-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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 a**...
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.
Ha I can kind of understand your logic.
Well firstly I don't belive in caveman, at least not as evolutionists understand them so we would have had more than sticks and stones as tools.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe that man and dinosaurs lived in the same areas and so stumbled across one another on a daily basis.
Many dragon legends are of creatures that supposedly lived in remote places where few people ever went or saw them.
Thirdly the average size of a dinoasur was actually about the size of a large dog. they were not all the huge gigantic beasts you see on Jurassic Park.
It's true those massive dinosaurs did also exist but they were not the norm, and consider this, the largest creature that has ever lived on this planet, far larger than every single dinosaur is the Blue Whale a creature still very much alive today.
The largest land dinosaurs weighed appox the same as 4 elephants, so for sure they were really, really big but not so far removed from life today.
The biggest dinosaur that has ever lived, based on a few bone fragments and reconstructed was given the possible maximum weight of 60 tonnes.
This single fossil was far bigger than any other dinosaur fossil ever found.
The heaviest recorded elephant weighed 13.5 tonnes. The heaviest weight for a blue whale.................200 tonnes :o it dwarfes even the biggest dinosaurs!
Bearing in mind an elephant doesn't have a really long neck and tail like these dinosaurs did, the actual body of these very large dinosaurs was probably twice the size of an elephant's body, and remember this is the biggest dinosaurs ever found.
They were really, really big yes but not so big as to think they would have run amok eating and killing everything in their path.
When you consider mankind has tamed elephants and ridden them for thousands of years, when you consider that Killer Whales can grow to 25 feet, weigh 10 tonnes and could swallow a man whole, yet fun parks have them doing ball tricks and have people swimming on their backs, some brave hosts even putting their heads into the whales mouth you can see it's not really a big deal to think man and dinosaur could live at the same time in history, especially as they probably each had their own preferred habitats and by and large kept out of each other's way.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
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.
It is a strange fact that I have never heard anyone give actual evidence for evolution. They say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution but never reveal any of it.
Evolutionary scientists now have a no debate policy with creationists and no longer debate creation vs evolution in university debates etc, as creationists such as John McCay were winning the debates according to the final student votes.
In fact some evolutionists have even taken legal action to prevent broadcast or the release of video or audio tapes to the general public of such debates.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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 a**...
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.
Ha I can kind of understand your logic.
Well firstly I don't belive in caveman, at least not as evolutionists understand them so we would have had more than sticks and stones as tools.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe that man and dinosaurs lived in the same areas and so stumbled across one another on a daily basis.
Many dragon legends are of creatures that supposedly lived in remote places where few people ever went or saw them.
Swords and sheilds then, still a mismatch if you ask me :laugh:
I guess dinosaurs and humans NOT coming across eachother on a regular basis explains WHY there's ONLY 13 mentions of monsters in the bible and why there's a lack of stories, cave drawings, carvings, legends of hunts etc (ive seen your pics ;)) ...for one the bible would of been much more exciting
So do you believe dinosaurs were on Noah's ark?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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 a**...
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.
Ha I can kind of understand your logic.
Well firstly I don't belive in caveman, at least not as evolutionists understand them so we would have had more than sticks and stones as tools.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe that man and dinosaurs lived in the same areas and so stumbled across one another on a daily basis.
Many dragon legends are of creatures that supposedly lived in remote places where few people ever went or saw them.
Swords and sheilds then, still a mismatch if you ask me :laugh:
I guess dinosaurs and humans NOT coming across eachother on a regular basis explains WHY there's ONLY 13 mentions of monsters in the bible and why there's a lack of stories, cave drawings, carvings, legends of hunts etc (ive seen your pics ;)) ...for one the bible would of been much more exciting
So do you believe dinosaurs were on Noah's ark?
Well first of all 13 mentions is a lot! It's interesting that there are no references whatosever to giraffes in the bible, elephants are inferred only once indirectly, lions are mentioned a lot but no tigers, certainly no giant squid, octopus or panda.
My point is that the bible is not a zoology book and doenst mention any animals except in passing. Most unusual animals are not mentioned in the bible, so 13 refererennces to dinosaurs is a huge amount!
Regarding lack of stories in ancient literature you clearly havn't read any ancient literature. There are thousands of stories, some heavily documented about man's interactions with dinosaurs. The four pictures I posted are just what I found immediately there are dozens more.
There are records in official documents dating back to the 15 and 16 th centuries that describe dinosaurs, the evidence for them being dragons is overwhelming.
As for them going on an ark, this is irrelevent. I'm not attempting to prove the bible true, I am merely providing evidence that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago as evolutionists insist.
By the way what do you think of those pictures? How many do you need to see in order to be convinced that people saw dinosaurs in the past?
Do a google search on the pictures I posted, try to find evidence that they are not genuine, you will see that nobody disputes the ages of these painting as having been done hundred or thousands of years ago.
Everyone agrees those paintings and drawings are genuine in as much as they were painted according to the dates I gave so you need to address them.
How did the artist know about these animals? Why do they all bear a remarkable likeness to known dinosaurs to such a degree that even a child could immediately tell you what they are?
People it seems cannot critically evaluate evidence, they just say it's all rubbish and nothing you show me will convince me otherwise.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
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.
Dur, because you are bashing evolution and in it's place you are putting creationism of which you have presented no evidence to support your views.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
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 a**...
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.
Ha I can kind of understand your logic.
Well firstly I don't belive in caveman, at least not as evolutionists understand them so we would have had more than sticks and stones as tools.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe that man and dinosaurs lived in the same areas and so stumbled across one another on a daily basis.
Many dragon legends are of creatures that supposedly lived in remote places where few people ever went or saw them.
