against evolution

[cambrian_exp]

i got these paragraphs from creationist websites. how to answer them?

 

Later Adolf Hitler indeed applied the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest" to the human race. During World War II the Nazis forcibly sterilized more than two million people and began systematically exterminating people whom Hitler considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by rationalizing that they were doing mankind a service with "genetic cleansing" to improve the races.

 

As long as evolution-with its implications of amorality and the survival-of-the-fittest mentality among "superior" and "inferior" races-is accepted and believed, genocide, as sporadic ethnic cleansings in various parts of the globe show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object to this conclusion.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Traditional evolutionary theory predicts a fossil record that would contain:

 

Simple life forms gradually appearing with similar predecessors.

Simple life forms gradually changing over time into more-complex forms.

Countless transitional links between kinds of creatures.

Beginnings of and partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs.

The biblical account of creation predicts a fossil record that would contain:

 

Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.

Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds" (Genesis 6:20), but with limited variety within those kinds.

No transitional links between kinds of creatures.

No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

After years of study and research, what does the fossil record show?

 

Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors. (Cambrian Explosion)

Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds," but with limited variety within each species.

No transitional links between kinds of creatures.

No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blood Clotting: A Biological Miracle

One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or person) from bleeding to death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn't function in the right way-as in the genetic blood disorder hemophilia-the process fails, and the victim bleeds to death.

 

How can complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly or clotting doesn't work at all.

 

At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often result in paralysis or death. When blood clots, either everything works perfectly or the likely outcome is death.

 

For evolution to have led to this astounding phenomenon, multiple mutations of just the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless. Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation of how this is possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there isn't a just God to judge the actions of men, isn't it easier for man to do as he pleases? Sir Julian Huxley admitted why many quickly embraced evolution with such fervor: "I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores" (James Kennedy, Why I Believe, 1999, p. 49).

 

He later wrote, "The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a super-human being is enormous" (Essays of a Humanist, 1966, p. 223).

 

Could this perspective have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is accepted and taught as fact?

 

Can the Genesis account be reconciled with the idea of an ancient earth? What about evolution? How strong is its case?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Daecon]

Which God are you talking about though?

 

Shiva is the destroyer of worlds, and so I wouldn't expect to have had much to do with evolutionary records - other than mass extinctions to "level the playing field" so that new species' could exploit a niche previously occupied.

 

And as for the eye? I think that was a collaboration between Odin and Ra, they were a good team when it came to things like that...

[cambrian_exp]

i was talking about bibalical creationatnism . by the way i found this..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------..

Second, wherever one observes information, whether in a book, on a sign or from the words “I love you” in the sand, one intuitively knows the information came from an intelligent source. Information is far too complex to come from a natural source like wind or water erosion. DNA is known to be a long string of assembly instructions for building an entire organism, animal or person. The amount of code in DNA for even the simplest life form, bacteria, would fill entire sets of encyclopedias. Since information is always from an author; logically, the code in DNA is from the magnificent author--God.

 

While evolutionists provide rhetoric that evolution is true they really have very little evidence. Evolutionists misrepresent and distort the creationist view while claiming that any change within a kind is evidence for evolution. In reality, changes within kinds better represent the creationist view. If evolution is true, reveal to us laboratory evidence for upward changes that go beyond a virus, bacteria or any other kind of organism.

 

============================================================

i really have poor english ;-)

[Daecon]

Ah, I think you're confusing "evolution" which has been proven, many times, and on many threads here, and the whole "origin of the first life" thing.

 

It's possible that I could be open to an idea of creationism (reality was designed by a metaexistential intelligence). But I'll never believe in 'creationism' as told by the Bible.

 

I think the christians and their doctrines are dangerous because of their zealous fundamentalism and blind arrogance.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, even offensive, but that's the only conclusion I can draw from having experience of life in this world.

[In My Memory]

i got these paragraphs from creationist websites. how to answer them?

 

Later Adolf Hitler indeed applied the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest" to the human race. During World War II the Nazis forcibly sterilized more than two million people and began systematically exterminating people whom Hitler considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by rationalizing that they were doing mankind a service with "genetic cleansing" to improve the races.

