The creationists are BACK

[peach174]

Note where it says - "missing links" are missing.

The evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Until they find the missling link, it is still just a theory and should be taught so, not as fact.

 

[Newby]

Evolution isn't about how life started.

This is an instance where the creationists who believe in God's guiding hand in evolution sound so much smarter than the creationists who just scoff their nose at all basic science like evolution.

Isn't the title of this thread, 'The Creationists are back'??? So, why are we talking about evolution then? When you can tell me what we evolved from and show the fossil that is the so called 'missing link' that proves that humans 'evolved' from some other animal, then perhaps you'll have my attention. Until then, your scientific theory is no better than any other. They have yet to prove ANY evolution from ANY animal into another animal, let alone a human being. Evolution within species, yes, evolution between species, NO.

Show us where evolutionists have claimed evolution between species. ALL evolution is within a species. You're creating a controversy where none exists and all you're doing is showing your ignorance of the theory. Like my HS bio teacher said, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". I think you should take that advice before commenting and saying things that are patently untrue. Evolution is based on DIVERGENCE, so all along the evolutionary path an individual was of the same species as their parents and their offspring, but that may not be the case when going back or forth several thousand generations.

We have always been human, period. Every species has been shown to change throughout the millenium to adapt to different surroundings within their own species. I have said nothing that is untrue, I've simply uncovered the lie that's being perpetuated that it has been proven that man has supposedly evolved from some other animal. This is what is implied to supposedly debunk the existance of God and the truth of the Bible. So, many thanks for clearing that up for us all.

 

[Newby]

Note where it says - "missing links" are missing.

The evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Until they find the missling link, it is still just a theory and should be taught so, not as fact.

Peach, we can all rest easy now, they're not arguing that the theory proves evolution between species, just within species.

 

[konradv]

Isn't the title of this thread, 'The Creationists are back'??? So, why are we talking about evolution then? When you can tell me what we evolved from and show the fossil that is the so called 'missing link' that proves that humans 'evolved' from some other animal, then perhaps you'll have my attention. Until then, your scientific theory is no better than any other. They have yet to prove ANY evolution from ANY animal into another animal, let alone a human being. Evolution within species, yes, evolution between species, NO.

Evolution: Humans: Humankind

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How far back would you like me to start in terms of us evolving from another species?[/QUOTE]

Until you tell me what species we supposedly evolved from. Name me one animal in existance throughout scientific discovery that has been shown to evolve from another animal.

Why is that the bottom line? We have all sorts of evidence that show changes over the eons. You ask for one when any quick search would show hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. This isn't about jumping through your arbitratry hoops, but using our brains to inductively and deductively derive how life came to this point.

 

[Newby]

Evolution: Humans: Humankind

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How far back would you like me to start in terms of us evolving from another species?[/QUOTE]

Until you tell me what species we supposedly evolved from. Name me one animal in existance throughout scientific discovery that has been shown to evolve from another animal.

Why is that the bottom line? We have all sorts of evidence that show changes over the eons. You ask for one when any quick search would show hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. This isn't about jumping through your arbitratry hoops, but using our brains to inductively and deductively derive how life came to this point.

I've asked for proof of evolution between species. Evolution within species does not debunk the idea of a creator. The only way you debunk the creator theory via evolution is to prove that humans evolved from an entirely different species. That has not happened.

 

[konradv]

Note where it says - "missing links" are missing.

The evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Until they find the missling link, it is still just a theory and should be taught so, not as fact.

Peach, we can all rest easy now, they're not arguing that the theory proves evolution between species, just within species.

All that and talk of "kind" is just creationist sleight-of-hand and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Show me where an evolutionist says a dog turns into a cat. You can't, but creationistsw ill throw that out all the time. What about the word DIVERGENGE don't you understand. The achievement of a new species happens over time and is NOT because one "changes" into another.

 

[Newby]

Note where it says - "missing links" are missing.

The evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Until they find the missling link, it is still just a theory and should be taught so, not as fact.

Peach, we can all rest easy now, they're not arguing that the theory proves evolution between species, just within species.

All that and talk of "kind" is just creationist sleight-of-hand and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Show me where an evolutionist says a dog turns into a cat. You can't, but creationistsw ill throw that out all the time. What about the word DIVERGENGE don't you understand. The achievement of a new species happens over time and is NOT because one "changes" into another.

Provide an example of one that has 'diverged' over time that is now considered a new species from the one it 'diverged' from?

