Creationists

[Hollie]

This is the common canned response of folks who subscribe to your religious views and has been cut and pasted here ad nauseum. Please cite specific statistics to back up your claim. When quoting your statistics, please differentiate the offenders who were following their own agendas and the ones who were actually following the REAL teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. If you had actually studied the religions you quote unsubstantiated information on, you might understand that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have a common beginning. Abraham is the father of Isaac, who is the father of the Jewish religion. He is also the father of Ishmael, who is the father of the Arab nation, and the religion of Muhammad. What distinguishes Christianity from these three religions is the teachings of Christ. So Darwinists (folks who follow the teachings of the prophet Charles Darwin) like yourself, tend to have a totally misunderstanding of Christianity and the significance of the New Testament. This ignorance allows them to build up Strawmen that have no basis in the actual teachings of Christianity, so they can feel good about proving their made up tenants of a religion they are totally unfamiliar with wrong. Please leave and come back once you've educated yourself. Your tired, repetitive dribble has been cut and pasted here numerous times. Had you read the last 300 pages, you might realize you are adding nothing to the discussion. Also, several pages back is a video link to Stephen Meyer talking about what ID Theory is or isn't. Take an hour of your life and listen to that one or continue being ignorant... your choice. Finally, had you read the last several pages of this thread, you would have noted that, while I respect Youwerecreated's beliefs, I don't don's subscribe to the "young earth" Creationist viewpoint. This viewpoint is based in the Genealogy of Christ that is outlined in the Bible but there are opposing arguments, as in everything, for an explanation on why that does not lock the Bible into a 6,000 year old history.

And what was it that you were scolded about, re: bible thumping

Sidestep. I'm still waiting for your statistics.

You have your assignment to complete. Go thump elsewhere.

 

[UltimateReality]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance. Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.

 

[typicalusguy]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

I'd be happy with a single example.

 

[konradv]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance. Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.

A very sudden appearance doesn't prove anything. That's explained by Punctuated Equilibrium. Using your theory it's not just Man that was created at a certain time, but innumerable other species, too.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

Maybe those transitional fossils don't exist. Things were created as they are, after all, stasis is shown in the fossil record. Gould and eldredge had it right until they tried to explain the stasis in the fossil record away.

Sudden appearance is creation. Why don't we see new forms of life popping up all over the globe if it happened the way evolutionist claim ?

 

[konradv]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

I'd be happy with a single example.

The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out. Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[konradv]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

Maybe those transitional fossils don't exist. Things were created as they are, after all, stasis is shown in the fossil record. Gould and eldredge had it right until they tried to explain the stasis in the fossil record away.

Sudden appearance is creation. Why don't we new forms of life popping up all over globe if it happened the way evolutionist claim ?

Because it's not observable on the human time scale. I'm extremely dubious about your claimed scientific acumen, as the question borders on the moronic. We're talking 100s of thousands to millions of years and you ask why we can't see it? Even Methuselah wouldn't have seen it!

 

[UltimateReality]

So, is this the part where you introduce the existence of millions of 'transitional fossils' to support your argument?

Because without them there's not much to go on, is there?

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

I'd be happy with a single example.

Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance. Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.

A very sudden appearance doesn't prove anything. That's explained by Punctuated Equilibrium. Using your theory it's not just Man that was created at a certain time, but innumerable other species, too.

Have you read Origin of the Species?!?!? Punctuated Equilibrium theory violates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although I would agree with you that PE fits the evidence while the TOE does not!!

 

[konradv]

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

I'd be happy with a single example.

Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.

Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence? Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

I'd be happy with a single example.

The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out. Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.

"It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."

Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views

 

[Hollie]

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.

If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

It's the best site on web.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'd be happy with a single example.

Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.

Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence? Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

 

[konradv]

A resounding yes!!! The Bible teaches this... a stepped Creation. What separates a Deist from a Theist is the belief that, unlike the Deist God who set everything in motion and walked away, the Theist God continues to move and act within Creation. I believe God planted a new model, Homo Sapien, squarely on the planet at a specific point in history. The fossil evidence currently supports his VERY SUDDEN appearance. Archaeology may find evidence to the contrary, which could call many Theist belief systems into question, but as for now, there simply isn't ANY fossil evidence to the contrary, and some that was SLIGHTLY to the contrary, has shown to have been a fraud.

A very sudden appearance doesn't prove anything. That's explained by Punctuated Equilibrium. Using your theory it's not just Man that was created at a certain time, but innumerable other species, too.

Have you read Origin of the Species?!?!? Punctuated Equilibrium theory violates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although I would agree with you that PE fits the evidence while the TOE does not!!

It's not a new theory, but a refinement of the old. Nothing about Darwin's theory contradicts PE. They just had different ideas about the time course. If he were alive today, I'm sure Darwin would embrace PE as a better explanation for what's found in the fossil record, like Newton would have applauded Einstein.

 

[konradv]

Homo Sapien. The very best un-disputed fossil evidence puts him here about 17,000 to 19,000 years ago.

Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence? Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull". What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.

 

[konradv]

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.

If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

It's the best site on web.

Have you checked out this site? Wondering what you thought.

Evolution of DNA

 

[konradv]

I'd be happy with a single example.

The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out. Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.

"It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."

Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views

Sorry, but the Evolution of the Horse timeline was published long before Wiki came into existence. You can't use that dodge.

 

[UltimateReality]

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.

If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

It's the best site on web.

All that site does is prove that Darwin's Theory needs some serious revisiting. If GRADUAL changes occur over millions of years, we should be able to find more than just punctuated examples. There are HUGE gaps in the primate evidence presented on this site.

Hollie, here is an alternate description of your "fact" of evolution:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=related]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie,

Instead of blindly accepting your religion, it is always good to study opposing viewpoints.

"Although on the face of it, the whale transition seems to be a relatively nice progression of forms, the main problem is that the transition takes place in far too narrow a window of time for it to be reasonably attributed to a Darwinian process.

The sheer force of this conundrum is only properly appreciated when one considers the multiple feats of anatomical novelty, innovative engineering and genetic rewiring necessary to change a terrestrial mammal like Pakicetus into a fully aquatic whale. Indeed, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg has argued that even many of the relatively minor changes are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the timeframe allowed. Consider the following small sample of necessary modifications: …"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/whale-evolution-time-frame-too-narrow-for-a-darwinian-process/


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM]Dr. David Berlinski: What Does It Take for Change? (Clip 5) - YouTube[/ame]