Skip to main content

Article regarding Darwin's Evolution

While we have gone over and over the concept of Evolution time and time again I have at times made the statement that not all scientist are so certain about Darwin's version of things and even have doubts about their own theories. That Evolution IS a theory which is backed up by various people's FAITH in it as being the where-with-all by which everything got here. I've also stated my personal reasons for my disbelief in Evolution as the process by which every species got here and my objections were not based upon or in Religion or using Religious arguments.

The whole purpose in posting this, again, is simply to restate that whatever you accept or believe, whether it is Intelligent Design, Creationism as in "God Created" or Evolution or whatever theory you choose to accept it is nothing but each individual's FAITH base. Very few have prime thought and create, unique to themselves, a theory by which we all became what we are and how we achieved that. Even Christians who believe in Creation do not have a clue of the process by which God chose to create but have faith and rely upon God as the principle and prime Creator force which brought into being the Physical Creation we all see around us, all species, space, earth etc. by some miraculous process out of the Spiritual Realm. From the Spiritual Realm, whether by just thought or some other miraculous method, God brought about creation and established order to maintain it. That is a Christian's faith in God. Evolutionist have FAITH in Darwin or some other person who concocted a theory that brings about everything we see, the majesty of space around us with it's undefined or vast number of galaxies from absolutely NOTHING. No Intelligence, NO Matter or Mass but absolutely NOTHING. A big Bang that occurred from Nothing to expand into an undefined, unfathomable potentially infinite physical Universe full of planets, Suns, Black holes, etc and with it Intelligent LIFE. Intelligence from absolutely nothing or that's how the Evolutionist and Big Bang theory folks would have you believe. Now that takes REAL FAITH to accept such as that while discounting Faith in God as delusional.


Click for YouTube Video about article
Click for part 2 of YouTube Video

Now WHO is it among us that has continued to emphasize about the LACK of TRANSITIONAL species here and now and not just fossils. Umm who could that be????? ME?? As I said Evolution IS FALSE and not the way we got here and those which hold so dogmatically to it as if it was God still fail to address my points I presented before to dispel Evolution and why I cannot buy it. IF YOU DO BELIEVE in Evolution please rethink your positions and think about the source of your belief the source of your FAITH. There are answers but Evolution has never had those answers.


Think about it folks .... We all have faith and our beliefs have a basis. For many it's what we were taught by teachers or instructors in School or College. Many also defend these misplaced instances of Faith as if Science was GOD itself.

Those who are curious and those who are still open and interested in investigating the questions of the universe of God and who we are and why we are continue to be open to allowing GOD to speak to you as I fully believe that His (GOD's) Holy Spirit will reveal God unto those who seek to know God.


Enjoy Creation :

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )

Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Your point about what does it matter what others believe is well made except for one thing. If Evolutionist would only abide by those words then I would also agree but Evolutionist have controlled the argument and debate and excluded Creationism and Intelligent Design from the debate claiming infringement on Separation of Church and State when that's not what the First amendment said at all. Evolutionist argue that it does matter what people believe and then seek to totally eliminate all other points of view or opinion with a nuke option. Creationism and Intelligent Design and those which teach it find no possible forum in any public schools when they seek to present that there is a large segment of the population that believe Evolution is not the way we got here and in fact before Darwin most scientist accepted that "God Created" so your statement about "what does it really matter" is a double edged sword in that apparently it matters greatly when some believe against Evolution. You have a right to believe as you do and to even teach those views if you are comfortable with those beliefs. Creationist and Intelligent Design proponents however don't have those liberties and freedoms for opponents seek to squelch, totally, any dissenting views and have been very successful at doing so. In that vein it matters greatly then what people believe because they teach it and indoctrinate it as indisputable fact when ultimately, like Faith in God or other Intelligent sources, it is a matter of FAITH and not FACT.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
Your point about what does it matter what others believe is well made except for one thing. If Evolutionist would only abide by those words then I would also agree but Evolutionist have controlled the argument and debate and excluded Creationism and Intelligent Design from the debate claiming infringement on Separation of Church and State when that's not what the First amendment said at all. Evolutionist argue that it does matter what people believe and then seek to totally eliminate all other points of view or opinion with a nuke option. Creationism and Intelligent Design and those which teach it find no possible forum in any public schools when they seek to present that there is a large segment of the population that believe Evolution is not the way we got here and in fact before Darwin most scientist accepted that "God Created" so your statement about "what does it really matter" is a double edged sword in that apparently it matters greatly when some believe against Evolution. You have a right to believe as you do and to even teach those views if you are comfortable with those beliefs. Creationist and Intelligent Design proponents however don't have those liberties and freedoms for opponents seek to squelch, totally, any dissenting views and have been very successful at doing so. In that vein it matters greatly then what people believe because they teach it and indoctrinate it as indisputable fact when ultimately, like Faith in God or other Intelligent sources, it is a matter of FAITH and not FACT.


grbk,

Do you understand what a scientific theory means?

Darwin made mistakes, yes. He knew he didn't have everything figured out. However his discoveries and ideas are what got us to where we are today with our knowledge of evolution. Evolution is a fact. Id, creationism, and god are all faith based beliefs.

No one is trying to stop you from believing in those things. You go right a head. I would even go so far as to say most atheist (including myself) would fight for your right to do so.

If you want to teach it to our children in public school as a scientific theory, then I will fight you.

If you have children and you want them to believe in Id, creationism, or god, then teach them at home or in church. You have that right, be glad you do.
GBRK said, "my objections were not based upon or in Religion or using Religious arguments."

