Creation vs Evolution

I find it somewhat easier to understand to think of it in terms of computers...

DNA is a string of commands. We are nothing more than information, and the entire creation is the same. In that context it is also easy to see how foolish evolution is... It doesn't matter how many times you rearrange the same information, you can't "evolve" without adding information. Simple really. You have to have enough material...

As far as if the Creator "showed his work", if you believe the Bible then He did. Past,present, and future.

Also people confuse the word "evolve" with adapt. Creatures clearly adapt, but never change into a different species. Everything produces after it's own "kind". It's a universal law, sowing and reaping.... If you plant corn, it doesn't matter how many times you do it you will always get corn, never beans. You can get different types of corn, but always corn.

Also even with genetic manipulation we can't mix animals of different "kinds". You can't breed a cat and dog, it just won't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Also even with genetic manipulation we can't mix animals of different "kinds". You can't breed a cat and dog, it just won't work.

---

Or can you? :rasta: Thats to me is the spooky part bro , thats the spooky part ! :rasta: No telling what these guys in lab coats are doing behind closed doors ! :rasta: O0

...at least there are no Scientologists here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

...at least there are no Scientologists here

---

LMFAO !

I was raised in a Methodist home and married a Catholic. I have also been extremely turned off by organized religion for the better part of my life. I think there are two absolutes in this discussion

1. I don't know how you can deny that there had to be at least some intelligent design in the creation of the universe. I think if your going to take creation as your story then you should look at it more like a dominoe chain that has been set in motion. Where the creation of Earth and Man are way down the line of dominoes. I really don't see much difference in taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and believeing in Greek mythology. On the flip side I think its pretty arrogant and absurd for finite beings such as ourselves to even attempt to quantify and fathom an infinite concept such as "god"

2. I think people should take a broader view of evolution. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes I don't think you can deny the overall evolution of human beings. We are bigger, faster, stronger, live longer, live in every environment on the planet and beyond etc. Do I need to even list the social evolution aspects.

So I think the answer is somewhere in between. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools as long as students understand it is simply a theory and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

:rasta: :jawdrop: "I see dead people" ! :rasta: i better put this stuff down ! ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I was raised in a Methodist home and married a Catholic. I have also been extremely turned off by organized religion for the better part of my life. I think there are two absolutes in this discussion

1. I don't know how you can deny that there had to be at least some intelligent design in the creation of the universe. I think if your going to take creation as your story then you should look at it more like a dominoe chain that has been set in motion. Where the creation of Earth and Man are way down the line of dominoes. I really don't see much difference in taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and believeing in Greek mythology. On the flip side I think its pretty arrogant and absurd for finite beings such as ourselves to even attempt to quantify and fathom an infinite concept such as "god"

2. I think people should take a broader view of evolution. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes I don't think you can deny the overall evolution of human beings. We are bigger, faster, stronger, live longer, live in every environment on the planet and beyond etc. Do I need to even list the social evolution aspects.

So I think the answer is somewhere in between. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools as long as students understand it is simply a theory and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

---

Hey Van Childs,

Some interesting questions you pose, I'll try and answer them.

I completely agree with you that it is impossible for finite man to ever come to an understanding of how the world came to be. We are literally like fish in a bowl trying to fathom out what we can see beyond our fish tank.'There is no water outside the tank one fish might say, 'Impossible says another, how can they breathe there has to be water!

As regarding it making no difference whether you belive in biblical creation or Greek mythology however I would say it makes a big difference. Firstly if life existed and lived and died before Adam it makes a mockery of the entire doctrine of Sin.

According to the Bible, death and decay entered this world as a direct consequence of Adam's trangression. The curse that God put on Adam was to affect all life and all generations of humans, thus as Adam's descendents we share in his curse. Christ came as the second Adam, the perfect son of Man and of God to take the punishment of the first Adam and so to redeem mankind.

If the first Adam was a myth then Jesus' mission makes no sense whatsoever, there is no such thing as sin, death not only has always been but it is actually the process through which God created the world, a horrible horrible picture.

Secondly in response to your next question, mankind actually is not really getting stronger and fitter, at least not as a result of evolution.

We in the Western world tend to think of ourselves only when considering the state of the world and so see our own improved living conditions, better diet, medical knowledge etc as being somehow world wide but I assure you it is not.

In many parts of the world infant mortality is as high as it's ever been, people die of starvation and disease every single day. The average lifespan of many in Africa is less than that of high class citizens of Ancient Greece.

Also fossil remains, as evolutionist understand them contradict this theory. The Neandertal man skeleton, incidentally now classified as human by all evolutionists have far thicker, stronger bones than ourselves. They were a lot more muscular and athletic.

Furthermore the cranial capaticty of their skulls, (indicating intelligence) is significantly larger than modern humans alive today. Neandertal man according to evolutionary assumptions was smater than ourselves!

It is also interesting that Dr Jack Cuozzo an orthodontist and leading pathology anthropologist who has examined more original neandertal man skeletons than nearly anyone else has provided some shocking evidence regarding the peculiar skeletal features in a neandertal skull.

Modern science has revealed that the bones in the human face keep growing until a person dies. Cuozzo used computers and advanced algorithams to see what would happen to a mans face if that person lived for say 300 years rather than 70. Amazingly the resulting morphology would look exactly like a neandertal skull, indicating that it is possible that these neandertal humans actually look the way they do because they were around 300 years old at the time of death!

This is in complete harmony with the Bible who records Shem, Ham and Japeth, Noah's sons living for around 250 and 300 years after the flood.

That such ages might seem impossible is actually a myth. When you look at the fossil record ALL creatures were much larger than they are today. We think of dinosaurs being too huge for mankind living alongside them but fossil remains show deer 7 ft tall at the shoulder with head being 9-10 ft above the ground and with antler 12 feet across. Pigs grew to the size of cattle, rhino's grew to be 17 ft tall! Sloths' were as big as a house, cockroaches 2 ft in length, millipides 6 ft long, dragon flies had 4 ft wingspans!

These are all well documented fossil finds, and none of these creatures could possibly get to that size today as the atmosphere simply does not allow it. Yet we can see from the fossil record that they really did get this big back then. No wonder the bible says of the time before the flood 'There were giant's on the earth in those days', !

