Why creationism wins.

[outhouse]

Facts are facts, .

And you have none. :no:

To deny evolution is idiocy

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

True story:

I majored in religion (in undergrad) at a very conservative Christian school.

The faculty and religion department often debated creationism versus religion. It was so bad that the religion professors would berate a student and send them back to the science department with a message for those professors to start teaching real science.

The religion department argued that the students needed to be honest about science and interpret the evidence appropriately.

The science department argued for creationism. And the head of the department was a world renowned virologist.

Oh my gosh

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And you have none. :no:

To deny evolution is idiocy

Yes, in the classical sense.

I prefer to approach the problem thusly:

1) The people who come up with the fake science and lie about everything are frauds and liars

2) The people who thoughtlessly accept their lies are gullible and irresponsible, not necessarily idiots.

 

[Willamena]

What is the evangelical image of God?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is the evangelical image of God?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

"Maketh thy pledge now... at our toll free number."

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Speciation in real time: Speciation in real time

(One of those pesky evilution conspiracy sites from Berkeley University, it's only the oldest U in CA, so it must be wrong with all its "leftwing" anti-christian propaganda!)

That does not prove that a single celled organism can turn into a multi cell organism.

What part of this do you not understand, observing Micro-Evolution is not evidence for Macro Evolution.

A finches beak changing shapes does not prove evolution as fact.

Your saying that something can take place over millions of years. when you add millions of years you are now leaving science.

 

[Ouroboros]

That does not prove that a single celled organism can turn into a multi cell organism.

Here's a thing you probably don't understand. Evolution is a multistep process. Each step can't be proven by a single evidence. There are many different kinds of evidence to show the different steps of evolution.

The single cell to multi cell was replicated and proved last years using yeast.

Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated

It's been done at some later experiments as well.

What part of this do you not understand, observing Micro-Evolution is not evidence for Macro Evolution.

Hybrids are not micro-evolution.

A finches beak changing shapes does not prove evolution as fact.

It wasn't just that. What you do not understand is that you need to read and study these things to understand them. You're throwing out a bunch of propaganda lines without following up if they're true or not.

Your saying that something can take place over millions of years. when you add millions of years you are now leaving science.

??? So astronomy isn't a science when it deals with Big Bang? Math is wrong when it deals with integrals involving long time periods? I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't exist because I was born 49 years ago and that's too long ago to be scientifically true?

You're not making sense.

 

[rusra02]

Yes, in the classical sense.

I prefer to approach the problem thusly:

1) The people who come up with the fake science and lie about everything are frauds and liars

2) The people who thoughtlessly accept their lies are gullible and irresponsible, not necessarily idiots.

1. Watching the World
“One in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication.”—BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, BRITAIN."
2. You decide.

 

[Skwim]

1. Watching the World
“One in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication.”—BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, BRITAIN."
2. You decide.

While the percentage of creationism advocates who pervert science is 100%

​

Including:

John Baumgardner

Michael Behe

Jerry Bergman

Raymond Bohlin,

Leonard Brand

Walt Brown

Harold Willard Clark

William Dembski

Robert V. Gentry

Duane Gish

Werner Gitt

Ken Ham

Kent Hovind

David Russell Humphreys

Cornelius G. Hunter

Phillip E. Johnson

Frank Lewis Marsh

Andrew McIntosh

Stephen C. Meyer,

Henry Morris

John D. Morris

George McCready Price

Hugh Ross.

Marcus R. Ross

Ariel A. Roth

Andrew A. Snelling

Larry Vardiman

Walter Julius Veith

Jonathan Wells,

John Whitcomb

Carl Wieland

Kurt Patrick Wise

Thomas E. Woodward

source
​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

observing Micro-Evolution is not evidence for Macro Evolution.

Yes it is.

Creationists try to make a distinction between the two because they don't want to look like complete idiots.

The problem with this tactic is that it makes creationists look even stupider.

