Creation vs Evolution

@Munky

I am saying that there is no 'scientific' evidence for evolution. It is a religious belief and represents the humanistic world view of it's adherents.

Evolution is taught as fact not because it has evidence to support it but because the vast majority of the scientific community are committed to the idea that all of life can be explained by examining processes that occur in the natural world.

For an evolutionary scientist to concede that life needed to created by some force outside our knowledge of universe is to admit defeat, something they cannot accept.

Evolutionists are forced to explain the origin of life according to natural processes only. Anything beyond that outside the realms of science and thus not an option for them.

Therefore they are forced to accept as truth a worldview (evolution) for which there is no empirical evidence.

I know most of you think I am nut's but if you look into the subject matter yourself, from a point of neutrality you will see that what I am saying is true.

There are countless websites on the net both in support of and against evolution.

Just pick a single topic and investigate it thouroughly. You will see in every case that evolution is unable to provide satisfactory evidence.

The best place to start is the fossil record, as that is what evolutionists use to prove their belief. Study the fossil record thouroughly for a couple weeks, reading both the views of evolutionary and creationist writers and you will be amazed.

I promise you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

@Munky

I am saying that there is no 'scientific' evidence for evolution. It is a religious belief and represents the humanistic world view of it's adherents.

Evolution is taught as fact not because it has evidence to support it but because the vast majority of the scientific community are committed to the idea that all of life can be explained by examining processes that occur in the natural world.

For an evolutionary scientist to concede that life needed to created by some force outside our knowledge of universe is to admit defeat, something they cannot accept.

Evolutionists are forced to explain the origin of life according to natural processes only. Anything beyond that outside the realms of science and thus not an option for them.

Therefore they are forced to accept as truth a worldview (evolution) for which there is no empirical evidence.

I know most of you think I am nut's but if you look into the subject matter yourself, from a point of neutrality you will see that what I am saying is true.

There are countless websites on the net both in support of and against evolution.

Just pick a single topic and investigate it thouroughly. You will see in every case that evolution is unable to provide satisfactory evidence.

The best place to start is the fossil record, as that is what evolutionists use to prove their belief. Study the fossil record thouroughly for a couple weeks, reading both the views of evolutionary and creationist writers and you will be amazed.

I promise you. ;)

---

Cheers.

Whats that then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

@Munky

I am saying that there is no 'scientific' evidence for evolution. It is a religious belief and represents the humanistic world view of it's adherents.

Evolution is taught as fact not because it has evidence to support it but because the vast majority of the scientific community are committed to the idea that all of life can be explained by examining processes that occur in the natural world.

For an evolutionary scientist to concede that life needed to created by some force outside our knowledge of universe is to admit defeat, something they cannot accept.

Evolutionists are forced to explain the origin of life according to natural processes only. Anything beyond that outside the realms of science and thus not an option for them.

Therefore they are forced to accept as truth a worldview (evolution) for which there is no empirical evidence.

I know most of you think I am nut's but if you look into the subject matter yourself, from a point of neutrality you will see that what I am saying is true.

There are countless websites on the net both in support of and against evolution.

Just pick a single topic and investigate it thouroughly. You will see in every case that evolution is unable to provide satisfactory evidence.

The best place to start is the fossil record, as that is what evolutionists use to prove their belief. Study the fossil record thouroughly for a couple weeks, reading both the views of evolutionary and creationist writers and you will be amazed.

I promise you. ;)

---

Cheers.

Whats that then?

---

Sorry Munky I don't understand your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

@Munky

I am saying that there is no 'scientific' evidence for evolution. It is a religious belief and represents the humanistic world view of it's adherents.

Evolution is taught as fact not because it has evidence to support it but because the vast majority of the scientific community are committed to the idea that all of life can be explained by examining processes that occur in the natural world.

For an evolutionary scientist to concede that life needed to created by some force outside our knowledge of universe is to admit defeat, something they cannot accept.

Evolutionists are forced to explain the origin of life according to natural processes only. Anything beyond that outside the realms of science and thus not an option for them.

Therefore they are forced to accept as truth a worldview (evolution) for which there is no empirical evidence.

I know most of you think I am nut's but if you look into the subject matter yourself, from a point of neutrality you will see that what I am saying is true.

There are countless websites on the net both in support of and against evolution.

Just pick a single topic and investigate it thouroughly. You will see in every case that evolution is unable to provide satisfactory evidence.

The best place to start is the fossil record, as that is what evolutionists use to prove their belief. Study the fossil record thouroughly for a couple weeks, reading both the views of evolutionary and creationist writers and you will be amazed.

I promise you. ;)

---

Cheers.

Whats that then?

---

Sorry Munky I don't understand your question?

