painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Maybe it's just easier to repeat from the script? Honestly that is how it feels sometimes. 
wa:do
wa:do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
Granted I have not done as much of my homework as compared to a few of you, but you're all simply getting tied up on the details. Explosion, expanssion, who gives a ****, same thing is happening. Hot dense mass or state, same frekin thing.
And Iasion as clearly not done any of his homework because apparently
the score so far :
Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against
Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against
Zero and none? Really dude? Man, if I didn't do my research you have done jack.
And if new hope is still pushing lies why don't you prove her wrong. Isn't that what scientists do? Bring opposing and more compelling evidence to the table.
And Iasion as clearly not done any of his homework because apparently
the score so far :
Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against
Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against
Zero and none? Really dude? Man, if I didn't do my research you have done jack.
And if new hope is still pushing lies why don't you prove her wrong. Isn't that what scientists do? Bring opposing and more compelling evidence to the table.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Having been around here for some time I assume you've heard of Project Steve, but have simply chosen to ignore it and have foolishly sought to support your position by citing academics who agree with creationism.
For those unfamiliar with Project Steve it's explained by its founder, the National Center for Science Education, as "
"'Project Steve' is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend."
source
As of 2/24/11 the number of scientists named Steve who support evolution is 1,157. And remember, Steves only represent about 1% of all scientists.Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend."
source
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Honestly... I can only stand to repeat myself so often. Poke around, everything Newhope says has been addressed repeatedly elsewhere. Newhope really only has a few arguments that keep getting recycled.
But anyway, back to the OP... What specifically do you find objectionable about evolution?
wa:do
Gday,
Wrong.
Completely different concepts,
about completely different things,
that happened at different times.
What a pity you can't understand them.
I hafve done my homework.
And this is the score so far :
the score so far :
Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against
Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against
Yes, really.
ZERO scientific evidence against evolution.
That's why you, like all creationists, cannot cite even ONE.
I did the research.
What a pity all you did was preach creationist nonsense.
She HAS been proved wrong.
The evidence HAS been cited, and is vast and overwhelming.
'You guys' just ignore it.
Iasion
Wrong.
Completely different concepts,
about completely different things,
that happened at different times.
What a pity you can't understand them.
I hafve done my homework.
And this is the score so far :
the score so far :
Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against
Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against
Yes, really.
ZERO scientific evidence against evolution.
That's why you, like all creationists, cannot cite even ONE.
I did the research.
What a pity all you did was preach creationist nonsense.
She HAS been proved wrong.
The evidence HAS been cited, and is vast and overwhelming.
'You guys' just ignore it.
Iasion
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It seems to be impossible to advocate creationism/evolution denial in a truly honest manner.
I've interacted with literally hundreds of creationists from a number of faiths, and I have yet to encounter one who defended or advocated his position honestly. But then, that's likely because of the inherent dishonest nature of the position itself. You cannot advocate an inherently dishonest position without engaging in some level of dishonesty yourself.
newhope101
Active Member
Paintedwolf cannot prove me wrong. That is the nature of their evolutionary science. PW cannot defend her own stance. There is always some research to refute, and then refute the refute.
What PW is good at is telling porkies.
Paintedwolf and many others here are unable to acknowlede that some very well credentials scientists, both creationists and not, have concerns as to the rubustness of TOE. I have quoted them many times and PW knows it but continues this desperate line. It is a loosing line for PW.
So not only can evo scientists not agree on what they see there in front of them while all having access to the same research and evidence (eg birds), they are at each others throats over lots of things, eg out of Africa versus not, genomics against taxonomy etc, each researcher with their own agenda, looking at the same evidence yet cannot agree. The one thing these evolutionary researhers will agree on is "it all evolved".
Also do not forget that it is Paintedwolf that peddles her bird ancestry and shoves it down everyones throat and asks them to explain this and explain that and how does this fit with that and how does this fit with your definition etc etc etc. And all the while this piece of work cannot defend herself nor her stance in the face of opposing hypothesis re birds.. It is all the same for them..whatever gets fed up as flavour of the month is the irrefuteable evidence of day ready to be assigned to garbage bin of delusionary evidence past, just like LUCA, our knucklewalking ancestry, bipedalism connected to brain size, punctuated equilibrium because the fossils don't fit and accelerated evolution because some parts of the genome do not fit. They surely have a theory to explain everything, but no evidence.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
The sad fact is that nothing evolutionists provide can be classed as evidence. It is mostly based on faulty computer modelling, based on probabilities they know absolutely nothing about (eg population size), mutation rates that have found to not be consatant, a molecular clock that is defective and now there is research to say that these models are even more defective. PW has heard it all and ignores it.
