evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I love how evolution vs creationism topics always lead to a fight over scriptures.

its inevitable because its the creationist's arguement i have yet to see a creationist who doesnt quote scripture at all,
and evolutionists like myself point out (and/or try to) flaws with these scriptures

yes some creationist use scientific evidence for their claims but they always quote scripture

Ok. Well some evolutionists throw around terms used in science such as "valid" to talk about television cartoons like "family guy". Remember this?

Ashanu90:

"but no i dont feel dumbed down
family guy though stupid usualy has a valid message in it "

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you can cite the "family guy" as a valid source, and a creationist can cite the "bible" as a valid source.

By your own statement, we can conclude that something that appears stupid can often have a valid message.



[edit on 29-4-2010 by MKULTRA]

I think it's funny how people think we have everything figured out. And somehow we did this all in the short time we've been on earth, through assumptions of what 'might" have happened. Pluto used to be a planet, remember? People think science isn't infallible, and it's not subject to mistakes.

By the way. Evolution doesn't mean a God doesn't exist.

TPTB must have been rubbing their hands with glee when they managed to sneak the patently absurd theory of evolution passed the church. One minute, evolutions too slow to be noticed the next it can be sudden and widespread. Combining the control of education and media makes for a very effective system of deceit that is most certainly a primary weapon for these powers. Why would anyone want to lead us away from God? Well if we didn't fear death, who knows? Maybe we'd start standing up for what we believe in.

Allledgedly, 1 in 70 men in the UK are Freemasons - however, in areas of extensive quarrying their membership is much higher, for example 1 in 8 in Portland. Make of that what you will.

There's a book called 'Forbidden history' that's well worth a look, it goes into how they've been cooking the academic books and filtering knowledge, although I dare say the publishers of 'truth' have 'thoroughly discredited' all these people. Make no mistake the 'burning of scrolls' still goes on today, it's just that it's much more extensive, yet much less effective.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Robert Reynolds]

Originally posted by the illuminator
A piece of news that didn't get much press is that in 1980, Darwin's "Gradualism", which had species evolving one into another over "billions" of years, was actually rejected by a conference of top evolutionists meeting in Chicago because of the obvious (and embarrassing) lack of evidence in the fossil record.

Yet despite this, evolution has not been rejected. These scientists have replaced Darwinism with an more groundless, bizarre theory called "punctuated equilibrium." But the only thing impressive about punctuated equilibrium is its name. This new theory says that evolutionary changes happened so fast they didn't leave any fossils. In other words, this theory teaches that a reptile laid and egg and a bird popped out. This ridiculous fairy tale hypothesis is the present state of evolution science. Darwinism is dead, and this "chickens from lizards" theory is the best they can come up with.

Why, then, are our noble professors choosing to sound more like Dr. Seuss than doctors of science? Why do they refuse to reject evolution outright? Dr. D. N. S. Watson, who echoes the sentiments of many evolutionists gave the real answer. He bluntly admitted "The theory of evolution is universally accepted not because it can be proven true, but because the only alternative is special creation (by God) which is clearly incredible."

Well that was a nice paragraph you copy and pasted but you will find that no evolutionist will ever tell you a reptile laid an egg and a bird came out, but please tell me why you think evolution speed has to be a constant?

[edit on 29-4-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
I think it's funny how people think we have everything figured out. And somehow we did this all in the short time we've been on earth, through assumptions of what 'might" have happened.

Pluto used to be a planet, remember? People think science isn't infallible, and it's not subject to mistakes.

By the way. Evolution doesn't mean a God doesn't exist.

Me too, thats why I prefer evolution, which has evidence, and not the assumption that we were created, for which there is no evidence.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
I think it's funny how people think we have everything figured out. And somehow we did this all in the short time we've been on earth, through assumptions of what 'might" have happened.

Pluto used to be a planet, remember? People think science isn't infallible, and it's not subject to mistakes.

By the way. Evolution doesn't mean a God doesn't exist.

Me too, thats why I prefer evolution, which has evidence, and not the assumption that we were created, for which there is no evidence.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by hippomchippo]

i've honestly been searching for any "evidence" of evolution. almost all of the claims that have been made have been changed, and rechanged, pre-forms declared absolutly true for 45 years turn out to be a hoax (no one cared to look into it) i've seen complete pre human sketches based on a tooth (the tooth later turned out to be from a pig). creatures like archaeopteryx are paraded around as evidence of reptile to avian evolution

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

meanwhile it turns out that older bird specimens have been found that looked like a common crow. the fossil was dated to be older than dinosaurs. it also happens to come out that reptiles to birds isn't possible based on lungs and legs.