Swords and sheilds then, still a mismatch if you ask me :laugh:
I guess dinosaurs and humans NOT coming across eachother on a regular basis explains WHY there's ONLY 13 mentions of monsters in the bible and why there's a lack of stories, cave drawings, carvings, legends of hunts etc (ive seen your pics ;)) ...for one the bible would of been much more exciting
So do you believe dinosaurs were on Noah's ark?
Well first of all 13 mentions is a lot! It's interesting that there are no references whatosever to giraffes in the bible, elephants are inferred only once indirectly, lions are mentioned a lot but no tigers, certainly no giant squid, octopus or panda.
My point is that the bible is not a zoology book and doenst mention any animals except in passing. Most unusual animals are not mentioned in the bible, so 13 refererennces to dinosaurs is a huge amount!
Regarding lack of stories in ancient literature you clearly havn't read any ancient literature. There are thousands of stories, some heavily documented about man's interactions with dinosaurs. The four pictures I posted are just what I found immediately there are dozens more.
There are records in official documents dating back to the 15 and 16 th centuries that describe dinosaurs, the evidence for them being dragons is overwhelming.
As for them going on an ark, this is irrelevent. I'm not attempting to prove the bible true, I am merely providing evidence that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago as evolutionists insist.
By the way what do you think of those pictures? How many do you need to see in order to be convinced that people saw dinosaurs in the past?
Do a google search on the pictures I posted, try to find evidence that they are not genuine, you will see that nobody disputes the ages of these painting as having been done hundred or thousands of years ago.
Everyone agrees those paintings and drawings are genuine in as much as they were painted according to the dates I gave so you need to address them.
How did the artist know about these animals? Why do they all bear a remarkable likeness to known dinosaurs to such a degree that even a child could immediately tell you what they are?
People it seems cannot critically evaluate evidence, they just say it's all rubbish and nothing you show me will convince me otherwise.
Dont you mean 13 mentions that YOU interpret as dinosaurs?
Hey you're right, I'm not a well read expert or anything, and dont claim to be...so are there thousands of stories throughout history of human interactions with T-Rex, raptors and the like?
They could of made the pictures through fossil skeletons, couldn't they?
Do you believe "god" made the dinosaurs alongside the other animals?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
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.
Dur, because you are bashing evolution and in it's place you are putting creationism of which you have presented no evidence to support your views.
So far there has been a discussion questioning the "facts" with regard to evolution. They have been proven to be inaccurate. Please present one shred of evidence for evolution. You obviously believe that you have heard something that could be considered as evidence. Please share.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Hey Fenster,
It's a funny sort of logic you have if you believe that ancient man was capable of digging up and reconstructing fossils, and perfectly recreating what they would have looked like, but were dumb enough to also believe that these creatures still actually existed and so made up their stories of encounters with them. ???
The word 'tanninim' literally means monsters in Hebrew, so whenever this word is used in the bible it is saying monsters,
The bible describes two in detail, the Leviathan and the Behemoth. There is much controversy over whether these two descriptions are actually dinosaurs and I myself am not convinced either way I merely mention them to show that there are indeed references to monsters in the bible, so the question, 'Why are there no dinosaurs in the bible', is easily answered. There are clearly references to monsters in the bible.
Interestingly for those of you who think all dinosaur finds are fossil contained in rock layers, do a google search for 'fresh dinosaur bones' or 'unfossilised dinosaur bones' and you will be quite suprised. A number of dinosaur bones have been found now that are not even fossilised! They have even found traces of what looks like red blood cells in the bones of a T Rex, cells which should die within a couple thousand years.
Here are some examples
In 1987, while working with scientists from Memorial University (Newfoundland, Canada) on Bylot Island, just east of the northern tip of Baffin Island, a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) picked up a bone fragment. It was identified within days as part of the lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur and proclaimed to the world as such.1
The story was different however in north-western Alaska. In 1961 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-metre-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bison bones. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbill dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs. Presently William A. Clemens and other scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska are quarrying the bone bed.2
Do a google search on Mary Schweitzer, an expert paleontologist who reported finding what looked like red blood cells in the bones of a T Rex. She is a world renowned paleontologist and one of the first to use modern biological methods in the study if fossilised dinosaur bones.
Her discovery of red blood cells in the bone fragments of a T Rex caused shock waves around the evolutionary world. It is interesting and extrememely bizarre however that evolutionists have interperated this evidence not as evidence that dinosaurs did not live 65,000,000 years ago but rather that Scweitzer has discovered an entirely new form of fossilization process hirtho unknown. ???
Please, anybody who wishes to actually debate this stuff, do some basic research so that you have at least some understanding of the issues involved and do not merely respond by sying such stupid statements as 'I'm right and you're wrong' ::**
I am only interested in actual scientific evidence and have throughout presented evidence to support my viewpoint. So far nobody has put forward a shred of evidence to support evolution.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?
That's a great question. I believe that by asking questions you really get to the core of the issue.
The first question is how do you establish dates for something? How do you know the majority of science agrees?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
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.
Dur, because you are bashing evolution and in it's place you are putting creationism of which you have presented no evidence to support your views.
So far there has been a discussion questioning the "facts" with regard to evolution. They have been proven to be inaccurate. Please present one shred of evidence for evolution. You obviously believe that you have heard something that could be considered as evidence. Please share.
Actually Missy once again you are completely wrong. Up until the time of Charles Darwin the biblical model was accepted by virtually everyone. In fact it was the biblical world view that was held by most of the greatest scientists of those times.
Darwin and his supporters challenged the biblical model which was the scientifically accepted model up to that point.
Evolutionary theory won the idealogical war and was largely accepted as being the true around 30 years or so after Darwin's publication of his Origin of Species. Then began the quest to find evidence for it. This is extremely important to understand. The theory came first, the search for evidence to support the theory came afterwards.