Why have I brought this up though? Simple because creatures to get to this size would have had to live extremely long lives! The largest crocodiles today grow to about 20 ft in length and it takes them 100 years to get that big, they keep growing their entire life. The fossil record shows crocodiles 50 ft long! That would take 250 years or more to grow to that size!

Imagine how much longer a dinosaur such as the giant sauropod's would take to reach their massive sizes?

So you see, it is abosultely proven beyond doubt that many species of animals alive today, lived for far longer and grew much beigger than they do today, kind of the reverse of your theory of everything living longer and being stronger now.

Neandertal man provides strong evidence that ancient man also shared in this long life.

If you are interested in the creation evolution debate I urge you to really look into and examine closely the problems associated with evolution.

I agree with the hobbit!!!

In addition you have to understand that organized religion often replaces the true message of the Gospel. It is not intended to be a set of rules that if you follow you will get to heaven. There is one message consistent throughout the entire Bible, and that is grace. You can't earn a gift, you have to simply accept it.

As far as teaching evolution, they do and I don't have a problem with teaching a theory as long as it's clear that it is a theory, and you don't use blatant lies to support your position. Sadly if you remove the lies, there is nothing left of that theory.....

Also it is presented as if it were a fact that "religious" people just won't accept. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way! :)

Interesting thread, Bilbo :coolclick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way! :)

Interesting thread, Bilbo :coolclick:

---

Hey Miles :coolclick: back, finally got someone who disagrees and so somebody to fence intellectually with ;D

As regards to your claims that the evidence supports evolution I would refute that completely. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is merely to ask you to provide us with the evidence.

If you don't mind I'll ask you some simple questions that should obviously have clear and straight forward answers to and you can go and fetch the answers. I personally think you will be suprised.

1) The Fossil Record.

You seem to believe that the fossil record is supportive of evolution. I would really love to see you demonstrate this.

As evolution occurs at an incredibly slow rate over literally millions of years then the fossil record should clearly demonstrate the slow and gradual transition from one species into another.

So my first challenge is to find a transitional fossil, ie a a fossil that clearly and demonstrabley shows one kind of creature gradually evolving into another.

Now before you mention the Archaeopteryx, remember that all evolutionists classify it as 100% bird with some peculiar reptilian features, teeth for example and a three fingered wrist similiar to some of the later dinosoaurs such as belong to members of the raptor family. Nobody now believes this creature was half bird half reptile so despite it having peculiar features it does not qualify as a missing link.

Remember that a gradual theory of evolution should actually produce more transitional fossil than complete species as it such a gradual process with literally millions of years seperating a species from it's supposed ancestor. Why are there massive gaps, and for every single species of animal on the planet?

Actually many evolutionists have now recognised this problem, most prominantly Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Their puncuated equilibriam theory states that actually a species doesn't evolve gradually over millions of years but rather stays unchanged for millions of years then in some isolated population a series of rapid mutations take place and the resulting rapid evolution will result in new species very rapidly in the 10's of thousands rather than millions of years. As this happens in isolated populations then of course they will leave no fossils. A nice way to explain why the fossile record is completely non-supportive of evolution! ::**


This has led to criticisms from the other evolutionary branches who argue that such rapid change resulting from mutation is impossible, considering what we now know about DNA. The equilibruists likewise counter that gradual and continuous evolution, tiny incremental changes at a uniform rate throughout history is also impossible because the fossil record disproves this.


This leads on nicely to my second point. We know as you pointed exactly how we are made literally, through our DNA. We understand that for evolution to occur at all it must be at the molecular level, something not understood by Darwin, Huxley and others when Darwinism was introduced.

In order for example for a species such as a dog to grow wings, there has to be new information added to the DNA and genetic code. Without this information you simply cannot ever have a dog producing wings. It's like coding a video game and expecting to race cars when the game is actually a medival sword game. Now matter how many times you run the game, you will never come across a car unless somebody subsequently codes it into the game.

Now lets consider this in more detail. For evolution to work at all it HAS to work at the molecular level. This means that somehow new information must get into the genetic code.

According to evolutionists this method is achieved through random mutatations, literally copying errors. I will not bore you by citing the probability calculations that have been done which completely put this in the realms of the absolutely impossible, something a long the lines of winning the lottery several million times in a row, all that is irrelevent here.

As you seem to know that there is evidence to support that random mutations can lead to an INCREASE of information withing a species that is actually BENEFICIAL rather than LETHAL to that organism I challenge you to find a SINGLE example.

Just one observed mutation in a species that led to new information being added that subsequently benefitted that organism will convince me.

As evolution is clearly true and it occurs at the molecular level and ALL OF LIFE has evolved through random mutations alone, I would make that around an infinite number of mutatations that must have taken place!

Find one!


Finally to say there is little evidence to suggest man lived contempary with dinosuars, it depends what you regard as evidence. The fossil record is irrelevent here as what you are saying is that according to your evolutionary understanding of uniformitarianism different rock strata represent millions of years and dinosaurs are buried in rocks millions of years older. However if the principle of uniforitarianism is not in fact true then the rock strata's have nothing to do with geological age and so the fossil record becomes irrelevent.

So we need to put aside both of our world views for a moment and decide to look for independent evidence that is not subject to our own particular beliefs.


For me for there to be convincing evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together I would need to see evidence of the following.

1) Folklore and a collective consciousness of such animals that clearly resemble dinosaurs. This concsiousness would need to be evident in a diverse human population across time and amongst different races, and the descriptions of such creatures should all share many commonalities to increase the likelyhood that tales were based on a shared experience of seeing similar creatures.

2) Such creatures, when described in written detail should clearly resemble dinosaurs as reconstructed by modern paleontologists.

3) There should be paintings, drawings, carvings etc of these creatures and they should look like dinosaurs as we understand them.


I would say that all three of the proof's necessary for belief that man and dinosaurs co-existed are abundant and found in virtually all races.

We all know that dragon legends abound amongst every race and tribe that has virtually ever exisited and left any traces of their civilisation. The word dragon occurs 13 times in the bible. Of course the word dinosaur does not, seeing as the word was first coined in the early 1800's by Sir Richard Owen.

Below are a few examples I have found on the net illustrating clearly the similarity between 'dragons' and modern dinosaurs......


