Creation vs Evolution

[FearlessLeader2]

Okay Troq, I'll bite. Here's the entire text of post 247. Where is this scathing, indestructible, utterly fatal point that I am missing?

Originally posted by The Troquelet
"If you were god, how would you explain microbes to Moses? Would you even bother? Moses was a herder, not a microbiologist. He wouldn't have understood a word of it, nor would he have any vocabulary to describe the pictures with."

And you'll keep on saying that every time we discover something Jesus didn't know. What good will it do?

There are no intermediate species fossils, no gradual progressions of life from one form to another, so what do I need to interpret?

Outright lie, no place in this debate.

All I'm doing is responding in kind

That excuses it? Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?

And how many of them were deformed by injury, disease, gentic defect, or just plain young or old and thus not good examples of their species? How many more were outright frauds? Mistakes? How many many more were so incomplete as to consist of little more than a few teeth and some fragments of bone?

AND HOW MANY MORE ARE YOU REFUSING TO EXAMINE UNDER THE COLD LIGHT OF LOGIC? So what if there incomplete fossils, there ARE complete ones. This is like saying, "My dog is not brown, all dogs are not brown." Logical fallacy. I would keep track of yours in this argument if I had a Cray computer to help me!

I'm adhering to the sound principles of common sense

Don't be ridiculous. Remember WE are the ones calling on actual physical evidence for our THEORIES - you calling on some indefinite deity for what YOU call FACT.

We do not claim to possess fact EVEN though we possess MORE evidence than you EVER will. WE are not arrogant about our knowledge of the world.

There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve them or to search for an alternate explanation.

Well Sultan, that's one disagreement I have with you! If we let science alone for too long it settles into dogma - we must keep searching for truth and never take for granted that we have it already.

I even included tha parts that weren't addressed to me. So where is this point?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

FredLC-
Very nice pile of sound and fury, and like its literary predecessor, it too signifies nothing, except perhaps that you have NOT done a search on Biological Species Concept yet, or have and did not like what you found.

When you are willing to address this one point, and quit blowing smoke, I'll get back to you.

 

[Archbob]

Puglover, all your evidence has been using the bible to prove the bible, that is circular logic which doesn't work(Again, the bible is not a valid historical text). As we have mentioned, there are indeed intermediate fossils. Science has this thing called Radio-Carbon dating and for other forms of radio-dating for older extinct species. As for the argument that there are no intermediate species, that is wrong also. There are indeed intermediate fossils that support evolution, we don't have all of them cause older fossils are harder to find. The first human(or human ancestor) is dated around 2.5 million years in west africa, the oldest organisms are dated to over 3 billion years ago in shallow tropical seas. This right here dissapproves creation.


Next time when you try to prove creation, don't cite the bible, that is circular logic, you can't use the bible to try and prove the bible, because a text is always going to agree by itself.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Puglover, all your evidence has been using the bible to prove the bible, that is circular logic which doesn't work(Again, the bible is not a valid historical text).

You keep saying this. I do not think it means what you think it means. If you think it means the Bible is not used as a history book in schools, then yes, you are correct. If you think it means that the Bible contain no accurate historical data, then you are vastly incorrect. If you think that the only archaeological theories that contradict what the Bible describes as history are the ones with the shakiest grounds and least proof (and usually no proof at all), and therefore the Bible, with its otherwise stellar track record in every other area of historical fact, should be held in higher regard, then you are right.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
As we have mentioned, there are indeed intermediate fossils.

Name one. Paste a link. NOW.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Science has this thing called Radio-Carbon dating and for other forms of radio-dating for older extinct species.

...aaaaand?

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
As for the argument that there are no intermediate species, that is wrong also. There are indeed intermediate fossils that support evolution, we don't have all of them cause older fossils are harder to find.

Name one, and PASTE A LINK! (Remember, NO TalkOrigins crap. It's decades out of date, and heavily biased.)

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
The first human(or human ancestor) is dated around 2.5 million years in west africa, the oldest organisms are dated to over 3 billion years ago in shallow tropical seas. This right here dissapproves creation.

