Page 1 of 14 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 348
  1. #1
    Jzyehoshua's Avatar
    Jzyehoshua is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default A New Argument on Creationism

    I call it new, because I've found my points are generally pretty unique. So here's what I'd like to say:

    1. PARENT SPECIES. Darwin himself recognized that evolution's theory of a common ancestor has a competing alternative, what he termed 'parent species', and that there is "presumptive or even strong evidence" in favor:

    "When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."
    -Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", pages 16-17
    Now, why is it that, over a century after his famous book, we still have not seriously considered the opposing theory to evolution that Darwin himself recognized had strong evidence in favor of it? Scientists are happy to explore their favored theory of evolution, but what research, if any, is being done on parent species? There has been no objectivity in considering opposing theories to evolution, because the search is not for the truth, but to prop up a favored worldview.

    We have tons of evidence for speciation and natural selection. What we do not have evidence for is INTER-speciary evolution, that species become entirely different species. If Darwin was right in stating there is strong evidence for parent species, the possibility remains that the Bible is right, and animals evolve only within species or kinds - dogs adapt to the environment to become subspecies of dogs, yet came from a common dog ancestor - there is no true common ancestor for all species.

    This would explain Darwin's other concerns about his theory:

    "These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:— Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

    Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

    Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

    Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"
    -Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", Ch. VI, "Difficulties On Theory", page 171.
    The lack of transitional forms, evidence of irreducible complexity, evidence of intelligent design, and sterility in interspeciary breeding, would all be considered evidence for parent species, and a weakness in Darwin's own theory of a common ancestor, aka evolution.

    2. TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Everyone knows the tired old examples of Java Man, Piltdown Man, and other frauds, so I won't bother mentioning them. Rather, I want to present points I've found from my reading of science and news articles over the past decade which you're probably not aware of. Evolution's history of transitional forms has been taking a MAJOR hit just over the past 5 years.

    Scientists are increasingly acknowledging the human evolutionary tree now looks like a "messy bush" with branches going everywhere.

    "Another discovery by Dr. Leakey challenged the prevailing view that the family tree had a more or less single trunk rising from ape roots to a pinnacle occupied by Homo sapiens. Yet here was evidence that the new species Kenyanthropus platyops co-existed with Lucy’s afarensis kin. The family tree now looks more like a bush with many branches. 'Just because there’s only one human species around now doesn’t mean it was always that way,' Dr. Grine said."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...ance.html?_r=1

    "The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.... In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said. It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936...human-origins/
    So what are these discoveries which have forced the scientific community to recognize this?

    1 - Discovery of Ardipithecus Ramidus walking upright upsets belief that humans were similar to modern apes and suggests that 'Lucy' and Australopithecus were not part of the human evolutionary chain.
    2 - Discovery that Homo Erectus did not evolve from Homo Habilis since they lived at same time.
    3 - Discovery of Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', though at first heralded as a new missing link, proves to be an offshoot like the Neanderthal.
    4 - Discovery that Orrorin Tugenesis and Sahelanthropus lived too early.

    To quote from some news articles:

    "The phrase "family bush" doesn't trip off the tongue the way "family tree" does, but anyone talking about human evolution had better get used to it... Two fossils discovered in Kenya suggest that evolution was a lot messier than that. One of the specimens, found just east of Kenya's Lake Turkana, is the upper jaw bone of a habilis from 1.44 million years ago; habilis was thought to have become extinct about 1.6 million years ago... The evidence that Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived at the same time in the Turkana basin makes it "unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis," says Meave Leakey, a lead author of the paper announcing the discovery in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature... The discoverers are sticking by their guns, and even Tattersall agrees that their conclusion—that erectus and habilis overlapped in time and that habilis was not the direct ancestor of erectus—is probably right. Which leads to perhaps the greatest puzzle of all. Throughout human evolution, several species of ancestors lived at the same time. The most recent, of course, were Neanderthals, which made their last stand in the Iberian peninsula about 35,000 years ago. Then why is Homo sapiens the one and only species of human on the planet today?"

    http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/07/t...ily-shrub.html

    "The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree... The biggest surprise about Ardipithecus's biology is its bizarre means of moving about. All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees."