This 'Stegasaurus' like creature is carved into a stone pillar belonging to one of the ruined temples of Ankgor Wat, built over 900 years ago
http://www.s8int.com/images2/wat-stegosaurus.jpg

Here is a sauropod painted in a cave by anasazi indians between the fith and fourteenth centruries.

http://www.s8int.com/images/anasazi.jpg


This is a very famous Roman mosaic dating 200 AD

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...ic/muralsm.jpg

This brass depiction of sauropods is engrave upon the tomb of the Bishop of Carlise Richard Bell who died in 1496!

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...aphic/tomb.jpg

Considering no man ever saw any of these creatures or even knew of their existence I think you will agree that the ancients did a pretty good job of imagining them!

Every animal in each of these pictures is instantly and immediately recognisable to us a known species of dinosuar.

That each of these paintings, engravings are as old as claimed to be is not disputed by ayone even evolutionists.

I guess you need to make up your own mind, but to me this is more valuble evidence than looking at a layer of rock strata. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I was raised in a Methodist home and married a Catholic. I have also been extremely turned off by organized religion for the better part of my life. I think there are two absolutes in this discussion

1. I don't know how you can deny that there had to be at least some intelligent design in the creation of the universe. I think if your going to take creation as your story then you should look at it more like a dominoe chain that has been set in motion. Where the creation of Earth and Man are way down the line of dominoes. I really don't see much difference in taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and believeing in Greek mythology. On the flip side I think its pretty arrogant and absurd for finite beings such as ourselves to even attempt to quantify and fathom an infinite concept such as "god"

2. I think people should take a broader view of evolution. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes I don't think you can deny the overall evolution of human beings. We are bigger, faster, stronger, live longer, live in every environment on the planet and beyond etc. Do I need to even list the social evolution aspects.

So I think the answer is somewhere in between. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools as long as students understand it is simply a theory and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

---

Hey Van Childs,

Some interesting questions you pose, I'll try and answer them.

I completely agree with you that it is impossible for finite man to ever come to an understanding of how the world came to be. We are literally like fish in a bowl trying to fathom out what we can see beyond our fish tank.'There is no water outside the tank one fish might say, 'Impossible says another, how can they breathe there has to be water!

As regarding it making no difference whether you belive in biblical creation or Greek mythology however I would say it makes a big difference. Firstly if life existed and lived and died before Adam it makes a mockery of the entire doctrine of Sin.

According to the Bible, death and decay entered this world as a direct consequence of Adam's trangression. The curse that God put on Adam was to affect all life and all generations of humans, thus as Adam's descendents we share in his curse. Christ came as the second Adam, the perfect son of Man and of God to take the punishment of the first Adam and so to redeem mankind.

If the first Adam was a myth then Jesus' mission makes no sense whatsoever, there is no such thing as sin, death not only has always been but it is actually the process through which God created the world, a horrible horrible picture.

Secondly in response to your next question, mankind actually is not really getting stronger and fitter, at least not as a result of evolution.

We in the Western world tend to think of ourselves only when considering the state of the world and so see our own improved living conditions, better diet, medical knowledge etc as being somehow world wide but I assure you it is not.

In many parts of the world infant mortality is as high as it's ever been, people die of starvation and disease every single day. The average lifespan of many in Africa is less than that of high class citizens of Ancient Greece.

Also fossil remains, as evolutionist understand them contradict this theory. The Neandertal man skeleton, incidentally now classified as human by all evolutionists have far thicker, stronger bones than ourselves. They were a lot more muscular and athletic.

Furthermore the cranial capaticty of their skulls, (indicating intelligence) is significantly larger than modern humans alive today. Neandertal man according to evolutionary assumptions was smater than ourselves!

It is also interesting that Dr Jack Cuozzo an orthodontist and leading pathology anthropologist who has examined more original neandertal man skeletons than nearly anyone else has provided some shocking evidence regarding the peculiar skeletal features in a neandertal skull.

Modern science has revealed that the bones in the human face keep growing until a person dies. Cuozzo used computers and advanced algorithams to see what would happen to a mans face if that person lived for say 300 years rather than 70. Amazingly the resulting morphology would look exactly like a neandertal skull, indicating that it is possible that these neandertal humans actually look the way they do because they were around 300 years old at the time of death!

This is in complete harmony with the Bible who records Shem, Ham and Japeth, Noah's sons living for around 250 and 300 years after the flood.

That such ages might seem impossible is actually a myth. When you look at the fossil record ALL creatures were much larger than they are today. We think of dinosaurs being too huge for mankind living alongside them but fossil remains show deer 7 ft tall at the shoulder with head being 9-10 ft above the ground and with antler 12 feet across. Pigs grew to the size of cattle, rhino's grew to be 17 ft tall! Sloths' were as big as a house, cockroaches 2 ft in length, millipides 6 ft long, dragon flies had 4 ft wingspans!

These are all well documented fossil finds, and none of these creatures could possibly get to that size today as the atmosphere simply does not allow it. Yet we can see from the fossil record that they really did get this big back then. No wonder the bible says of the time before the flood 'There were giant's on the earth in those days', !

Why have I brought this up though? Simple because creatures to get to this size would have had to live extremely long lives! The largest crocodiles today grow to about 20 ft in length and it takes them 100 years to get that big, they keep growing their entire life. The fossil record shows crocodiles 50 ft long! That would take 250 years or more to grow to that size!

Imagine how much longer a dinosaur such as the giant sauropod's would take to reach their massive sizes?

So you see, it is abosultely proven beyond doubt that many species of animals alive today, lived for far longer and grew much beigger than they do today, kind of the reverse of your theory of everything living longer and being stronger now.

Neandertal man provides strong evidence that ancient man also shared in this long life.

If you are interested in the creation evolution debate I urge you to really look into and examine closely the problems associated with evolution.