 

As long as evolution-with its implications of amorality and the survival-of-the-fittest mentality among "superior" and "inferior" races-is accepted and believed' date=' genocide, as sporadic ethnic cleansings in various parts of the globe show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object to this conclusion.[/quote']

1) Evolution describes diversity in populations over time, it does not have anything to say about morality

 

2) What Hitler thought about evolution is irrelevant

 

3) If the author likes to throw mud, then he would be happy to know that Hitler was a Catholic, and there is ample material that shows Hitler believed he was doing the will of God.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Traditional evolutionary theory predicts a fossil record that would contain:

 

Simple life forms gradually appearing with similar predecessors.

Simple life forms gradually changing over time into more-complex forms.

Countless transitional links between kinds of creatures.

Beginnings of and partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs.

The biblical account of creation predicts a fossil record that would contain:

 

Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.

Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds" (Genesis 6:20), but with limited variety within those kinds.

No transitional links between kinds of creatures.

No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

After years of study and research, what does the fossil record show?

Here's a big list of transitional fossils:

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm

 

Blood Clotting: A Biological Miracle

One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or person) from bleeding to death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn't function in the right way-as in the genetic blood disorder hemophilia-the process fails, and the victim bleeds to death.

 

How can complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly or clotting doesn't work at all.

 

At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often result in paralysis or death. When blood clots, either everything works perfectly or the likely outcome is death.

 

For evolution to have led to this astounding phenomenon, multiple mutations of just the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless. Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation of how this is possible.

Here's what I found in two seconds of google searching:

 

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

 

http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting

 

Could this perspective have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is accepted and taught as fact?

This is just silly. It doesnt merit the effort of refutation.

 

 

These bizarre creationist assertions have been around for years. And since the internet, creationists have copied one anothers assertions to such an extent that you can predict what nonsense is found on the site before even visiting.

 

Its nothing but pseudoscientific silliness. From this website on Creationist Pseudoscience:

Creation science must be labeled a pseudo science, for the methods utilized by its proponents fall well outside the parameters of the “scientific method of inquiry”, the very standard that governs the practices of the legitimate natural sciences. The guidelines that outline the systematic process of scientific inquiry adequately provide a well-defined criterion of demarcation, one that is, and must continue to be, clearly visible in order to bestow science with any degree of validity. If creation science is allowed to be classified along with the current natural sciences, an umbrella is consequently created that could cover any imaginable discipline, undermining the value of the legitimate natural sciences in the process.

 

...

 

Proponents of this pseudo- scientific movement publish volumes of literature every year consisting of nothing but supposed refutations of the evolutionary theory of biology. The positive claims of creation scientists can be reduced to three simple words; God did it! Creationists have yet to undertake the process of detailing an alternative model to the evolutionary scheme currently accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. The central strategy of all creationist literature has been to debunk evolution, thereby leaving creationism as the sole survivor according to the skewed logic of its proponents. In a sense, creation scientists are simply critics of the evolutionary theory of biology, nothing more.

[Skye]

What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Traditional evolutionary theory predicts a fossil record that would contain:

 

Simple life forms gradually appearing with similar predecessors.

 

Simple life forms gradually changing over time into more-complex forms.

No' date=' there's nothing in evolutionary theory to predict that more complex life will emerge. It may, or it may not, depending on the competitiveness of the different forms. However, evolutionary theory is used to explain the phenomenom that more complex life has emerged from simpler life.

Countless transitional links between kinds of creatures.

There won't be countless examples of anything because of the finite number of fossils.

Beginnings of and partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs.

No, there won't be anything 'partially completed'. Any creature must be functioning in order to survive, so is must be fully completed.

Blood Clotting: A Biological Miracle

One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or person) from bleeding to death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn't function in the right way-as in the genetic blood disorder hemophilia-the process fails, and the victim bleeds to death.

 

How can complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly or clotting doesn't work at all.

 

At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often result in paralysis or death. When blood clots, either everything works perfectly or the likely outcome is death.

 

For evolution to have led to this astounding phenomenon, multiple mutations of just the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless. Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation of how this is possible.

http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting

 

Yeah.. what IMM said...

[Daecon]

With the whole partially-adapted/evolved limb thing, what about the 'arms' of the T-Rex, and vestigial wings etc on various insects, and the human appendix?

[swansont]

i got these paragraphs from creationist websites. how to answer them?

 

Later Adolf Hitler indeed applied the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest" to the human race. During World War II the Nazis forcibly sterilized more than two million people and began systematically exterminating people whom Hitler considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by rationalizing that they were doing mankind a service with "genetic cleansing" to improve the races.

