Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[rusra02]

Rusra

So we would have to throw out all of the known fundemental sciences, plate tectonics,gravity, astronomy, cosmology, biology and all others and completely dismiss the entire fossil record, especially geology and what we have obersed and know as facts, that make up scientific theories. We would have to throw out the five mass extintion events on earth. We know the solar system is around 5 billion years old, we know how old the sun and planets are, how they formed by stellar accreation, just like the billions of stars we can see forming right now with the hubble space telescope. We know the elements your made from came from super nova star explaosions billions of years ago. In fact our solar system is recycled material. We have pictures of the universe evolving before ANY stars existed or galaxies.

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution. Further, a known fact is far different than the leaps of credulity belief in the ToE requires. The facts science has discovered reveal intelligent design, not blind chance, is responsible for living things.
It may be that new stars are being formed. The Bible does not preclude this. Nonetheless, we are still left with the question, where did the universe come from? The Bible answers that question. What is your answer?

So are you saying the earth was created in six days? That anyone believes this in 2012 is way beyond me and the massive amount of evidence in all the sciences, that can dimiss the earth being created in six days with no problem what so ever.

No, I have never said the earth was created in six 24-hour days. You apparently did not read my post carefully. There is a massive amount of propaganda from ToE advocates. Evidence? not so much. The basic premise for such pseudo-science is materialism, a refusal to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" of scientific research, even if that is where the evidence leads. And woe betide anyone who bucks the ToE establishment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution.

Utter nonsense. What the fossil record clearly shows is a progression over time of smaller numbers of simpler life forms progressing into a more complex and varied array of species as we ascend the geological strata. This is exactly what we would expect to find were evolution true, and it's exactly what we do find. Do not baselessly assert that the fossil record supports the Biblical account of creation - if it did, we would not find what we do find, what we would find is almost all contemporary species appearing spontaneously around 12,000 years into the geological strata. We do not find that, at all.

Further, a known fact is far different than the leaps of credulity belief in the ToE requires. The facts science has discovered reveal intelligent design, not blind chance, is responsible for living things.

Again, total garbage. You have not submitted a single concrete fact for review, and whenever a fact in favour of evolution is brought up you either ignore it, dismiss it, claim it is the result of fraud or claim it could also be evidence of "design", which is a completely baseless and erroneous conclusion.

It may be that new stars are being formed. The Bible does not preclude this. Nonetheless, we are still left with the question, where did the universe come from? The Bible answers that question. What is your answer?

Every religious text proposes an answer to that question. Hell, I could propose an answer now. The real question is whether or not that proposed answer is actually true. Just because you give an answer does not mean that answer is correct, and having an answer that is wrong (or, at least, totally baseless) is worse than having no answer at all. Ignorance is preferable to error.

No, I have never said the earth was created in six 24-hour days.

The Bible does, unless you're going to arbitrarily assert that when the Bible talks about "days" it actually means something else, in which case whoever wrote the Bible (or translated it) was obviously an idiot, since to refer to something as a "day" means precisely a "24-hour period".

You apparently did not read my post carefully. There is a massive amount of propaganda from ToE advocates. Evidence? not so much. The basic premise for such pseudo-science is materialism, a refusal to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" of scientific research, even if that is where the evidence leads. And woe betide anyone who bucks the ToE establishment.

Present a single piece of evidence for design that is not subjective, special pleading or based on pure ignorance and lies.

 

[Krok]

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution.

Rusra02, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat falsehoods, they never turn into the truth.

 

[tumbleweed41]

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution...

 

[The_Evelyonian]

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution.

Demonstrate that or withdraw the claim.

 

[johnhanks]

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution.

If you respond to The_Evelyonian's request (post above), it will no doubt be with another half-baked reference to the so-called Cambrian explosion. Odd, isn't it, how none of the life-forms represented in the earliest Cambrian and Precambrian strata correspond to any of the organisms referred to in Genesis (or, indeed, alive today)?