---

Allright for starters lets throw the Bible out of the conversation. It's kind of like historical movies...Based on a true story....Every culture has formed creation stories to explain things the Bible just happens to be the best seller. I'm not going to pretend to have even close to a grasp on paleontology/anthropolgy that you have. That being said it has been my experience that each camp has their "facts" that they use to support their claims. I'm pretty sure a hardcore catholic biologist and athiest anthropologist could bounce contradicting facts off each other all day. I personally have never seen any information that shows a evolutionary trail from ape to man, but I dont think prehistoric man looked joe shmoe either. But I stand by my statement that man has obviously evolved. To me bringing up the state of affairs in third world countries like the continent of Africa could simply support a survival of the fittest theory. Maybe I misunderstood your post but it seemed that you were saying that man has changed over the eons.(age, bone density etc that you mentioned) So regardless of whether we are evolving or regressing it seems that man has gone under some changes. My reference to bigger, stronger, live longer etc was concening only the time span of recordable history. So regardless of where Man started in regards to avg height, weight, strength, speed, stamina, lifespan etc for the past several thousand years all of these things have been on a slow increase. More importantly I'd like to see cromagnum man beat reggie bush in the 40yd dash :laugh: I also find it interesting that creationist never seem to have an answer to the social evolution of man. I'm pretty sure prehistoric man wasn't discussing the contrasts between a capitalist and communist society. These things took a evolution of thought. Ok I'm done you can pick this post apart now.

creationists and intelligent design. I see no intelligence exhibited here, apart from AdamGB. Ironic.

I thought the funny 'nouk threads had died out but here we are with several mentals speaking out in favour of the bible. ;D

Interesting comments by all!!!

Hopefully mine can add to this...

In regards to Miles... Your statements saying the creation theory is based upon religious writings is a little off. You are lumping the "theory" with the "stories". Yes many believe in creation based upon the stories as told in the Bible or other theological writings. However the theory is the next best explanation when you eliminate the other possibilities. There are many who believe in creation that don't hold to any religious teaching. As Bilbo explained there is 0 evidence that evolution takes place. There are several meanings of the word "evolution" and the proponents of it will use evidence of adaptations within a species, and then say that this proves that the species can change to a different species. Virtually ALL of the physical laws of nature as we know them rule out the possibility of evolution. The very first law of thermodynamics is that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" if that is the case where did the matter to create the universe come from?? It also states that although energy can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this, and that natural processes cannot create energy.
Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. If natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (living) portion.

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.






;D

What i wrote might upset a few people. Sorry...i was in b*stard mode!

Not really sure what to believe to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Interesting comments by all!!!

Hopefully mine can add to this...

In regards to Miles... Your statements saying the creation theory is based upon religious writings is a little off. You are lumping the "theory" with the "stories". Yes many believe in creation based upon the stories as told in the Bible or other theological writings. However the theory is the next best explanation when you eliminate the other possibilities. There are many who believe in creation that don't hold to any religious teaching. As Bilbo explained there is 0 evidence that evolution takes place. There are several meanings of the word "evolution" and the proponents of it will use evidence of adaptations within a species, and then say that this proves that the species can change to a different species. Virtually ALL of the physical laws of nature as we know them rule out the possibility of evolution. The very first law of thermodynamics is that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" if that is the case where did the matter to create the universe come from?? It also states that although energy can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this, and that natural processes cannot create energy.
Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. If natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (living) portion.

---

I owe you and Bilbo good responses to your arguments. The only downer in this is that you will have to wait about 10 days. Im going home to England tomorrow and wont have access to my computer. But I can assure you I will be back and posting. I think this is an interesting thread. Open to all sorts of angles and interpretations. In the short time I have this evening im going to stick to my usual banal posting on the boxing boards!! :P

:coolclick:, for your contributions here though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

I agree with you Missy in your belief in evolutionism. I support it too, but it must be remembered that it is just a theory, as is creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

What i wrote might upset a few people. Sorry...i was in b*stard mode!

Not really sure what to believe to be honest.

---

What you said wasnt so much upsetting, but perhaps a little lacking in tact! ;D

I kind of agree with what you said. I myself see no need for organised religion in my life. I have no real convictions of any higher divine judiciary. I take more of my ideas from the existentialism of Satre and Camus. Im particularly fond of Albert Camus "The myth of sisyphus". Its a difficult book to read but well worth the effort. We can make our own reasons for existing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

I agree with you Missy in your belief in evolutionism. I support it too, but it must be remembered that it is just a theory, as is creationism.

---

So is gravity but I don't jump out of a tree expecting to fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.






;D

---

CC
We make god in our own image.





















I hate to think what bilbos looks like :-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

I agree with you Missy in your belief in evolutionism. I support it too, but it must be remembered that it is just a theory, as is creationism.

---

So is gravity but I don't jump out of a tree expecting to fly.

---

Newtons law of gravity holds perfectly fine here on earth. It is regarded as a law in relation to things here on earth and therefore you will never go flying out of that tree. Not unless you get some kind of super storm to neutralise the gravity pull upon you for a limited time..

But the main question is, why on earth are you in the tree Missy? :-\ ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.






;D

---

CC
We make god in our own image.





















I hate to think what bilbos looks like :-X

---

Probably gold and shaped like a magic ring! ;D

Right, Miles is out of the house!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

HI Missy,

Thanks for your interesting commentr but unfortunately you have only the vaguest notion about what evolution actually is and so confuse natural selection with macro evolution.

The changes you rightyl observe in humans and of course other animal and plant species are results of natural selection, and I completely and 100% agree that natural selection is clearly a demonstrable process, mankind has been using natural selction for thousands of years, the domestication of animals, crops etc.

However all of these changes that occur within a species can occur because the gentic information, the code if you like to allow for these changes is already present in the organism.

So for exampe when selectively breeding dogs, a breeder will pair one typr of dog with another, the male and female dog both contributing half of the chromosome's and genetic material each.

Thus you can isolate certain traits and characteristics within dog species by selective breeding to produce all kinds of weird and wonderful looking dogs.

Eventually however, and in complete contrast to evolutionary theory, if you isolate dog kind enough so that end up with for example a poodle, what happend is that there is now just not much information within that gene pool. The genes have been isolated to the degree that there is now not enough genetic informtation in the dog for it to 'evolve' any further.

AS you will well know, pure pedigree dogs such as this are usally far less healthy than mongrel dogs with a healthy mix of genes, they live shorter lives and in many cases can no longer breed.

In order to create any further change in this species it has to be mated to a completely different type of dog in order to reintroduce some genetic variety back into the species.

This of course runs in complete counter to evolutionary theory and simply makes it impossible for a dog to evolve into something that isn't a dog.

These are very basic laws of biology of which Darwin, writing in the 1800's obviously had no idea.