“For one thing, birds are found ear­li­er in the fos­sil rec­ord than the di­no­saurs they are sup­posed to have de­scended from,” Ruben said. “That’s a pret­ty se­ri­ous prob­lem, and there are oth­er in­con­sis­ten­cies with the bird-from-dinosaur the­o­ries.

“But one of the pri­ma­ry rea­sons many sci­en­tists kept point­ing to birds as hav­ing de­scended from di­no­saurs was si­m­i­lar­i­ties in their lungs,” Ruben said. “How­ever, the­ro­pod di­no­saurs had a mov­ing fe­mur and there­fore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds.”

www.world-science.net...

Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away."

Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. This made virtually all the paleontologist's dates wrong and made all the posited bushes of human origins incorrect. ([15], p.130-131)
"(That modern humans evolved in many different areas at the same time) is theoretically implausible based on current knowledge (in population genetics)." Popular geneticist Shahin Rouhani ([15], p.133)

Paleontologists were slow to admit their errors or even look at any of the data. At first they just "...trimmed (their) dates...just in case there was something in it (the biochemistry data)." Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam ([14], p.116). Wilson stated that the paleontologists "...functioned as if we did not exist. They just ignored us." ([14], p.116)
After fifteen years, the paleontologists reluctantly accepted the biochemistry evidence. "We anthropologists were forced to admit we had been wrong and that Sarich and Wilson were closer to the right track than any of us had even imagined." Paleontologist Richard Leakey. ([13], p.78)

emporium.turnpike.net...

too many inconsistances, lack of evidence, and outright fabrications for it to be credible imho

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
I think it's funny how people think we have everything figured out. And somehow we did this all in the short time we've been on earth, through assumptions of what 'might" have happened.

Pluto used to be a planet, remember? People think science isn't infallible, and it's not subject to mistakes.

By the way. Evolution doesn't mean a God doesn't exist.

You're right it doesn't. I think what most evolutionists are trying to prove is a NATURAL cause for our existence. God is supernatural therefore we can't technically prove He exists. I don't see anyone walking around with a God-o-meter (poor pun) that lights up the closer you are to Him. The only thing evolutionists have trouble proving is how we came from a non-living cell to a living cell. Don't quote Abiogenesis because we all know evolution skips the creation part and starts with things already living.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by novastrike81]

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
TPTB must have been rubbing their hands with glee when they managed to sneak the patently absurd theory of evolution passed the church. One minute, evolutions too slow to be noticed the next it can be sudden and widespread. Combining the control of education and media makes for a very effective system of deceit that is most certainly a primary weapon for these powers. Why would anyone want to lead us away from God? Well if we didn't fear death, who knows? Maybe we'd start standing up for what we believe in.

Allledgedly, 1 in 70 men in the UK are Freemasons - however, in areas of extensive quarrying their membership is much higher, for example 1 in 8 in Portland. Make of that what you will.

There's a book called 'Forbidden history' that's well worth a look, it goes into how they've been cooking the academic books and filtering knowledge, although I dare say the publishers of 'truth' have 'thoroughly discredited' all these people. Make no mistake the 'burning of scrolls' still goes on today, it's just that it's much more extensive, yet much less effective.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Robert Reynolds]

I think it's kind of ironic that back 200-300 years ago in the days when Creationism was taught that we see Catholics literally killing people who didn't convert to their religion. Could be another reason no one likes Catholicism but that could be my own biased opinion; not to be confused with Christianity. Fast forward to where evolution is now the main stream accepted "science", so-to-speak, and we see those who believe in God, and not science's evolution, suffering a social death because we don't accept evolution. Even if we did manage to study it during our years in high school and/or college that fact that we believe in God somehow makes us willfully ignorant.

