Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

Oh Krazysh0t, it was creationism, not that it can ever be proven. What you need to know is the why. And the why is nothing more than the divine game.

So what we have is (a) God creating the Earth and all life thereon. Now which God did this depends on the amount of ego in the believer. As we well know there have been thousands of Gods throughout our history. If you were to ask a follower of that God who did what, well you can be sure that it was their God and no other. So since we must take it on the word of the believer that their God exists in the first place, and all people are equal, we must believe that all Gods exist, even the forgotten ones.

Now, as you can imagine, heaven is somewhat crowded. Now each God had their own system of rule and belief. So which God is the right God? Exactly! They needed a system to determine who had the more correct way. Their decision? Throw a bunch of semi-intelligent beings on a planet and let them decide with minimal interference.
The rules are that each God could choose mouthpieces to get their divine system across to their followers. And yes, it was within the rules that your followers could wipe out the followers of another God.

Some were out early in the game as many thought the mouthpieces were crazy and were just killed. Others were killed because each God said to kill anyone who does not believe in me. Some made a strong showing but just couldn’t hold out (Looking at you Zeus and Odin).

What most Gods did not understand is diversification. Most tried to rule with an iron fist. Believe as I say or die. Period. (Zeus, Odin, still looking at you). Those who came out on top were those who said I don’t care how you follow me, just say my name every so often. They didn’t even care that their different groups didn’t agree on who their God was, just so long as they said ‘yep, that’s my God’. They even went so far as to steal other belief systems and incorporate them into their own. There are no God patents.

So now you know the reason as to why the Earth was created. And yes, there were rule changes where most life had to be destroyed because some God or another got uppity and demanded a change. (Let’s hope they are over that now for our sake). There have been a few intelligent species on the planet, we just happen to be the latest players (And hopefully the last). The fossils are just the adjustments made to the final pieces. No evolution here. Pure creationism.

The only people that disbelieve in evolution are the ones that I am addressing in this thread. They tend to have a world view that contradicts evolution being true, so they disbelieve it. That is called a preconceived bias and isn't scientific at all. If you look at the evidence for evolution inside a vacuum without any preconceived notions or ideas, you see that it is almost definitely true.

No, you don't. In a vacuum, it looks ridiculous. Except you have a bias towards it because you have faith in the reason of man, and thus you feel comfortable with the vast assumptions made. There was a survey I came across a while back, about the percentage of engineers--as in people who build things that work--who believe in evolution or not. And a very high percentage did not, because it is not a viable system for the production of working equipment (organisms), even given endless resources to counteract it's inherent gross inefficiency.

Also, comparing evolution to cell theory is pretty ridiculous. Yes, there is the matter of whittling down; the difference is that cell theory was something that could eventually be documented through direct observation and repeated experiments, and largely has been, while evolution involves wide swaths of assumption that have no means of verification. Ever.

The ONLY difference between creationism and evolution, really, is if you insist there was a creator or you insist that random chance can and would create life, order, consciousness, etc. The rest can be whittled away easily enough. Meaning, of course, that it comes down to bias. Not just a bias of superstition vs. reason, as the self-congratulatory "intellects" often ramble about, but a bias of perception. There is more than ample evidence of elements to our reality that supersede chemistry and biology, just as there are physics beyond Newtonian, but there is a very large contingent within the scientific community--and plenty of willing adherents without--that refuse to accept the possibility of being anything more than a meat bag. And that, you see, is bias. whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a great creationist web site that goes over all manner of anomoy's but the image that came to mind and made me smile is a very humorous depiction of a giraff up a tree, go ahead and have a good look at this site, it is great even if you disagree and on many points I agree with them, it is a site which has perhaps made me reevaulate the conditioned ingrained educated response which my mind has to usual creationism, I always believed in creation but compromised by assuming the world is older and we are not the first or the only children of the creator in the universe but this goes over all of these points in a rather erudite fashion.
Now I know there will for some people be issues and problems with everything this site say's but here is it, remember in a court the defence and the prosecution both have the right to be heard.
www.6000years.org...

These arn't the best examples of creationism that people are talking about here.

Evolution is obviously real.

But not darwinian evolution, He is totally wrong.

All life on this planet co-exists for a better purpose: Living.
If it was Dawins way, we would be fighting off hordes of wolves as they attempt to mass populate to wage war and become the dominate species. Same with bears, and bugs and anything of the like. Competeing for dominance and breeding space.

Nature simply does not do that. We humans have free will and so we can decide to do what ever we want even if it is wrong in the grand scheme of things.

Evolution exists but decending into competely different animal linages are not possible.
All animals that are on land developed on land, Some developed for live inbetween lland in water. But fish still exist.
Evolution is based off the principals of enviroment.
As the enviroment changes, The bacteria- viruses and other parasitic organisms that alter DNA change as well. Causing mass genetic shifts though *plagues* brought on by sudden change in enviroment as New bacteria and NEW pathogens are created through mutation.