We know now for a fact that natural selection alone cannot account for macro evolution, that is the creation of new material and genetic information into an organism that wasn't already present.

Instead of just dismissing creationism as rubbish and saying evolution is clearly true I offer you the same challenge.

Go to an evolutionary wesbite and find a single example of macro evolution, that is new information being added to an organism that leads to it becoming a new species of animal.

As the whole of life on earth occurred this way you would expect for there to be many documented examples but strangely there are none whatosever.

I will say that again, and challenge you to prove me wrong, There is not a single example in the entire evolutionary literature of new information appearing in an organisms genetic code that was not already there.

This alone destroys evolutionary theory.

Instead of just saying evolution is true creationism is rubbish try and refute my arguements ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.

I used to share that EXACT sentiment. I understand where you are coming from. Just require the same burdon of proof for BOTH of the theories. There aren't any other viable options. Either someone or something made everything, or it happened on its own. Both ideas are ridiculous, one of them is just a lot more ridiculous than the other. Just examine the absurdities....

Everything, all the mass in the entire universe compressed itself into a dot.
Then it exploded and all of time, space, and matter appeared.
This explosion put things into perfect functioning order.
Then life appeared and began to transform from a single celled organism into more and more complex organisms.

Even if all of the pieces were present (which you would still have to explain where they came from) the process of an explosion creating order is absolutely ridiculous.

To put this into a simple context....
you take all of the parts needed to assemble a motorcycle, put them in a pile in your driveway.
use a stick of dynamite to cause an explosion. The motorcycle parts assemble themselves into a fully functional motorcycle.
Then without getting any new parts, the motorcycle begins to transform itself into a car. Absolutely amazing.....

Not to mention this motorcycle can fuel itself, repair itself, and reproduce itself.....

How many times would you have to repeat this experiment to get this explosion to create a perfectly functioning motorcycle? And only one minor error could ruin the whole thing. A living organism is at least a thousand times more complicated than a motorcycle. That is what you are believing with the "big bang" theory and evolution.

Creation simply says that because we observe an extremely complicated and well designed motorcycle we believe that someone had to have put alot of work into making it.




;D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munky

God was created in the minds of weak people who feel the need to pray to a fictional higher being for direction in life. God is a figment of imagination bred between weak individuals searching for guidance. Man is his own God. Man is in control of his own destiny and strength comes with knowing that we are not guided by some other 'presence' but we make our own decisions, shape our own lives and are in control of our own futures.

I used to share that EXACT sentiment. I understand where you are coming from. Just require the same burdon of proof for BOTH of the theories. There aren't any other viable options. Either someone or something made everything, or it happened on its own. Both ideas are ridiculous, one of them is just a lot more ridiculous than the other. Just examine the absurdities....

Everything, all the mass in the entire universe compressed itself into a dot.
Then it exploded and all of time, space, and matter appeared.
This explosion put things into perfect functioning order.
Then life appeared and began to transform from a single celled organism into more and more complex organisms.

Even if all of the pieces were present (which you would still have to explain where they came from) the process of an explosion creating order is absolutely ridiculous.

To put this into a simple context....
you take all of the parts needed to assemble a motorcycle, put them in a pile in your driveway.
use a stick of dynamite to cause an explosion. The motorcycle parts assemble themselves into a fully functional motorcycle.
Then without getting any new parts, the motorcycle begins to transform itself into a car. Absolutely amazing.....

Not to mention this motorcycle can fuel itself, repair itself, and reproduce itself.....

How many times would you have to repeat this experiment to get this explosion to create a perfectly functioning motorcycle? And only one minor error could ruin the whole thing. A living organism is at least a thousand times more complicated than a motorcycle. That is what you are believing with the "big bang" theory and evolution.

Creation simply says that because we observe an extremely complicated and well designed motorcycle we believe that someone had to have put alot of work into making it.




;D

---

---

Actually this motorcycle example is heavily biased in favour of evolution.

To be completely fair the evolutionist would have to create the motorcycle components and the dynamite, plus the match, the driveway and the necessary atmospheric conditions out of completly nothing first of all before he could even begin to start the experiment proper.

Any scientist achieves this and hey I'll become a believer :o ;D

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Ive read the contents of this thread with some interest...

Admittedly both creation theory and evolution theory are both only theories. A theory being just an idea. The main point of a theory is to try and find as much evidence to try and back it up and thus continue the relevance of the said theory.

I dont hold much credence to creation theory. Why do I say this? Well, firstly I argue from a scientific basis, I am not religious nor do I feel any kin with any particular faith. It seems that creation theory comes from a neglect of scientific data and comes mainly from the interpretation of religious scriptures: the Bible being being the main source. I think the Bible is a wonderful piece of fiction and like good fiction you can learn things relevant to the world around you. But to hold this work as an explanation for the world today being as it is, is just not something that fits into any rational recorded hypotheses or scientific deductions. For anyone just to say evolution theory is just lies is just ignorance of observable data. We are now able to observe data in even more minute detail via DNA. To just call this lies is somewhat naive.

Now creation theory as ive stated before is just the interpretation of scripture, writings of a religious basis. There is little to suggest that man was here at the time of the dinosaurs. In fact with the help of DNA testing of fossils we see no traces of a human type fossil being as old as a dinosaur fossil. Its not even close by an insy wincy margin of 50 million years. Man has not been on this earth since day one. And neither were the dinosaurs!

We can see evidence of evolution in DNA, genetics and fossils. We share 95 percent of the same DNA with chimpanzees. We share a lot less DNA with that of the great white shark. Think about it. Are we really that different from our ape like friends? Is it such a burden to consider that the human race is not of such "mighty" heritage? Stone age man was not writing Shakespearean sonnets, painting the Mona lisa nor running a marathon in less than 2 hours. We have got to this stage through natural processes over one heck of a long time. We dont have observable data of a human skeleton as we are now from 5 million years ago. Why? Because there isnt one. We will be able to find variations on that form though and the genetic makeup would be mighty similar to what we are made of today.

Admittedly both Creation theory and evolution theory are just theories. But for me one theory has a lot more scientific data backing it up. The other theory is supported by mainly interpreting literature. As a man that likes to follow logic and probability I have to support the latter theory.

