Creation vs. Evolution page 31

763 posts

Flag Post

The truth is Intelligent Falling. Gravity is for pussies. (Two links there)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment people like u guys say that we have no evidence but from what we learned there is full of evidence about my religion creation thats all what i need to know u like it take it u dont well then i dont give a dam about u

and Twilight proves that vampires are real and they sparkle, it’s all there in the book, that proves it

ok give me one simple answer way are we alive just to die and go to dust just answer that with a good answer then speak little boy

 
Flag Post

As of now, it looks that way, yes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by optickm:

ok give me one simple answer way are we alive just to die and go to dust just answer that with a good answer then speak little boy

Actually, we (and all other life on the planet as far as we know) exist to reproduce and survive. And what, pray tell, is the meaning of our existence with religion being true? If it was just waiting until we die to go to X religious afterlife, there seems to be a pretty big middleman that can be cut out.

On a tangent, at least this little boy can spell well and give an idea across without much confusion, as well as poke a hole in the reasoning that because it’s in a book that said thing in said book is true.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by optickm:
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by optickm:

creation is what i believe in reasons is that there is more evidence in the book then there is in any since experiment people like u guys say that we have no evidence but from what we learned there is full of evidence about my religion creation thats all what i need to know u like it take it u dont well then i dont give a dam about u

and Twilight proves that vampires are real and they sparkle, it’s all there in the book, that proves it

ok give me one simple answer way are we alive just to die and go to dust just answer that with a good answer then speak little boy

You made the claim. It’s your job to back it up.
And your question (if it was a question. You didn’t use any punctuation, so I am guessing here.) is flawed. You assume that there needs to a be a reason. It’s so painfully obvious that you are setting up a circular argument. A circular argument that again makes a claim that you don’t care to back up. Why does there have to be a reason?

 
Flag Post

Evolution is not true because so many facts are missing to prove that it is true. For example, there are no transitional forms of animal, there is just a dinosaurs millions of years ago and now we suddenly have a bird. What do you think about that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by gunshooter4570:

Evolution is not true because so many facts are missing to prove that it is true.

Unlike creationism that makes up the facts that it uses to fill its holes.

For example, there are no transitional forms of animal, there is just a dinosaurs millions of years ago and now we suddenly have a bird. What do you think about that?

Archeopterix, that’s what.

Seriously, a lot of the time the holes you see in a scientific theory like evolution are usually because you don’t know the facts to fill those holes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by gunshooter4570:

Evolution is not true because so many facts are missing to prove that it is true. For example, there are no transitional forms of animal, there is just a dinosaurs millions of years ago and now we suddenly have a bird. What do you think about that?

The above is completely false, we have extensive fossil records proving this false. Also, the logic behind creationist arguments has no evidence, so by your logic, we should not believe those either.
 
Flag Post

We actually have the transitional fossils. Here is an example.
This is our current record for dinosaur to bird:

Source

 
Flag Post

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is true. Bacteria can evolve into different strains that are resistant to antibiotics. The same is probably true for humans, just on a larger scale that isn’t as apparent. I fear the day that in the future scientific evidence will continue to be blatantly ignored because its against personal beliefs. I personally believe that the bible is not written as literal fact, but more of a general moral guideline. Many Christians today eat pork, even though it is outlawed in the Old Testament. In biblical times it was illegal to borrow money, yet credit card companies pocket millions of dollars in profits. If you are going to be a Creationist, you shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which things you are going to believe from the Bible, and which you won’t believe. Either be a fundamentalist Christian and follow all of the rules of the Bible, or accept it as a general moral guideline, but don’t pick and choose what you want and don’t want.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NinjaMaster131:

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is true. Bacteria can evolve into different strains that are resistant to antibiotics. The same is probably true for humans, just on a larger scale that isn’t as apparent. I fear the day that in the future scientific evidence will continue to be blatantly ignored because its against personal beliefs. I personally believe that the bible is not written as literal fact, but more of a general moral guideline. Many Christians today eat pork, even though it is outlawed in the Old Testament. In biblical times it was illegal to borrow money, yet credit card companies pocket millions of dollars in profits. If you are going to be a Creationist, you shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which things you are going to believe from the Bible, and which you won’t believe. Either be a fundamentalist Christian and follow all of the rules of the Bible, or accept it as a general moral guideline, but don’t pick and choose what you want and don’t want.

This is just an example of microevolution. No matter how many changes it undergoes, it remains bacteria. No new information is being created or added, thus bacteria provide absolutely no support for evolution on a macro scale. See we have the same evidence but different interpretations, while you see evidence for macro evolution, I see a vastly intricate design that is way to complex to be the product of a random and irrational process.

I think it is also noteworthy to point out that wether you believe in macroevolution or creation, you believe it by faith since both are not observable. Being a macro evolutionist is conforming to a belief system that requires faith, just like any religion.

I also find it interesting that we assume that our brains are rational, since macro evolution is an un-guided and basically irrational process.
Think about it. You are using logic and rationalism to state that rationalism and logic are the product of an illogical and irrational process. If I told you that Boeing 747 was the product of mass, gravity, and energy that somehow exploded, you would probably put me into a mental hospitable for speaking non-sense, yet how much more incredible is the human body and all its fine-tuned intricacies as opposed to a Boeing 747?