GB,

You are being disingenuous, sir. You and everyone else here knows that your objections are based on the literal account of Genesis and the fact that Evolution disagrees with the bible. The premise you support, Creationism and ID, are purely RELIGIOUS ideas that have no basis in science. This is the kind of goofyness that drives young educated people away from our faith. You are doing no service for our faith by pretending this is not a religious issue.

Another poster asked, "Why does it matter what people beleive?"

It matters because the stupidity of Creationism/ID destroys faith for those who are educated in the science. 6000 year old earth? SERIOUSLY? Fundamentalists insisting that all science is wrong and they are right because the Bible says so is simply ludicrous.

It matters because stupid people constantly try to assert their ignorance on children in a science class in public schools. No doubt, GBRK would insist that his religion be taught in science class. That, to me is not just stupid but is actually brainwashing. It is evil and very unChristian. We Christians are after TRUTH, not lies.

It matters because this is important to your health. The entire science of biology - including the knowledge that has allowed you to live as long as you have - is based on a thorough understanding of the FACT of evolution. Yes, the FACT. A child who is brainwashed into denying scientific facts will rarely become a doctor or scientists. This technological world needs EDUCATED children, not brainwashed herds of kids that one would find in the typical religious private schools around this area.

Evolution is a "theory" just as Gravitational, atomic and germ theories are "theories." When you see someone like GBRK remark that it is "just a theory" you can immediately assume he is completely ignorant in science. "Theory" in science does not have the same meaning as "theory" in common language use. It is MUCH more profound than that.
gbrk,

Sofa got you right. You're just being dishonest.

Admit here that you want to discredit evolution because it lays waste to your dogma of creation. Even if you found a scientifically valid alternative to evolution, it would not support creationism.

Here's how you can discredit evolution. Got a shovel ready? Go find a beagle in the Pre-Cambrian geological stratus. Let us know how that works out for you.

Got a better explanation for the diversity of life than Evolution? Write it up and publish it. Go ahead, destroy evolution, but creationism will be exactly where it sits right now, with all its work ahead of it and no evidence to support it.

Your assertion that there are no intermediate fossils is, bluntly, a lie. You know better, yet you repeat this fundie horse puckey in an attempt to convince yourself. But you cannot believe it. You've grown up in America, and you've been steeped in real, tangible evidence of good science.

You may prefer to attempt to destroy science, but you will not. You cannot. You and all your creatard friends do not have truth on your side.

We do. Truth will prevail.

The science communities of India and China encourage you to continue to warp the minds of children to disregard observable evidence in favor of dogmatic superstition. They know that all American has to export is knowledge, and if you can destroy the ability to understand and accept true knowledge, they will have us at their mercies. I will stop you.

It's curious that you try to discredit science by saying it's faith. You know very well that science does not require faith, does not want faith, does not need faith, and has no place for faith. Stop lying.

Faith is believing something in absence of evidence. Science is a methodological system of gathering evidence first, then making conclusions based on that evidence. The scientific method is designed to weed out faith and other prejudices when it comes to natural explanations for existence.

I would say that your Quixotic attempts to not only ignore but discredit sound knowledge is amusing, but it's damaging. I so wish you and your army of psychoterrorists would stop. Especially where children are concerned. What's it like, I've often wondered, to look into the beautiful, trusting face of a child and lie to her? I can't bring myself to do it.

Hear now the news: The bible is not a science book. It explains nothing material like life, the universe, and everything.

In the end, eventually, science will win. Either that, or we'll all have killed ourselves over conflicting notions of the gods. In the meantime, sensible people like Sofa will continue to call you out on your duplicity, and you will suffer the embarrassment of having it shown that you're not simply deliberately ignorant, but knowingly dishonest.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Faith is believing something in absence of evidence. Science is a methodological system of gathering evidence first, then making conclusions based on that evidence. The scientific method is designed to weed out faith and other prejudices when it comes to natural explanations for existence.


That was a well-played, slick bait-and-switch there. You are pretending that the two choices are "faith" or "science". That is not a legitimate analysis of the situation. You NEED that to be true, but it isn't. As pointed out before, the actual comparison is "faith in a Creator, a higher being" or "faith in a scienTIST".

Your comments require one to accept that science, using the scientific method and inductive reasoning, has proven evolution as the origin of man. It has not, and you know it.

Pro-evolution scientists, including Darwin, use deductive reasoning to examine evidence based on the premise that evolution is true. And as you know regarding deductive reasoning, it appears to be true as long as the premise is held to be true. But if the premise is not true, then the argument does not hold merit.
quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
Before reading this post, I just saw a photo on Yahoo of a fish with legs that was photographed, along with numerous other species, at the bottom of the ocean.

Species change over time and the evidence is there for anyone educated enough to see it.


EXACTLY. Perfect example of what I just wrote about premises and deductive reasoning.

Starry, when you see a fish with legs (assuming that is what it was), your mind went directly to the idea that clearly that fish must be in transition from one SPECIES to another. If that's not what you thought, then you wouldn't have stated what you did. That is an excellent example of applying deductive reasoning based on a premise to a situation.

Your premise was that fish transition to other species by growing legs. So when you see legs you ASSUME, based on the premise, that this fish would be in transition between species. But you have no actual evidence independent of your premise to take you there. Inductive reasoning would never take you to an assumption like that with no actual evidence to back it up.