The past 150 years has seen evolutionists combing the whole earth for evidence to support this theory and so far nothing has been found.
There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.
I am attempting to have a serious dialogue in this thread and so will no longer respond to you unless you actually start presenting some evidence to support your belief in evolution so that we can have a proper debate.
Where do you want to start? The fossil record, microbiology, dinosaurs living with man, mathematical probability theory?
Present your evidence and start providing explanations to counter mine and we can start having a serious discussion ;)
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Of course explosions, and accidents are great scientific explanations.
Happens all the time. :-[
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?
That's a great question. I believe that by asking questions you really get to the core of the issue.
The first question is how do you establish dates for something? How do you know the majority of science agrees?
Look as I've stated before I dont feel one way or the other in regards to mans evolution from primates. What I don't understand is how you can deny that man has been evolving both physically and socially over the past several thousand years. But my point was that through 12 years of public schooling and 5 years of college education that did include some biology, anthropology and archaelogy I've never heard anything other than that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before man showed up. So although I understand that there is quite a bit of information that is debatable it seems that most scientific research points to Bilbos theory of dinosaurs being wrong or at least widely disbelieved.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?
That's a great question. I believe that by asking questions you really get to the core of the issue.
The first question is how do you establish dates for something? How do you know the majority of science agrees?
Look as I've stated before I dont feel one way or the other in regards to mans evolution from primates. What I don't understand is how you can deny that man has been evolving both physically and socially over the past several thousand years. But my point was that through 12 years of public schooling and 5 years of college education that did include some biology, anthropology and archaelogy I've never heard anything other than that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before man showed up. So although I understand that there is quite a bit of information that is debatable it seems that most scientific research points to Bilbos theory of dinosaurs being wrong or at least widely disbelieved.
Do you beleive other peoples opinion on every matter? When you watch a fight do you always agree with the commentators? If you went to a beauty contest would you think the winner was the best looking one? My point is that absence of evidence leaves it in the realm of opinion. Why do schools continue to teach things in biology, and archaelogy that have been proven wrong??? That's a good question. I have an opinion, but that would lead us into a different topic. Just because you were taught something in school doesn't mean its true. They used to teach all kinds of ridiculous things that have since been proven wrong... Flat earth, smoking prevents sickness, bleeding out your "bad" blood cures sickness, removing portions of your brain will cure mental conditions, and many other misconcieved medical treatments.
The one fact you can rely on is that if someone has something to gain from something they will present slanted information. There is no lack of accusations for this for anyone promoting creation. However the general populace automatically assumes that "science" is the good guy and they would never do anything but present unbiased information. It is entirely untrue. "Science" is often promoting a product and edit out unfavorable information. Just look at all the pharmacuetical companies that passed through FDA testing, then people started dropping dead and they had to recall the product. Don't be niave and just assume something is true because a credible organization backs it.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.
It is amazing what people can do to sound smart. hahaha
Sorry man, but your twisting scientific evidence to meet your personal beliefs or should I say "community beliefs."
Virus' such as HIV evolve, but at an extremely fast pace, since there are sooo many of them and they multiply rapidly. That's why it's so difficult to make a vaccine for HIV, because it evolves to survive a specific vaccine.
Beak length from a certain birds have changed to meet their surroundings in a matter of generations.
Evolution is the FOUNDATION of Biology. Sure you can "squeeze in creationism" into evolution if you were a biology major, but you can also "squeeze in" just about anything in the constitution with semantics and self-delusion.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?
Hey vanchilds, that is a great question and I will attempt to answer it as fully as I can.
The scientific community, especially in the areas of paelontology and evolutionary sciences all of course subscribe to the evolutionary world view. The vast majority are also humanists who have a strong anti-God agenda, and are actively seeking at all levels to destroy belief in God. As this may sound a strong satement I will back it up with examples in a moment.
The education system is run largely by people with a humanist agenda who again seek to turn people away from belief in creation and to their own humanistic evolutionary beliefs. This is not so much a conspiracy as it is trying to have their own world view established as the official explanation for man's origins.
I mean you would not expect an evangelical Christian university to employ an athiestic college professor would you?
In exactly the same way it is virtually impossible for a scientist who happens to believe in creation to get a position on any secular university, or to get his papers published in secular journals. Anyone who holds to a creationist viewpoint is at odds with the evolutionary community and so will never be allowed to teach or to hold a position of responsibility in a secular establishment.
This much should be obvious.
In America this is changing. In places such as Kansas there is a battle royal taking place between creationist and evolutionists over the teaching of creation being restored to schools. The tide is turning slowly in the favour of creationists in some parts of the world.
To see the scale of the prejudice and evolutionary scientists contempt for Christianity let me give you some examples.
Here are some quotes from Richard Dawkins, lecturer of Zoology at Oxford University, winner of numerous awards and the most famous evolutionist in Europe, and probably the worlds biggest authority on evolution
Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world
To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham.
Dawkin's contempt for creationism is similarly shared by his fellow evolutionary scientists so it is fairly apparant that he would never allow any science teacher who did not believe in evolution to practise under him or to to work in any secular university!
Any creationist believing scientist therefore will never be allowed to teach or to hold a recognised position. There anti-evolutionary evidence will NEVER be published in the accepted scientific journals and their position will always be labelled as idiotic etc. It is an uphill battle but nonetheless there are a huge amount of scientists with impeccable credentials who do believe in the biblical creationist model.
However there are a large number of qualified scientists who believe in special creation.
There are over 600 voting members of the Creation Research Society, the minimum membership entrance is a masters degree in a recognised area of science.
The Korea association of Creation Research has over 150 PHD members and a further 600 with masters degrees.
Below is a list of current scientists who all hold doctorates and believe in special creation, google search them if you are interested
Who's Who? in Creation/Evolution
Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order)
Do real scientists believe in Creation? Answer...
Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution? Answer
How is it possible for reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people to hold such diametrically opposite views as Evolutionism and Creationism? Answer...
Recommended Resource:
In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation IN SIX DAYS:
Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Click here for more info
1. Agard, E. Theo
2. Allan, James
3. Anderson, Kevin
4. Armstrong, Harold
5. Arndt, Alexander
6. Austin, Steven
7. Barnes, Thomas
8. Batten, Don
9. Baumgardner, John
10. Bergman, Jerry
11. Boudreaux, Edward
12. Byl, John
13. Catchpoole, David
14. Chadwick, Arthur
15. Chaffin, Eugene
16. Chittick, Donald
17. Cimbala, John
18. Clausen, Ben
19. Cole, Sid
20. Cook, Melvin
21. Cumming, Ken
22. Cuozzo, Jack
23. Darrall, Nancy
24. Dewitt, David
25. DeYoung, Donald
26. Downes, Geoff
27. Eckel, Robert
28. Faulkner, Danny
29. Ford, Dwain
30. Frair, Wayne
31. Gentry, Robert
32. Giem, Paul
33. Gillen, Alan
34. Gish, Duane
35. Gitt, Werner
36. Gower, D.B.
37. Grebe, John
38. Grocott, Stephen
39. Harrub, Brad
40. Hawke, George
41. Hollowell, Kelly
42. Holroyd, Edmond
43. Hosken, Bob
44. Howe, George
45. Humphreys, D. Russell
46. Javor, George
47. Jones, Arthur
48. Kaufmann, David
49. Kennedy, Elaine
50. Klotz, John
51. Koop, C. Everett
52. Korochkin, Leonid
53. Kramer, John
54. Lammerts, Walter
55. Lester, Lane
56. Livingston, David
57. Lopez, Raul
58. Marcus, John
59. Marsh, Frank
60. Mastropaolo, Joseph
61. McCombs, Charles
62. McIntosh, Andrew
63. McMullen, Tom
64. Meyer, Angela
65. Meyer, John
66. Mitchell, Colin
67. Morris, Henry
68. Morris, John
69. Mumma, Stanley
70. Parker, Gary
71. Peet, J. H. John
72. Rankin, John
73. Rosevear, David
74. Roth, Ariel
75. Rusch, Wilbert
76. Sarfati, Jonathan
77. Snelling, Andrew
78. Standish, Timothy
79. Taylor, Stephen
80. Thaxton, Charles
81. Thompson, Bert
82. Thomson, Ker
83. Vardiman, Larry
84. Veith, Walter
85. Walter, Jeremy
86. Wanser, Keith
87. Whitcomb, John
88. White, A.J.(Monty)
89. Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
90. Wile, Jay
91. Williams, Emmett
92. Wise, Kurt
93. Wolfrom, Glen
94. Zuill, Henry
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.
It is amazing what people can do to sound smart. hahaha
Sorry man, but your twisting scientific evidence to meet your personal beliefs or should I say "community beliefs."
Virus' such as HIV evolve, but at an extremely fast pace, since there are sooo many of them and they multiply rapidly. That's why it's so difficult to make a vaccine for HIV, because it evolves to survive a specific vaccine.
Beak length from a certain birds have changed to meet their surroundings in a matter of generations.
Evolution is the FOUNDATION of Biology. Sure you can "squeeze in creationism" into evolution if you were a biology major, but you can also "squeeze in" just about anything in the constitution with semantics and self-delusion.
Gyroki,
Those are not evidences of one thing changing into a different thing. Those are ADAPTATIONS. Noone disputes that things change and adapt within very specific limits. The idea that something can turn into a different species has never ever ever ever been observed. The very same examples you presented are also used by schools. The conclusion is far from proven, and again 0 evidence for it exists.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.
It is amazing what people can do to sound smart. hahaha
Sorry man, but your twisting scientific evidence to meet your personal beliefs or should I say "community beliefs."
Virus' such as HIV evolve, but at an extremely fast pace, since there are sooo many of them and they multiply rapidly. That's why it's so difficult to make a vaccine for HIV, because it evolves to survive a specific vaccine.
Beak length from a certain birds have changed to meet their surroundings in a matter of generations.
Evolution is the FOUNDATION of Biology. Sure you can "squeeze in creationism" into evolution if you were a biology major, but you can also "squeeze in" just about anything in the constitution with semantics and self-delusion.
Hey gyroki, it's an interesting question you raise and one of the most widely believed misconceptions that ordinary people have about evolution, namely their inability to differentiate between adaptation and macro evolution.
The examples you have presented are examples of adaptation, a virus can develop resistance to certain vaccines, but this is NOT evolution. It is merely a selective organisation of DNA already present within the virus, there is no new information being added to the genetic materail of that virus, the fundamental requirement for evolution to work.
Thus a virus can change forms and develop resistance to a certain antibiotic but it will remain a virus. It CANNOT ever become something else because the information required to turn it into a different organim is not present within it's DNA.
Regarding dinosaurs living millions of years ago, I completely agree it is the universally accepted viewpoint but does that mean it's true?
Again look yourself critically at the evidence.
1. Ancient man's detailed descriptions of encounters with beast that fit exactly the description of many dinosaurs.
2.Many of these stories and the same descriptions are found in many diverse cultures suggesting a shared experience of seeing the same animal.
3.Drawings and paintings such as I showed already are abundantly found amongst many many ancient cultures.
4.Dinosaur bones have been found that were unfossilised! This is a proven scientifically documented fact. How does fresh bone hang around for 65,000,000 years?
5. The discovery of many animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years but are known to be still living.
The most famous example here is that of the coelacanth, an early form of fish, that actually 'evolved' over 100 million years BEFORE the dinosaurs and was believed to have become extinct 70,000,000 years ago. Several live specimens have subsequently been found
See this BBC news link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1049818.stm for more details.