Also of note, the word around town is that the only reason evolution is still being taught is that the only other alternative to our origins is Creationism. It's quite obvious a lot of people don't believe in God and don't want to believe in God. So the presupposition is that evolution is their belief to discredit God by a natural means. Since science is an observational, testable art it rules out God because God is supernatural and thus can not be tested scientifically. At least in regards to evolution; science isn't just limited to testing God please don't misunderstand my point. Science has made great advancements in health and other things.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by novastrike81]

reply to post by Blazer

Blazer please bear with me, this will be a little bit long…

First, I’m glad you brought up this often quoted “evolution” argument: the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. I'm surprised it took this long but anyway, thank you for posting it as it will further confirm and show you what I already know about evolution. That is, to use Prof Dawkins’ own word,

“evolution has no foresight”

. In other words, it is blind as it's not able to see the miracles and wonders of design. Like what I said before, just because something doesn't seem quite right doesn't' mean it has no purpose or to use the evolutionist's favorite phrase a

“bad design by a bad designer” or a “bad engineer”

. I’m curious though, on what basis do you think Prof Dawkins made that conclusion? That is, if the giraffe was designed by an engineer that

“no engineer would make a mistake like that”?

How does he know that the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve was designed wrong? Really, who or what made him the authority on what is correct in nature? Did you?

As for his statement I find it amusing that a “scientist” will say something unscientific and illogical just to poke fun on creation or to those who believe it. Anyway whatever make him happy! But as one who’s involved in the electronic industry and in contact with circuit designers and engineers, I also find his statement quite arrogant in that it seems as if Mr. Dawkins knew more than the Creator about His own works.

Here's what I mean, take for example in the field of circuit design, designers and engineers don't just design circuit boards w/o considering the industries standard design rules and guidelines. I'm sure you know what will happen if some of these rules are not followed or implemented correctly. Now to an untrained eye some of these rules might not seem right but makes sense to a design engineer. Thus my statement earlier was based on experience, that is just because something doesn't seem quite right doesn't' mean it has no purpose or wrong.

Now let me show a real test case:
When you get a chance take a look at the circuit boards inside your computer. Examine it carefully. Now, do you think all of the components you see in there were placed randomly? Or were there reasons behind the arrangements? Why, you might even find components that are next each other and yet see the wiring (trace lines) go all over the board before connecting together, you might even notice some of the traces are routed “serpentinelike” instead of a straight line. To the untrained eye, this will appear to be a mistake and might say why not connect the components with a shorter trace instead of a long looping one? Sure we can, but the question is will your computer run properly? Try replacing the wire with a short wire and see what happens (but please don’t blame me if starts acting up or starts smoking – do it at your own risk).

So again, just because something doesn't make sense doesn't necessarily mean it's a “bad design by a bad engineer”. I’m sure Prof Dawkin holds a Phd but it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is able to design and build circuit boards. Do you agree? What about designing life itself. Which one is more complex to design – circuit boards or living things? Without knowing the rules and laws that govern nature, can he design or redesign the giraffe successfully? Say if he shortens the recurrent laryngeal nerve as suggested, what do you think will happen? Do you think it will be able to walked, run, breath, stay alive? Really was the giraffe a mistake?

And speaking of mistakes may I ask you this, do you still subscribe to the now debunked evolutionary belief/teaching called “vestigial organs”? If you do, too bad, you've been lied to (again)...

cont...

[edit on 5-5-2010 by edmc^2]

...
For those who don't know what it is, according evolutionist, these were the last vestiges of organs on homo-sapiens. They claimed that these organs were once supposedly had a use, but because of the claimed advance up the evolutionary ladder they were no longer needed. Thus they are called “vestigial organs”- left over organs.

In fact according to claims there were about 180 of these “vestigial organs” but I'll just cite a few here. Take for example the small gland that is shaped like a pinecone and hence called the “pineal” gland. Though it is located near the center of the brain, it is not part of the brain. “Until very recently” it was thought that “the pineal in man served no biologic purpose and was merely a vestige,” reported the journal Hospital Practice. Now the pineal has been shown “to possess a unique ability to produce melatonin.” This is a substance that affects the brain, the reproductive system, as well as the pituitary, adrenal and thyroid glands. According Science Digest (1972) the pineal gland “exerts a control over the body, specifically by regulating the body clock.”.

Another gland long thought to be useless is the thymus. In an article entitled “The ‘Useless’ Gland That Guards Our Health,” Reader’s Digest stated:

“For at least 2000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of a pinkish-grey bit of tissue lying just below the neck and behind the breastbone—the thymus gland. . . . Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless, vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one.

“In the last few years, however, the dogged detective work of a small band of Americans, Britons, Australians and Swedes have cracked the thymus enigma. These men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases. . . .
“But is the thymus the only organ regulating our immunity system? Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils and adenoids [once these too were tagged as vestigial] may also figure in the antibody responses.”.