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution
PW's ploy is simple. She denies evidence she has already seen put up and keeps people going around in circles with evidence she knows little, if anything, about. However the community that is less educated are easily fooled. Any simplistic reply PW puts up you can bet is only part of the truth. Evos choose to ignore any research that rocks the evo boat. Then plead when refuted...that is evolutionary science, we are sure it is fact and the fact that it changes all the time makes it reality. It an argument made in heaven, where changes do not refute but proove. What nonsense! They believe in more miracles and silly stories than biblical creationists do.
You have fossils that are presumed human ancestors that could be any decendant from many flat faced primates, orangs, gorillas or hybrids. Who knows? Not these evolutionists. Even Lucy has gorilla features, yet there she remains in our history.
Disinherited ancestor: Lucy's kind may occupy evolutionary side branch. - Free Online Library
So to answer the question what do I disagree with. The simplest answer would be to say "Everythng".
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
she has put you away wet !!! at every reply she has given you.
Your not worthy of a reply or a debate.
it is you that has not defended her stance, nor can you you ever
YOU POST TRASH, YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT MANY TIMES WITH LESS THEN HONEST POOR REPLYS.
YOU TWIST WORDS AND QUOTE MINE
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY
YOU HAVE NO SUBSTANCE
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Though I am not as into the capital letters as outhouse, I still agree. Newhope, you described yourself, not PW.
I do have one question that I'd like you to consider though. Why does this matter so much? You post pages and pages of text, you adamantly state a few points over and over...for what? Is your religious faith that shaky that you have to have ID? If it is, you've missed the point of the creation story entirely.
I do have one question that I'd like you to consider though. Why does this matter so much? You post pages and pages of text, you adamantly state a few points over and over...for what? Is your religious faith that shaky that you have to have ID? If it is, you've missed the point of the creation story entirely.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
NewHope,
The problem is, all the examples you cite are questions about exactly how evolution has taken place in the past. Did B evolve into C or did they both share common ancestor A? Did A evolve this trait or that trait first? Did it happen in 100,000 years or 1 million? Did it happen independently in different places or in one place and then spread?
IOW, you're basically arguing that because evolutionary biologists haven't worked out the exact evolutionary history of every trait in every living organism that's ever existed on earth, then they don't know anything, and that if there is disagreement among scientists on those issues, then the whole framework is faulty.
Do you apply that same standard to everything?
The problem is, all the examples you cite are questions about exactly how evolution has taken place in the past. Did B evolve into C or did they both share common ancestor A? Did A evolve this trait or that trait first? Did it happen in 100,000 years or 1 million? Did it happen independently in different places or in one place and then spread?
IOW, you're basically arguing that because evolutionary biologists haven't worked out the exact evolutionary history of every trait in every living organism that's ever existed on earth, then they don't know anything, and that if there is disagreement among scientists on those issues, then the whole framework is faulty.
Do you apply that same standard to everything?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Newhope... you disagree with everything evolution says?
Really?
wa:do
Really?
wa:do
newhope101
Active Member
I would expect the evidence you find to substaniate your claims rather than change them.
If you truly expect people that have belived in God traditionally for decades, and their parents before them, it is going to take alot more robustness than your reearchers can provide at present.
Darwins theory has been disproven. He purported Gradualism. Rather the fossil record shows stasis for millions of years at a time. Immunity to disease and somatic adaptive changes such as those do not lead to macroevolution. If they did you would have found gradualism in the fossil record. Your researchers did not find this. The case should be closed. It isn't.
Rather, your researchers continue to flap around in the dark.
Even if I did not hope in a God, I still would find it difficult to accept the current evidence. There is something wrong with what your researchers are doing and the resulting interpretations of their biased modells which still do not provide clarity.
You should not expect anyone to change their views based on what you can currently present as evidence. To suggest that an individual should change long held beliefs based on what you can currently provide is akin to requesting same stop using their reasoning ability and just swallow whatever is put to them.
