A simple question for creationists.

[Photonic]

They can be induced to grow tooth buds too. Now, creationists, why did the Intelligent Designer build that in? And whatever contorted excuse you come up with, isn't descent from toothed ancestors an altogether simpler and more satisfactory explanation?

Here is the best part about it. There is a genome that activates that prevents the chicken from growing the tail. All you have to do is stop it from activating and boom. Tailed chicken.

 

[Majikthise]

They can be induced to grow tooth buds too. Now, creationists, why did the Intelligent Designer build that in? And whatever contorted excuse you come up with, isn't descent from toothed ancestors an altogether simpler and more satisfactory explanation?

I'ts obviously the devils work.

 

[johnhanks]

The fossil record instead supports the concept of direct creation.

It very emphatically does not. For all the fossil record's incompleteness, the abundance of intermediate forms it contains is quite astounding. We also see complete separation of life forms from different eras which, if all existed contemporaneously, should at least sometimes be found together.

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan)

[/FONT]

Yes, and the nightly excavations in my flower beds could be consistent with aliens landing in my garden; but I think the local foxes may provide a simpler explanation.

 

[Majikthise]

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan)

And goes on to say,
"But this notion is a little disconcerting. The fossil record implies trial and error, an innability to anticipate the future , features inconsistant with an efficient Great Designer."

Yeah ,I got that book too. Don't be fudgin with Carl!:slap:

 

[`mud]

:clap
~
`mud

 

[outhouse]

And goes on to say,
"But this notion is a little disconcerting. The fossil record implies trial and error, an innability to anticipate the future , features inconsistant with an efficient Great Designer."

Yeah ,I got that book too. Don't be fudgin with Carl!:slap:

its just a poor quote mining attempt from another desperate creationist presenting his outdated propaganda

This person has been presented the proper material in the past here and due to theistic dogma, will not further his education on the subject at all.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just to address the fossil record, National Geographic (2004) compared the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor."

I agree. This isn't in debate. Neither from (OEC) or biologist so I don't see your point of bringing up something that both sides actually agree on.

Yet ToE proponents would have us believe that they have a finely graduated fossil record and place these fossils in a way to try to support this notion.

No we don't. This is why I say you have no idea what you're talking about. They're laid out that way because chronologically that's where they belong in the fossil record. Are there gaps in the fossil record? Heck yeah and NO biologist or archeologist, that I know of, disagrees with that.....but don't take gaps in the fossil record to mean that must be a problem for evolution. Evolution works just fine if we don't have fossils. It's not "dependent" on the existence of the fossil record.

Evolutionist Stuard Newman said "The fossil evidence tells us there are different kinds of organisms. The fossil evidence doesn't tell us how to get from one organism to another. " www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.htmlhttp://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html

http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html

Yes and No. Fossil evidence may not be able to tell us the exact mechanism but it can confirm that it did happen (see. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

But other of the ToE faithful insist that they do. The fossil record instead supports the
concept of direct creation.

Actually it isn't. To assert that it does means you know little about the fossil record and life on this planet in comparison to your version of the creation narrative.

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan)

How about you stop quote-minig creationist websites and actually read what these scientist really wrote...? Here's what he "actually" said........

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

NO!!! Sagan was not confirming "design"

 

[`mud]

Continuing from another post of rediculous anecdotal crap:
Why haven't we found any wings on dead and forgotton angels.
Do the angels live forever, did they have arms and legs ?
What were, (are), their wings attached to, maybe some of their ribs, like Adam ?
~
I know...rediculous....where's my little yellow meds ?
~
I know.....Ask the creator.
~
`mud

 

[tumbleweed41]

A common ToE ploy..if you can't attack the idea, attack the person. For more information on this, I recommend the movie Expelled by Ben Stein.

The ideas promoted by Jonathan Wells (who you quoted as a 'Biologist' while omitting his strong ties to the Discovery Institute), have not been successfully peer reviewed, nor are they consistent with the empirical evidence.




And Ben Stein wants to know why folks like Johnathan Wells are not taken seriously in the scientific community...

 

[paxvobiscum]

Paleontologists-the scientists who study fossils-are the most disenchanted of all the evolutionary scientists. Despite the claims of the non-scientific community, fossils DO NOT support the hypothesis of evolution. In fact, there are so many missing links in the fossil study, evolutionists rarely even rely on fossils for any kind for evidence. There may be findings some day that support the missing links but it is highly unlikely anything will be found amongst fossils. If the contention of evolution is that one kind of species evolves into another, there is simply no record of any intermediate changes in the fossil record. Most of Darwin's hypothoses are largely excluded today. Even Darwin suspected towards the end that his ideas were in error. The best hope for evolutionists today might be in some sort of DNA testing.

 

[Matthew78]

The fossil record instead supports the
concept of direct creation. "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." (Cosmos p.29 by Carl Sagan)

Rusra, I already pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting Sagan's view and now you are doing it again. Are you deliberately misrepresenting his views? If so, why?

 

[outhouse]

Rusra, I already pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting Sagan's view and now you are doing it again. Are you deliberately misrepresenting his views? If so, why?

its just a poor quote mining attempt from another desperate creationist presenting his outdated propaganda

This person has been presented the proper material in the past here and due to theistic dogma, will not further his education on the subject at all.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

"expelled" was completely debunked as the piece of garbage it is.


Myabe you can explain why creation is outlwed from public schools so we dont poison our childrens minds<<<<<<<<<<<<<<while evolution is taught as higher learning in every major university around the world ????????????????????

