40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[AxisMundi]

great so you win "half a point" at best...

this tangent still does not, however, address the idea that the world is less than 20,000 yrs old....

:areyoucra

No, no points at all.

The so called "Species Problem" isn't some insurmountable wall, some proof that science doesn't work, as Nipper is suggesting.

 

[ChristineES]

Debating evolution vs. creation is kind of pointless, but it can be fun seeing people try.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But will your eternity benefit?

Oh Nipper.....you can be so adorable. *pinches his cheeks*

 

[LittleNipper]

Except when it comes to faith in the bible, right?

One certainly can question the Bible. And one will find the answer if one places his faith and trust in GOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

Do you realize how this "problem" is one only of terminology, not natural phenomena, and it's only a problem precisely because evolution is correct?

Edit: this all arose because the definition of "species" is an artifact of Linnean classification, a system that pre-dated Darwin and assumed that species were static things. Since then, we've discovered that species change over time, so the problem arises of where we draw the line between the end of one species and the beginning of another... but this phenomenon only exists because of the gradual change that Darwin and others identified.

You need to admit that "species" has issues and quit making jokes with regard to "kinds." And no scientist has ever absolutely shown an evolutionary progression from ape or monkey to man. There are assumptions which the evolutionist must accept and teach.

 

[LittleNipper]

Kettle, meet pot.

The irony is very thick in your post, since you ignore scientific facts to support your YECer worldview.

I have never had pot in my life. Fact is an absolute. And a process of evolution from bacteria into a human being, simply does not exist. The process of ape into a human is at best suspect. It is just as likely to be the other way around...

 

[tumbleweed41]

And no scientist has ever absolutely shown an evolutionary progression from ape or monkey to man. There are assumptions which the evolutionist must accept and teach.

Correct. However evolutionary biology does not show evolution from ape or monkey to man. It does, however show absolutely that monkeys, apes and modern man are descended from a common ancestor that existed over 5,000,000 yrs ago.
This is based on observable evidence, testability and cross-confirmation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You need to admit that "species" has issues and quit making jokes with regard to "kinds."

I freely admit that the term "species" has issues. It has issues because evolution is correct: life is a continuum of gradual change, whenever we chop that continuum up into pieces and act like these pieces are discrete steps, it's going to be arbitrary.

It's like the Guggenheim: the whole building's a big spiral, so where are you going to say that the second storey ends and the third storey begins? Wherever you make that line, there's only going to be a minute difference in the floor elevation from one side to the other, so calling them different "storeys" is a bit silly. However, this doesn't somehow mean that the building doesn't exist, or that when you're standing several storeys up from the ground that you really aren't on the main floor.

However, this is still a different issue than the problem we see with "kinds", because the constant re-defining of the term "kind" comes from a different source. Ever since evolution was first suggested, creationists have argued that evolution can't cause change between "kinds"; this raised the question, "well, what is a kind?"

At first, a "kind" was just a species... but then evolution between species was proven so overwhelmingly that even creationists, if they were honest, had to concede that this was possible... so the "kind" got bigger. And as more evidence for evolution came in, "kind" got bigger again. The re-definition of the term "kind" is testament to the fact that creationists find themselves more and more in the difficult position of having to defend creationism while at the same time having to concede certain facts of evolution.

And next week or next month when even more evidence for evolution is so much a part of common knowledge that even creationists can't deny it, "kind" will move out a bit more.

They claim that the true definition of "kind" never changes, but they change it themselves whenever it suits them. They accept evolution in bits and pieces over time, but all the while claiming that evolution is false. The situation is laughable. It is a joke.

And no scientist has ever absolutely shown an evolutionary progression from ape or monkey to man. There are assumptions which the evolutionist must accept and teach.

Baloney.

Tumbleweed pointed out the main problem with your statement, but taking that into consideration, the fact that apes, monkeys and humans all descended from a common ancestor has very much been absolutely shown.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I have never had pot in my life. Fact is an absolute. And a process of evolution from bacteria into a human being, simply does not exist. The process of ape into a human is at best suspect. It is just as likely to be the other way around...

just because the theory of evolution can be "poked" at...

does not make the planet less than 10,000 years old

I wont even comment on the moronic allusions toward marijuana.