Consiousness and advanced evolution were developed for the sole purpose of memory recollection and matter assimilation.

The idea is that planets and stars are living bodies of consiousness, Embuing their energy to the planets.
Planets forced the action of life because as consious entities, it is a self defence mechanism for preservation.

We may not be able to haul the earth around with us, * Maybe we will? lol* But we can at least carry her specimens and her materials, Her pictures her stories and all of our experiences with her into space. We may even use some of her materials to form our star fleets. Humans ( on Earth) will always identify themselves With Earth.

So likewise, Its logical to think that life is a way of preserving the memory and physical objects with these homes we will leave behind. Since their destruction is highly probable and without life, would be 100% certainty.

With life, Planets can defend themselves from asteroids, Stars can defend themselves from incoming collisions.
With life, Self preservation is possible. And even tho we struggle to survive. We will carry all these things and more without even fully realizing the actions we took.

is the universe really just a bunch of floating particles or something more? Clearly, Life itself suggests this.

And as the manipulators we can govern space and time. You asked if there is a god, There is. But its not a singular being, God is any being who is more advanced than us. So there are many gods, at least for human perspective and as for general description.

A God does not need to be of the theological type but it stands to reason that there may be advanced organisms in space following the same path as mankind towards the stars. It also stands to reason with the universe being infinite in age that such beings could of existed trillions of years. It is possible given technology and colonization. Such a species would sweep across the endless expanses of the universe leaving its trail behind.

given the sheer size of the universe with the great number of galaxies even within our view. The likely hood of meeting every one of these super species is very small. As our time here is a blink compared to the vastness of time needed for complete anylesis of planets/stars and nabouring advanced lifeforms.

you see, Just viewing things as solidly Evolution is not a complete statement for all of existance.
It wasn't by chance it was a precognative action. If we can hold consiousness, if life can hold consiousness.
We must view planets and stars differently. As they will always be the enbodyment of home. and our primary existance is to remeber and to survive, beyond our planet.

But humans maybe share a colonies destiny, It stands to reason that humanity has been created.
Its 100% possible to create life from what was already pre-existing on a planet. Making everything from scratch and teraforming is much more difficult.


Creationism just speeds up what evolution struggles to do, Which is create an advanced species capable of space travel. The true objective of life.

If you reverse time then all those fossils will literally materialise out of dust and start walking,,why should the direction of time make any difference?

This is deffo my last ever post!

a reply to: ObservingTheWorld

Oh Krazysh0t, it was creationism, not that it can ever be proven.

Stopped reading there because if it can't ever be proven, it's probably not true.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a great creationist web site that goes over all manner of anomoy's but the image that came to mind and made me smile is a very humorous depiction of a giraff up a tree, go ahead and have a good look at this site, it is great even if you disagree and on many points I agree with them, it is a site which has perhaps made me reevaulate the conditioned ingrained educated response which my mind has to usual creationism, I always believed in creation but compromised by assuming the world is older and we are not the first or the only children of the creator in the universe but this goes over all of these points in a rather erudite fashion.
Now I know there will for some people be issues and problems with everything this site say's but here is it, remember in a court the defence and the prosecution both have the right to be heard.
www.6000years.org...

I looked. I like how the Youtube videos posted on the page have their comments disabled, probably in order to avoid the public calling them out on their blatant BS. For instance: Noah's Ark Found! Sodom & Gomorrah found! Red Sea Crossing Found! Mt. Sinai Found!

Amazing that we never read about these discoveries in our history books. You'd think something like that would definitely warrant a chapter, or at least a few paragraphs. Oh, and there's one titled "Dinosaurs and humans coexisted". ...You have to be kidding me.

The prosecution rests its case, your honor.

you should check w the MANY former atheist scientists who go through the creationist science:

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...
The Fossil Record Speaks
www.youtube.com...
yt: Uranium Halos are Proof Noah Flood Laid the Sedimentary Layers, Dr. gentry
www.youtube.com...

youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...

This is an interesting thread, and the premise of the OP is "cute." However, what if we reverse roles? If we really start asking questions about evolution, if we demand specific mechanisms that evolution promises, what answers are we met with. Vague generalities, like, "that's the way evolution works", or, "it's bound to be in the fossil record, it just hasn't been discovered yet."

"Evolution" surmises and attempts to answer questions that science really has no answer for. For instance, sheer speculation is the only answer for why parasitic organisms like dog-heartworm predate it's hosts by billions of years.

Speaking of Evolution, there are bound to be certain transitional phases that supposedly develop in SPITE of natural selection. Why would transitional lungs be selected? What possible use could they be? Could early fish have used air sacs to supplement low O2 levels? Sure, but that only defers the problem as that would introduce an entirely separate mechanism. Even so, If Low 02 systems existed for billions of years to necessitate a transition to a lung system, why do gills still exist? Is there fossil evidence to corroborate this?