So where is the scientific evidence, proof, that this fish is in transition? How do we know that this fish wasn't created with legs?
I'm not convinced that any of the "missing link" fossils even come close to filling the gaps. Looking at all the different types of certain animals that live in various parts of the world seems like proof enough of evolution. They're all just slightly different, yet they all STILL exist. One would expect the same thing as far as humans are concerned. However, there aren't any 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 humans running around (this can be debated).
quote:
Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
Before reading this post, I just saw a photo on Yahoo of a fish with legs that was photographed, along with numerous other species, at the bottom of the ocean.

Species change over time and the evidence is there for anyone educated enough to see it.


EXACTLY. Perfect example of what I just wrote about premises and deductive reasoning.

Starry, when you see a fish with legs (assuming that is what it was), your mind went directly to the idea that clearly that fish must be in transition from one SPECIES to another. If that's not what you thought, then you wouldn't have stated what you did. That is an excellent example of applying deductive reasoning based on a premise to a situation.

Your premise was that fish transition to other species by growing legs. So when you see legs you ASSUME, based on the premise, that this fish would be in transition between species. But you have no actual evidence independent of your premise to take you there. Inductive reasoning would never take you to an assumption like that with no actual evidence to back it up.

So where is the scientific evidence, proof, that this fish is in transition? How do we know that this fish wasn't created with legs?


You are correct, there is no proof there and it could very well be that the fish has always been that way.

However, we know what Neanderthal men looked like and people today look very different. I think animals have the ability to adapt to their surroundings and I think it is possible to change physical characteristics over time. Your own body does this when confronted with viruses, climate changes, etc. Over time, significant changes could occur. It would not be an overnight thing.
quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
You are correct, there is no proof there and it could very well be that the fish has always been that way.

However, we know what Neanderthal men looked like and people today look very different. I think animals have the ability to adapt to their surroundings and I think it is possible to change physical characteristics over time. Your own body does this when confronted with viruses, climate changes, etc. Over time, significant changes could occur. It would not be an overnight thing.


I see your point. Not trying to come across as harping on your argument, but when we adapt to viruses, bacteria and allergies we do not become a different species. A fish with legs would be a different species from the same fish before it grew legs. That is what we are talking about - evolutionary transformation between species - not adaptation.

I believe in adaptation, but not the evolutionary change from one species into another. I also see our ability to adapt in predictable ways (adapting to viruses, bacteria, etc that invade our bodies) as sign of intelligent creation. To believe otherwise would require to believe that I can somehow will my body to do something I don't have the knowledge to do, and without me even being aware of what is happening. That would be a magic trick alright.
quote:
Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
Your comments require one to accept that science, using the scientific method and inductive reasoning, has proven evolution as the origin of man. It has not, and you know it.


Hen,

Can you give me an honest answer to this? Do you believe that man evolved from a lump of clay and woman evolved from the rib of the man?
quote:
Your comments require one to accept that science, using the scientific method and inductive reasoning, has proven evolution as the origin of man. It has not, and you know it.

Pro-evolution scientists, including Darwin, use deductive reasoning to examine evidence based on the premise that evolution is true. And as you know regarding deductive reasoning, it appears to be true as long as the premise is held to be true. But if the premise is not true, then the argument does not hold merit.


Science has proven that human evolved from lower species. Ditto for whales, horses, and so many more species that the mechanism is a matter of fact. Where have you been, HP?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the ascent of mankind, too.

Darwin didn't have a bias toward evolution. He discovered it. He was the first to describe it. Before Darwin, life was either a mystery or explained as magic.

HP, you know we were not poofed into being out of a lump of clay. Like gb, you are shielding your eyes, plugging your ears, and pretending the 800 pound gorilla of evolutionary truth is not breathing down your neck.

It's time we all got over ourselves and admit the truth. Evolution is a demonstrated fact. It doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. It simply means that by means of genetic mutation and natural selection, species change and emerge over time. And evolutionary time is another established fact.

Have you read up on evolution? Are you familiar with how it works and the evidence for it? Would you like some references? Can you make an honest assessment of the evidence?

Or have you decided in advance that evidence and reason are intolerable in your mythology?
quote:
Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
So where is the scientific evidence, proof, that this fish is in transition? How do we know that this fish wasn't created with legs?


Hen,

There is a profound amount of evidence suggesting this concept. No, science does not simply look at one "before" picture then assume the "after" picture started out as the "before."

The evidence? Well, there is so much that it is difficult to relay here and the understanding of that evidence requires at least a 9th grade knowledge of anatomy, molecular biology, physiology, geology, anthropology and quite a few other disciplines. The sad fact is that you and most other Americans simply did not learn or chose to forget all you learned in high school and college.

But I will start with this: We found a fish in rock strata dated to about 375million years ago. Not just any fish but a fish with legs. That's not even the most important part of this. About a decade ago, a young paleontologist was wondering where the predecessors of amphibians might be found. He deduced that IF evolution was correct and that amphibians came from fish, then there ought to be fossil remains of them. He deduced that the only strata that was exposed to exploration was located in a very few parts of the word. He further deduced that if he were to explore some of that strata carefully, he wold likely fins an intermediate example of a fish that was 100% fish yet was in the process of evolving legs that would eventually allow that fish to walk over land.

So searched for years in a Canadian wilderness and, you guessed it, he found it.

What he found was a fish, a FISH, that had a basic plan that every other mammal and reptile share to this day. the fish's anatomy is so close to a human's anatomy that physicians can learn the vast majority of what they need to know about the nervous and circulatory systems of humans simply by dissecting a fish.

It's the same basic plan repeated over and over and over with a few changes here and there. If you study this one specimen and nearly countless other similar discoveries, only one completely uneducated, and proudly ignorant would deny the picture that it paints: That we are all descendants from that lowly fish. . . . Or perhaps that God planted all this evidence just to fool us into thinking that life evolved.

