quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists.

Bullshit.
You can examine fossils and living animals for points of similiarity and difference. You can then use this to build a tree of relationships. You can then compare that tree to one based on the biochemistry of living organisms and a third based on the DNA of living organisms (and those rare organic remains from which we can recover DNA). Those 3 trees of relationship match. That is a lot more than speculation.

You can use a lot of imagination when you find two bones in the dirt and trying to relate them. But have you proven the relationship? Nope. You cannot even proof that the bone in the dirt which you found belongs to a living creature who has offspring. Since you cannot proof that the creature had offspring you cannot proof evolution.

Nonsense.

No researcher in the field would ever draw a conclusion that any specific fossil is ancestral to anything. What they do say is that fossil is representative of a population that was closely related to the ancestors of another population. It could be the direct ancestor or it could be a "first cousin" but in either case it matches what the other evidence predicts the ancestor will look like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScaryKids
We can assist natural selection to engineer certain qualities and traits within a species, and in some cases create two genetically divergent and incompatible subspecies. I'm not talking in a lab, I'm talking about by taking multiple generations of a species and breeding them for a desired attribute.

If an omnipotent power exists, then what would prevent this power from using this capability to whatever extent it pleases. Assuming that said omnipotent power is also omniscient, why would it occupy a 'week' of its time when it could entertain itself indefinitely, especially when this power's existence spans the course of all time. (For example, who wants to buy a video game for 7 hours of play-time, when you can pay the same price for a game of equal quality in every way which provides 48-200 hours of play-time based or even more based on your chosen content.) If this omnipotent/omniscient power recognizes faith as a greater indication of a believer in its existence than evidence or knowledge, why wouldn't this power use this capability to reduce proof of itself?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScaryKids

So here is what gets me about this entire argument and the fact that it even occurs:

We can assist natural selection to engineer certain qualities and traits within a species, and in some cases create two genetically divergent and incompatible subspecies. I'm not talking in a lab, I'm talking about by taking multiple generations of a species and breeding them for a desired attribute.

If an omnipotent power exists, then what would prevent this power from using this capability to whatever extent it pleases. Assuming that said omnipotent power is also omniscient, why would it occupy a 'week' of its time when it could entertain itself indefinitely, especially when this power's existence spans the course of all time. (For example, who wants to buy a video game for 7 hours of play-time, when you can pay the same price for a game of equal quality in every way which provides 48-200 hours of play-time based or even more based on your chosen content.) If this omnipotent/omniscient power recognizes faith as a greater indication of a believer in its existence than evidence or knowledge, why wouldn't this power use this capability to reduce proof of itself?

Creationists, your argument is now null, because increasing 'proof' of your deity decreases the potential for faith, and therefor lessens your opportunity for worth to it. By your logic, faith is self-sustaining, you do not need evidence. The lack of evidence in the development of life inspires faith and furthers your logic. It no longer matters how the earth was made, how life was created, how the world developed or how long it took.

Evolutionists, your argument is no longer relevant because the creationists no longer care how life was created and are most likely evolutionists too.

If there are any creationists out there who don't believe in a higher power, then sorry for your exclusion, I don't get how your theory works at all...

Suzy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Very good point and I agree. There is no proof regarding evolution. If you find a bone in the dirt all you can say is that a creature lived and died and became a fossil. That is all. If you start to add more you are just speculating. And that is what the evolution theory actually is, pure speculations. A religion for atheists.

Evolution is a fact which has been documented multiple times under laboratory conditions. You could throw away 100% of the fossil evidence and evolution would still be a well documented fact. Yet again the arguments against evolution are displays of crocoduck level ignorance.

Nope, it is not a fact. It is a theory based on no proof. It's nothing but a religion for atheist. As long you cannot proof that the bone you found in the dirt had offspring you cannot proof evolution. That is a fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First of all, the universe was created in six days, on the seventh god rested.

I said that god started the process to create the universe and life, but allowed it to follow a course dictated by laws of nature, after all god did create nature, did he not.

And please dont give me the tripe the world is only six or so thousand years old, geology disproved that a century or more ago.

As for intelligent design, with the fossil record full of failed species, it proves that life followed various paths to get where we are today.

In other words, we are all part of a grand experiment by a being greater than ourselves. Accept it and move on.

Show me the evidence first.

Google on carbon 14 equilibrium for example. C14 means the death of evolution. C14 has not reached an equilibrium in the atmosphere so the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years. For further information go to:

http://www.godandscience.org/

You should never believe a creationist source, they are always telling knowing lies. This is specially true of Kent, tax cheat, Hovind who is the source of the this lie.

In short as the Earth's magnetic field varies over time and that variation affects the amount of C-14 produced in the atmosphere.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1

Yes, I am aware of this effort to debunk the C14 equilibrium case. However there is no way you can expand the 30,000 years C14 equilibrium time over billions of years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Same thing. Give me proof that a bone which has been found in the dirt belonged to a creature that had offspring. You cannot. Therefore you cannot prove evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811



Start here:

http://www.godandscience.org/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Why not? Exactly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Why not? Exactly?

Because he's been conned by creationist lies. Even demonstrable reality can become confusing and hard to accept when one has been getting all their data from a source that's flat out lying to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
That is about as ignorant a position/statement I have ever seen put forth by creationists and young worlders. Good grief. But then what to expect from those who believe Noah saved only one pair of each species. No room on the Ark, sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
That is about as ignorant a position/statement I have ever seen put forth by creationists and young worlders. Good grief. But then what to expect from those who believe Noah saved only one pair of each species. No room on the Ark, sorry.

You wonder how he managed to save two specimens of every sort of freshwater fish (and invertebrate and plant) as well as two of all the land creatures as well, come to that. Perhaps he was a timelord and the Ark was dimensionally transcendent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
So he needs an even bigger ark with an aviary as well as the fishtanks, then.
Small wonder they've never found his boat: he buggered off in it to the time war and got killed by the Daleks...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's remnants of a few middle eastern and Chinese boats that predate Christ cheerfully rotting away in museums, are there not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Also, because he has this freaky notion that the bone found in the dirt had to be of the individual who directly fathered the evolutionary variation. That is about as ignorant a position/statement I have ever seen put forth by creationists and young worlders. Good grief. But then what to expect from those who believe Noah saved only one pair of each species. No room on the Ark, sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
No less likely that all of that livestock fitting into a boat that was only four hundred by seventy feet, mate.

quote:

Noah's Ark was the largest ocean going vessel ever built until the building of the P&O Liner "the Himalaya." The Babylonian account which speaks of the Ark as a cube betrays complete ignorance. It was a cube that would spin around in the water and go no where! The Ark was the near-exact dimension of a modern ship, a ratio of 8.1 to 1.

The Ark was the sufficient dimensions to accomplish its intended purpose of saving alive thousands of kinds of air-breathing creatures that would otherwise not have survived the year-long flood waters. Assuming the length of the cubit to a have been at least 17.5 inches, the available floor space of this three-decked barge was over 95,000 square feet, and its total volume was 1,396,000 cubit feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's remnants of a few middle eastern and Chinese boats that predate Christ cheerfully rotting away in museums, are there not?

yup but do ya not thunk wooden ships survivin' from 3000 bc are uncommon?