---

The fossil record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

@Munky

I am saying that there is no 'scientific' evidence for evolution. It is a religious belief and represents the humanistic world view of it's adherents.

Evolution is taught as fact not because it has evidence to support it but because the vast majority of the scientific community are committed to the idea that all of life can be explained by examining processes that occur in the natural world.

For an evolutionary scientist to concede that life needed to created by some force outside our knowledge of universe is to admit defeat, something they cannot accept.

Evolutionists are forced to explain the origin of life according to natural processes only. Anything beyond that outside the realms of science and thus not an option for them.

Therefore they are forced to accept as truth a worldview (evolution) for which there is no empirical evidence.

I know most of you think I am nut's but if you look into the subject matter yourself, from a point of neutrality you will see that what I am saying is true.

There are countless websites on the net both in support of and against evolution.

Just pick a single topic and investigate it thouroughly. You will see in every case that evolution is unable to provide satisfactory evidence.

The best place to start is the fossil record, as that is what evolutionists use to prove their belief. Study the fossil record thouroughly for a couple weeks, reading both the views of evolutionary and creationist writers and you will be amazed.

I promise you. ;)

---

Cheers.

Whats that then?

---

Sorry Munky I don't understand your question?

---

The fossil record.

---

Well go and look into it. Remember how we are led to believe from television and the media how the fossil record provides conclusive proof for evolution.

Research it yourself thoroughly and check to see whether that is a true statement.

You will soon realise that the exact opposite is true, and that the fossil record contradicts evolution and is actually strong evidence against the theory.

Van,

There are too many topics to go into detail on each one. Not because the details don't exist, just because I don't have time to address all of them. I would really like to focus on the banking issue if you don't mind. Mainly because it is fresh to me and easier for me to provide references. The other topics I have done research on but not nearly as recent.

You mention the barter system, which is really what we have anyway. The reality is that people want to exchange things for an equal value. If we were on the barter system, and I built a house for you, I would want something that took an equal amount of time and effort in exchange. Currently we trade paper or credits for things of value. What makes this paper more valuable than any other paper? Nothing really, just your belief that it is. The problem in this system isn't with the paper or the fact that we use paper, it's in the fact that the fractional reserve banking system has a built in lack or debt. It is mathmatically impossible to ever be out of debt in this system. Here's how it works.

Our government decides that it needs 1 Billion dollars to operate. They vote, agree, and print a bond or promise to pay note, they take it to the "federal reserve" (which is a privately owned company, like fed ex) and say we need to borrow 1 billion dollars. The fed says ok, you give us back 1.1 billion dollars (interest) and you got a deal, they then print the money that they didn't have and loan it to our gov. who circulates it and begins using it. Now here are the problems.
1. There isn't enough money to repay the debt- they gave out 1 bil, but have to repay 1.1 bil. how do you get the .1? Think of it like monopoly, you play with 4 players, each start with $100 but the bank is requiring each repay $101. There is only $400 on the table, but $404 required to be repayed. No matter what someone is always in debt which requires them to borrow more money, which further increases the amount that can never be repaid. This also devalues the money already in circulation.
2. The "money" originally lent did not exist, and didn't have value prior to being borrowed. The "fed" doesn't have money, they only have THE AUTHORITY TO PRINT MONEY.

That's just a quick overview. Please watch the video below and then comment.

here's a video on this topic:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...77340464808778

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 8) or Komodo dragon are much more likely than the nonsence you're coming up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 8) 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.

The fact that it has been proven countless times that it is biologically impossible for life to arise from non life means that life itself is a miracle to a science. There is no way life could have evolved from lifeless matter.

This means either, life was created by some supernatural force or else aliens planted life here. However if the answer is aliens we are still left with the problem of how did they evolve from a cold lifeless universe as well.

The only plausible answer seems to be that the origins of life arose from some intelligent force outside of the universe.

Again I quote Sir Arthur Keith, a world renowned physical anthropologist and anatomist, who was also a staunch believer in evolution.

He said the following

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable

Regarding your dinosaur question. This is a stegasaurus

http://www.teezz.co.uk/images/fridge...saurus-dn2.jpg

This is a newt
http://www.ophrysphotography.co.uk/s...ted%20newt.jpg


This is what is on the wall at Angkor Wat

http://www.s8int.com/images2/wat-stegosaurus.jpg

If you honestly think that looks more like the newt than the stegasauros then I would say you are beyond convincing.

By the way, a newt appears on the exact same pillar as the stegasauros.