Do with it what you like, but claiming one without the other is sophomoric and infantile. It's like saying that when you pour a little bit of concrete it will cease being concrete when you have a lot of concrete.

Or in this case, the lunacy just gets more abysmal. With microevolution and macroevolution you are studying the same phenomenon. That's how scientists and philosophers use the terms. It is impossible to have one without the other, which is the reason it's the same ******* word.

 

[outhouse]

A finches beak changing shapes does not prove evolution as fact.

.

True, it is evidence though.

Do you honestly think that is all the evidence there is?


Dude, lets get something straight here and now.

Evolution is fact, there is no debate. There is only refusal by the ignorant, who lack the intellect to open their minds. This is a matter of education and honesty. :yes:

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Your saying that something can take place over millions of years. when you add millions of years you are now leaving science.

But vocal communication in snakes, donkeys, and spontaneously combusting plants is completely within the realms of scientific possiblity? Yeah, okay.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That does not prove that a single celled organism can turn into a multi cell organism.

It isn't supposed to. It's supposed to demonstrate that populations of organisms can diversify to the point of becoming separate species over time through mutation and natural selection; speciation.

What part of this do you not understand, observing Micro-Evolution is not evidence for Macro Evolution.

Yes, it is. The fact that we can observe changes building up in populations or organisms past the point where that single population of a single species can now be identified as two populations that are two distinct species is very strong evidence for evolution being accountable for the diversity of species we see today. It alone is a demonstration that mutations can and do add up to produce variations within taxonomic ranks.

A finches beak changing shapes does not prove evolution as fact.

Yes, it does. What other process could result in such a change occurring?

Your saying that something can take place over millions of years. when you add millions of years you are now leaving science.

What a bizarre thing to say. Do you doubt the ages that scientists have estimated for the Universe? Or the earth? Or the half-lives of certain chemical elements? Science is entirely founded on predictions based on examination and evidence. If science cannot create a predictive, theoretical framework then it is not achieving much of anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

But vocal communication in snakes, donkeys, and spontaneously combusting plants is completely within the realms of scientific possiblity? Yeah, okay.

And I wonder how the snake could hear Eve. Snakes don't have ears. They hear only from ground vibration, from what I understand. So did the snake in the garden have ears, vocal cord, and hyoid bone? A lot of things God had to remove after the fall.

Sounds like God must've re-created things after the creation (including blood clothing and immune system, since the world was "perfect" before the fall).

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes it is.

Creationists try to make a distinction between the two because they don't want to look like complete idiots.

The problem with this tactic is that it makes creationists look even stupider.

Very true.

Do with it what you like, but claiming one without the other is sophomoric and infantile. It's like saying that when you pour a little bit of concrete it will cease being concrete when you have a lot of concrete.

Or in this case, the lunacy just gets more abysmal. With microevolution and macroevolution you are studying the same phenomenon. That's how scientists and philosophers use the terms. It is impossible to have one without the other, which is the reason it's the same ******* word.

Yup.

A grain of sand doesn't make a sand pile, but millions of them do.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

And I wonder how the snake could hear Eve. Snakes don't have ears. They hear only from ground vibration, from what I understand. So did the snake in the garden have ears, vocal cord, and hyoid bone? A lot of things God had to remove after the fall.)

They also don't have lips either. I'd like to challenge everyone on this forum to try and form a coherent sentence without using their lips, and see how well that works.

 

[Willamena]

They also don't have lips either. I'd like to challenge everyone on this forum to try and form a coherent sentence without using their lips, and see how well that works.

I just use my fingers.


Edit: Okay, in all fairness, I admit it... my arguments are rarely coherent.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I just use my fingers.

I meant to themselves.

I'm sure snakes have a bit of trouble with that as well.

 

[dust1n]

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton stated that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also spoke of Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.
Bluster and hubris will not turn the ToE from fiction to fact. Nor will attacking those who disagree with this unproven speculation.

"He describes himself as an evolutionist, and he has rejected biblical creationism."

Michael Denton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia