Creation vs Evolution

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[Kev]

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.

[Kev]

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

[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 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

[Kev]

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.

[gyrokai]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

Bilbo when you call yourself a creationist does that mean a complete literal interpretation of Genisis and the biblical age of the world?

[Kev]

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.

[Kev]

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?

[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.

[luvfightgame]

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.

[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?

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.