So based on these few examples do you think there’s a valid reason why the “recurrent laryngeal nerve” was designed that way?
Too bad the opportunity was missed to learn more about the anatomy of this magnificent animal. This was a chance of a lifetime, to study it and learn more. But because of an entrenched agenda IMO, the “Dawkins evolution team” failed to gain more understanding. Why imo he could have probably given a logical and scientific answer when he was asked:
“why the route 'round the blood vessels, unless there's a reason they were to innervate something else”

But instead his unintelligent often repeated answer!!

“Well that was in earlier ancestor, then it was the most direct route.” and adds the “fish” by claiming “it's a historical legacy”.

What a shallow reply coming from a recognized biologist.

To me, a more scientific and logical explanation is this (based on my humble research):

According to wiki:

The recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box). It travels within the endoneurial sheath. It is the nerve of the 6th Branchial Arch.
It is referred to as "recurrent" because the branches of the nerve innervate the laryngeal muscles in the neck through a rather circuitous route: it descends into the thorax before rising up between the trachea and esophagus to reach the neck….

en.wikipedia.org...
Cont…

...
→ So the “recurrent laryngeal nerve” is directly related to “motor function and sensation as well as to innervate the laryngeal muscles (which is directly related to breathing)” - see what happens if you suffer from vasovagel.

In addition to “motor functions, sensations and breathing” these nerve circuits, the tiny blood vessels also serve to regulate blood pressure and protect the brain from a forceful surge of blood.

Now think about this again, if the “recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve” is routed right in the head “about 2” in length” as suggested by one of the “team evolution” what do you think will happen to the giraffe and why?
Based on the true statements above and the following below, truth seekers will arrive at an obvious conclusion.

QUOTE:
“When the giraffe lowers its head to the ground, for example, the pull of gravity should cause a surge of blood to rush to the head, flooding the brain. As the giraffe raises its head, its blood should rush back down to the heart, causing the animal to lose consciousness. However, this does not happen. Why not?

The giraffe’s circulatory system is truly a miracle of design, ingeniously custom-made to serve the animal’s unique shape and body size. The heart itself is exceptionally large and must pump hard to send blood to the brain, situated as much as 10 to 12 feet above it. Beating up to 170 times per minute, the three-inch-thick walls of the muscular heart produce a systolic pressure that is almost three times that of a human. To handle such a force safely, both the carotid artery, which carries blood to the brain, and the jugular vein, which returns blood to the heart, need to be large. Indeed, these blood vessels are over an inch in diameter and are reinforced with tough elastic tissue, making them flexible and strong.

When the giraffe lowers its head, valves in the jugular vein prevent blood from rushing back to the brain. At the base of the brain, the large carotid artery runs into another wonderfully designed device that has been called the extraordinary net. Here the heavy flow of blood to the brain that results from the lowering of the giraffe’s head is slowed by being directed into a special network of tiny blood vessels that regulate blood pressure and protect the brain from a forceful surge of blood. The extraordinary net expands when the head is lowered and contracts when the giraffe raises its head, thus countering the greatly reduced blood pressure and the danger of blackout.
The giraffe’s neck is also a marvel of design. Scientists were surprised to discover that the giraffe’s amazingly long neck contains the same number of vertebrae as does that of a mouse or most other mammals! However, unlike most other mammals, the giraffe has elongated vertebrae designed in a special ball-and-socket formation, providing remarkable flexibility. Thus, the giraffe is able to bend and contort its neck to groom all parts of its body or delicately reach up into the high boughs of a tree to feed.”

So yes the “recurrent laryngeal nerve” “is a very important nerve” and has its own purpose, it is part of an amazing design of a loving Creator. Question is will you still reject the obvious reason? Or will you still follow the “blind leading the blind”?

Be careful, for the Lord Jesus Christ said “both will fall on the pit”. (Matthew 15:14). Instead of trusting on ““nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs” “(Ps 146:3) why not give Jesus a chance who has the “sayings of life” (John 6:68). after all he is “the way” to Jehovah God , “the truth” about where life came from “and the life” that is, the real meaningful life (John 14:6, 17:3, 3:16).

btw here’s a link for more information about creation vs evolution:
What does DESIGN in NATURE Reveal: www.watchtower.org...