I guess the question would be, okay if we are going to teach religion, what religion are we going to teach? then war breaks out and so it was just easier to say if you want to hear religion go to a private school. And so it was done. Is it wrong to teach that a bunch of fossils show these particular patters? no. Is it wrong to state different theories that different people have? no. It is really easy to explain creationism in a text book, "some believe God, or Gods, created all things in this world" done. I would say that is just as much a theory as anything. It is just as provable as some secret formula to create life.

 

[painted wolf]

Paleontologists-the scientists who study fossils-are the most disenchanted of all the evolutionary scientists. Despite the claims of the non-scientific community, fossils DO NOT support the hypothesis of evolution. In fact, there are so many missing links in the fossil study, evolutionists rarely even rely on fossils for any kind for evidence. There may be findings some day that support the missing links but it is highly unlikely anything will be found amongst fossils. If the contention of evolution is that one kind of species evolves into another, there is simply no record of any intermediate changes in the fossil record. Most of Darwin's hypothoses are largely excluded today. Even Darwin suspected towards the end that his ideas were in error. The best hope for evolutionists today might be in some sort of DNA testing.

As someone who is planning on getting their PhD in paleontology I feel I should point out that paleontologists are among the most steadfast supporters of evolution. You can't study the fossil record and not see the evidence of evolution. Especially in smaller marine critters like Forams and Trilobites who have excellent records showing direct evolutionary relationships between older and younger species.

article 8
Foram Evolution - Forams - Students - Ocean World

Terrestrial species are much less likely to fossilize, but despite this there is great evidence of evolutionary lineages in the fossil record. Horses, dinosaur-bird transition and so on.

I suggest you check out this book by paleontologist Donald Prothero: Amazon.com: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (9780231139625): Donald R. Prothero, Carl Buell: Books

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paleontologists-the scientists who study fossils-are the most disenchanted of all the evolutionary scientists.

What evidence do you have?

Despite the claims of the non-scientific community, fossils DO NOT support the hypothesis of evolution.

Do you even know what a hypothesis is?

In fact, there are so many missing links in the fossil study, evolutionists rarely even rely on fossils for any kind for evidence.

Define "missing link". Give an example to us. As far as "evolutionist", you're correct. We don't rely on the fossil record to establish the facts of evolution.

There may be findings some day that support the missing links but it is highly unlikely anything will be found amongst fossils.

Your denial of transitional fossils is hilarious.

If the contention of evolution is that one kind of species evolves into another, there is simply no record of any intermediate changes in the fossil record.

Well I'm so glad that's not what evolution is all about. As far as your denial see above comment.

Most of Darwin's hypothoses are largely excluded today.

Yes, even Darwin's findings evolved.....

The best hope for evolutionists today might be in some sort of DNA testing.

Which in of itself trumps your whole uneducated rant on evolution....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I guess the question would be, okay if we are going to teach religion, what religion are we going to teach? then war breaks out and so it was just easier to say if you want to hear religion go to a private school. And so it was done. Is it wrong to teach that a bunch of fossils show these particular patters? no. Is it wrong to state different theories that different people have? no. It is really easy to explain creationism in a text book, "some believe God, or Gods, created all things in this world" done. I would say that is just as much a theory as anything. It is just as provable as some secret formula to create life.

Can the hypothesis of "creation" be tested......

 

[EarthAlive]

Can the hypothesis of "creation" be tested......

Just to point out creationists have never claimed that "creation" is testable, or part of the scientific method, I am not a creationist, but I have read a couple of their books and none claim creationism is testable. The reason for this is that most believe it was a one off event, or events that took place along time ago.

Heres a more important question. Can "natural selection" be tested?

Your find that actually natural selection and the creationist explanation of God creating things, are both metaphysical, both theories of the past. And both sides of the debate put either in the gap. Both are not scientific.

 

[Hawkins]

Just to point out creationists have never claimed that "creation" is testable, or part of the scientific method, I am not a creationist, but I have read a couple of their books and none claim creationism is testable. The reason for this is that most believe it was a one off event, or events that took place along time ago.

Heres a more important question. Can "natural selection" be tested?

Your find that actually natural selection and the creationist explanation of God creating things, are both metaphysical, both theories of the past. And both sides of the debate put either in the gap. Both are not scientific.

You are quite right.

The difference is that, creationists can realize where their faith involved in creationism while evolutionists don't seem to realize where their faith goes. And evolutionists tend to put a limit to science such that if it is true that God created everything, the evolutionists' version of science can never find out. ID however doesn't make such a lame assumption. Actually, science itself doesn't reject any posible truth, but religious men such as evolutionists do!

 

[Copernicus]

Heres a more important question. Can "natural selection" be tested?

You will be very happy to learn that it can be tested, and it has been tested. Hence, you can now see that there is an asymmetry between "both sides" of the debate. Natural selection is a testable theory, and it has passed the test. It really works as advertised. Creationism is not testable, but there is no reason to believe that creationism is needed, since natural selection very clearly does work.

 

[Alceste]

Rusra, I already pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting Sagan's view and now you are doing it again. Are you deliberately misrepresenting his views? If so, why?

He isn't deliberately misquoting Sagan: He's never read Sagan - probably has no idea who Sagan is. He's clearly just grabbing a few handy quote mines from his JW magazines. Like I said ages ago, he has only two referenced sources: JW magazines and the movie Expelled.