 

As long as evolution-with its implications of amorality and the survival-of-the-fittest mentality among "superior" and "inferior" races-is accepted and believed' date=' genocide, as sporadic ethnic cleansings in various parts of the globe show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object to this conclusion.

[/quote']

 

Gravity is immoral, too, so we'd better stop teaching that. If I push someone off a cliff, they will fall to their death because of gravity. So, gravity kills. And we know that killing is immoral.

 

People kill because they think it's "God's will" so that makes God immoral by the same (lack of) reasoning, as IMM implied.

 

The logic of these creationist arguments is so tortured, you'd expect Amnesty International to get involved.

[ydoaPs]

If I push someone off a cliff, they will fall to their death because of gravity. So, gravity kills. And we know that killing is immoral.

and here i thought it was the EM force that kills in that scenario.

[Hellbender]

With the whole partially-adapted/evolved limb thing, what about the 'arms' of the T-Rex, and vestigial wings etc on various insects, and the human appendix?

Created that way. Now shut up about it.

[Hellbender]

i got these paragraphs from creationist websites. how to answer them?

*sigh* maybe in the same way we answered these arguments all those other times?

Later Adolf Hitler indeed applied the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest" to the human race.

Like IMM said (sorry, it takes too long to write "In My Memory"...oh I just did it:-) ), what Hitler thought doesn't matter. But I will humour you by telling you that he believed the Aryan race descended from Adam and Eve, and all other "unpure" races evolved naturally from animals. That was how he justified killing them somehow.

As long as evolution-with its implications of amorality and the survival-of-the-fittest mentality among "superior" and "inferior" races-is accepted and believed, genocide, as sporadic ethnic cleansings in various parts of the globe show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object to this conclusion.

Don't shoot the messenger. Nature is ruthless, yes. So what. Becuase some people find justification in evolutionary theory does not mean it happened and continues to happen.

(Cambrian Explosion)

Is it concievable to you that soft-bodied animals would not leave many fossils?

He later wrote, "The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a super-human being is enormous" (Essays of a Humanist, 1966, p. 223).

So let the man have his philophies. Why does it bother you that he was a humanist?

Could this perspective have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is accepted and taught as fact?

Please. Kids are "immoral" (according to you) when they get to college because many are getting their first true tate of freedom and independance. Even if evolution was the cause of this, does it cease to be an accurate and useful scientific theory?

Can the Genesis account be reconciled with the idea of an ancient earth? What about evolution? How strong is its case?

Who cares?

[Kyrisch]

With the whole partially-adapted/evolved limb thing' date=' what about the 'arms' of the T-Rex, and vestigial wings etc on various insects, and the human appendix?[/quote']

 

Created that way. Now shut up about it.

 

Why would any loving God create something that would burden His creations? Vestigial wings on insects can't help them fly any better. Appendices no longer do their jobs, and are fatal at times. Vestigial legs have been found on both snakes (the reticulated python has claws protruding from its sides where legs should be) and prehistoric whales (Fossils have been found of prehistoric whales that had back limbs).

[zyncod]

I'd like to point out that "Social Darwinism" was big among Christians in the early part of last century, because it gave them an outlet for their pre-existing racist beliefs. If evolutionists have to be accountable for Hitler's (flawed) view of evolution/eugenics being responsible for the Holocaust, then Christians everywhere must be responsible for the millenium of wars and definitely over 200 million dead based on (flawed) views of God's will. So the score is now 6 million to 200 million. Which do you think we should get rid of first?

 

Oh, and speaking of "scientific" views providing an outlet for pre-existing beliefs, we had "Social Darwinism" and now we have "Intelligent Design." Them Christians love their science, don't they?

[Hellbender]

Why would any loving God create something that would burden His creations?

I was joking, by the way. "It was umm...created that way, yeah!" is the ad hoc some creationists do when they faced with inconvenient facts such as these.

Vestigial wings on insects can't help them fly any better. Appendices no longer do their jobs, and are fatal at times. Vestigial legs have been found on both snakes (the reticulated python has claws protruding from its sides where legs should be) and prehistoric whales (Fossils have been found of prehistoric whales that had back limbs).

yes, it makes much more sense that to say that these examples have these features becuase they evolved from animals with the same or similar ones, and just never lost them as they didn't get in the way that much. Interestingly, boids do find a use for these spurs in mating; however other non-boids do fine without them. As for prehistoric whales, they might have found a use for these useless little legs in mating as well.