Further, a known fact is far different than the leaps of credulity belief in the ToE requires. The facts science has discovered reveal intelligent design, not blind chance, is responsible for living things.

Despite your recent attempts to misrepresent the work of Jacques Monod, the fact remains that living organisms do not evolve by "blind chance".

It may be that new stars are being formed. The Bible does not preclude this. Nonetheless, we are still left with the question, where did the universe come from? The Bible answers that question. What is your answer?

There is a difference between an answer and a pseudo-answer. Imagine you ask about some event "Who did this, and how?". Someone jumps up and down shouting "I know, I know" then goes on to tell you "It was done by someone unknowable and beyond our knowing, by means we cannot understand". You would not, I suggest, feel you had received an answer in any meaningful sense of the word.

There is a massive amount of propaganda from ToE advocates. Evidence? not so much. The basic premise for such pseudo-science is materialism, a refusal to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" of scientific research, even if that is where the evidence leads.

Despite many requests, you have yet to cite a shred of evidence leading in that direction. All we ever get is lists of organisms and their features, with the unsupported assertion "These must have been designed".

And woe betide anyone who bucks the ToE establishment.

Who runs this "ToE establishment", rusra, and to what end? I teach evolution: am I part of it? (Jolly exciting if I am; I've never belonged to an establishment before. And "woe betide anyone who bucks me", eh? Power at last! Er - but what exactly am I entitled to do to them?)

 

[shawn001]

To the contrary, the fossil record supports the Bible's account of creation, not evolution. Further, a known fact is far different than the leaps of credulity belief in the ToE requires. The facts science has discovered reveal intelligent design, not blind chance, is responsible for living things.
It may be that new stars are being formed. The Bible does not preclude this. Nonetheless, we are still left with the question, where did the universe come from? The Bible answers that question. What is your answer?


No, I have never said the earth was created in six 24-hour days. You apparently did not read my post carefully. There is a massive amount of propaganda from ToE advocates. Evidence? not so much. The basic premise for such pseudo-science is materialism, a refusal to "allow a Divine Foot in the door" of scientific research, even if that is where the evidence leads. And woe betide anyone who bucks the ToE establishment.

So you didn't understand one thing about my post. LOl

"Further, a known fact is far different than the leaps of credulity belief in the ToE requires."

There again are billions of known facts for the TOE and evolution. Your personal blind faith is no match for all the sciences. Especially when you have no clue about any of them.

Do you understand plate tectonics?

 

[rusra02]

If you respond to The_Evelyonian's request (post above), it will no doubt be with another half-baked reference to the so-called Cambrian explosion. Odd, isn't it, how none of the life-forms represented in the earliest Cambrian and Precambrian strata correspond to any of the organisms referred to in Genesis (or, indeed, alive today)?
(rest of post clipped for space)

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution? Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful? Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."
Let's also deep-six what avowed evolutionist David M. Raup wrote: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."
Hmm. species appear suddenly, show little or no change....
Let's just call everything written that disproves evolution "quote-mining" and ridicule whoever believes in creation and call them names, and accuse them of lying.
That ought to silence those pesky people who insist that God created all life according to their kinds, as the Bible says.

 

[rusra02]

You should write it down, get it peer reviewed, and lose your tenure or your grant money, or your job. (See movie Expelled for actual examples of how to do this.)

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You don't lose grant money you already have. You can only lose further grants. And if your work does not produce truthful results, well... you don't get any more grants.

[lol 'Expelled']

 

[photvid]

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution? Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful? Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."
Let's also deep-six what avowed evolutionist David M. Raup wrote: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."
Hmm. species appear suddenly, show little or no change....
Let's just call everything written that disproves evolution "quote-mining" and ridicule whoever believes in creation and call them names, and accuse them of lying.
That ought to silence those pesky people who insist that God created all life according to their kinds, as the Bible says.

Have you actually read David Raup's or Carl Sagan's work or or you quote mining (your own words)? What you've quoted here is completely taken out of context and misrepresents their position.