 

[konradv]

Evolution: Humans: Humankind

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How far back would you like me to start in terms of us evolving from another species?[/QUOTE]

Until you tell me what species we supposedly evolved from. Name me one animal in existance throughout scientific discovery that has been shown to evolve from another animal.

Why is that the bottom line? We have all sorts of evidence that show changes over the eons. You ask for one when any quick search would show hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. This isn't about jumping through your arbitratry hoops, but using our brains to inductively and deductively derive how life came to this point.

I've asked for proof of evolution between species. Evolution within species does not debunk the idea of a creator. The only way you debunk the creator theory via evolution is to prove that humans evolved from an entirely different species. That has not happened.

You're being dishonest. The proof has been given many times and the only problem is your inability to face facts. Evolution is a matter of divergence. What may not be different species in the short run, can become different in the long run. If that hasn't been proved by the fossil record, how do you account for the all the seperate creations that must have taken place, but aren't mentioned in your science text, i.e. Genesis?

 

[konradv]

Peach, we can all rest easy now, they're not arguing that the theory proves evolution between species, just within species.

All that and talk of "kind" is just creationist sleight-of-hand and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Show me where an evolutionist says a dog turns into a cat. You can't, but creationistsw ill throw that out all the time. What about the word DIVERGENGE don't you understand. The achievement of a new species happens over time and is NOT because one "changes" into another.

Provide an example of one that has 'diverged' over time that is now considered a new species from the one it 'diverged' from?

Elephants and mantees seem to have had a common anscestor. I won't make a dogmatic statement on that particular example, however. That wouldn't be scientific, i.e. the creationists' area.

 

[Newby]

All that and talk of "kind" is just creationist sleight-of-hand and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Show me where an evolutionist says a dog turns into a cat. You can't, but creationistsw ill throw that out all the time. What about the word DIVERGENGE don't you understand. The achievement of a new species happens over time and is NOT because one "changes" into another.

Provide an example of one that has 'diverged' over time that is now considered a new species from the one it 'diverged' from?

Elephants and mantees seem to have had a common anscestor. I won't make a dogmatic statement on that particular example, however. That wouldn't be scientific, i.e. the creationists' area.

Seem to have had??? Again, no proof. You're the one who is being dishonest here. Either evolution has been shown between species or it hasn't, 'divergence' has nothing to do with it. Divergence has to do with traits changing due to outside influences, it does not prove one species evolving from another.

Divergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Newby]

Why is that the bottom line? We have all sorts of evidence that show changes over the eons. You ask for one when any quick search would show hundreds, if not thousands, of examples. This isn't about jumping through your arbitratry hoops, but using our brains to inductively and deductively derive how life came to this point.

I've asked for proof of evolution between species. Evolution within species does not debunk the idea of a creator. The only way you debunk the creator theory via evolution is to prove that humans evolved from an entirely different species. That has not happened.

You're being dishonest. The proof has been given many times and the only problem is your inability to face facts. Evolution is a matter of divergence. What may not be different species in the short run, can become different in the long run. If that hasn't been proved by the fossil record, how do you account for the all the seperate creations that must have taken place, but aren't mentioned in your science text, i.e. Genesis?

You keep saying that, but have yet to show where this has happened with any kind of solid evidence.

 

[konradv]

Isn't the title of this thread, 'The Creationists are back'??? So, why are we talking about evolution then? When you can tell me what we evolved from and show the fossil that is the so called 'missing link' that proves that humans 'evolved' from some other animal, then perhaps you'll have my attention. Until then, your scientific theory is no better than any other. They have yet to prove ANY evolution from ANY animal into another animal, let alone a human being. Evolution within species, yes, evolution between species, NO.

Show us where evolutionists have claimed evolution between species. ALL evolution is within a species. You're creating a controversy where none exists and all you're doing is showing your ignorance of the theory. Like my HS bio teacher said, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". I think you should take that advice before commenting and saying things that are patently untrue. Evolution is based on DIVERGENCE, so all along the evolutionary path an individual was of the same species as their parents and their offspring, but that may not be the case when going back or forth several thousand generations.

We have always been human, period. Every species has been shown to change throughout the millenium to adapt to different surroundings within their own species. I have said nothing that is untrue, I've simply uncovered the lie that's being perpetuated that it has been proven that man has supposedly evolved from some other animal. This is what is implied to supposedly debunk the existance of God and the truth of the Bible. So, many thanks for clearing that up for us all.

That's right we're doing all this to debunk God and the Bible!!! Then who gave us the brain that would look at the fossil record and come up with the theory? Is God playing with our heads? Where did the fossils that show changes over the eons come from? Why is the Bible considered a science text and not a book with allegories and moral lessons? I have said nothing about not believing in God. Why do you make that a basic assumption? It would seem to be fear, rather than proper use of the brain we were given.

 

[konradv]

I've asked for proof of evolution between species. Evolution within species does not debunk the idea of a creator. The only way you debunk the creator theory via evolution is to prove that humans evolved from an entirely different species. That has not happened.

You're being dishonest. The proof has been given many times and the only problem is your inability to face facts. Evolution is a matter of divergence. What may not be different species in the short run, can become different in the long run. If that hasn't been proved by the fossil record, how do you account for the all the seperate creations that must have taken place, but aren't mentioned in your science text, i.e. Genesis?

You keep saying that, but have yet to show where this has happened with any kind of solid evidence.

You say there's no solid evidence, but reject any evidence out-of-hand because it doesn't fit The Book. That's not using the brain God gave you. I think He'd be very disappointed.

 

[Newby]

Show us where evolutionists have claimed evolution between species. ALL evolution is within a species. You're creating a controversy where none exists and all you're doing is showing your ignorance of the theory. Like my HS bio teacher said, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". I think you should take that advice before commenting and saying things that are patently untrue. Evolution is based on DIVERGENCE, so all along the evolutionary path an individual was of the same species as their parents and their offspring, but that may not be the case when going back or forth several thousand generations.

We have always been human, period. Every species has been shown to change throughout the millenium to adapt to different surroundings within their own species. I have said nothing that is untrue, I've simply uncovered the lie that's being perpetuated that it has been proven that man has supposedly evolved from some other animal. This is what is implied to supposedly debunk the existance of God and the truth of the Bible. So, many thanks for clearing that up for us all.

That's right we're doing all this to debunk God and the Bible!!! Then who gave us the brain that would look at the fossil record and come up with the theory? Is God playing with our heads? Where did the fossils that show changes over the eons come from? Why is the Bible considered a science text and not a book with allegories and moral lessons? I have said nothing about not believing in God. Why do you make that a basic assumption? It would seem to be fear, rather than proper use of the brain we were given.

No one is arguing that species haven't changed over the millenium, no one is claiming the Bible is a scientific text. And just because you haven't said anything about not believing in God doesn't mean that many, many people believe that the Theory of Evolution debunks the idea of God, when it clearly does not. If the Theory of Evolution can be taught in schools, then the different theories on the origins of human life should also be allowed to be taught.

 

[Newby]

You're being dishonest. The proof has been given many times and the only problem is your inability to face facts. Evolution is a matter of divergence. What may not be different species in the short run, can become different in the long run. If that hasn't been proved by the fossil record, how do you account for the all the seperate creations that must have taken place, but aren't mentioned in your science text, i.e. Genesis?

You keep saying that, but have yet to show where this has happened with any kind of solid evidence.

You say there's no solid evidence, but reject any evidence out-of-hand because it doesn't fit The Book. That's not using the brain God gave you. I think He'd be very disappointed.

This has nothing to do with the Bible, why do you keep assuming that it does? Let's take the Bible completely out of the picture and pretend like it has never existed. Even then, you have no proof that humans evolved from some other animal, or have even proven it with any other animal. Your rebuttal shows clearly that you have no answer.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Isn't the title of this thread, 'The Creationists are back'??? So, why are we talking about evolution then? When you can tell me what we evolved from and show the fossil that is the so called 'missing link' that proves that humans 'evolved' from some other animal, then perhaps you'll have my attention. Until then, your scientific theory is no better than any other. They have yet to prove ANY evolution from ANY animal into another animal, let alone a human being. Evolution within species, yes, evolution between species, NO.

Evolution: Humans: Humankind

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How far back would you like me to start in terms of us evolving from another species?[/QUOTE]

Until you tell me what species we supposedly evolved from. Name me one animal in existance throughout scientific discovery that has been shown to evolve from another animal.

The links show you the species we evolved from, I can't force you to use your mouse and click on them.

 

[Jack Fate]

Evolution: Humans: Humankind

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How far back would you like me to start in terms of us evolving from another species?[/QUOTE]

Until you tell me what species we supposedly evolved from. Name me one animal in existance throughout scientific discovery that has been shown to evolve from another animal.