 

[LittleNipper]

Correct. However evolutionary biology does not show evolution from ape or monkey to man. It does, however show absolutely that monkeys, apes and modern man are descended from a common ancestor that existed over 5,000,000 yrs ago.
This is based on observable evidence, testability and cross-confirmation.

There is no DNA link in the fossils to "modern" man. DNA does not last millions of years and even hundreds under the very best conditions is a stretch.

 

[LittleNipper]

just because the theory of evolution can be "poked" at...

does not make the planet less than 10,000 years old

I wont even comment on the moronic allusions toward marijuana.

Give me one good reason that it needs to be older?

 

[LittleNipper]

I freely admit that the term "species" has issues. It has issues because evolution is correct: life is a continuum of gradual change, whenever we chop that continuum up into pieces and act like these pieces are discrete steps, it's going to be arbitrary.

It's like the Guggenheim: the whole building's a big spiral, so where are you going to say that the second storey ends and the third storey begins? Wherever you make that line, there's only going to be a minute difference in the floor elevation from one side to the other, so calling them different "storeys" is a bit silly. However, this doesn't somehow mean that the building doesn't exist, or that when you're standing several storeys up from the ground that you really aren't on the main floor.

However, this is still a different issue than the problem we see with "kinds", because the constant re-defining of the term "kind" comes from a different source. Ever since evolution was first suggested, creationists have argued that evolution can't cause change between "kinds"; this raised the question, "well, what is a kind?"

At first, a "kind" was just a species... but then evolution between species was proven so overwhelmingly that even creationists, if they were honest, had to concede that this was possible... so the "kind" got bigger. And as more evidence for evolution came in, "kind" got bigger again. The re-definition of the term "kind" is testament to the fact that creationists find themselves more and more in the difficult position of having to defend creationism while at the same time having to concede certain facts of evolution.

And next week or next month when even more evidence for evolution is so much a part of common knowledge that even creationists can't deny it, "kind" will move out a bit more.

They claim that the true definition of "kind" never changes, but they change it themselves whenever it suits them. They accept evolution in bits and pieces over time, but all the while claiming that evolution is false. The situation is laughable. It is a joke.


Baloney.

Tumbleweed pointed out the main problem with your statement, but taking that into consideration, the fact that apes, monkeys and humans all descended from a common ancestor has very much been absolutely shown.

There is no DNA connection.

 

[AxisMundi]

I have never had pot in my life. Fact is an absolute. And a process of evolution from bacteria into a human being, simply does not exist. The process of ape into a human is at best suspect. It is just as likely to be the other way around...

Certainly it doesn't exist. There are thousands if not millions, of species in between.

It never fails to amaze me how far from reality, and science, the Creationist/ID crowd must venture, cloaked in purposeful ignorance, to validate their lies.

BTW junior, facts are a measurable quality that stands up to the Scientific Method. Evolution has, indeed, stood up to those rigors for many years, while Creationism, especially the biblical kind, falls flat on it's face before it leaves the starting gate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Give me one good reason that it needs to be older?

Radiometric dating, the time required for peaks and valleys to form, making sense of biology, archaeology, geology and history.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no DNA connection.

Please be careful - you're liable to pull something moving the goalposts around like that. They're heavy - lift with your legs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is no DNA connection.

Yes, there is.
And your denial of it only shows your ignorance of evolutionary biology.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Give me one good reason that it needs to be older?

It does not NEED to be older.
It IS older.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/93692-facts-relating-evolution.html

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is no DNA link in the fossils to "modern" man. DNA does not last millions of years and even hundreds under the very best conditions is a stretch.

Wait a minute.
Did you just admit to million year old fossils?
(BTW, if you understood evolutionary biology and genetics you would see that it is not necessary to extract DNA from fossils to show Common Ancestry in primates.)

 

[Mr Cheese]

Give me one good reason that it needs to be older?

rocks take a long time to form from gases....

 

[averageJOE]

There is no DNA link in the fossils to "modern" man. DNA does not last millions of years and even hundreds under the very best conditions is a stretch.

As there is no DNA linking us to dirt.

Because, you know, that's the creationists alternative. That we came from dirt, like the Sandman in Spider-Man 3.