I respect anybody's point of view and im not trying to hammer my own view down anyones throat either. This thread has been informative and friendly lets hope we can keep it that way! :)

Interesting thread, Bilbo :coolclick:

---

Hey Miles :coolclick: back, finally got someone who disagrees and so somebody to fence intellectually with ;D

As regards to your claims that the evidence supports evolution I would refute that completely. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is merely to ask you to provide us with the evidence.

If you don't mind I'll ask you some simple questions that should obviously have clear and straight forward answers to and you can go and fetch the answers. I personally think you will be suprised.

1) The Fossil Record.

You seem to believe that the fossil record is supportive of evolution. I would really love to see you demonstrate this.

As evolution occurs at an incredibly slow rate over literally millions of years then the fossil record should clearly demonstrate the slow and gradual transition from one species into another.

So my first challenge is to find a transitional fossil, ie a a fossil that clearly and demonstrabley shows one kind of creature gradually evolving into another.

Now before you mention the Archaeopteryx, remember that all evolutionists classify it as 100% bird with some peculiar reptilian features, teeth for example and a three fingered wrist similiar to some of the later dinosoaurs such as belong to members of the raptor family. Nobody now believes this creature was half bird half reptile so despite it having peculiar features it does not qualify as a missing link.

Remember that a gradual theory of evolution should actually produce more transitional fossil than complete species as it such a gradual process with literally millions of years seperating a species from it's supposed ancestor. Why are there massive gaps, and for every single species of animal on the planet?

Actually many evolutionists have now recognised this problem, most prominantly Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge. Their puncuated equilibriam theory states that actually a species doesn't evolve gradually over millions of years but rather stays unchanged for millions of years then in some isolated population a series of rapid mutations take place and the resulting rapid evolution will result in new species very rapidly in the 10's of thousands rather than millions of years. As this happens in isolated populations then of course they will leave no fossils. A nice way to explain why the fossile record is completely non-supportive of evolution! ::**


This has led to criticisms from the other evolutionary branches who argue that such rapid change resulting from mutation is impossible, considering what we now know about DNA. The equilibruists likewise counter that gradual and continuous evolution, tiny incremental changes at a uniform rate throughout history is also impossible because the fossil record disproves this.


This leads on nicely to my second point. We know as you pointed exactly how we are made literally, through our DNA. We understand that for evolution to occur at all it must be at the molecular level, something not understood by Darwin, Huxley and others when Darwinism was introduced.

In order for example for a species such as a dog to grow wings, there has to be new information added to the DNA and genetic code. Without this information you simply cannot ever have a dog producing wings. It's like coding a video game and expecting to race cars when the game is actually a medival sword game. Now matter how many times you run the game, you will never come across a car unless somebody subsequently codes it into the game.

Now lets consider this in more detail. For evolution to work at all it HAS to work at the molecular level. This means that somehow new information must get into the genetic code.

According to evolutionists this method is achieved through random mutatations, literally copying errors. I will not bore you by citing the probability calculations that have been done which completely put this in the realms of the absolutely impossible, something a long the lines of winning the lottery several million times in a row, all that is irrelevent here.

As you seem to know that there is evidence to support that random mutations can lead to an INCREASE of information withing a species that is actually BENEFICIAL rather than LETHAL to that organism I challenge you to find a SINGLE example.

Just one observed mutation in a species that led to new information being added that subsequently benefitted that organism will convince me.

As evolution is clearly true and it occurs at the molecular level and ALL OF LIFE has evolved through random mutations alone, I would make that around an infinite number of mutatations that must have taken place!

Find one!


Finally to say there is little evidence to suggest man lived contempary with dinosuars, it depends what you regard as evidence. The fossil record is irrelevent here as what you are saying is that according to your evolutionary understanding of uniformitarianism different rock strata represent millions of years and dinosaurs are buried in rocks millions of years older. However if the principle of uniforitarianism is not in fact true then the rock strata's have nothing to do with geological age and so the fossil record becomes irrelevent.

So we need to put aside both of our world views for a moment and decide to look for independent evidence that is not subject to our own particular beliefs.


For me for there to be convincing evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together I would need to see evidence of the following.

1) Folklore and a collective consciousness of such animals that clearly resemble dinosaurs. This concsiousness would need to be evident in a diverse human population across time and amongst different races, and the descriptions of such creatures should all share many commonalities to increase the likelyhood that tales were based on a shared experience of seeing similar creatures.

2) Such creatures, when described in written detail should clearly resemble dinosaurs as reconstructed by modern paleontologists.

3) There should be paintings, drawings, carvings etc of these creatures and they should look like dinosaurs as we understand them.


I would say that all three of the proof's necessary for belief that man and dinosaurs co-existed are abundant and found in virtually all races.

We all know that dragon legends abound amongst every race and tribe that has virtually ever exisited and left any traces of their civilisation. The word dragon occurs 13 times in the bible. Of course the word dinosaur does not, seeing as the word was first coined in the early 1800's by Sir Richard Owen.

Below are a few examples I have found on the net illustrating clearly the similarity between 'dragons' and modern dinosaurs......


This 'Stegasaurus' like creature is carved into a stone pillar belonging to one of the ruined temples of Ankgor Wat, built over 900 years ago
http://www.s8int.com/images2/wat-stegosaurus.jpg

Here is a sauropod painted in a cave by anasazi indians between the fith and fourteenth centruries.

http://www.s8int.com/images/anasazi.jpg


This is a very famous Roman mosaic dating 200 AD

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...ic/muralsm.jpg

This brass depiction of sauropods is engrave upon the tomb of the Bishop of Carlise Richard Bell who died in 1496!

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/a...aphic/tomb.jpg

Considering no man ever saw any of these creatures or even knew of their existence I think you will agree that the ancients did a pretty good job of imagining them!

Every animal in each of these pictures is instantly and immediately recognisable to us a known species of dinosuar.

That each of these paintings, engravings are as old as claimed to be is not disputed by ayone even evolutionists.

I guess you need to make up your own mind, but to me this is more valuble evidence than looking at a layer of rock strata. ;)

---

:rasta: You convinced my country ass Bilbo :rasta: :shocking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Actually I would like to add the tremendous amount of legends of men "slaying dragons". They are numerous and very very widespread legends and stories. These "dragon" tales range from the fire breathing kind to water dragons that lived in lakes.

here's a good site about "dinosaurs"

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible"

yes it is a Biblical account but it is very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Actually I would like to add the tremendous amount of legends of men "slaying dragons". They are numerous and very very widespread legends and stories. These "dragon" tales range from the fire breathing kind to water dragons that lived in lakes.

here's a good site about "dinosaurs"

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible"

yes it is a Biblical account but it is very interesting.