Those that knock religious beliefs are called religious biggots, and I see many here. It is outdated, it is not what the western world wants and this is reflected in law. I am afraid many here are outdated in their stance and attitudes.
You should have some respect for those that can produce evidence that illustrates reasons for their skepticism. It illustrates at least that they have considered the evidence and have come to an informed decision. Rather evos pummell such people because you are prepared to go with the flavour of the month and others are not.
I have provided a link that illustrates researchers unsure as to where Ardi belongs. These researchers estimate human/chimp divergence from 3-5mya. I have seen other research that date the split to 8myo. Yet these researchers are happy with their results and conclude Ardi is misplaced as a human ancestor, but is rather a side branch leading else where.
This is yet another example on top of the many I have provided that illustrates why I think your researchers are grabbing at straws. The evidence you can provide is surely nothing more than theoretical. I am not giving up a basic long held faith to replace it with another faith, that can support itself no better than any other faith.
Ardi may be more ape than human : Nature News
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
What specific claims are you talking about?
Does this mean that you believe evolution = atheism? One cannot believe in a god and accept the validity of evolution?
You're not addressing the point I made to you. I fully agree that evolutionary scientists have not figured out the complete evolutionary history of every organism and trait that's ever existed on earth. But does that then mean they know nothing about evolution at all? You seem to be saying, "Yes, it does". If so, then that leads me to wonder if you apply that standard of perfection to everything else.
So help me out here...what would it mean to your religious views and beliefs if you were to change your mind about evolution?
As I said, there's no doubt that evolutionary scientists have not figured out the complete evolutionary history of life on earth. You don't need to keep reiterating a point to which we both agree.
My point is, are you arguing that until scientists figure out the complete evolutionary history of everything that's ever existed on earth and do so with 100% agreement among all scientists, you will remain a "skeptic"? If so, do you apply that standard to other subjects?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You have to forgive Newhope; she has a doctorate in "wrong-ology" so she is pretty good at being wrong.
This is why I KNOW that GOD doesn't exist!! I prayed and said "Please God, let Newhope understand this simple point" and she still return and write crap in response to your post
David M
Well-Known Member
No he did not. He proposed relatively long periods of almost no change and relatively short periods of change.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2381883-post1843.html
You need to read Origin before you attempt to criticise it, otherwise you will just keep making foolish and ignorant claims.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
newhope101
Active Member
Your link goes back to citing your own ignorance. Well done!
Darwin:I cannot believe that in a state of nature new species arise from changes in structure in old species so great & sudden as to deserve to be called monstrosities. Had this been so, we should have had monstrosities closely resembling other species of the same genus or family; as it is comparisons are instituted with distant members of the same great order or even class, appearing as if picked out almost by chance. Nor can I believe that structures could arise from any sudden & great change of structure (excepting possibly in the rarest instances) so beautifully adapted as we know them to be, to the extraordinarily complex conditions of existence against which every species has to struggle. Every part of the machinery seems to have been slowly & cautiously modelled to guard against the innumerable contingencies to which it has to be exposed [p. 319, Charles Darwin's Natural Selection, ed. R. C. Stauffer, 1975]
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/10/what-darwin-said-part-6-gradualism-b.php
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most speciesfrom their initial appearance until their extinctionhas long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[42][43] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[44]
"In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form"
And yet, even with long periods of stasis, Darwins evolution was meant to be gradual so as to not "create monsters"
This reflective rhetoric appears nothing more than an attemp to keep Darwin alive.
Punctuated eqilibrium, should you accept it, refers to stasis and then rapid/accelerated evolution.
Darwin promoted gradualualism, regardless of periods of stasis, and gradualism is NOT found in the fossil record.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/10/what-darwin-said-part-6-gradualism-b.php
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most speciesfrom their initial appearance until their extinctionhas long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[42][43] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[44]
"In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form"
And yet, even with long periods of stasis, Darwins evolution was meant to be gradual so as to not "create monsters"
This reflective rhetoric appears nothing more than an attemp to keep Darwin alive.
Punctuated eqilibrium, should you accept it, refers to stasis and then rapid/accelerated evolution.
Darwin promoted gradualualism, regardless of periods of stasis, and gradualism is NOT found in the fossil record.