How so? At best it disproves the idiotic assertion by BibLits that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Next time when you try to prove creation, don't cite the bible, that is circular logic, you can't use the bible to try and prove the bible, because a text is always going to agree by itself.

Does that mean that ToEers have to stop citing each other to prove their side? Just asking.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Oh YEAH... one other thing. When are people going to address Tyrus' most excellent points, annotated and suchlike with quotes from salient texts? You people have been avoiding him like vampires do silver-backed mirrors. Scared?

 

[Archbob]

No, the point is your circular logic in this debate. Your trying to prove something by citing itself. That usually doesn't work. As for the bible being a historical text, yes it does contain some accurate data, but the majority of it is not cited in any other historical text and much of it contradicts everything else. Its a faith.

 

[Perfection]

[Name one. Paste a link. NOW.

Name one, and PASTE A LINK! (Remember, NO TalkOrigins crap. It's decades out of date, and heavily biased.)
[/QUOTE]

Here you go
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/transitionals.htm

 

[Archbob]

The thing with evolution is that there are many texts that basically agree on the concept of evolution while for creation there is only the bible. Text can cite other texts and fossil or rock evidence, texts cannot simply cite themselves to prove themselves.

Doesn't creation state that humans were made a day after the first animals were, how does that equate to nearly 3 billion years?

 

[Archbob]

Okay, we have a link now. I have lots of books with examples of intermediates but I can't paste books now can I. Here are some links anyways:

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html -- Detailed hourse evolution

The point is in scientific texts of evolution texts you can always find the scientists can justify themselves with earlier evidence from other works and then follow it up with his own findings. The bible never cites any other book as evidence, it just tells me "Believe in men cuase your supposed to", not too scientific.

Observations have been made in the field and every test concludes that the basis of evolution--survival of the fittest is true.

And you can't deny that snakes evolved from lizards, they still have tiny leg joints in their hip areas. I don't see how you could deny the evolution of horeses either, in fact, there are detailed descriptions coming down to the modern horse over 60 million years.

And at leat macroevolution has microevolution as a basis, the bible has almost no other basis besides itself. If Noah had a big arc, why hasn't it been found, I mean it had to have been a big Arc to carry 2 of every animal. You could say that there weren't that many species of animal back then, but that would just be proving evolution again, wouldn't it, saying that more species came from one common ancestor?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
No, the point is your circular logic in this debate. Your trying to prove something by citing itself. That usually doesn't work. As for the bible being a historical text, yes it does contain some accurate data, but the majority of it is not cited in any other historical text and much of it contradicts everything else. Its a faith.

Now back this up by citing a Biblical quote about plain ole History that research has proven inaccurate. Your say-so does not a cogent argument make.

 

[Perfection]

Well for starters Pi does not equal 3

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Perfection
[Name one. Paste a link. NOW.

Name one, and PASTE A LINK! (Remember, NO TalkOrigins crap. It's decades out of date, and heavily biased.)

Here you go
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/transitionals.htm [/QUOTE]
Some was from TalkOrigins, and therefore is worthless. I did find the whale stuff interesting, especially:
"In the same month as Gingerich's Indocetus discovery, however, Michigan University grad student Xiaoyuan Zhou found an Archaeocete skeleton in Pakistan that was slightly younger than Indocetus. This new fossil, which has not yet been named, possessed a proportionately smaller femur, small fused neck bones and also loose sacral bones, indicating that it had achieved the full up-and-down streamlined swimming motion exhibited by modern whales. Zhou's skeleton was found in deeper marine deposits than any of the older Archaeocetes."

Now, if this thing was younger, I have two questions:

1) If it was younger, what was it doing in a deeper sediment layer?

Obviously, it had to be older, and the assumptions made by Gingerich are never questioned even so.

2) Why did it have an 'adaptation' that newer organisms did not have, and which still newer (IE modern) ones do have?