[Kyrisch]

The final death toll of the European Holocaust is actually up to 12,000,000.

[Newtonian]

1)

 

Here's a big list of transitional fossils:

 

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/transfos.htm

 

 

Here's what I found in two seconds of google searching:

 

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

 

http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting

 

 

This is just silly. It doesnt merit the effort of refutation.

 

 

These bizarre creationist assertions have been around for years. And since the internet' date=' creationists have copied one anothers assertions to such an extent that you can predict what nonsense is found on the site before even visiting.

 

Its nothing but pseudoscientific [/url']:

Arguing with a creationist ? and then posting links whose authors are so pro-evolution,as to be nauseating.Two of which are only bloggs.Please post links from scientific sources please.

[swansont]

and here i thought it was the EM force that kills in that scenario.

 

It is responsible for the rapid deceleration. Call it a co-conspirator, and arrest it as well.

[swansont]

prehistoric whales (Fossils have been found of prehistoric whales that had back limbs).

 

Yes, but these aren't transitional fossils, because transitional fossils are defined by creationists to be fossils that don't exist. Every evolutionist example of a transitional just creates two more gaps in the fossil record!

[john5746]

i was talking about bibalical creationatnism . by the way i found this..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------..

Second' date=' wherever one observes information, whether in a book, on a sign or from the words “I love you” in the sand, one intuitively knows the information came from an intelligent source. Information is far too complex to come from a natural source like wind or water erosion. DNA is known to be a long string of assembly instructions for building an entire organism, animal or person. The amount of code in DNA for even the simplest life form, bacteria, would fill entire sets of encyclopedias. Since information is always from an author; logically, the code in DNA is from the magnificent author--God. [/quote']

 

DNA is composed of only 4 basic building blocks. Kind of like looking up in the sky at the star patterns, thinking you see intelligence in them.

 

While evolutionists provide rhetoric that evolution is true they really have very little evidence. Evolutionists misrepresent and distort the creationist view while claiming that any change within a kind is evidence for evolution. In reality' date=' changes within kinds better represent the creationist view. If evolution is true, reveal to us laboratory evidence for upward changes that go beyond a virus, bacteria or any other kind of organism.

[/quote']

 

This is like asking for laboratory proof that a T-Rex was a meat-eater. All the evidence is there, but we don't have a live one to look at, test , etc. That doesn't mean that automatically, we can assume it was a vegan and be just as correct!

[LucidDreamer]

Later Adolf Hitler indeed applied the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest" to the human race. During World War II the Nazis forcibly sterilized more than two million people and began systematically exterminating people whom Hitler considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by rationalizing that they were doing mankind a service with "genetic cleansing" to improve the races.

 

As long as evolution-with its implications of amorality and the survival-of-the-fittest mentality among "superior" and "inferior" races-is accepted and believed' date=' genocide, as sporadic ethnic cleansings in various parts of the globe show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object to this conclusion.

 

[/quote']

First of all, what you are describing is eugenics, not evolution. Eugenics is simply hatred, racism, and fascism; evolution was only used to give scientific credibility to racial fascism.

 

If you really wanted to single out a system of thought that has inspired violence throughout the millennia of history your worst offender would be religion. Christianity is no exception. Considering all the crusades of the middle ages, the murder of millions of Northern and Southern American inhabitants, and the thousands of witch hunts over the centuries, the Christians shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone.

 

What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Traditional evolutionary theory predicts a fossil record that would contain:

Simple life forms gradually appearing with similar predecessors.

Life began on earth more than 3 and a half billion years ago. It's true there is no fossil evidence of very simple life evolving into more complex forms. In fact, there is no fossil evidence of anything at all because there are almost no rocks left on the face of the planet that old.

 

Some of the rock that is around 3 billion years old is found with exactly what you would expect according to evolution; all simple one-celled organisms and other simple organisms and absolutely no evidence of any higher life forms. If the creationist model was correct then you would expect to find fossil evidence of recently evolved sea creatures that live today in the fossil record. But you do not of course.

Simple life forms gradually changing over time into more-complex forms.

This is exactly what you find. Going from oldest to newest rock you find: very simple sea organisms, more complex sea creatures, amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs and small mammals, large mammals, and birds. Exactly what you would expect with evolution and exactly what you find. What you don't find are organisms in the wrong strata. If creationism was correct you would find amphibians in 1 billion year old strata and dinosaurs and mammals in 700 million year old rocks. But of course you don't.