The links show you the species we evolved from, I can't force you to use your mouse and click on them.

Wikipedia is not a scholarly site. College professors will not accept a paper with Wiki listed as the source. That is from the founder of Wikipeida.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The links show you the species we evolved from, I can't force you to use your mouse and click on them.

Wikipedia is not a scholarly site. College professors will not accept a paper with Wiki listed as the source. That is from the founder of Wikipeida.

Ok then click on the other, hence why I provided 2.

 

[BlindBoo]

so why, and this is the third or fourth time I've asked this, do anti-Christians insist on joining the two concepts as if belief in (or against) evolution has ANYTHING TO DO WITH CREATION????

The OP is a great example...why did gadawg start a thread about evolution/creation, if he knows the two don't have anything to do with each other?

It looks to me like it's your side that treats them as two sides of Creation Theory...not the other way around.

Looking back at the OP, it would be because people in GA were trying to get ID/Creationism discussed in a science class alongside evolution. That sounds like it would be the religious (assuming you accept the OP premise) who are tying evolution to creation.

Just sayin'.

Yeah, except that's never the way they word it.

I cannot fathom why the left, who claims to be so open to new ideas, who claims to be all about education, and higher thinking, and great concepts, and deep discussions...is always trying to keep us from teaching something.

For example, they didn't want anyone to teach children not to have sex. They said sex was natural and good, hell, they taught that to our very young children, starting in the 70s. I can remember reading books that openly discussed how normal and wonderful it was for a 3 year old girl to masturbate herself (innocently) in public. And everybody was supposed to act as if acceptance of such behavior was normal, good, right...after all, there were STUDIES that said children were sexual and suffered terribly if forced to repress or control it....

I kid you not. But while they were spoonfeeding everybody this garbage, continuing to sexualize children, opening peoples' minds to the wonderful freedom that abortion could bring, trashing the institutions of marriage, fidelity, honor, self control, religion...they were at the same time creating the illusion that teaching self-control, honor, love, committment was BACKWARD and WRONG. And finding ways to keep mainstream America from teaching their own children their own value system...by doing things like refusing to share information about abortion....by breaking the law and counseling and performing medical procedures on children who were still in their parents' homes and under their care. By religiously (!) identifying and erasing all references to morals, religion, strength of character, and often even truth, if the truth was not convenient to them, from the vocabulary of our (then) youth.

This is nothing new. This is exactly what every depraved, debased, foul tyranny does. They create a villain that people feel justified in despising, and the lower the bar little by little...these people have no value, look at them, they can't take care of their own children, they have issues, we should just get rid of them. Let's prevent them from doing this....now let's stop that.....now lets have them move here.....let's take their kids.......let's kill them. That's the way oppressive regimes operate. We see (per usual) world wide that the Christians are made to be the *enemy*. That's as it has been since the time of Christ, however. Christians know they suffer and die, the bible tells us so, and the bible gives us story after story after story of suffering, death, horror....What is alarming is that our own countrymen are so blatant. Perhaps they are so ignorant they just don't know what they are doing...but when people claim that it would just be better for everyone if we made it illegal for christians to pray on the street, in school, on television, those people are exactly in the shoes of German citizens in early Nazi Germany who swallowed what they were being told about Jews, and who were convinced that it was the right, intelligent thing to do.....and in fact if you embrace that sort of ideology you are, in fact, embracing the essence of Nazism.

Wowsers, that's quite the victim card you're trying to pull. Quite the stretch from "don't teach creationism as science" to "make it illegal for Christians to pray anywhere." Nazis? Really?


Wow.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're being dishonest. The proof has been given many times and the only problem is your inability to face facts. Evolution is a matter of divergence. What may not be different species in the short run, can become different in the long run. If that hasn't been proved by the fossil record, how do you account for the all the seperate creations that must have taken place, but aren't mentioned in your science text, i.e. Genesis?

You keep saying that, but have yet to show where this has happened with any kind of solid evidence.

You say there's no solid evidence, but reject any evidence out-of-hand because it doesn't fit The Book. That's not using the brain God gave you. I think He'd be very disappointed.

Can't reject evidence that's never been offered.

What evidence is there? Care to list it?

Nope, you won't. Because it doesn't exist. Instead you'll post another vapidism that talks about how this so-called evidence is dismissed...again, without ever identifying the proof.