This is a fatal question to the assumptions made by these 'scientists'.

Sounds like more questionable science to me, and the article glosses over it without ever addressing these very obvious concerns. Typical

What else you got?

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Some was from TalkOrigins, and therefore is worthless.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2 1) If it was younger, what was it doing in a deeper sediment layer?

Obviously, it had to be older, and the assumptions made by Gingerich are never questioned even so.]

Sediment layers can be folded due to plate tectonics, pakistan had a lot of that going on for the past 40 million years (Of course your a creationist and can't accept continental drift) or it could be a typo.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
2) Why did it have an 'adaptation' that newer organisms did not have, and which still newer (IE modern) ones do have?

Your question makes little sense can you rephrase it?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Okay, we have a link now. I have lots of books with examples of intermediates but I can't paste books now can I. Here are some links anyways:

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html

I saw nothing at this link other than yet another CLAIM of intermediates, with none shown. CLAIMS are not evidence, EVIDENCE is evidence.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html -- Detailed hourse evolution

What part of No TO crap didn't you understand? That stuff is usually at least a decade out of date, and kept that way for reasons of obfuscation.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
The point is in scientific texts of evolution texts you can always find the scientists can justify themselves with earlier evidence from other works and then follow it up with his own findings. The bible never cites any other book as evidence, it just tells me "Believe in men cuase your supposed to", not too scientific.

Uh, have you ever read the Bible? It's believe in God, not men.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Observations have been made in the field and every test concludes that the basis of evolution--survival of the fittest is true.

:Smirks: What about the other basis? You know, Mutation?

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
And you can't deny that snakes evolved from lizards, they still have tiny leg joints in their hip areas.

Those same Hox genes that people carp over easily explain those 'vestigial' legs. The Hox genes determine body structure, by emphasising various body part sizes in vertebrates. Snakes are vertebrates, yes? Well, obviously, their Hox genes for legs are turned way way down, but due to natural genetic drift, they can't stay all the way down to 0, so teeny tiny little legs that don't even show up outside the body still form.
This is really basic, logical stuff. Haven't you even given this matter some thought on your own? It took me all of thirty milliseconds to come up with an obviously logical answer to your point.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
I don't see how you could deny the evolution of horeses either, in fact, there are detailed descriptions coming down to the modern horse over 60 million years.

Uh, gee, boss, don't you think asking eohippus to birth a mesohippus foal that is about the same size as the mother is a tad much in the way of credulence?

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
And at leat macroevolution has microevolution as a basis, the bible has almost no other basis besides itself.

Almost? Are you actually acknowledging that the Bible has one or two points? Which ones, by way of curiosity?

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
If Noah had a big arc, why hasn't it been found, I mean it had to have been a big Arc to carry 2 of every animal.

IIRC, it was made of wood. IIRC, Moses has just gotten off, and probably would have wanted to cook a meal or two, and maybe build houses for himself and his three sons and their families. Now he COULD have wandered over to that forest with a stone or maybe bronze axe, and tediously laboured for months, under the rain and whatever else, but I think human nature would decree that he would simply re-use, re-cycle, and reclaim all that lovverly lumber just sitting there at arm's reach, don't you?

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
You could say that there weren't that many species of animal back then, but that would just be proving evolution again, wouldn't it, saying that more species came from one common ancestor?

Or I could assume that Noah had a lick of common sense, and used the readily available lumber supply.

 

[puglover]

Evolutionists,
to answer your questions, at http://www.hopefamilyfellowship.org
we have a tape of the sermon on November 29th.
It has some proof evolution doesn't fit.
Thanks,
Puglover

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
I saw nothing at this link other than yet another CLAIM of intermediates, with none shown. CLAIMS are not evidence, EVIDENCE is evidence.