Countless transitional links between kinds of creatures.

As someone already pointed out you don't find countless of anything because fossils are rare. You do find a plethora of examples of transitional links though.

Beginnings of and partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs.

First of all, developing new limbs and organs is relatively rare event. What you find are modifications of already existing limbs and organs into a variety of forms. This is what you would expect to find with evolution and this is what you find. There are good examples of transitional features such as in the case of whales, whose legs become flippers and horses, whose toes become hooves.

The biblical account of creation predicts a fossil record that would contain:

 

Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.

Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds" (Genesis 6:20), but with limited variety within those kinds.

No transitional links between kinds of creatures.

No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

All of which, the fossil record disagrees with.

 

After years of study and research, what does the fossil record show?

 

Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors. (Cambrian Explosion)

If by suddenly you mean millions of years instead of hundreds of millions, then yes. Evolution occurs in spurts and plateaus. The Cambrian explosion is a spurt. What you don't find in the fossil record from the Cambrian explosion is a single creature from a latter period in time (no sea turtles or modern fish or anything that evolved latter), which is what you would expect if all creatures were created at the same time.

Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds," but with limited variety within each species.

What is that suppose to mean? You don't find a large variety among the members of a species because once you find a large difference between different populations we classify them as a different species.

No transitional links between kinds of creatures.

Ape-man, reptiles to mammals, dinos to birds, whales, horses,

No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

There are no new limbs in the fossil record because there are no new limbs. Evolution works on what already exists and you find adaptations of limbs instead of new ones. This is what you would expect and this is what you find. There are museums full of adaptations of the limbs of animals. You don't find new organs in the fossil record because you don't find any organs at all. Organs are soft tissue and don't fossilize very often.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blood Clotting: A Biological Miracle

One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or person) from bleeding to death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn't function in the right way-as in the genetic blood disorder hemophilia-the process fails, and the victim bleeds to death.

 

How can complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly or clotting doesn't work at all.

 

At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often result in paralysis or death. When blood clots, either everything works perfectly or the likely outcome is death.

 

For evolution to have led to this astounding phenomenon multiple mutations of just the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless. Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation of how this is possible.

This is an argument that relies on the shortsightedness of its audience.

 

Modern technology relies on an intricate system of interdependence. If you remove any number of individual technologies the whole system collapses. You cannot remove the use of petrochemicals or the cars will stall in the freeways, the manufacture of plastics will cease, and our power plants will die. You cannot remove the use of electricity or our computers will refuse to turn on, our TVs will grow silent, and our houses will remain dark. You cannot remove metal because our planes need them to fly and our circuit boards need them to conduct electricity. And so on and so on.

 

We could pretend that this means that all of our technology must have been created all at once because you cannot remove any part and have it still exist the way it does. We know from history that this is not true though. All of the marvels of technology were incorporated over time and the world adapted to its introduction until the present modern technological world that could not exist without all of its parts

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there isn't a just God to judge the actions of men, isn't it easier for man to do as he pleases? Sir Julian Huxley admitted why many quickly embraced evolution with such fervor: "I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores" (James Kennedy, Why I Believe, 1999, p. 49).

 

He later wrote, "The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a super-human being is enormous" (Essays of a Humanist, 1966, p. 223).

 

Could this perspective have something to do with the immorality rampant in so many schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary theory is accepted and taught as fact?

Young woman were often accused of being witches so that men claiming to be men of God could rape them. Old woman were accused of being witches so that men claiming to be men of God could take their land. In the name of God we killed countless numbers of people during the crusades, the inquisitions, imperialist England, and the conquest of America. God-fearing men took men from Africa and made them slaves. God-fearing men made woman second class people. The list goes on and on. Again, Christians shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone.

 

Note: I wasn’t looking at a time line when I wrote this so my billions and millions of years ago might be, and probably are, off a bit.

[LucidDreamer]

Yes, but these aren't transitional fossils, because transitional fossils are defined by creationists to be fossils that don't exist. Every evolutionist example of a transitional just creates two more gaps in the fossil record!

Exactly. Every animal that is clearly a transitional fossil becoms just a strange looking ape with some features of a man or just a whale-like creature that has legs. There are hundreds of examples and when creationists are confronted with one they just close their eyes and cover their ears and go "nananananananana."