Hen, I am a believer who is educated in teh sciences. I know this stuff. I know a lot. That is not said to impress you but to show you that believe in a higher power and saving grace of God can also reside in the brain of an intelligent, educated man. You do not have to pretend to be ignorant in order to please God or your fundamentalist peers. God gave you a brain. Google provides the details. There is room for both God and science in one brain. Try it sometime.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
So where is the scientific evidence, proof, that this fish is in transition? How do we know that this fish wasn't created with legs?


Hen,

There is a profound amount of evidence suggesting this concept. No, science does not simply look at one "before" picture then assume the "after" picture started out as the "before."

The evidence? Well, there is so much that it is difficult to relay here and the understanding of that evidence requires at least a 9th grade knowledge of anatomy, molecular biology, physiology, geology, anthropology and quite a few other disciplines. The sad fact is that you and most other Americans simply did not learn or chose to forget all you learned in high school and college.

But I will start with this: We found a fish in rock strata dated to about 375million years ago. Not just any fish but a fish with legs. That's not even the most important part of this. About a decade ago, a young paleontologist was wondering where the predecessors of amphibians might be found. He deduced that IF evolution was correct and that amphibians came from fish, then there ought to be fossil remains of them. He deduced that the only strata that was exposed to exploration was located in a very few parts of the word. He further deduced that if he were to explore some of that strata carefully, he wold likely fins an intermediate example of a fish that was 100% fish yet was in the process of evolving legs that would eventually allow that fish to walk over land.

So searched for years in a Canadian wilderness and, you guessed it, he found it.

What he found was a fish, a FISH, that had a basic plan that every other mammal and reptile share to this day. the fish's anatomy is so close to a human's anatomy that physicians can learn the vast majority of what they need to know about the nervous and circulatory systems of humans simply by dissecting a fish.

It's the same basic plan repeated over and over and over with a few changes here and there. If you study this one specimen and nearly countless other similar discoveries, only one completely uneducated, and proudly ignorant would deny the picture that it paints: That we are all descendants from that lowly fish. . . . Or perhaps that God planted all this evidence just to fool us into thinking that life evolved.

Hen, I am a believer who is educated in teh sciences. I know this stuff. I know a lot. That is not said to impress you but to show you that believe in a higher power and saving grace of God can also reside in the brain of an intelligent, educated man. You do not have to pretend to be ignorant in order to please God or your fundamentalist peers. God gave you a brain. Google provides the details. There is room for both God and science in one brain. Try it sometime.


Sofa,
The case is more than likely; you don’t have the slightest clue as to any science for your claim.

Show the papers that back it up.

You are making a broad claim too general that a deduction about your evidence as it would relate to evolution, while it might be large on a micro scale it so disappears in the large overall theory that it is insignificant as proof of anything.

I think you are too romantic with the authority , which I assume you remember, to dazzle anyone with this attempt to put us all on a limb with bjbg’s orangutan.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
GBRK said, "my objections were not based upon or in Religion or using Religious arguments."

GB,

You are being disingenuous, sir. You and everyone else here knows that your objections are based on the literal account of Genesis and the fact that Evolution disagrees with the bible. The premise you support, Creationism and ID, are purely RELIGIOUS ideas that have no basis in science. This is the kind of goofyness that drives young educated people away from our faith. You are doing no service for our faith by pretending this is not a religious issue.

Another poster asked, "Why does it matter what people beleive?"

It matters because the stupidity of Creationism/ID destroys faith for those who are educated in the science. 6000 year old earth? SERIOUSLY? Fundamentalists insisting that all science is wrong and they are right because the Bible says so is simply ludicrous.

It matters because stupid people constantly try to assert their ignorance on children in a science class in public schools. No doubt, GBRK would insist that his religion be taught in science class. That, to me is not just stupid but is actually brainwashing. It is evil and very unChristian. We Christians are after TRUTH, not lies.

It matters because this is important to your health. The entire science of biology - including the knowledge that has allowed you to live as long as you have - is based on a thorough understanding of the FACT of evolution. Yes, the FACT. A child who is brainwashed into denying scientific facts will rarely become a doctor or scientists. This technological world needs EDUCATED children, not brainwashed herds of kids that one would find in the typical religious private schools around this area.

Evolution is a "theory" just as Gravitational, atomic and germ theories are "theories." When you see someone like GBRK remark that it is "just a theory" you can immediately assume he is completely ignorant in science. "Theory" in science does not have the same meaning as "theory" in common language use. It is MUCH more profound than that.



You are both unjustified in your incorrect assertions as you know very little about what you are talking about. I will repeat .. MY Objection to Evolution is solely based on the fact that is is NOT Factual but rather is easily disproven by any intelligent individual who has have a mind and is not blinded by their own limited abilities. There IS NOT any Transitional species which would be required to prove Evolution if it was the way we all got here. There is not only no transitional species across species but there is no transitional states between close species. Man is said to evolve from Monkey yet there is no 95% monkey 5% man, 90% monkey 10% man (and so on) in fossils or walking around alive and evident today. IF Evolution was true then those transitional states would be with us today as well as evident in the fossils. There is no transitional creatures between ANY species that can be stated to be the living or actual process of evolution. No one here or no scientist can produce one, not one transitional being. IF Evolution exited then then it exist today and there would be limitless transitional beings and species available to us now but there is nothing there but a glaring absence. Where in any of that do you, Sofa, or you BJBG find religion? You make glaring statements yet when found to be false fail to apologize or retract your statements. I've always stated my objection to Evolution is based upon the failure of evidence to prove it, prove it from the past and the present, visible to us today. Yes I am a believer yet I would have no problem associating creation by evolution with or by GOD IF I felt that Evolution exist but only a fool can look at such sparse examples which by no way can be associated together with evolution and draw the conclusion that everything evolved from one simple thing into many complex things of such vast and varying forms and states.

My objection, to Evolution, has nothing to do with my own Spiritual belief and it is both of you who are being disingenuous yet you will never admit to it for the pride you have. You are so sure of everything and just like your adherence to Evolution (which is also false) so are you characterization of my objections to Evolution being Religious based. As I said I am a Christian Believer and I believe if God wanted to create life and everything living from one single ameba or molecule then He could have and would have done so by Evolution so the two are not necessarily incompatible however Evolution is so glaringly FALSE and inconceivable to anyone with half a mind to look at the real evidence that anyone could see it could not possibly be factual whether of a Darwinian nature or Dawkins.

Again You are all wrong regarding Evolution and Extremely wrong in your characterization of myself and my reason to doubt Evolution. Get your facts right before you go making unsubstantiated acquisitions regarding that which you have so little capacity to understand or realize for you only reveal your own inadequacies before the other forum members.
quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
quote:
Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
Before reading this post, I just saw a photo on Yahoo of a fish with legs that was photographed, along with numerous other species, at the bottom of the ocean.

Species change over time and the evidence is there for anyone educated enough to see it.


EXACTLY. Perfect example of what I just wrote about premises and deductive reasoning.

Starry, when you see a fish with legs (assuming that is what it was), your mind went directly to the idea that clearly that fish must be in transition from one SPECIES to another. If that's not what you thought, then you wouldn't have stated what you did. That is an excellent example of applying deductive reasoning based on a premise to a situation.

Your premise was that fish transition to other species by growing legs. So when you see legs you ASSUME, based on the premise, that this fish would be in transition between species. But you have no actual evidence independent of your premise to take you there. Inductive reasoning would never take you to an assumption like that with no actual evidence to back it up.

So where is the scientific evidence, proof, that this fish is in transition? How do we know that this fish wasn't created with legs?


You are correct, there is no proof there and it could very well be that the fish has always been that way.

However, we know what Neanderthal men looked like and people today look very different. I think animals have the ability to adapt to their surroundings and I think it is possible to change physical characteristics over time. Your own body does this when confronted with viruses, climate changes, etc. Over time, significant changes could occur. It would not be an overnight thing.



Starry your point is well taken but my whole point in resurrecting incremental transitional beings or creatures in the process of transition from one state to another or one species to another is to say it would be most evident to everyone in every species and every form not only in fossils and the past but alive with us and before us today (IF IT WAS FACTUAL). You would have these Neanderthal specimens alive, breathing and reproducing today in parts of the world and still in the process of evolution IF IT WAS TRUE. Science teaches only what it can touch and show and disregards any possibility of a Spiritual Realm, state or being from which could spring LIFE in the forms as we see it, the many vastly different forms whether plant, insect, mammal, aquatic or whatever. Science also still knows so very little that it can actually prove. Science knows less about the earth we are on than they do the moon above us and certainly know very little about the vast Universe and how it became what it is or even how vast it is.

Think about it, think about this. The very most basic forms of life exist on this planet as they have for centuries, just as they have long ago (they still exist today) If Evolution is real and factual then there would be the same process of Evolution happening before us in every state and every increment for us to see and to prove that evolution is the way things happened. Scientist, who have their theories, say everything, complex and all, came from the most basic, plain, and actually came from NOTHING at all but just happened on it's own. Think about it! The most basic forms still exist and live today as do the complex forms that these most basic forms supposedly evolved into yet somehow these incremental transitional states stopped happening and EVERYTHING HALTED. IF TRUE evolution would provide every incremental transitional state available to you today.

I'm not trying to proselyte or convert people to Christianity or Religion at all for I've not injected Religion into this argument at all other than to say that I believe and accept that God Created and other than to say that Evolutionist do not allow any conflicting theories that have to do with creation or Intelligent Design to be taught or put forth. No one is telling anyone they have to believe in God but is it not justified to at least recognize that a great, very great, number of educated scientist before and now, do believe and accept that creation was of Intelligent source? Is it unfair or somehow slanted to recognize and admit that for centuries and historically speaking creation was the accepted method for creation before the age of Darwin and before Darwin led Science off into attempting to justify and prove evolution as the basis?
You evolutionist are so dogmatic about science proving evolution without a doubt. The evidence is there. I ask WHERE? Where are the INCREMENTAL TRANSITIONAL beings/creatures in the course of evolution that make this so undeniable?

You made the statement so produce your evidence? The most BASIC forms of life and most basic forms of matter exist on this earth as they have for eons and you have the species that you state evolved from these most basic forms yet where is your incremental transitional states of this life? Evolution by it's very nature is Unintelligent and happens without design. If it happened then and the same forms exist today exactly as they have and the elements and environment is still beneficial for life then WHERE ARE THE INCREMENTS of changes between states and species?

I'm waiting for your examples, photos, references as are anyone else reading these post. What is so undeniable about it?
quote:
You evolutionist are so dogmatic about science proving evolution without a doubt. The evidence is there. I ask WHERE? Where are the INCREMENTAL TRANSITIONAL beings/creatures in the course of evolution that make this so undeniable?


GB,

Please tell me what you would expect a "transitional" fossil to look like? If you describe the attributes of one, and I produce one or more of them, what will that tell you?
quote:
cientist, who have their theories, say everything, complex and all, came from the most basic, plain, and actually came from NOTHING



Wholly ignorant. That is NOT what science says. That is what fundamentalists such as yourself say that scientists say. Big difference.