The actual evidence when examined impartially clearly is clearly suggestive of the possibility dinosaurs living in recent times, however as this would completely destroy evolutionary theory these evidences are completely ignored.
Please examine this information for yourself, you will be amazed by what you find.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Just quickly. If God is the creator, what is he doing now that the place could do with some running repairs? Are his hands tied by red tape, planning and barmy health and safety directives like the rest of us?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Although I am not as smart as some of the other posters on this thread, you have to admit bilbo makes some pretty compelling arguments. The idea that dinosauers were alive a lot longer than most people believe is a lot for people to swallow. Since the word dinosauer wasnt yet used till the 1800's it takes some interpretation of what was written or drawn thousands of years ago. It is truly one of those things that may never be discovered in our lifetime.
I believe in the creationism theory. :soapbox: I believe in God, and that we are here for a reason. If God wanted us to know why and how he could and would. Not to get religious or anything on this thread, but if we knew how everything was suppose to be and what we were suppose to do, wouldnt that take some of the fun out of living? Thank you for your time (steps off of soapbox).
Now you may proceed to tear this apart as you wish. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Just quickly. If God is the creator, what is he doing now that the place could do with some running repairs? Are his hands tied by red tape, planning and barmy health and safety directives like the rest of us?
:soapbox: (Personal believe) we have free will to do as we please. God does not interfere with what we do. He gave us some instructions and guidelines (bible and 10 commandments) and then it is up to us whether we follow them or not.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
luvfightgame where you at? I enjoyed your twist on things . :rasta: you were putting me into a deep renaissance trip ! ;D
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
I want to stop this so called "discussion".... BUT I will say this...
...
No human can comprehend a million years. You can SAY "a million years," but can you really comprehend it? We can't even comprehend 50 years!!! I hear 50 year olds say,"I can't believe it's been 50 years!" or I hear 70 year olds say,"I NEVER thought I'd live to this age."
Evolution explains biology, it's the FOUNDATION of biology. Species change, you guy's except that right? Well you have a Tiger and a Lion, both are closely related, but they haven't interchanged inter bred in a while. BUT THEY CAN STILL HAVE SEX AND HAVE A KID. But that kid can't have a kid. I'm very sure you already know this. It just explains that we actually observe species that aren't really separated, it can almost be classified as the same species, except we define species to have offspring and that offspring must have offspring.
You can imagine small change, because the evidence is too overwhelming and blatant, because it happens within YOUR DAMN LIFETIME. haha
Now try to imagine something happening over Millions of YEARS times your lifetime. Imagine the drastic changes.
You can't because you don't see it within your lifetime, so you say it doesn't exist. EVEN THOUGH IT EXPLAINS ALL OF BIOLOGY and just about everything around us.
Well if you can pull off that bullshyte, then "No stars exist because I can't travel to them and touch them." "Atoms don't exist because I don't see them." "Light doesn't exist because I don't see IT."
If religion, and it IS religion, and ignorance also, had a problem with those questions, you'd see them complaining about that bullshyte, EVEN THOUGH a tremendous amount of evidence is based in favor of those standard theories.
"Gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it or comprehend it." "Electromagnetic Feilds don't exist because I don't understand it and it contradicts what my stupid book says." heheh
"I don't exist because I don't KNOW me." ---You see, now your in philosophic garbage now. heh
No concrete, robust, consistent, and simple theory to explain natural phenomena, just someone saying they don't believe it because it happened another way.
Plain stupid, someone has too keep telling you, or this whole world will turn into idiots while our technology keeps improving, which makes the mind of babies in charge of nuclear missiles.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Is it possible the bible was put together just to try and instill some law and order in that time period? ???
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
I want to stop this so called "discussion".... BUT I will say this...
...
No human can comprehend a million years. You can SAY "a million years," but can you really comprehend it? We can't even comprehend 50 years!!! I hear 50 year olds say,"I can't believe it's been 50 years!" or I hear 70 year olds say,"I NEVER thought I'd live to this age."
Evolution explains biology, it's the FOUNDATION of biology. Species change, you guy's except that right? Well you have a Tiger and a Lion, both are closely related, but they haven't interchanged inter bred in a while. BUT THEY CAN STILL HAVE SEX AND HAVE A KID. But that kid can't have a kid. I'm very sure you already know this. It just explains that we actually observe species that aren't really separated, it can almost be classified as the same species, except we define species to have offspring and that offspring must have offspring.
You can imagine small change, because the evidence is too overwhelming and blatant, because it happens within YOUR DAMN LIFETIME. haha
Now try to imagine something happening over Millions of YEARS times your lifetime. Imagine the drastic changes.
You can't because you don't see it within your lifetime, so you say it doesn't exist. EVEN THOUGH IT EXPLAINS ALL OF BIOLOGY and just about everything around us.
Well if you can pull off that bullshyte, then "No stars exist because I can't travel to them and touch them." "Atoms don't exist because I don't see them." "Light doesn't exist because I don't see IT."
If religion, and it IS religion, and ignorance also, had a problem with those questions, you'd see them complaining about that bullshyte, EVEN THOUGH a tremendous amount of evidence is based in favor of those standard theories.
"Gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it or comprehend it." "Electromagnetic Feilds don't exist because I don't understand it and it contradicts what my stupid book says." heheh
"I don't exist because I don't KNOW me." ---You see, now your in philosophic garbage now. heh
No concrete, robust, consistent, and simple theory to explain natural phenomena, just someone saying they don't believe it because it happened another way.
Plain stupid, someone has too keep telling you, or this whole world will turn into idiots while our technology keeps improving, which makes the mind of babies in charge of nuclear missiles.