Please actually follow this link that I provided earlier and scroll down. You will see a host of animal carvings that the people of Ankor Wat carved, all of them instantly recognisable and anatomically correct, including a newt or lizard ;)


http://khmer.cc/community/t.c?b=1&t=2667

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

That's a different topic, but if you start a different thread, I will comment. Evolution and Creation are scientific. You are talking theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

I can say with absolute conviction that fossils themselves are only caused in extreme circumstances known as flooding ;)

Go and look up any fossil find, then see how the evolutionists think it got fossilised. A flood is always the answer :P

Also science and the bible agree that at one point in our past nearly all of the life on earth was wiped out in an instant.

The bible says it was the flood of Noahs day, the evolutionists call it the Permian Triassic Extinction but the result was the same, according to evolutionists 97% of life was literally obliterated all at the same time during this mysterious unkown event of unknown cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian...tinction_event

It's funny to see that the evidence both sides have is the same. They both see massive floodings leading to fossilisations, they both see massive extinction of animals and plant life caused by one catastrophic event.

The only difference being the precise dating and cause of the event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Van,

There are too many topics to go into detail on each one. Not because the details don't exist, just because I don't have time to address all of them. I would really like to focus on the banking issue if you don't mind. Mainly because it is fresh to me and easier for me to provide references. The other topics I have done research on but not nearly as recent.

You mention the barter system, which is really what we have anyway. The reality is that people want to exchange things for an equal value. If we were on the barter system, and I built a house for you, I would want something that took an equal amount of time and effort in exchange. Currently we trade paper or credits for things of value. What makes this paper more valuable than any other paper? Nothing really, just your belief that it is. The problem in this system isn't with the paper or the fact that we use paper, it's in the fact that the fractional reserve banking system has a built in lack or debt. It is mathmatically impossible to ever be out of debt in this system. Here's how it works.

Our government decides that it needs 1 Billion dollars to operate. They vote, agree, and print a bond or promise to pay note, they take it to the "federal reserve" (which is a privately owned company, like fed ex) and say we need to borrow 1 billion dollars. The fed says ok, you give us back 1.1 billion dollars (interest) and you got a deal, they then print the money that they didn't have and loan it to our gov. who circulates it and begins using it. Now here are the problems.
1. There isn't enough money to repay the debt- they gave out 1 bil, but have to repay 1.1 bil. how do you get the .1? Think of it like monopoly, you play with 4 players, each start with $100 but the bank is requiring each repay $101. There is only $400 on the table, but $404 required to be repayed. No matter what someone is always in debt which requires them to borrow more money, which further increases the amount that can never be repaid. This also devalues the money already in circulation.
2. The "money" originally lent did not exist, and didn't have value prior to being borrowed. The "fed" doesn't have money, they only have THE AUTHORITY TO PRINT MONEY.

That's just a quick overview. Please watch the video below and then comment.

here's a video on this topic:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...77340464808778

---

I havent had a chance to watch the video but it seems your argument is about the effectiveness of our national financial system and our government's poor management of it. I wont argue that as a nation we need a complete overhaul of how we budget and spend money, but that seems more of a tangent than the subject. We have indeed had a gradual change in the way economies work over the centuries and I anticipate a continuation of this progress to improve it. Yes, at the core we are still talking about a swapping of goods/services but i think you'd agree the complexity of this transaction has increased exponentially over the last several thousand years. I'm not attempting to prove monkey to man from my examples only that man does indeed evolve. Is it not entirely possible that this is not from intelligent design?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Van,

There are too many topics to go into detail on each one. Not because the details don't exist, just because I don't have time to address all of them. I would really like to focus on the banking issue if you don't mind. Mainly because it is fresh to me and easier for me to provide references. The other topics I have done research on but not nearly as recent.

You mention the barter system, which is really what we have anyway. The reality is that people want to exchange things for an equal value. If we were on the barter system, and I built a house for you, I would want something that took an equal amount of time and effort in exchange. Currently we trade paper or credits for things of value. What makes this paper more valuable than any other paper? Nothing really, just your belief that it is. The problem in this system isn't with the paper or the fact that we use paper, it's in the fact that the fractional reserve banking system has a built in lack or debt. It is mathmatically impossible to ever be out of debt in this system. Here's how it works.

Our government decides that it needs 1 Billion dollars to operate. They vote, agree, and print a bond or promise to pay note, they take it to the "federal reserve" (which is a privately owned company, like fed ex) and say we need to borrow 1 billion dollars. The fed says ok, you give us back 1.1 billion dollars (interest) and you got a deal, they then print the money that they didn't have and loan it to our gov. who circulates it and begins using it. Now here are the problems.
1. There isn't enough money to repay the debt- they gave out 1 bil, but have to repay 1.1 bil. how do you get the .1? Think of it like monopoly, you play with 4 players, each start with $100 but the bank is requiring each repay $101. There is only $400 on the table, but $404 required to be repayed. No matter what someone is always in debt which requires them to borrow more money, which further increases the amount that can never be repaid. This also devalues the money already in circulation.
2. The "money" originally lent did not exist, and didn't have value prior to being borrowed. The "fed" doesn't have money, they only have THE AUTHORITY TO PRINT MONEY.