I also find it ironic that you state the fossil record as proof for evolution. There is a serious poverty of fossils (that support macro evolution) and this is one of my biggest reasons for evolution. JohnRulz posted some good art, but where is the skeleton? the bones? these are just fad links like “Lucy” and “lucys daughter” which both have been exposed and rejected by scientist. The bottom line is that the vast majority of “Proof and missing link fossils” are just good art conceptions of what the missing link “might” or “Could” have looked like. The above picture isn’t science, it’s art. I want proof and accurate, found together bones that form a skeleton, not concept pictures from fragments.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jjuanksta:
No matter how many changes it undergoes, it remains bacteria.

Because all bacteria is under one super species?

No new information is being created or added,

What?

thus bacteria provide absolutely no support for evolution on a macro scale.

Actually, they do because you can see that over long periods of time bacteria changes into different species that serve different purpouses.

I see a vastly intricate design that is way to complex to be the product of a random and irrational process.

Which is why it’s actually a product of a selective and rational (well as much as you can be given you aren’t technically senient) process based on the goal of living better than everything else.

I think it is also noteworthy to point out that wether you believe in macroevolution or creation, you believe it by faith since both are not observable. Being a macro evolutionist is conforming to a belief system that requires faith, just like any religion.

Oh yeah, it’s totally like a religion, it’s not like there’s evidence to suggest that macro evolution is actually a thing. It’s so fath-y that it’s a wonder why it’s a possibility.

I also find it interesting that we assume that our brains are rational, since macro evolution is an un-guided and basically irrational process.

What?

Think about it. You are using logic and rationalism to state that rationalism and logic are the product of an illogical and irrational process.

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

I also find it ironic that you state the fossil record as proof for evolution.

Well technically if you want to be super nhilistic/overly creationist nothing can really be proof of anything.

There is a serious poverty of fossils (that support macro evolution) and this is one of my biggest reasons for evolution.

And what exactly isn’t a “poverty” of fossils?

Also, I’m confused, are you trying to argue for or against evolution.

JohnRulz posted some good art, but where is the skeleton? the bones?

Probably in some lab being studied, or in the ground somewhere.

these are just fad links

What?

like “Lucy” and “lucys daughter” which both have been exposed and rejected by scientist.

When did that happen? Seriously, is this a new thing, because I’ve never heard about it.

Okay, I wil dmit I haven’t heard of this “lucy’s daughter,” but I would assume that these things being false would be big news.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of “Proof and missing link fossils” are just good art conceptions of what the missing link “might” or “Could” have looked like. The above picture isn’t science, it’s art. I want proof and accurate, found together bones that form a skeleton, not concept pictures from fragments.

Well congradulations, you have successfully made me try to faceplam because you completely misunderstand why people make drawings of long dead animals based on the fossil records that we have found.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jjuanksta:
Originally posted by NinjaMaster131:

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is true. Bacteria can evolve into different strains that are resistant to antibiotics. The same is probably true for humans, just on a larger scale that isn’t as apparent. I fear the day that in the future scientific evidence will continue to be blatantly ignored because its against personal beliefs. I personally believe that the bible is not written as literal fact, but more of a general moral guideline. Many Christians today eat pork, even though it is outlawed in the Old Testament. In biblical times it was illegal to borrow money, yet credit card companies pocket millions of dollars in profits. If you are going to be a Creationist, you shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which things you are going to believe from the Bible, and which you won’t believe. Either be a fundamentalist Christian and follow all of the rules of the Bible, or accept it as a general moral guideline, but don’t pick and choose what you want and don’t want.

This is just an example of microevolution. No matter how many changes it undergoes, it remains bacteria. No new information is being created or added, thus bacteria provide absolutely no support for evolution on a macro scale. See we have the same evidence but different interpretations, while you see evidence for macro evolution, I see a vastly intricate design that is way to complex to be the product of a random and irrational process.

I think it is also noteworthy to point out that wether you believe in macroevolution or creation, you believe it by faith since both are not observable. Being a macro evolutionist is conforming to a belief system that requires faith, just like any religion.

I also find it interesting that we assume that our brains are rational, since macro evolution is an un-guided and basically irrational process.
Think about it. You are using logic and rationalism to state that rationalism and logic are the product of an illogical and irrational process. If I told you that Boeing 747 was the product of mass, gravity, and energy that somehow exploded, you would probably put me into a mental hospitable for speaking non-sense, yet how much more incredible is the human body and all its fine-tuned intricacies as opposed to a Boeing 747?

I also find it ironic that you state the fossil record as proof for evolution. There is a serious poverty of fossils (that support macro evolution) and this is one of my biggest reasons for evolution. JohnRulz posted some good art, but where is the skeleton? the bones? these are just fad links like “Lucy” and “lucys daughter” which both have been exposed and rejected by scientist. The bottom line is that the vast majority of “Proof and missing link fossils” are just good art conceptions of what the missing link “might” or “Could” have looked like. The above picture isn’t science, it’s art. I want proof and accurate, found together bones that form a skeleton, not concept pictures from fragments.

macro evolution in action chancing a carnivore into a herbivore in ust 30 years: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
Addionally can you give a clear definition of a missing link that you feel is strongly missing. We can then look at them.
(if you want a more dirrect version of areaopeterix (easy for me to find there are more optional missing links ))

I don’t think that leaves to much to the imagenation if you look at it’s beak and the feather paterns where it might fit in.