[Newtonian]

This is maddening after life itself the CE was the most significant event in history.Evolution has never had such a free reign again.Think of now as evolution as a one legged octupuss.Evolution is fact it occurs...otherwise you would be reading this in your burrow,while munching on a fat juicy worm!!....but it neither confirms/negates 'creation'.What we read from both sides is more a lack of understanding of evolution.

Which leads to these daft arguments.

Its very frustrating to read people discuss evolution citing DNA,amino acids etc with no understanding of the complexities of each.Anyway if one can comprehend the probabilities of life happening in the first place...these comments would not slip off the tongue so flippantly...i will say one thing ..protein..protein..protein..ok i said it 3 times,but i only said one word.

Evolution is not a ladder of progression from bacteria to man.However many times members (and i wont mention by name,buy YOU know who you are)often post to the effect.Your misrepresenting and misinterpreting evolution.

Evolution is the change in a gene pool of a population over time.The evidence of which we have in abundance, is micro-evolution(such as the popular example of the moth...going white to black)So evolution occurs! ..

Okay "cambrian_exp" the moth is still a moth..This fact is irrelavent however,evolution as defined 'a change in the gene pool' is sometimes accompanied by the manisfestation of morphological change(catapiller-moth).So evolution occurs!

Using the hypothesis ' Natural selection'as a driving force we assume macro-evolution is cummulative micro-evolution.Until something better comes along we use this model

 

 

Evolution can occur with/without MC...and vise-versa..MC can occur without evolution!!we are doing it now,man is taller now than over the last few thousand years .This isnt evolution !!! no change in the gene-pool.People continually harp on about environment as a major influence,but enviro changes alone see only very subtle changes in Morphology such as size. MC is determined by both its genes and environment. MC induced solely by changes in environment is not evolution, because this change is not heritable,not passed on to offspring.

This is why we can as a species swim daily and not have offspring with gills.

T-Rex to joey the budgie takes a little longer time and is macro-evolution(morphological change).A little more difficult to explain and is often misunderstood when discussing evolution.We see evidence in this thread,as well as others from supposed advocates of evolution.T-rex to joey is a change in the gene pool so is evolution.But i cannot be bothered in a long explanation TBH...

 

IMO you are not an evolutionist simply by declaration,your a member of SFN and are afraid to get shot down by the "Red Baron Sayo" or you like it over creation(biblical)If you dont understand either paridigm it makes no sense.

 

The biblical account of creation is short and vague by simple people(with no comprehension of timescale....who does ? can you honestly comprehend a billion years?),as one would expect passed down through the ages by word of mouth, until such a time people were able to write the account down.It doesnt have to be scientifically correct.It certainly does not have to be contradictory to evolution.

[cambrian_exp]

hmm , only these things can stop creationalists ..............

1) proof of life on other planets ( even bacteria or microbes will do because bible says there is no life on other worlds)

2) solution to origin of life... i mean finding how chemicals (non living things ) became singled celled creatures

 

by the way some creationist say that dinosaur survived after flood 6000 years ago

thats why some fossils are not mineralized , fossil only mineralize if they all are too old. and some do say that there is flaw in carbon dating and other dating methods. and u know in churches they show pictures of fossils of man with dinosaurs....shits and they say that world scientists are making conspiracy by not showing those fossils because they are setting up world for Antichrist ( end of world ) ) and things like that !!!!

[cambrian_exp]

hey acording to evolution every living thing tries to survive and reproduce than why does sucide and homosexuality ( opposite to survive and reproduce ) have arisen in mankind? ---- (hey dont think that i am creationalist )

[ecoli]

hmm ' date=' only these things can stop creationalists ..............

1) proof of life on other planets ( even bacteria or microbes will do because bible says there is no life on other worlds)

2) solution to origin of life... i mean finding how chemicals (non living things ) became singled celled creatures[/quote']

 

These things would not halt ID even a little. First of all, I don't recall reading your first point anywhere, you really must source these things. I don't believe the bible says anything of the sort. And even if it did, it doesn't mean God didn't change his mind after the bible was written or the thousand other theological explainations possible, including the fact that most people (even clergy) don't take the bible literally, word for word anymore.

 

As to the second point, this is completely a non-issue, maybe God caused these creatures to come together. Even if there is a clearly defined chemical or biological answer, it doesn't mean that it was jump-started by God.