Life did not arise from "nothing." That would be truly impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
cientist, who have their theories, say everything, complex and all, came from the most basic, plain, and actually came from NOTHING



Wholly ignorant. That is NOT what science says. That is what fundamentalists such as yourself say that scientists say. Big difference.

Life did not arise from "nothing." That would be truly impossible.


So where did this "Big Bang" come from? What is, or was the prime element?Concerning evolution starts with something and if the Big Bang" happened then what was before it??? What did it come from, if not "nothing"?
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
On scholarly site, based on academic research.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/...PDGwhales/Whales.htm


Of course, you will challenge the transitional fossils. Why? It's all laid out for you here.

Let me know if you want more.



Billy as usual you are caught lying. There is no mention in the research saying these are transitional fossils.

Most of these are accompanied by no history of where for sure they come from. nothing in any of the abstracts shed any light as to who found all of them or where. One abstract did say this:

Journalists write what they think we want to hear, and dealers sell what
they think we will buy. Most of us are educators, in some capacity, and we should do our
homework before we believe or buy extreme interpretations.

Mexican tracks that may date to 40,000 years. With the exception of one track from Chile
dated at about 12,500 years, the oldest well-documented and well-preserved hominid tracks
are from Nicaragua, California and Argentina and date to about 6-7,000 years BP. The
rramlinmnmnbrq,

It is you who lies. Did you not see the graph labeled "Cetacean Phylogeny"?

This is not journalism. This is an abstract of a scientific paper. I believe you asked for one.

Your rabid insanity led you to change the subject to hominid tracks. As though you had a point to make. Seriously, man, are you on your medicines?

You should honestly consider giving up arguing with the normally intelligent.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
rramlinmnmnbrq,

It is you who lies. Did you not see the graph labeled "Cetacean Phylogeny"?

This is not journalism. This is an abstract of a scientific paper. I believe you asked for one.

Your rabid insanity led you to change the subject to hominid tracks. As though you had a point to make. Seriously, man, are you on your medicines?

You should honestly consider giving up arguing with the normally intelligent.


< cough cough> Billy,

Billy Joe’

They have nothing to do with humans. They are crocks.

If the atheist doesn’t cease misusing archeology you are going to string-halter progress.

Many of the papers are available at pay only to prevent nut jobs like your self from easy access.

Darwin is fast becoming an avoided subject by real scientist without an agenda. Too many assumptions by Darwin have been proved to be fabrications due to his imagination not real science.

The fundy atheist will become outdated and go the way of snake handlers.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
GB,

One thing at a time. I note interest (as I assumed you would) that you chose to completely ignore my direct question concerning transitional fossils. Would you care to answer that?

Second question: do you agree that energy and matter are equivalent as stated in Einsteins famous equation E=MC^2?



There was a very legitimate and logical reason I didn't answer your question. I had typed in the response, about the "Big Bang" from Huntsville on my iPhone and before I could start to type in another response I dropped out of my wireless connection and with shuffling the wife around to her shopping places I didn't get a chance to.

My "incremental transitional" or incremental transitions I just simply mean an almost countless number of changes from primary state to complex, finished, or current advanced state.

It is also not to say past fossil evidence (which should be there also) but existing, before our eyes now, specimens for every species out there.

Again the premise is that this process of evolution is "non-intelligent" ruling out "Intelligent Design" and occurs by accident because we just happened to have the right elements connect together due to the environment being right, to support life, and all other conditions being able to be met. Today you have the same conditions there, the exact same elements are present and nothing has changed so if Evolution occurred all those years transitioning from apes to Neanderthals to common man and how may ever steps from one to the next to the next and so on there is then you should see that same thing happening today.

So by incremental transitional states I mean just that .. from the most basic (step A) all the way through to the most complex (Step Z) although there is countless more divisions and increments than 26 but I used alphabetical letters as an example. If Evolution is the true process by which all life got here then there is no reason we shouldn't see many extinct species repopulate the earth as, again, the basic elements exist and the environments are here as they were so many years past.

Yet another reason, not mentioned before, that I cannot accept Evolution is Birth itself. Similar to the old question which came fist the Chicken or the Egg. The birth process itself creates it's on quandary for the evolutionist to answer for the development of any embryo from conception to birth and development happens at such a fast rate then levels off that the intelligent process of evolution cannot answer such changes in rates of development across the various species as well as the plant world and other living materials and species. Again evolution brings everything from ONE common source and then attempts to say that we achieve what life we see due to adaptation in order to meet varying environments.

This whole process of adaptation and basic beings to most advanced would continue to be playing out before our eyes in parts of the earth if Evolution was the process by which we arrived to the point where we are.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
GB,

One thing at a time. I note interest (as I assumed you would) that you chose to completely ignore my direct question concerning transitional fossils. Would you care to answer that?

Second question: do you agree that energy and matter are equivalent as stated in Einsteins famous equation E=MC^2?


As you said "one thing at a time". No new introductions of new Questions until the prior tabled items are addressed.
BG I followed your link and I read the page however there is nothing there that is new or profound and certainly not evidence of Evolution of anything. You have various objects found in various parts of the world yet you attempt to use their findings to classify these as transitional beings. AGAIN .. IF Evolution was the exact process of getting life as we have it today, from a single element, molecule or single primary source then there should not only be countless more specimens brought forth that are in the process of changing from one state to yet another but the various beings and specimens for incremental transition from one state or being to the next should be playing out before our eyes and living today, not just fossils.