That's just a quick overview. Please watch the video below and then comment.

here's a video on this topic:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...77340464808778

---

I havent had a chance to watch the video but it seems your argument is about the effectiveness of our national financial system and our government's poor management of it. I wont argue that as a nation we need a complete overhaul of how we budget and spend money, but that seems more of a tangent than the subject. We have indeed had a gradual change in the way economies work over the centuries and I anticipate a continuation of this progress to improve it. Yes, at the core we are still talking about a swapping of goods/services but i think you'd agree the complexity of this transaction has increased exponentially over the last several thousand years. I'm not attempting to prove monkey to man from my examples only that man does indeed evolve. Is it not entirely possible that this is not from intelligent design?

---

Hey vanchilds,

As I said earlier the world we live in now is a result of an accumulation of knowledge. We as humans are capable of thinking and learning and on the basis of that we have improved our standard of living and technologies in virtually every area.

But consider this, all of these improvements came about precisely because of an intelligent design, people inventing things etc.

Humans have ONLY progressed becuase we are capable of intelligence and design, if not we would have remained as the animals have done.

What you are talking about is strongly suggestive of the fact that intelligence, design, planning and purpose are necessary for advancement!

This supports creationism, not evolution.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

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.

Thus over time, through natural selection a dog over millions of years can develop wings and learn to fly.

Evolutionists believe that random mutations within the DNA sequencing, (copying errors) could lead to changes in an organism, that in very rare cases wouldn't kill the organism but actually give it some kind of benefit to help it survive in it's enviroment better than another species who doesn't have this random mutation.

The instructions to code our bodies are literally contained within our DNA, it is literally a blueprint that tells every cell in our body what to become. Scientists have even converted to a language the A,C,G,T code. I won't bore you with the details here but if you are interested just google DNA.

Basically nothing can happen to an organism that is not first in its DNA. For example within the dog DNA there is no information to make wings therefore the only way to produce wings in a dog would be for new information to make its way into the DNA of a dog.

Evolutionists believe this new information is added through random mutations or copying errors to the DNA when an organism reproduces itself through sex, replication or whatever.

These copying errors over millions of years could lead to advanced changes such as the growth of wings or the development of an eye.

There is no intelligence behind this process just random chance and copying errors.

To illustrate properly let me give you an example of what they are saying.

Now imagine you have a book, The Complete works of Shakespeare.

Now imagine a million typists manually typing out this huge book.

Occaisionally a typist will make a printing mistake, maybe put a letter d where an s should be, just a completely random error.

Now imagine that this book with the error is manually copied by another typist, they copy it out, including the original error and somewhere in the book they add another error. Now imagine this going on for hundreds of years.

The evolutionary belief is that given enough time these random errors will completely transform the book so that eventually it becomes another book altogether, for example it turns it the complete works of Charles Dickens.

They believe that given enough time and enough chances this will eventually happen.

However they have some enormous problems to overcome.

Firstly if you typed out an infinite number of Shakespeares making one typing error per book it is highly unlikely to the point of impossible that you could randomly create even one chapter that actually made sense this way, let alone an entire book.

Secondly, an organism needs to be able to live, hunt, feed, mate and reproduce every single generation else it will simply die, so every single copying error must still leave the book making complete sense at every single stage of copying.

So even if theoretically you could get a complete new book out of an old book just by randomly changing one letter in the book per copy of the book, it would probably be completely impossible for the book to make perfects sense in every single copy.

Just imagine retyping just this single post, randomly changing letters but needing the post to be legible every single time until eventually it turned another post altogether!

Thirdly as this is obviously such a hugely complicated process, it necessarily takes millions upon millions of years.

Therefore we should be able to go to the fossil record and see all of these slow gradual changes that occured along the way at various steps of the evolutionary process.

I repeat for probably the 20th time now that the fossil record shows none of these fossils whatsoever. That means not a single fossil has ever been found from any species of lifeform on this planet to suggest it evolved from something before it!

Furthermore scientists in 150 years of trying through genetic experimentation, zapping flies with radiation etc have yet to witness one single mutation that has happened to increase or add new information within the DNA.

Now don't misunderstand me they have withnessed thousands and thousands of mutations, it's just that not a single one of them has added new information that wasn't there orignally.

So basically regarding evolutionary theory, there is no evidence from the fossil record that it ever happened in the past. It has never been observed to occur even once in the present and if it will need to break two fundamental laws of science, both the first and second laws of thermodynamics to ever work in the first place.

As I have stated now for probably the 21st time! Evolution is scientifically impossible.