 

[johnhanks]

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution?

Of course you're allowed, rusra: we're just waiting for you to do so. You haven't posted any evidence at all yet.

Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful?

No, let's bring it out into the open and see how poorly it matches the biblical account of creation.

Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

No, let's discuss it; in fact, let's discuss the whole quote:

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).

Let's also deep-six what avowed evolutionist David M. Raup wrote: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

Why on earth should we deep-six it? Raup is describing part of the fossil record and using it to critique one particular mechanism of evolution. There can be several , you know. And as Raup goes on to say,

This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred...

Let's just call everything written that disproves evolution "quote-mining"...

If anything has been written that disproves evolution, you have yet to show it to us. And what you did with Sagan's piece above is classic quote-mining of the most dishonest kind.

... and ridicule whoever believes in creation and call them names, and accuse them of lying.

Keep saying ridiculous things and you'll be ridiculed; keep lying and people will keep calling you on it.

That ought to silence those pesky people who insist that God created all life according to their kinds, as the Bible says.

How are you being silenced? You're as free to air your views as anyone else. But when those views are based on ignorance, misquotation and dishonesty, expect people to point it out.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution? Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful?

This has been explained to you over and over:

The Cambrian Explosion does not, even in the slightest bit, contradict evolution theory. It was merely a RELATIVELY RAPID speciation event in the fossil record. If evolution weren't true, the Cambrian Explosion wouldn't have even occurred in the first place. Please stop pedalling this blatant misinformation.

Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

I love how you accuse evolutionists of propaganda, and yet you insist on using random, out-of-context quotes as the basis of your argument rather than actual facts.

Let's also deep-six what avowed evolutionist David M. Raup wrote: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

See above.

Hmm. species appear suddenly, show little or no change....

Congratulations on your dishonesty. You must be extremely proud of being able to take one paragraph a person wrote and itnerpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean. Meanwhile, the rest of us honest people will continue to believe that the facts of a matter can never, ever, be summed-up in a single soundbite, and that people like Raup - who accept evolution theory - do not deserve to be quoted by people like you who have no idea what they actually say or mean.

Let's just call everything written that disproves evolution "quote-mining" and ridicule whoever believes in creation and call them names, and accuse them of lying.

Well, you've really not just helped your case by producing nothing that disproves evolution, along with two quote-mines and outright lies.

That ought to silence those pesky people who insist that God created all life according to their kinds, as the Bible says.

Such people aren't pesky. They're deluded.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution?

You're more than welcome to post any evidence you wish. We're waiting for you to do so.

Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful?

No, let's bring the Cambrian explosion right on out and examine it. Let's show how it's entirely inconsistent with a "sudden creation event".

The Cambrian explosion was not "sudden". It took place over a span of 5,000,000-40,000,000 years.

The organisms in the Cambrian explosion do not "appear out of nowhere". There are transitional specimens of Cambrian phyla (lobopods, for example).

Not all phyla appear during the explosion. All plants postdate the CE by quite a bit. Almost none of the animal groups that people are familiar with (mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, insects, spiders) appeared in the explosion. They all arrived on the scene much, MUCH later. There were some "fish" involved in the CE but they are unlike any fish alive today.

Source

You're more than welcome to bring up the Cambrian explosion but, unfortunately, it doesn't help your case.

Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

Sure, but if you'd like to discuss it, may we discuss the entire quote?

"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)."

Source: 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan

Let's also deep-six what avowed evolutionist David M. Raup wrote: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

Raup also says:

"We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."

"What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."
[emphasis in original]

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare."

Source

Raup's statements are not arguments against evolution. Rather, he is simply critiquing one mechanism of it.

Also keep in mind that Raup wrote all of this in 1979. It's dated.