Science struggles to piece together various findings and say this is how we get from point A to point Z but somehow there is so much more missing than there is there.

Hey I have no problem if you wish to put your faith in Science and Evolution as your god and believe with your your being that you got here by an evolutionary process that's your prerogative. My problem comes from you and others like yourself who seek to control the whole debate and discussion making your dogmatic statements and then excluding any opposing views or positions as either delusional, ignorant, and lacking substance to even be heard or presented. Worse you and others discredit the Creation position to totally eliminate it from the discussion in Schools because you, falsely (as you did with me) claim it's teaching religion or violating the Separation of Church and State. With me you and others attempted to say that my opposition to Evolution was Religious based and yet when I presented my argument against evolution (without any reference to anything religious) I received nor got any form or retraction from you or the others who labeled me so. Your disingenuous attempts, as other scientist and educators to omit the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creation alongside and as a counter to evolution because you label it as teaching religion is just as wrong. Evolution, when viewed for what it teaches and is compared with other positions, unless they are completely rejected before they are taught, fails to be as persuasive as you attempt to present it. There are just too many holes in evolution to anyone that intelligently looks at the arguments against. The only way to give Evolution any kind of authority is to eliminate opposing positions before they are presented and thereby add credence to the evolutionary position since it is the ONLY one that can be presented.

Many in the Scientific community also have problems with Evolution and although they don't totally understand the process of just how we got here they do understand or believe it to be from an Intelligent Source and not just happened. In order to maintain their jobs and positions and their livelihood though they have to remain quiet or face expulsion as those in Ben Stein's presentation of Expelled showed happening.

Back to the original point of argument. There still remains NO incremental transitional beings/specimens in any species to back up and prove that their process of being here was from Evolution. The only advocates that so profoundly state such do so from their steadfast allegiance to a handful of atheist such as Darwin or Dawkins who attempt to remove God from any discussion yet failing to persuasively provide sufficient answers to defend their own theories. Thankfully they have enough blind followers who care not to investigate on their own and think through the examples put forth as proof of evolution to control the debate and disallow competing viewpoints.

While I am a Believer I base my Faith in God and I believe in Creation I no more understand it's intricate and magnificent miraculous process. I accept that on Faith and lose not a moment of sleep over it.

It is not mine to defend Evolution but that responsibility is yours to back up your own statements of Faith yet the only seemingly tangible things you can bring to the table is references to the same party line that other advocates of Evolution present. You see in the end yours is an issue of FAITH also. That's my whole point from the first. All positions put forth here are issues of FAITH. Faith in either God or another person that made the initial presentation of their own beliefs.
quote:
Hey I have no problem if you wish to put your faith in Science and Evolution as your god and believe with your your being that you got here by an evolutionary process that's your prerogative. My problem comes from you and others like yourself who seek to control the whole debate and discussion making your dogmatic statements and then excluding any opposing views or positions as either delusional, ignorant, and lacking substance to even be heard or presented. Worse you and others discredit the Creation position to totally eliminate it from the discussion in Schools because you, falsely (as you did with me) claim it's teaching religion or violating the Separation of Church and State. With me you and others attempted to say that my opposition to Evolution was Religious based and yet when I presented my argument against evolution (without any reference to anything religious) I received nor got any form or retraction from you or the others who labeled me so. Your disingenuous attempts, as other scientist and educators to omit the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creation alongside and as a counter to evolution because you label it as teaching religion is just as wrong. Evolution, when viewed for what it teaches and is compared with other positions, unless they are completely rejected before they are taught, fails to be as persuasive as you attempt to present it. There are just too many holes in evolution to anyone that intelligently looks at the arguments against. The only way to give Evolution any kind of authority is to eliminate opposing positions before they are presented and thereby add credence to the evolutionary position since it is the ONLY one that can be presented.



Creationism IS religion. You brought religion into this when you brought up teaching creationism as science. To even suggest that we teach it in schools as science is ludicrous. When you bring creationism and ID to the table you are either talking about religion or ET's. Are you saying that you believe in aliens that came here and created humans? If so where is YOUR proof?

Here is a good site to start with since you have such a lack of understanding when it comes to evolution. Evolution Facts

Its pretty rudimentary, but in your case I think that may be where you need to start. I suggest clicking the link provided after each fact to learn more.

Now, where is your scientific proof for creationism or ID?

There have been many court rulings on this issue. Both sides have presented their best experts and proof. Creationism and ID have failed every time. Creationism or ID have no place in our public education system. You are free to teach your own children what ever you like. However I have to tell you that my son, who is attending Auburn had a young man in his micro-biology class that was home schooled and taught creationism. He was woefully behind and very confused by what the professor was discussing. Its sad really. His parents should be ashamed of themselves for depriving him of a real science education. He is now paying for his lack of learning, the hard way.

I think that you are just repeating talking points that you have either read on religious sites supporting creationism and ID or have been taught by your church. You should really read for yourself and perhaps ask a real biologist to explain to you how evolution is the basis for all biology today. Without it we would not have the cures and treatments for many many illnesses. Without evolution many people who are alive today would not be if they had relied on creationism for their survival.

Once again I say to you that if you believe in creationism then by all means teach it to your children. They will be far behind others in the world if they do not have evolution as part of their education also.