---

I find the evidence that man and dinosaurs lived contemporary with each other to be compelling, I'm glad to see someone else who agrees.

There is such a wealth of documentary evidence to suggest this that you have to be practically walking around with your eyes closed not to see it.

With recent discoveries of unfossilised dinosaur bones discovered in America, and T Rex bone fragments that appear to even still contain traces of red blood cells, the idea of millions of years seperation just seems too hard to swallow.

Furthermore when you consider the huge lumbering beasts that Richard Owen imagined dinosaurs to be in the 1800's it is absoultely remarkable that ancient man, who quite cleary would have less anatomical knowledge than paleontologists in the late 1800's describe dinosaurs in ways that match our very modern understanding of them. Creatures are described with crests, and frills, being brightly and diversly coloured, descriptions that would have been balked at just 30 years ago.

Now evolutionists are redesigning dinosaurs and rexamining how they looked and behaved, and more and more the ancient descriptions of dragons seem to closely resemble actual dinosaurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luvfightgame

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Actually I would like to add the tremendous amount of legends of men "slaying dragons". They are numerous and very very widespread legends and stories. These "dragon" tales range from the fire breathing kind to water dragons that lived in lakes.

here's a good site about "dinosaurs"

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible"

yes it is a Biblical account but it is very interesting.

---

I find the evidence that man and dinosaurs lived contemporary with each other to be compelling, I'm glad to see someone else who agrees.

There is such a wealth of documentary evidence to suggest this that you have to be practically walking around with your eyes closed not to see it.

With recent discoveries of unfossilised dinosaur bones discovered in America, and T Rex bone fragments that appear to even still contain traces of red blood cells, the idea of millions of years seperation just seems too hard to swallow.

Furthermore when you consider the huge lumbering beasts that Richard Owen imagined dinosaurs to be in the 1800's it is absoultely remarkable that ancient man, who quite cleary would have less anatomical knowledge than paleontologists in the late 1800's describe dinosaurs in ways that match our very modern understanding of them. Creatures are described with crests, and frills, being brightly and diversly coloured, descriptions that would have been balked at just 30 years ago.

Now evolutionists are redesigning dinosaurs and rexamining how they looked and behaved, and more and more the ancient descriptions of dragons seem to closely resemble actual dinosaurs.

---

:rasta: I am in Agreement ! the dinosaurs sure as hell din't draw them pictures ! ;)

what does carbon dating say about ancient man's and dinosaur's bones? Maybe I'm misinformed, but I was always of the opinion that they were way off.

They don't use carbon dating to test fossil bones as supposedly the bones are millions of years old.

Carbon dating is only accurate back to around 5000 years and can be used another 5000 or so years beyond that with caution.

When it comes calculating dates of millions of year they use other radiometric dating methods with the potassium/argon method being the most commonly used.

Of course the dates given by such methods can never be verified however when the dating methods are used on rocks that we know for certain how old they are they show themselves to be way off.

One example from Hawaai. Researchers tested a lava flow known to have taken place in 1800 using the potassium/argon method.

The rocks were dated using this method as being nearly 3,000 million years old, somewhat older than the actual 200 years.

Nowadays dinosaur bones are dated by the rocks that they are found in, and the rocks are dated by the animals that are found buried in them, a rather bizarre self perpetuating circular argument.

Furthermore actual research into geological processes in action today clearly falsify the evidence for evolution.

For example the Grand Canyon is supposed to be 2000 million years old, the result of erosion from the Colarado river.

Yet when Mt St Helens, a tiny little volcano erupted in 1980 it carved out a canyon over 100 ft deep and over 100 ft wide in a single afternoon. This is 1/40 th the size of the the Grand Canyon.

So if it took just a few hours to do that how hard is it to assume that similar catastrophic events could not have shaped the grand canyon itself in just a matter of thousands of years rather than the millions evolutionists imply?

Wow we got some think tanks on this board ! very very impressive guys ! i am truly amazed at the knowledge you guys have on all this shit ~ ! I love reading about this stuff. a round of Cool Clicks for everyone ! O0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

By the way I'd love for someone to comment on my dinosaur pics.

Pretty amazing I think, anyone want to discredit them?

---

Well in Jurassic Park they had the dinosaurs contained within massive security fences, guns, drugs, and all of todays modern technology and yet the dinosaurs still kicked mans ass...

If you're right, ;D i feel sorry for the poor cunts taking them on with sticks and stones. God must of been pissing himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

HI Missy,

Thanks for your interesting commentr but unfortunately you have only the vaguest notion about what evolution actually is and so confuse natural selection with macro evolution.

The changes you rightyl observe in humans and of course other animal and plant species are results of natural selection, and I completely and 100% agree that natural selection is clearly a demonstrable process, mankind has been using natural selction for thousands of years, the domestication of animals, crops etc.

However all of these changes that occur within a species can occur because the gentic information, the code if you like to allow for these changes is already present in the organism.

So for exampe when selectively breeding dogs, a breeder will pair one typr of dog with another, the male and female dog both contributing half of the chromosome's and genetic material each.

Thus you can isolate certain traits and characteristics within dog species by selective breeding to produce all kinds of weird and wonderful looking dogs.

Eventually however, and in complete contrast to evolutionary theory, if you isolate dog kind enough so that end up with for example a poodle, what happend is that there is now just not much information within that gene pool. The genes have been isolated to the degree that there is now not enough genetic informtation in the dog for it to 'evolve' any further.

AS you will well know, pure pedigree dogs such as this are usally far less healthy than mongrel dogs with a healthy mix of genes, they live shorter lives and in many cases can no longer breed.

In order to create any further change in this species it has to be mated to a completely different type of dog in order to reintroduce some genetic variety back into the species.

This of course runs in complete counter to evolutionary theory and simply makes it impossible for a dog to evolve into something that isn't a dog.

These are very basic laws of biology of which Darwin, writing in the 1800's obviously had no idea.