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-ramidus.html

    "'A lot of people were happy to hypothesize that as you went back, into that first half of human evolution since the last common ancestor, as you found these fossils they'd be increasingly chimpanzee-like,' said Tim D. White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a leader of the research team. 'We have something getting pretty close to it in time, and it turns out it doesn't look chimpanzee-like; it's an unexpected combination of characteristics, some of which are new in evolution and put this pretty firmly on our side of the family tree and some others that are very primitive.'... "I think it's a siginficant discovery ... and will generate an enormous amount of controversy," said Johanson, anticipating the storm of debate over the coming years as scientists try to understand whether this creature walked on two feet or how to understand its strange mixture of traits. "I think it's very important to say that this supports the long held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes.""

    http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...uman_skeleton/

    "Previously, the hominid Homo habilis was thought to have evolved into the more advanced Homo erectus, which evolved into us. Now, habilis and erectus are thought to be sister species that overlapped in time. The new fossil evidence reveals an overlap of about 500,000 years during which Homo habilis and Homo erectus must have co-existed in the Turkana basin area, the region of East Africa where the fossils were unearthed."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6937476.stm

    "The new estimate supports claims that recently discovered primate fossils, the Millennium man (Orrorin tugenesis) and Sahelanthropus, are not on the human lineage but belong rather to an ancestral lineage from which both humans and chimps evolved. The results are detailed in the February issue of the journal PLoS Genetics. The new estimate fails to square up with previous molecular estimates for the divergence date, not to mention the fossil evidence on hominids, said Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History."

    http://www.livescience.com/4406-huma...in-pinned.html

    "In the 1990s, scientists finally crossed the Lucy divide. In Kenya, Meave G. Leakey of the celebrated fossil-hunting family came up with Australopithecus anamensis, which lived about four million years ago and appeared to be an afarensis precursor. Another discovery by Dr. Leakey challenged the prevailing view that the family tree had a more or less single trunk rising from ape roots to a pinnacle occupied by Homo sapiens. Yet here was evidence that the new species Kenyanthropus platyops co-existed with Lucy’s afarensis kin... Two even earlier specimens are even harder to interpret. One found in Kenya by a French team has been dated to six million years and named Orrorin tugenensis. The teeth and bone pieces are few, though the discoverers think a thigh fragment suggests that the individual was a biped — a walker on two legs... Other challenges arise from human evolution in more recent epochs. Just who were the “little people” found a few years ago in a cave on the island of Flores in Indonesia? The Australian and Indonesian discoverers concluded that one partial skeleton and other bones belonged to a now-extinct separate human species, Homo floresiensis, which lived as recently as 18,000 years ago.""

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...ewanted=2&_r=1
    In summary, you have a rapidly growing number of offshoots just not part of the human lineage, which now include some of the most major sections of what was once considered the human evolutionary tree. Scientists are also being forced to concede ancient humans looked nothing like modern apes, and actually underwent very little evolution with regards to their walking methods, for example. This could be strong evidence for a human ancestor that underwent changes after a global Flood, after which mankind began living closer to one century rather than ten, and the theory of parent species, rather than evolutionary theory.

    3. THE SCOPES TRIAL. Having read the Scopes Trial transcript, I noticed there was no actual evidence presented for evolution itself. Rather, Darrow simply made a series of attacks on the Bible, without actually proving that macroevolution is science. We know microevolution, minor changes within a species, or what Darwin called Parent Species, is scientifically evidenced. What we don't see is evidence for a common ancestor or everything coming about from nothing. As pointed out by WhatYouOughtToKnow.com:

    “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening,” says Dawkins. “It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you – the detective – hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English.” But ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh! Dr. Dawkins! Pick me! Pick me! Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It’s like seeing two bones on the ground 40 feet apart and assuming it came from the same animal. Skullcap, thigh bone – Java Man!

    The evidence of evolution may indeed spell out a message in plain English. We’ve never seen it happen. We can’t prove it happened, we can’t reproduce it, but it’s the best we’ve got, so we have to believe it. Which is a pretty poor qualifier for teaching it as an undeniable fact to impressionable young minds. Why don’t we just teach the truth? We don’t know how life came about. Why is that so threatening? You can’t prove that evolution happened, or that it didn’t. It’s beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. And if we were to subject evolutionary theory to the same rigors that scientists want to impose on ID, it probably wouldn’t pass the test to be classified as science, either.