Do not think to replace the science of evolution in our school systems with your religion with out a fight from me and many others. It is unconstitutional and a complete fail when it comes to being any where near science.
quote:
Originally posted by Jankinonya:
quote:
Hey I have no problem if you wish to put your faith in Science and Evolution as your god and believe with your your being that you got here by an evolutionary process that's your prerogative. My problem comes from you and others like yourself who seek to control the whole debate and discussion making your dogmatic statements and then excluding any opposing views or positions as either delusional, ignorant, and lacking substance to even be heard or presented. Worse you and others discredit the Creation position to totally eliminate it from the discussion in Schools because you, falsely (as you did with me) claim it's teaching religion or violating the Separation of Church and State. With me you and others attempted to say that my opposition to Evolution was Religious based and yet when I presented my argument against evolution (without any reference to anything religious) I received nor got any form or retraction from you or the others who labeled me so. Your disingenuous attempts, as other scientist and educators to omit the teaching of Intelligent Design or Creation alongside and as a counter to evolution because you label it as teaching religion is just as wrong. Evolution, when viewed for what it teaches and is compared with other positions, unless they are completely rejected before they are taught, fails to be as persuasive as you attempt to present it. There are just too many holes in evolution to anyone that intelligently looks at the arguments against. The only way to give Evolution any kind of authority is to eliminate opposing positions before they are presented and thereby add credence to the evolutionary position since it is the ONLY one that can be presented.



Creationism IS religion. You brought religion into this when you brought up teaching creationism as science. To even suggest that we teach it in schools as science is ludicrous. When you bring creationism and ID to the table you are either talking about religion or ET's. Are you saying that you believe in aliens that came here and created humans? If so where is YOUR proof?

Here is a good site to start with since you have such a lack of understanding when it comes to evolution. Evolution Facts

Its pretty rudimentary, but in your case I think that may be where you need to start. I suggest clicking the link provided after each fact to learn more.

Now, where is your scientific proof for creationism or ID?

There have been many court rulings on this issue. Both sides have presented their best experts and proof. Creationism and ID have failed every time. Creationism or ID have no place in our public education system. You are free to teach your own children what ever you like. However I have to tell you that my son, who is attending Auburn had a young man in his micro-biology class that was home schooled and taught creationism. He was woefully behind and very confused by what the professor was discussing. Its sad really. His parents should be ashamed of themselves for depriving him of a real science education. He is now paying for his lack of learning, the hard way.

I think that you are just repeating talking points that you have either read on religious sites supporting creationism and ID or have been taught by your church. You should really read for yourself and perhaps ask a real biologist to explain to you how evolution is the basis for all biology today. Without it we would not have the cures and treatments for many many illnesses. Without evolution many people who are alive today would not be if they had relied on creationism for their survival.

Once again I say to you that if you believe in creationism then by all means teach it to your children. They will be far behind others in the world if they do not have evolution as part of their education also.

Do not think to replace the science of evolution in our school systems with your religion with out a fight from me and many others. It is unconstitutional and a complete fail when it comes to being any where near science.


Creationism is attributing Creation to God whereas Intelligent Design is simply stating that there is Intelligence behind creation and not necessarily attributing it to God but rather to a source other than just happening or the "Big Bang" and happenstance. Still it can be taught without teaching Religion by simply stating the facts that many accept and believe that there exist a prime Deity they call God who creationist believe created creation from His miraculous power. Others believe in an Intelligent design that creation and life comes from some intelligent unknown or undefined creator as well as introducing their arguments against evolution and that can be done without the injection of doctrine or promoting a specific denomination or religion. Evolutionist though cannot stand competition therefore eliminate any possibility of conflicting views and that's just a face of our society today, much to it's detriment. We are just beginning to see attributes of a Godless society and it will only get worse as time goes on. Life is considered as a chance occurrence with no special significance to it. We are as other mammals and other life rather than being specially enabled by our creator we evolve from lower species, or so it is taught, and since any moral direction or standards are removed from the educational system then we are left with a further disregard for life. As time goes on this will be revealed even more so and we will proverbially reap what we have sewn or taught for the last generation.

Yes Creationism injects Religion however I did not do this upon my initial attack upon evolution but rather others attempted to try and say I did all the while having no evidence of that. They made assumptions that were not backed up by the facts. Assumptions are made because I am religious that my arguments against evolution are from a religious base when they are not. They are from simple reason and observation of the evidence that nature presents us with and vast lack of evidence that evolutionist overlook. Now rather than address the glaring absence of incremental transitional beings or states BJBG just ceremonially dismisses my arguments without any substantial evidence or examples to counter.

Again if I am wrong and Evolution is so indisputable that everyone is so dogmatic about it and convinced then where is the basis of your faith the reason and proof that is so incontrovertible? Problem is your adherence to evolution is so weak and unfounded that the only reason you continue to grasp it so is to derive comfort in not having to face the distinct possibility that God exist or that there exist a Creator and finding yourselves lacking.

Face it your faith rest upon Charles Darwin or Dawkins or some Scientist whom presents a theory that none of you are able to defend with any significance or eliminate any reasonable doubt that may exist. Your arguments are weak and wanting at best insufficient of substantial material other than what you were taught in High School or College and usually limited to youtube videos that you somehow find reassuring but by others whom likewise have to find some method of assuring themselves that no God exist. Others whom might be following this thread and have had doubts about evolution can also see how science and evolution has defended itself by disallowing conflicting views from ever coming to the platform for consideration. Control the discussion and it's easy to make your argument look convincing.

Evolution as a theory for how all life and all species got here is laughable and the fact that so little material can convince so many is but a testimony to the gullibility and the overall desire to find any possible reason not to consider that God exist and is real.

My last challenge still remains ... to provide the evidence of the incremental transitional beings within a species to prove it's evolution from the most simple basic state to the advanced state and answer why none of those evidential specimens exist today for observation and demonstration of a baseless theory.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×