Actually what you are saying is contradicted by our modern understanding of biology and the fossil record.
So you are saying we can't observe evolution happening in the present because it happens way to slowly right, tiny little changes over millions of years.
Well that being true we can just have a little look through the fossil record and see all these tiny little changes happening gradually over millions of years right?
Dead Wrong! The fossil record does not show any evidence of a slow gradual evolution of species. None whatsoever!
Whenever a new species first appears in the fossil record it appears complete, fully formed (evolved) with no visible ancestors.
As an expert on evolution Gyroki I'm sure you will be aware of the Cambrian explosion where invertebrate fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record with no visible ancestors.
Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
Just do a google search on the Cambrian Explosion and see for yourself.
And it's not just creationists who say there are no transitional fossils whatsoever.
To prove this point I'll demonstrate by finding and quoting only evolutionists articles.
Please check these out for yourself and challenge me if I'm incorrect.
This quote is from Colin Patterson the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument It goes without saying that Patterson is a 100% committed evolutionist.
Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History says the following
It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another
If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete, not in developmental stages.
The evidence for the gradual evolution of species you described is not in the fossil record, it completely and utterly proves the opposite!
As for your example of a lion and a tiger do you not see how this too is actually evidence against evolutionary theory.
Both creationists and evolutionists agree that lions and tigers share the same ancestor so that they can breed is not a big deal. However the fact that their offspring are unable to reproduce themselves is another nail in the coffin to evolutionary theory.
You see species resist change, they don't change easily. For evolution to be true creatures must have gradually evolved and changed, tiny little changes to their internal organs, reproductive organs etc. The whole time these creatures still have to be able to mate and reproduce, and their own offspring also must reproduce.
You have just identified how hard it is for even a lion and a tiger to reproduce and and create a new species of animal, so what are the chances of all the millions of species on this earth being able to live a fully functional life, find a partner, mate and reproduce when all the time their sexual organs, internal organs, bones, anatomy etc are changing? If one animal suddenly evolves some tiny change in it's sex organ, it has to find a mate with a corresponding change in it's sex organ for them to be able to copulate.
You can repeat that this happens so slowly that the changes are simply not noticable in any one or even thousands of generations but again this leads you back to the dilema mentioned at the begining of this post namely the fossil record proves that a gradual transition from one species to another did not occur.
I don't claim to know a great deal about microbiology but one scientist with impeccable credentials is Michael Behe professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
His famous book entitled 'Darwin's Black Box' completely destoys the idea that evolution is possible at the molecular level. He is an interesting case as he is not a bible believer, has no creationist axe to grind but merely reached his conclusions through his own study. His arguments are devastating and have never been succesfully answered by the evolutionary community.
Your analogies using stars and gravity make little sense to me. It is the scientific community who refuse to accept what they can't see not the creationists.
For an evolutionary scientist the idea of creation, or intelligent design is simply unacceptable no matter what evidence there might be to support it. It is part of the scientific creed to only and always look for an answer within the confines and science and to exclude any possibility of the supernatural or any other force whose work we cannot detect and verify. No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince a scientist committed to the idea of evolution.
I find it rather ironic that you clearly have little knowledge about evolution yourself as evidenced by your argument but yet will defend it aggressively and absolutely.
You state that the evidence is overwhelming and blatent and that evolution forms the foundation of biology it may suprise you to know that the founder of modern biology John Ray was a commited Christian and creationist, as was the founder of chemistry Robert Boyle, and the founder of the scientific method Francis Bacon.
Actually the kind of changes you seem to think take millions of years take very little time at all.
Consider a butterfly. It is a caterpiller for 4/5ths of it's life or more then undergoes the most amazing metamorphis where it spins a cocoon around itself, then it's entire body procedes to liquify itself, and inside the cacoon those parts move around and form an entirely new creature. Did you know that back end of the caterpiller actually become the head of some butterflies? Remarkable, a transition from one insect into something completely different in just a few weeks!
It's also proved an impossible question for evolutionists to comprhend. Try and imagine how the first caterpiller managed to evolve the ability to turn into a butterfly. Did it do it gradually over millions of years, not changing much at all to start with and gradually getting a little bit more daring?
I repeat with absolute confidence, there is NO evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution. The available data we do have such as the fossil record and our knowledge of microbiology actually provide firm evidence against it. The only people who believe in evolution are those scientists committed to it on philosophical grounds and ordinary people who believe it because of indoctrination and have never studied the evidence for it.
Instead of dismissing people as being backwards and idiotic for not believing maybe you should examine both sides of the argument yourself. I promise you, you will be amazed by what you find out. ;)
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Also gryoki I want to touch upon your argument about not comprehending millions of years.
I do and that's another reason why I cannot accept evolution.
Some examples...
1) How can 'fresh' dinosaur bones, unfossilised remain on earth for over 65,000,000 years?
2) How come so many animals are alive today whose history can be traced back millions of years, and they havn't evolved at all?
Crocodiles unchanged in 200 million years.
Cockroaches unchanged in 350 million years.
Ants unchanged in a 100 million years.
The Coelacanth unchanged in 400 million years.
Dragonflies unchanged in 250 million years.
Ginko trees unchanged in 270 million years.
Horsehoe crabs unchanged in 300 million years.
Nautilus unchanged in 500 million years.
Salamanders unchanged in 150 million years
Neopilina molluscs unchanged in 400 million years
Sturgeon unchanged in 250 million years
Velvet worms unchanged in 500 million years
Wollemi Pine rediscovered in 1964, unchanged in 140 million years.
As you yourself have said, a million years is a very long time, these creatures have existed on the planet in some cases for several hundred million years and not evolved at all, somewhat stretched credibilaty I think.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Having a PERFECT timeline of a gradual change of fossil record in near impossible. BUT there are evidence of such gradual change. But you gotta understand that dying than falling into preservable material and surviving millions of years is VERY rare. So the fact that fossils exist is amazing, the conditions have to be near perfect.