So by providing example isn't evidence.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Those same Hox genes that people carp over easily explain those 'vestigial' legs. The Hox genes determine body structure, by emphasising various body part sizes in vertebrates. Snakes are vertebrates, yes? Well, obviously, their Hox genes for legs are turned way way down, but due to natural genetic drift, they can't stay all the way down to 0, so teeny tiny little legs that don't even show up outside the body still form.
This is really basic, logical stuff. Haven't you even given this matter some thought on your own? It took me all of thirty milliseconds to come up with an obviously logical answer to your point.

Your not making any sense here, please rephrase

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Uh, gee, boss, don't you think asking eohippus to birth a mesohippus foal that is about the same size as the mother is a tad much in the way of credulence?

HELLO, gradual progression, ever heard of it?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Perfection

Ooh, there's a valid argument. TO is both horribly biased, and usually at least one decade out of date. As such, it is no more credible a source for evidence than Jack Chick's website is.

Originally posted by Perfection
Sediment layers can be folded due to plate tectonics, pakistan had a lot of that going on for the past 40 million years (Of course your a creationist and can't accept continental drift) or it could be a typo.

You once again mistake me for a Biblical Literalist, or a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). I am neither. I understand that the days of Creation could have easily spanned hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years each. I'll explain one last time:
The usual line or 'reasoning' for the 6,000 year old earth:

Six days of creation

plus

"A thousands years are as a day to Jehovah."

equals

'The earth is 6,000 years old.'

But there is a third variable in the equation. Methusaleh lived 969 years, and was the longest-lived human ever. The longest lived human never saw 1,000 years. 1,000 years is a period of time greater than any man has ever been able to comprehend. Let's re-do the Creationist math, shall we?

Six days of creation

plus

"A thousands years are as a day to Jehovah."

PLUS

One of God's days is a period of time greater than any man has ever been able to comprehend.

equals

The earth could be any inconcievably vast amount of years old, even, say, 4.5 billion, and the universe must be older still, perhaps even, say, 18 billion.

Originally posted by Perfection
Your question makes little sense can you rephrase it?

Why did it have an 'adaptation' that newer organisms did not have, and which still newer (IE modern) ones do have?

This younger whale (inexplicably found in a deeper layer, and therefore actually older), had the ability to move by vertically flexing its spine, like dolphins do today. Cetaceans that were younger than it did not have this ability, but modern one do. Apparently, the whale gained, lost, and then re-gained, its ability to swim during the course of its evolution. Now I ask you, how does an animal benefit from losing a highly beneficial trait like movement? Why would Natural Slelction favor such a change?

The answer of course, is that it would not. This, however, is greatly at odds with what has been observed, so the age of the deeper-buried whale is arbitrarily made younger, so that it fits the theory. This is the worst form of dishonest science, fitting data to the theory, rather than the theory to the data. I thank you greatly for the link to this refuse disguised as science,as I greatly enjoyed picking it apart.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Perfection
So by providing example isn't evidence.

You did NOT provide any example. That link shows NO pictures of fossils, nor does it discuss fossils of an intermediate nature, other than to assure the reader that they do in fact exist.

Originally posted by Perfection
Your not making any sense here, please rephrase

The paragraph is perfectly readable. Please tell me what part you don't understand.

Originally posted by Perfection
HELLO, gradual progression, ever heard of it?

Yeah, and Eohippus to Meso hippus to Equus is NOT A GRADUAL PROGRESSION! Crimony! Do I have to BEG for a valid argument here?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Man, where the hell is Troq? I'd love for him to answer my question at the top of this page.

 

[CurtSibling]

Darn!

It's that old chestnut!...unquestioning faith versus fact-seeking curiosity.

I don't see why people here argue!

It is obvious that;
Creationists have no intention of giving up thier views, even in the face of any hard, cold facts,
they are determined to go on putting stock in creation myth (although I am not knocking anyones views, you understand).

Evolutionists are quite happy to waste their breath trying to convince those who are too
set in their ways and distrustful of science anyway...a pointless exercise.

I used to let this argument rile me.
Nowadays, I like to let people have their little self-indulgent worlds, after all;
Why should other people's personal views be MY problem?

I know what makes sense to me...and it ISN'T some big white haired guy creating our species over night...