark. million species. Dinosaurs.

Yes or no?

Noah's ark-yes
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes

[Kev]

wonder why cave men never drew stick figures of a t-rex....................................

Give me half hour to assemble the pictures



:P

[luvfightgame]

I don't think bilbo exists. I am god.

Missy,

Your logic is flawed. In a murder trial in order to find someone NOT guilty, you don't have to know who the actual murderer is. You present evidence and decide whether the evidence proves the person on trial is guilty or not guilty. After the trial the police have to go look for another suspect if the other person is found not guilty. Very simple. Evolution stands alone in this trial. It is not guilty of being responsible for life as we know it. You have to have a separate trial for creation, and compare the evidence for and against. They dont get tried at the same time.

[Kev]

For Missy

Here are some clay monster figurines from Mexico dating back to Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD)



Note the the giant two legged newt with the little foremans and the long tail in the top right that looks like a T rex

Ok next up, these are the famous Ica stones from Peru, dating back over 1000 years.

There are some strange pictures with man interacting with giant newts both two legged and four legged that some ignorant people such as myself may think are dinosaurs







[img width=700 height=528]http://www.bible.ca/tracks/buy-photo-ica-stones.jpg[/img]

Below is another strange dinosaur looking newt painted several hundred years ago



Incidently here is how the cavemen drew newts and lizards

[VictorCharlie]

this seems to a matter of verbage....to me the progress and advancement that you speak of equal evolving as a species. Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you can't say that man as a species evolves without contradicting your personal belief that he didn't evolve from another species? Haven't you been espousing that "we" should open our minds and not just take science at face value? You've already stated that prehistoric man and present humans have some basic differences. You make good points bilbo and you obviously have done your homework, but you seem to be contradicting yourself at times and using a little circular reasoning.

Ok let me clarify this.

Technological advancement and an increase in human learning is NOT evolution.

Evolution is the belief that one organism can undergo transformation within its DNA that adds to new information being added to the DNA and then the organism becoming a new species.

Look man you don't get to pick the definition to suit your argument....You've told people to read your posts earlier in the thread well Id tell you to do the same of me. I openly stated that I wasn't refering to genetic changes over time nor defending a monkey to man evolutionary chain. I was only stating that to say man hasn't evolved as a species over time is ignoring history. I don't really see you arguing the details with me just verbage. Whats wrong Bilbo will you lose you creationist union card if you so much as concede that man has evolved as a species just not genetically?