I'm sorry man, you seem like a very cool guy, but evolution happens. No debate whatsoever.
It still angers me that this is a big deal. Evolutions happens and there IS actually an overwhelming evidence for it, you don't have to "believe it," BUT if you don't "believe it" then just throw all your knowlegde of Biology down the gutter because all of Biology depends on Evolution.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Nice to see that you havn't read any of my earlier posts. I have already written in length concerning the work of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge and their theory of puncuated equilibrium, a theory which is widely rejected by other members of the evolutionary commuinty.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Go back a few pages, you see I have spoken at length about punctuated equilibruim and Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge etc. ;)
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Having a PERFECT timeline of a gradual change of fossil record in near impossible. BUT there are evidence of such gradual change. But you gotta understand that dying than falling into preservable material and surviving millions of years is VERY rare. So the fact that fossils exist is amazing, the conditions have to be near perfect.
I'm sorry man, you seem like a very cool guy, but evolution happens. No debate whatsoever.
It still angers me that this is a big deal. Evolutions happens and there IS actually an overwhelming evidence for it, you don't have to "believe it," BUT if you don't "believe it" then just throw all your knowlegde of Biology down the gutter because all of Biology depends on Evolution.
I agree having a perfect timeline of evoluton is damn near impossible but the point is that there are not even fragmentary traces of change in the fossil record for a single species of any kind of life on earth!
This quote is from Colin Patterson the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument It goes without saying that Patterson is a 100% committed evolutionist.
Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History says the following
It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another
Again I quote evolutionist themselves
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Actually there are several versions of cockroaches. Yuck! heheh Those big ones are scary. And you left out dogs, humans, monkeys, and just about every other animal today.
And who the f*ck cares what other people think. Just because everybody else doesn't believe in Jay Gould or anything, doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Evolution is fundamental, as I've been saying, it explains all of biology. Evolution doesn't depend of people, people came to this conclusion FROM NATURE. Now, come up with something that can explain biology and explain the six day thing ON YOUR OWN EVIDENCE, I mean set up a lab go fossil hunting and go out to the wilderness and actually make measurements and study.... real scientific work... and it won't say this SIX DAY BULLCRAP. One simple idea explains it all.
Alright lets go back to this.
"Electrons don't exist because no human has ever seen one." That's true, but the electron exlains a WIDE RANGE OF PHENOMENA, to electromagnetism, to QED.
"Quarks don't exist because it's not possible to isolate and study itself" True, but quarks explain the chaos of particles into a set of three fundamental particles divided into "colors." This leads to the breakthrough of Quantum Chromodynamics.
"Evolution doesn't exist because for some reason... (ignorance) I don't accept the evidence." Evolution leads to the foundation of Biology.
If your going to say Evolution isn't true, then you better damn well put up a BETTER theory that explains biology and the six day thing, AND have overwhelming evidence for it's case.
-so go ahead explain Biology with your six day thing? heheh I'll guarantee you it'll start with "Well, in my book it says..." haha
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Actually seeing as you brought this up I really can't let this go!
Remember Gould is a paleontologist, he deals (he's dead now) with fossils on a daily basis, he was a world expert on the fossil record. His theory of punctuated equilibruim or growth spurts as you call them was an attempt to explain the complete and total absence of any single piece of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record.
Let me be clear Gould was an absolute 100% evolutionist, he hates creationism as much as you do :P but he saw for himself there was no evidence for evolution in the fossile record, none whatsoever.
He formulated his theory to explain those gaps. Unfortunately Gould is a paleontologist not a microbiologist.
Consequently he was attacked by the rest of the evolutionary community for his views as they are absolutely impossible to explain at a molecular level,
This has led to the most famous division in evolutionary research. The question being asked, are you a puncuated equilbriuist or a neo Darwinian?
There are countless books on this subject, with each side labelling the other's viewpoint impossible and untenable.
Some examples,
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest
by Kim Sterelny
The Accidental Creationist: Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. by Robert Wright.
Melvin Konner. American Prospect, July-Aug, 1999 Fool's Gould : Will the Left Finally Stop Buying It?
The Holes in Gould’s Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion - review of by Ursula Goodenough
These two evolutionary camps both provide firm and conclusive evidence to demonstrate the wrongness of their opponents.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest
"Survival of the Fittest." I absolutely hate that phrase. Darwin never said that. Some damn Socialogist tried to compare society to evolution. That bast*rd came up with that phrase.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Bilbo when you call yourself a creationist does that mean a complete literal interpretation of Genisis and the biblical age of the world?
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Actually there are several versions of cockroaches. Yuck! heheh Those big ones are scary. And you left out dogs, humans, monkeys, and just about every other animal today.
And who the f*ck cares what other people think. Just because everybody else doesn't believe in Jay Gould or anything, doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Evolution is a concrete foundations, as I've been saying, it explains all of biology. Evolution doesn't depend of people, people came to this conclusion FROM NATURE. Now, come up with something that can explain biology and explain the six day thing ON YOUR OWN EVIDENCE, I mean set up a lab go fossil hunting and go out to the wilderness and actually make measurements and study.... real scientific work... and it won't say this SIX DAY BULLCRAP. One simple idea explains it all.
Alright lets go back to this.
"Electrons don't exist because no human has ever seen one." That's true, but the electron exlains a WIDE RANGE OF PHENOMENA, to electromagnetism, to QED.
"Quarks don't exist because it's not possible to isolate and study itself" True, but quarks explain the chaos of particles into a set of three fundamental particles divided into "colors." This leads to the breakthrough of Quantum Chromodynamics.
"Evolution doesn't exist because for some reason... (ignorance) I don't accept the evidence." Evolution leads to the foundation of Biology.