We know now for a fact that natural selection alone cannot account for macro evolution, that is the creation of new material and genetic information into an organism that wasn't already present.

Instead of just dismissing creationism as rubbish and saying evolution is clearly true I offer you the same challenge.

Go to an evolutionary wesbite and find a single example of macro evolution, that is new information being added to an organism that leads to it becoming a new species of animal.

As the whole of life on earth occurred this way you would expect for there to be many documented examples but strangely there are none whatosever.

I will say that again, and challenge you to prove me wrong, There is not a single example in the entire evolutionary literature of new information appearing in an organisms genetic code that was not already there.

This alone destroys evolutionary theory.

Instead of just saying evolution is true creationism is rubbish try and refute my arguements ;)

---

actually what I said is valid, dinosaurs got to big to survive outside influences, all those fatties will die out the same. I win you lose.

I state again it is not for me to prove myself correct. You have presented nothing except gee I can't imagine all this happened over a long time.


Prove god exists and then we can discuss.

More Bill Hicks wisdom, but creationists believe that the world is 12,000 years old, these people believe the bible is the literal word of god, and that they worked out the earth is 12,000 years old by the population of Adam + Eve onwards, to the population to present day. So what about dinosaurs? Wouldn't they be mentioned in the bible? Some fundamentalist christians actually believe that dinosaur fossils are here to test our faith!
Personally i believe in evoluton, I study both Chemistry and Genetics and there's too much evidence to believe anything else. Sorry, I'm a realist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yoitsdan

More Bill Hicks wisdom, but creationists believe that the world is 12,000 years old, these people believe the bible is the literal word of god, and that they worked out the earth is 12,000 years old by the population of Adam + Eve onwards, to the population to present day. So what about dinosaurs? Wouldn't they be mentioned in the bible? Some fundamentalist christians actually believe that dinosaur fossils are here to test our faith!
Personally i believe in evoluton, I study both Chemistry and Genetics and there's too much evidence to believe anything else. Sorry, I'm a realist.

---

The word dinosaur was invented in the 1800's by Sir Richard Owen.

The word 'tanninim', literally meaning monsters, (both land and sea) occurs 13 times in the bible, so there is ample evidence to suggest that dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, two of them leviathan and behemoth are even given graphic descriptions.

I find it somewhat ironic that I as the Hick creationist have presented pages of evidence against evolution on this thread whereas evolutionists resort to saying 'creationism' is rubbish there is too much evidence to believe in anything else apart from evolution.

Yoitsdan please seeing as you have studied both genetics and chemisty tell me some of this evidence that you have............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missy

0 evidence for evolution, I guess not if you've never studied biology or genetics. ??? Let's make it nice and simple and deal with something we can all grasp.
In a modern day setting it is FACT that on average people (UK/US and several other european countries) are getting bigger at least over a 40 year period i.e taller/heavier due to improved diet/healthcare/lifestyle changes. On average bigger people produce bigger people. Genetics.

It is not for those who are on the side of evolution to argue for it. That is for the creationists.

Your first hurdle is to prove that their is a god to have created everything. Please prove a negative for me.

---

HI Missy,

Thanks for your interesting commentr but unfortunately you have only the vaguest notion about what evolution actually is and so confuse natural selection with macro evolution.

The changes you rightyl observe in humans and of course other animal and plant species are results of natural selection, and I completely and 100% agree that natural selection is clearly a demonstrable process, mankind has been using natural selction for thousands of years, the domestication of animals, crops etc.

However all of these changes that occur within a species can occur because the gentic information, the code if you like to allow for these changes is already present in the organism.

So for exampe when selectively breeding dogs, a breeder will pair one typr of dog with another, the male and female dog both contributing half of the chromosome's and genetic material each.

Thus you can isolate certain traits and characteristics within dog species by selective breeding to produce all kinds of weird and wonderful looking dogs.

Eventually however, and in complete contrast to evolutionary theory, if you isolate dog kind enough so that end up with for example a poodle, what happend is that there is now just not much information within that gene pool. The genes have been isolated to the degree that there is now not enough genetic informtation in the dog for it to 'evolve' any further.

AS you will well know, pure pedigree dogs such as this are usally far less healthy than mongrel dogs with a healthy mix of genes, they live shorter lives and in many cases can no longer breed.

In order to create any further change in this species it has to be mated to a completely different type of dog in order to reintroduce some genetic variety back into the species.

This of course runs in complete counter to evolutionary theory and simply makes it impossible for a dog to evolve into something that isn't a dog.

These are very basic laws of biology of which Darwin, writing in the 1800's obviously had no idea.

We know now for a fact that natural selection alone cannot account for macro evolution, that is the creation of new material and genetic information into an organism that wasn't already present.

Instead of just dismissing creationism as rubbish and saying evolution is clearly true I offer you the same challenge.

Go to an evolutionary wesbite and find a single example of macro evolution, that is new information being added to an organism that leads to it becoming a new species of animal.

As the whole of life on earth occurred this way you would expect for there to be many documented examples but strangely there are none whatosever.

I will say that again, and challenge you to prove me wrong, There is not a single example in the entire evolutionary literature of new information appearing in an organisms genetic code that was not already there.

This alone destroys evolutionary theory.

Instead of just saying evolution is true creationism is rubbish try and refute my arguements ;)

---

actually what I said is valid, dinosaurs got to big to survive outside influences, all those fatties will die out the same. I win you lose.

I state again it is not for me to prove myself correct. You have presented nothing except gee I can't imagine all this happened over a long time.


Prove god exists and then we can discuss.

---

A very intelligent and well thought out response Missy. ::**

I state again it is not for me to prove myself correct. You have presented nothing except gee I can't imagine all this happened over a long time.


Prove god exists and then we can discuss. ??? ??? ???


Why would only one side of this discussion have to prove their belief?

If there were a fair evaluation both sides would present information and it would be examined. And for the record. No one can prove the existence of God with physical evidence. But I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that what evolutionists believe DIDN'T happen. It's really not difficult if you actually apply a little critical thinking.

The entire evolution idea operates off of assumptions that "science" has proven it. There is not a single observed, tested, and demonstrated piece of evidence for any aspect of this fairytale called the "evolution theory". It should have been thrown out with the flat earth theory years ago. The only reason it is still around is because the only other answer is creation, and it is a scary thought.