Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PostmodernProph]

As to the last, it did happen last week Thursday. It happens all the time. But each change is miniscule.

sorry, but changing from a single celled organism to a multicelled organism is NOT miniscule.....now, make up your mind....did it happen last Thursday or not.....has it ever happened again since it first happened and if so, which creatures out there are NOT related to all the other creatures and how do we identify them?.....

Haven't I already explained that to you?

Oh right, you blew it off because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Nevermind!

I didn't need you to explain it....I needed you to prove it scientifically.....and admitting you can't do that doesn't fit YOUR agenda......

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..

And the science of the walking dead..

There was a talking donkey, too.

If you tell an evolutionist that a donkey talked then he will laugh. But when they tell us that you and I came from a rock we are suppose to say that is science.

I guess the only problem you should have is that the donkey spoke too soon. Give him a trillion years and you would be okay with it.

Really guy? Come back when you have more up your sleeve than just straw manning. That isn't an argument.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Which is not actually what you mean. And you know it.

What are you talking about? Of course that's what I meant. If I didn't mean it then why would I say it?

Of course that is what you meant to say. But you don't really mean that it is just the change of organisms over time. You mean that it is the change of kinds such that you have a human and a banana evolving from a common ancestor. No such change has ever been observed.

Again with the over simplification. Still your argument is flawed. You will accept that small changes can occur in organisms over small period of time but can't admit that those will eventually culminate in large changes over large periods of time. That position doesn't make any sense.

 

[Steven_R]

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E]Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

Many people don't realize that the fossil record is by its very nature is imperfect and incomplete. Therefore there very well may be missing links in the evolutionary chain that will remain missing forever because no such organism became a fossil after it died.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Has God talked directly to you? No, I think you believe what someone who lived 2,000 years ago has told you in the Bible. Even Reagan said "trust but verify".

Yes, directly through his word.

And yes, His word can be both trusted and verified.

If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope? Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope. No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.

I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?

 

[Steven_R]

You weren't there when the Bible was written. How can you be sure it's accurate?

 

[THE LIGHT]

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

Many people don't realize that the fossil record is by its very nature is imperfect and incomplete. Therefore there very well may be missing links in the evolutionary chain that will remain missing forever because no such organism became a fossil after it died.

Evolutionist: We have mountains of evidence!!!

Creationist: Oh really? Where?

Evolutionist: just look below you!

Creationist: I am. All I see is fossils and bones. You do understand that when things die they leave bones behind and when they die quickly in the presence of a flood, they leave fossils behind. Those fossils and bones are representative of the organism that they came from. The fossils and bones that you and I see prove nothing but that something died and in the case of the fossils that something died and was buried quickly. So where is the evidence of evolutionism (i.e. transition between kinds)? You know... the transitional links.

Evolutionist: Well, um... you have to understand those are missing.

Creationist: I see, so there is mountains of evidence, but it is all missing.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

So you are saying complex things can evolve rapidly or perhaps "just show up one day", but less complex things take millions upon millions of years.

 

[Steven_R]

Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?

 

[Steven_R]

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

So you are saying complex things can evolve rapidly or perhaps "just show up one day", but less complex things take millions upon millions of years.

Rapid and slow are subjective. It takes as long as it takes. It isn't like there's a timetable or calendar life for forms to follow.

 

[THE LIGHT]

What are you talking about? Of course that's what I meant. If I didn't mean it then why would I say it?

Of course that is what you meant to say. But you don't really mean that it is just the change of organisms over time. You mean that it is the change of kinds such that you have a human and a banana evolving from a common ancestor. No such change has ever been observed.

Again with the over simplification.

You are the one over simplifying. You started out by saying...

<snip>

It is merely the change of organisms over time. That's it.

Still your argument is flawed. You will accept that small changes can occur in organisms over small period of time but can't admit that those will eventually culminate in large changes over large periods of time. That position doesn't make any sense.

It is not making any sense to you because evolutionism doesn't make any sense. But that is the "simple" analysis.

Your confusion comes from the fact that you are making two dependent assumptions which require circular reasoning to prove. Each time your belief in evolutionism blinds you to the simple truth.

First you assume everything had a common ancestor. Therefore, since all we have ever observed is changes within kinds and because those are slow; changes between kinds must be really really slow. Thus, the earth must be millions of years old. You then use this assumption to prove that the earth must be millions of years old because evolutionism would require it. If the earth were only a few thousand years old the changes that you assume would never add up.

In other words the age of the earth from an evolutionists point of view is a floating variable that changes from day to day in order to support their assumption that everything had a common ancestor.

This brings us back to my original point that you say that evolution is just "change over time", but what you really mean is that it is change over time with a common ancestor (a.k.a. a warm pond of gooo).

 

[THE LIGHT]

I hear a talk one time about the evolution of the eye and how it may have gone from no eye to a fully functional eye in as little as 250,000 generations. Let's take an animal like a super primitive proto-fish or something that has one new generation per year. In the space of a whopping quarter of a million years we go from blind to eye. 250,000 is blink in geologic terms. It wouldn't be surprising if it looked like beings with eyes just showed up one day with no fossilized precedents.

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

So you are saying complex things can evolve rapidly or perhaps "just show up one day", but less complex things take millions upon millions of years.

Rapid and slow are subjective. It takes as long as it takes. It isn't like there's a timetable or calendar life for forms to follow.

Rapid and slow are relative to one another. They relate to one another whether there are units involved or not. You are saying that complex things evolved rapidly such that they "just showed up one day". While everything else took millions upon millions of years.

The only subjective calendar I know of is the one Charlie Darwin came up with by pulling numbers out of thin air.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?

I have. The problem is I actually critically think through it. You blindly accept it as gospel.

 

[PratchettFan]

Has God talked directly to you? No, I think you believe what someone who lived 2,000 years ago has told you in the Bible. Even Reagan said "trust but verify".

Yes, directly through his word.

And yes, His word can be both trusted and verified.

If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope? Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope. No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.

I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?

The giraffe question has been answered. Now you answer one. If plants and animals do not change over time, explain how it is possible to have chihuahuas and great danes.

 

[alang1216]

If you saw a short-necked, antelope-like animal wandering the forest a million years ago would you be able to accept that was the ancestor of the giraffe AND the antelope? Just an off-the-top-of-head hypothetical but the idea being that ancestor was both a giraffe and an antelope. No different from saying the ancestor of the monkey and of man was both.

I wasn't here a million years ago. Neither were you and neither was this world. You are just dodging the question. How did the giraffe evolve?

There is abundant evidence that the earth is very old. Either the earth is old or your God is deceiving you and can't be trusted. Which I guess would explain why so many people trust what others have told them and not their own eyes.

Not sure what more information you're looking for on giraffe evolution please clarify. If it is the biblical "kinds" then don't sweat it, there is no such thing. Biology recognizes species but has no definition of "kind" and, in truth, I've never heard anyone be able to define what a biblical "kind" is. Can you?

When it comes to the fossil record you should think of each fossil as a letter of the alphabet. Each is pretty meaningless alone but put a few together and you have a word that conveys meaning. Put enough together and you have a sentence that can put the words in context. Put the sentences together and you have the story of life on earth. You are welcome to remain illiterate but you should know that is how you sound to those who have taken the time and made the effort to read.

 

[BillyP]

Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?

I have. The problem is I actually critically think through it. You blindly accept it as gospel.

He's thought through it and concludes that an invisible superbeing made the world in 6 days because he needed the seventh day to rest.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You weren't there when the Bible was written. How can you be sure it's accurate?

so lets get this straight......you question the accuracy of a text handed down from person to person for two thousand years, but believe without doubt a bone dug out of the ground in 1927 because a guy with a science degree told you to?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Instead of blindly taking the talking points of anti-science types as gospel (pun definitely intended), why don't you take a couple classes or just sit down with an Evolutionary Biology textbook and see what we've actually discovered?

after spending fifteen years arguing with evolutionists on the internet, I doubt there is anything about evolution that hasn't been raised at least ten times......I know what you've discovered and I know what you've ignored.....

 

[Steven_R]

I can learn any field of science, from chemistry to physics to biology to genetics, and I could even lower myself to learn geology. I can run any experiment that has ever be run. I can examine all the scientific data that has ever been gathered. I can report my findings and have other people in the field look them over and publically smack me down if I step outside of the scientific process. I can trust but verify.

Or I can be handed a 3000 year old book and be told it's the truth because the book says so and if I don't just go with the book I'm burning forever. Oh, and I can't verify the truth the book claims.

Yeah, totally the same thing.