If your going to say Evolution isn't true, then you better damn well put up a BETTER theory that explains biology and the six day thing, AND have overwhelming evidence for it's case.
-so go ahead explain Biology with your six day thing? heheh I'll guarantee you it'll start with "Will in my book it says..." haha
Ok I'll have a go at outlining why I believe in creationism.
Firstly I would expect to find in the fossil record only complete species, showing no signs of having an evolutionary ancestor. Where a creature first appears in the fossil record I would expect it to appear fully formed and virtually identical to it's modern descendents.
That is exactly what you find.
Secondly I would expect the origin of life to be absolutely impossible to create artificially. I would expect to find not a single shred of evidence that could suggest that life could arise from non life. I would conduct all kinds of experiments to see if life can spontaneously generate and if after 150 years of trying I would assume that it was impossible to create life from non life and thus be forced to believe that some external force outside my realms of scientific knowledge created life.
Thirdly I would expect to find evidence that man and animals all lived at the same time and were not seperated by millions of years of evolution. I would look to historical records to see if ancient races recalled encounters with creatures now extinct. I would expect stories and folklore, paintings and drawings, and I would expect these descriptions to be largely accurate.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest
"Survival of the Fittest." I absolutely hate that phrase. Darwin never said that. Some damn Socialogist tried to compare society to evolution. That bast*rd came up with that phrase.
The phrase is irrelevent. It's merely the title of a book documenting the philosophical war between Gould and Richard Dawkins. They both are utterly convinced of the other's flawed theory of evolution you see.
By the way you have not addressed a single issue I have raised? ;)
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Actually seeing as you brought this up I really can't let this go!
Remember Gould is a paleontologist, he deals (he's dead now) with fossils on a daily basis, he was a world expert on the fossil record. His theory of punctuated equilibruim or growth spurts as you call them was an attempt to explain the complete and total absence of any single piece of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record.
Let me be clear Gould was an absolute 100% evolutionist, he hates creationism as much as you do :P but he saw for himself there was no evidence for evolution in the fossile record, none whatsoever.
He formulated his theory to explain those gaps. Unfortunately Gould is a paleontologist not a microbiologist.
Consequently he was attacked by the rest of the evolutionary community for his views as they are absolutely impossible to explain at a molecular level,
This has led to the most famous division in evolutionary research. The question being asked, are you a puncuated equilbriuist or a neo Darwinian?
There are countless books on this subject, with each side labelling the other's viewpoint impossible and untenable.
Some examples,
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest
by Kim Sterelny
The Accidental Creationist: Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. by Robert Wright.
Melvin Konner. American Prospect, July-Aug, 1999 Fool's Gould : Will the Left Finally Stop Buying It?
The Holes in Gould’s Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion - review of by Ursula Goodenough
These two evolutionary camps both provide firm and conclusive evidence to demonstrate the wrongness of their opponents.
Heheh, I'm sorry man, your a cool guy... but your stupid. heheheh
Words of wisdom:
"Don't let your mind be controlled by ideas you can't find out by yourself."
Study Biology, DNA, genetics, study changes in traits, <---- all of which supports Evolution.
And you won't "believe" evolution because we can't create a dog in a lab. heheh
I'm wasting my time here.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Just quickly. If God is the creator, what is he doing now that the place could do with some running repairs? Are his hands tied by red tape, planning and barmy health and safety directives like the rest of us?
That is a complete different topic, but if you want to start a different thread on it, I would give my opinion.
-
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?
That's a great question. I believe that by asking questions you really get to the core of the issue.
The first question is how do you establish dates for something? How do you know the majority of science agrees?
Look as I've stated before I dont feel one way or the other in regards to mans evolution from primates. What I don't understand is how you can deny that man has been evolving both physically and socially over the past several thousand years. But my point was that through 12 years of public schooling and 5 years of college education that did include some biology, anthropology and archaelogy I've never heard anything other than that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before man showed up. So although I understand that there is quite a bit of information that is debatable it seems that most scientific research points to Bilbos theory of dinosaurs being wrong or at least widely disbelieved.
Do you beleive other peoples opinion on every matter? When you watch a fight do you always agree with the commentators? If you went to a beauty contest would you think the winner was the best looking one? My point is that absence of evidence leaves it in the realm of opinion. Why do schools continue to teach things in biology, and archaelogy that have been proven wrong??? That's a good question. I have an opinion, but that would lead us into a different topic. Just because you were taught something in school doesn't mean its true. They used to teach all kinds of ridiculous things that have since been proven wrong... Flat earth, smoking prevents sickness, bleeding out your "bad" blood cures sickness, removing portions of your brain will cure mental conditions, and many other misconcieved medical treatments.
The one fact you can rely on is that if someone has something to gain from something they will present slanted information. There is no lack of accusations for this for anyone promoting creation. However the general populace automatically assumes that "science" is the good guy and they would never do anything but present unbiased information. It is entirely untrue. "Science" is often promoting a product and edit out unfavorable information. Just look at all the pharmacuetical companies that passed through FDA testing, then people started dropping dead and they had to recall the product. Don't be niave and just assume something is true because a credible organization backs it.
Look man I went to one of the most conservative and christian based public schools in the country(Texas A&M) It also a very well respected school. I dont think it is naive nor me just being a sheeple to believe what is being taught in college level biology, anthropology classes nationwide. Now a worldwide conspiracy of evolutionist scientists plotting to discredit any and all information that doesn't support their argument plus a fairy tale about a man and his wife(who was formed from his rib) in a magical garden with talking snakes now that takes a leap of faith. I respect your opinion and you have some good points but lets be honest saying that the scientific world is run by a darwinian cartel and believing a bible story more akin to fantasy.......lets drop calling ME naive.