My final issue: When do these changes get initiated before being passed to offspring? With moths, the dark wing trait already existed, but because they tended to not be eaten, they were able to multiply and pass this feature to their progeny. Of course they were fundamentally the same creature. The same thing goes with drug resistant bugs, there are a certain number that already exhibit immunity, and those are the ones that end up multiplying. But again, they remain fundamentally unchanged. And with bacteria, we can actually observe thousands upon thousands of generations, and still, has any speciation ever been observed?

the creation appears to both reflect us and tend toward diversity… this has been misinterpreted in many ways… like the theory of evolution.

former professor of evolution Walter Veith (who had access to one of the largest libraries on evolution in the world) has a very interesting story and his science is very interesting…

The Fossil Record Speaks
www.youtube.com...


for more theoretical take, Chuck Missler explains a lot of interesting aspects of science, such as Information Theory, that is quite profound and interesting.

a reply to: Astyanax

You guys really don't have much in the way of evidence for your side of the story, do you?

'Us' guys??? 'Side'??? I've got a front row seat on the sidelines and I'm cheering for 'both' teams as they score.

Science has the edge in this debate. What makes me laugh and laugh and laugh ... is that while they know exactly what they have to do to prove their point ... they simply haven't.

Because they haven't
Implies they can't
Because they can't
Leads to argument
Argument begets rationalization
Rationalization isn't science
What isn't science is belief/faith

See the hypocrisy now? Or, are you 'still' interested in argument?

Hard science is proof based. You go into the lab, prove your point, rinse and repeat. Please show me 'proof' of evolution.

The OP's logic was loaded. "If you don't accept evolution ... then you must accept creationism." Nice try, but I could safely predict this 'age old debate' will not end in this thread. Anyone want to bet I'm wrong? LOL

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Religious people have an answer for everything. They believe everything is God's will so let's say evolution is real on animals...they turn it around and say God made that happen. You can't beat them man, it's best to just call them names and leave. lol j/k.

it was very refreshing to hear so much science that is not taught by mainstream because it conflicts w evolution…

unless you have a bias of some kind, it is enjoyable hearing another side to the science.

Gary Parker - From Evolution to Creation (1 of 4)
www.youtube.com...

Hard Questions for Evolutionists - Part 1 of 2 - Dr. Carl Baugh
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Evanzsayz

if you don't consider the supernatural influence on world events you will never understand anything truly, only the carrot and stick motivating the actors…

read the bios of most historical figures and you find direct supernatural influence.

Jung was in contact w a supernatural being giving him ideas, Livy writes that Hannibal was guided by visions of a snake and an angel, Descartes had dreams of an angel guiding him, Lincoln's wife was a spirit worshipper, as was Ronnie Reagan, Hillary Clinton:
America : Bill Clinton admits Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks to the Dead (Oct 23, 2012)
youtu.be...

even before I realized all this I knew the saying that to become super wealthy you need a spirit guide/psychic…

this is well-known among wealthy people…

one reason President Wilson says:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

a reply to: AfterInfinity

So you have not looked at this, you know there are some later evidence compiled by people trying to disprove it but they never were able to disprove the entire thing or indeed any part of it but only cast into doubt by means of alternative explanation which was based on anything but biblical belief.
www.youtube.com...
I am a poor excuse for a christian but I truly believe that while I have my disagreements with islam that they too are my family just as you are and there is or are elements whom are trying to set the world ablaze so they can profiteer from the misery they cause.
Look at it again or have looked at it at all, if you want to call it BS and lead others away you are lost I am sorry, he called you but if you do not answer him then the fault is not his.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

or they don't want to read comments from people who have not watched the evidence and just want to post a bias??

a reply to: LABTECH767

I liked the link you posted and have seen some of the vids.

you might also enjoy looking at the vast evidence for the New Testament "Textus Receptus"

yt: The Bible Is True! ~ The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
www.youtube.com...
yt: Walter Veith (13) Battle of the Bibles /Total Onslaught
www.youtube.com...
youtube: The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB youtu.be...
yt: The Forbidden Book - History of The English Bible (Documentary Film)
www.youtube.com...

this guy puts a lot of info in one place for people, though I don't agree w everything he says--the elongated skulls found around the world are very interesting:

YT: Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim
youtu.be...

a reply to: Verum1quaere

By all means, continue to post YouTube videos as though there has never been an erroneous or misleading YouTube video in the history of ever. Surely if its on YouTube, it must be true!

a reply to: Snarl

I've got a front row seat on the sidelines and I'm cheering for 'both' teams as they score.

Having understood something of your character from your posts, I almost believe this.

Only almost, though.

Science has the edge in this debate. What makes me laugh and laugh and laugh ... is that while they know exactly what they have to do to prove their point ... they simply haven't.

A sentence that proves you understand neither evolution nor science.

A sentence that in fact proves you are a creationist.