Creation vs Evolution

[Howlin Mad 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.

[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.

[Kev]

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............

[Kev]

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.

[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.

[Kev]

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, 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 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.

[Kev]

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.

[Fenster]

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, 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

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?

[Kev]

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, 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

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.

[Howlin Mad 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.

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.

[Fenster]

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, 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

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?

[VictorCharlie]

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?

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[luvfightgame]

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?