Also, if you wish to discuss quotes, feel free. Just remember that quotes aren't evidence. You could post-

"I once believed evolution was an absolute, incontrovertible fact. However, recently, I've come to see the error of my ways. It's become all too obvious to me during my examinations of the evidence that the only possible answer to the origins and development of life is Yahweh, the God of Judeo-Christianity" - Richard Dawkins*
*Don't get excited. Dawkins never said this. I just made it up.

-and it would not help your case. To try and use quotes as evidence is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

"It's true 'cause this guy over here says so!"

Factual data qualifies as evidence. Quotes do not.

Hmm. species appear suddenly, show little or no change....

"Suddenly" to a paleontologist, geologist, or biologist is not the same as "suddenly" in the common usage of the term.

When you're dealing with a 4,500,000,000 year timeframe an event that takes only a few hundred thousand or million years could be said to be sudden. Few people have a grasp of what's known as "deep time". It's a shame, because when it's said that the Cambrian explosion occurred "suddenly", it means in relation to deep time, not that the event occurred overnight.

Let's just call everything written that disproves evolution "quote-mining" and ridicule whoever believes in creation and call them names, and accuse them of lying.

That ought to silence those pesky people who insist that God created all life according to their kinds, as the Bible says.

And the evidence that the fossil record supports creation is....where?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You should write it down, get it peer reviewed, and lose your tenure or your grant money, or your job. (See movie Expelled for actual examples of how to do this.)

Oh, you found out the secret!

Over 500,000 research biologists in the world are in on the Great Evolution Conspiracy.


(Hint, if your research is flawed and filled with subjective validation, the peer reviewing will find it. If you refuse to adhere to the scientific method, you are dismissed.)

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You should write it down, get it peer reviewed, and lose your tenure or your grant money, or your job. (See movie Expelled for actual examples of how to do this.)

Actually, it would work something like this:

1) Scientist "X" makes groundbreaking discovery that completely overturns the modern field of Biology.

2) X submits his'her research for peer-review.

3) Numerous other scientists in the relevant fields independently test X's findings to see if they are accurate. If the tests fail, X goes back to the drawing board. If, however, X's findings are confirmed....

4) X's data is published in numerous scientific journals.

5) X collects a well-deserved Nobel Prize.

6) X becomes the biggest name in science since Albert Einstein.

What you need to understand is that this is how science grows. There's nothing to be gained by holding onto a failed idea whereas ideas that improve our understanding of the world around us are the lifeblood of science.

Scientists are rewarded more for new discoveries than they are for supporting already established principles. Any scientist that could conclusively disprove evolution would be guaranteed fame and prestige on a global scale.

There is no "big science" conspiracy that is preventing this from happening (despite what "Expelled" would have you believe). Scientists are not being pressured to "tow the party line" and creationists are not being "systematically suppressed".

CA320: Scientists challenging established dogma
CA325: Creationists publishing

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution? Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful? Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

I'm sorry but didn't I already bust you on the Carl Sagan (quote-mine) in a different thread????

 

[shawn001]

I wonder if he ever watched Cosmos?

Carl also put together this

"

Imagine that the entire history of the universe is compressed into one year - with the Big Bang corresponding to the first second of the New Year's Day, and the present time to the last second of December 31st (midnight). Using this scale of time, each month would equal a little over a billion years. Here's a closer look at when important events would occur when we imagine the universe in one year:

Cosmic Calendar

 

[johnhanks]

I'm sorry but didn't I already bust you on the Carl Sagan (quote-mine) in a different thread????

Yes you did, but you must know by now how creationists work.

It's an essential part of the creationist modus operandi to make what they think is a killer point, have it taken apart and its absurdity exposed, then to put it back into storage for a while until it's judged safe to bring it out again.

If creationists didn't do this they'd quickly run out of material: there are only so many scientists' quotes you can distort.

 

[Krok]

I'm sorry but didn't I already bust you on the Carl Sagan (quote-mine) in a different thread????

Somebody did. I can't remember who it was.

Creationists have only one tool in their armour.Telling untruths. Then they complain when we point out their untruths and call them them the appropriate name for people consistently not telling the truth.