  2. #2
    Prunepicker is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    23,336
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Very nice. You're thoughts really aren't that unique. The evidence you
    provided has been used for years.

    The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a species evolved
    into another species. Virtually everything that evolutionists (I no
    longer call them scientists) use is extrapolation.

    I don't argue Creationism, per se. I simply show that the evidence
    for evolution, i.e. species evolving into other species, doesn't exist.

    Oh, be prepared for some of the most unscientific hate-speech
    you've ever encountered. As with homosexuality, facts don't matter
    too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

    Flame on!
    I'm an Okie from California.

  3. #3
    ljbab728 is offline Gold Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    10,801

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    As with homosexuality, facts don't matter
    too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

    Flame on!
    It's nice that you finally agree with me. LOL

  4. #4
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    But dogs do all share a fairly recent common ancestor.

  5. #5
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.


    Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.

  6. #6
    Jzyehoshua's Avatar
    Jzyehoshua is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by HewenttoJared View Post
    And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.

    Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.
    The articles clearly do show a weakening of the transitional forms. Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis living side by side? That's a HUGE blow to the human evolutionary 'tree', as is the fact that scientists are now being forced to call it a messy bush. And an article titled "Move Over Lucy, And Kiss The Missing Link Goodbye", from no less than National Geographic? That shows just how serious the findings that Ardipithecus walked upright were, with National Geographic recognizing it casts into doubt the placement of 'Lucy' in the human lineage. Knocking off Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tugenesis from the human lineage is key as well, and the finding of Homo Habilis, 'Hobbit Man', as yet another offshoot, after it was originally heralded as a missing link, just adds to the growing mix of debunked transitional forms.

    As for Darwin, I read the book for myself - if you think I'm taking him out of context, explain how so. He did state concerns about his theory because he was honest, from what I can tell. I didn't bother going over his 'dismantling' of them because he didn't dismantle them, or he wouldn't have called them serious concerns. He thought the fossil record's lack of transitional forms would be fixed after a few decades and better understanding of the fossil record - which never happened. He thought sterility due to interspeciary breeding was a lack of familiarity with animal interspeciary breeding - now that familiarity is available to us, and we can recognize that sterility as a huge objection to Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you think he dismantled his posed objections, then explain how so.

  7. #7
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    No, it really isn't a huge blow to their status as demonstrating transition. And if you think it is you need to read some very fundamental work on the entire theory, because something is wrong with the version of it that exists in your head.

  8. #8
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    And that Lucy article only demonstrates that our ancestors were not exactly like chimps. That is not damning at all to the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, and in fact supports the notion thoroughly. These articles are about revisions in the details of our immediate family tree., but that doesn't mean they don't completely support the idea that we have a family tree.

    Notice how the article doesn't use the term "debunked transitional form". But you do. Why do you think that is?

  9. #9
    Jzyehoshua's Avatar
    Jzyehoshua is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    Very nice. You're thoughts really aren't that unique. The evidence you provided has been used for years.

    The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a species evolved into another species. Virtually everything that evolutionists (I no longer call them scientists) use is extrapolation.

    I don't argue Creationism, per se. I simply show that the evidence for evolution, i.e. species evolving into other species, doesn't exist.

    Oh, be prepared for some of the most unscientific hate-speech you've ever encountered. As with homosexuality, facts don't matter too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

    Flame on!
    It's been used for years by ME. I haven't heard anyone before, online or elsewhere, bring up Darwin's comments on parent species. I also haven't seen publicized much, at least in Creationist circles, the new weakening of transitional forms we've discovered over the past decade. If you know someone else who's been making these points, I'd love to see a link or source for this, I'd always thought they were unique. :S

    Concerning Creationism, I don't think it OR evolution should be taught in science classrooms. The Brothers Winn, i.e. WhatYouOughtToKnow.com, make this point very well, suggesting both should be taught in philosophy classes or something. My interest is not in disproving evolution, which I think is likely impossible, but rather, in showing that Creationism can have a reasonable basis as a competing theory to Evolution, if considered in the form of Parent Species that Darwin acknowledged.

    It's become too common for liberals to superioristically write off as intellectually inferior those who so much as consider Creationism plausible, as though it's been disproved the same way the earth being flat has. Yet evolution is still very much a theory, and one that has been weakening as we gather more evidence. The classic bait and switch occurred, with people inferring that because there was evidence for microevolution, small adaptations within species, that macroevolution, a theoretical belief that interspeciary evolution occurs and all species have a common ancestor, was rock-solidly proven. I intend to argue that the evidence is increasingly pointing the other way, towards the parent species, i.e. microevolution, that Darwin recognized as the competing alternative to his theory of a common ancestor, i.e. macroevolution.

    I simply want to show this is not a finished debate, and that there is evidence for the other side as well, that microevolution, parent species, may be considered a reasoned, plausible theory along with evolution.

  10. #10
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    But your musings on the theory demonstrate that you do not mind blabbing about scientific realities that you have never bothered to fully master. Thats why we use creationism as a litmus test.

  11. #11
    Jzyehoshua's Avatar
    Jzyehoshua is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by HewenttoJared View Post
    And that Lucy article only demonstrates that our ancestors were not exactly like chimps. That is not damning at all to the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, and in fact supports the notion thoroughly. These articles are about revisions in the details of our immediate family tree., but that doesn't mean they don't completely support the idea that we have a family tree.

    Notice how the article doesn't use the term "debunked transitional form". But you do. Why do you think that is?
    More like "nothing like chimps". Your subtle word variation is false. To quote the article:

    "This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between."
    They do say, "The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree." They also say, "If White and his team are right that Ardi walked upright as well as climbed trees, the environmental evidence would seem to strike the death knell for the "savanna hypothesis"—a long-standing notion that our ancestors first stood up in response to their move onto an open grassland environment."

    You're talking about the destruction of a longstanding hypothesis that humans came from chimp lookalikes, and the way humans began walking upright - the Savanna Hypothesis. Stuff that's been getting taught about basic human evolution in science classes for decades has been instantly shown to be false. You and many of the scientists making these discoveries would love to just write them off as revisions, and avoid focusing on how it weakens evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, that is the end result.

  12. #12
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Yes, and it is replaced with the idea that humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was something else. It is most definitely NOT replaced with the notion that we do not share a common ancestor. It's an interesting detail, to be sure, but it doesn't in any way reduce the evidence for evolution.

    If someone was teaching the Savannah hypothesis as fact then that was a mistake. It was a reasonable option, but its never been an established fact, like the spherical earth or evolution.

  13. #13
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    To be perfectly frank your notion of parent species is just a misreading of that term. Darwinism has parent species, the modern synthesis has parent species, even Lamarckism has parent species. Perhaps you should find a new term for whatever it is you are describing.

  14. #14
    Jzyehoshua's Avatar
    Jzyehoshua is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by HewenttoJared View Post
    Yes, and it is replaced with the idea that humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was something else. It is most definitely NOT replaced with the notion that we do not share a common ancestor. It's an interesting detail, to be sure, but it doesn't in any way reduce the evidence for evolution.

    If someone was teaching the Savannah hypothesis as fact then that was a mistake. It was a reasonable option, but its never been an established fact, like the spherical earth or evolution.
    Of course it's not replaced by such a theory, because that would be contrary to the atheistic beliefs of most scientists. The scientific method only ensures objective evaluation of a theory, it does not remove bias from the choosing of the theory. That is why the scientific community will only consider theories that fit an anti-Biblical worldview, that held by the majority of them, since they're liberal. That's why a century + later, we still haven't given consideration to the alternate theory of parent species. There is no honesty in considering other theories, no matter how weakened evolution becomes in terms of evidence. It will always just be 'revised' rather than reconsidered.

  15. #15
    HewenttoJared is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,112

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Parent species is not an alternative theory. It's a term, with a meaning, used by any theory. Whatever it is that you are describing as an alternative theory you need to find a new term.

    The suggestion that someone could master the basic concepts of evolutionary theory without knowing this is preposterous. Would you trust a mechanic that wasn't sure what engines are for?

  16. #16
    Prunepicker is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    23,336
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
    Of course it's not replaced by such a theory, because that would be
    contrary to the atheistic beliefs of most scientists.
    Since when have most scientists been atheistic? Do you mean as
    not believing in God or trying to be objective? Is there a valid poll?
    I'm an Okie from California.

  17. #17
    Prunepicker is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    23,336
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    There's one thing that can't be denied and that's the fact that
    humans and chimps don't have the same ancestry. Chimps come from
    chimps and vice versa.

    Another fact that can't be denied is that every species, without
    exception, comes after it's own kind. This is something those in the
    religion of evolution can't stand. Take the chimp, for instance. There
    isn't a species that proceeded it and evolved into the current species
    and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of a chimp evolving into
    another species.

    We must keep in mind that when evolutionists talk about evolution
    they really mean a species becoming different species regardless of
    the fact that every single shred of evidence points to the contrary.
    They try to convolute the word by saying it means any change,
    which is really adaptation, but that is rarely, if ever, the case.
    I'm an Okie from California.

  18. #18
    Roadhawg is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,255

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    There's one thing that can't be denied and that's the fact that
    humans and chimps don't have the same ancestry. Chimps come from
    chimps and vice versa.

    Another fact that can't be denied is that every species, without
    exception, comes after it's own kind. This is something those in the
    religion of evolution can't stand. Take the chimp, for instance. There
    isn't a species that proceeded it and evolved into the current species
    and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of a chimp evolving into
    another species.

    We must keep in mind that when evolutionists talk about evolution
    they really mean a species becoming different species regardless of
    the fact that every single shred of evidence points to the contrary.
    They try to convolute the word by saying it means any change,
    which is really adaptation, but that is rarely, if ever, the case.
    So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth? Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

    Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what was necessary for survival.

  19. #19
    Jzyehoshua's Avatar
    Jzyehoshua is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    Since when have most scientists been atheistic? Do you mean as
    not believing in God or trying to be objective? Is there a valid poll?
    Yes, polls and studies have shown that most scientists don't believe in God or doubt, just like most medical professionals do believe in God. Here's a 1996 study:

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

    I probably should have used the term agnostic though, as more might be that than atheists.

  20. #20
    Roadhawg is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,255

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    so you're saying most intelligent people doubt there is a God?

  21. #21
    USG'60's Avatar
    USG'60 is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,220

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Roadhawg View Post
    So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth? Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

    Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what was necessary for survival.
    Actually, I think he believes it is 10,000 years old.

  22. #22
    Roadhawg is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,255

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by USG'60 View Post
    Actually, I think he believes it is 10,000 years old.
    Living in the dark ages with that kind of thinking

  23. #23
    Prunepicker is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    23,336
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Roadhawg View Post
    So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth?
    Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?
    What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roadhawg View Post
    Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into
    something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the
    environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what
    was necessary for survival.
    There's no evidence of any of that happening. None. It's all
    speculation while attempting to take similarities of different species
    and extrapolating that information into species evolving into other
    species. This, according to the facts obtained by science, has never
    happened and they're champing at the bit to find just one instance.
    I'm an Okie from California.

  24. #24
    Prunepicker is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    23,336
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
    I probably should have used the term agnostic though, as more might
    be that than atheists.
    That would have been better and accurate.
    I'm an Okie from California.

  25. #25
    USG'60's Avatar
    USG'60 is offline Participating Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,220

    Default Re: A New Argument on Creationism

    Quote Originally Posted by Prunepicker View Post
    What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion.
    What that means is that he DOES believe it is ten thousand yr old, and that it happened just like the bible says but he also knows that all of us with educations would decend on him like vultures. He loves to ridicule but hates receiving it ......like the rest of us, I reckon. :-)

Page 1 of 14 123456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Stucco argument continues in Bricktown
    By betts in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 03:27 PM
  2. Vatican: "Creationism a New Kind of Paganism"
    By Midtowner in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 11:22 AM
  3. Creationism or Evolution?
    By Rev. Bob in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 07:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1