MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#41 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, science supports a young age of the earth.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist xristian creationists" LIE so much?

Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?

I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.

.
.
.

Or does that whole ten commandment thing apply only to everyone EXCEPT you "fundamentalist xristian creationists"?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#42 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your quick response. Archaeopteryx is a perching bird, not a half dinosaur/half bird. All life is not evolving, but is decaying, slowly, depending on the way you look at it. There is no mechanism in genetics which can add new genetic information onto the DNA - which evolution requires to turn pond scum into people. To say that it does is a huuuuge step of faith. In fact you have more faith than Moses. I also have a belief, that the Bible is the word of God and gives us a record of how life and non life began. What specific examples of evidence for evolution are there??
No, archaeopteryx is not a perching bird. That is a lie told to you by creationist web sites. I told you not to get your information there since they all, and I mean ALL, lie. Archaeopteryx has various dinosaur features, including teeth. Also it does not have the reversed hallux that makes creatards cum in their pants. Later, better preserved specimens after the first one showed that lack.
http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_da...

So for many years even paleontologists have called archaeopteryx the "first bird" now they are starting to take back that title. Here is a hint. When you cannot decide if an animal belongs to one class or another, or even have difficulty doing so, it is transitional.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#43 Oct 12, 2012
Also your blind faith in your Bible is your downfall. There are many factual errors in the Bible and extremely strong evidence that they "cooked the books" when it comes to Biblical prophesies in regard to Jesus. If you did not have a book written by Bronze Age Camel Humpers who had no clue about science you would have no objection to evolution.

Meanwhile, we have found over 20 early hominids that show the evolution of man from our ape ancestor that we shared with the chimpanzee. The recent evolution of the horse, the whale, and extremely well documented evolution of quite a few varieties of sea life, show evolution occurring.

Going back to the fossils of early man there are even fossils of those that fit my description of transitional fossils, and it was proven by creatards. There are two different hominids that two of the most infamous of creation "scientists" disagree upon. They each made their claim without conferring with the other. Gish and Taylor cannot agree which fossils are "definitely apes" and which ones are "definitely man". That means between the two of them they have found the "missing link" a fallacious creationist term, but one that I will use here with my tongue sticking out at them. If you cannot decide if an animal belongs to one class or another it is transitional. Thank you creatards!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare....
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#44 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Gillette,
ok, your answer is in two parts, Biology and Geology.
Wait, wait, hold on. Plenty of time later for the Gish Gallop.

I just presented you with a DETAILED affirmation from both the geology and biology departments at an evangelical Christian, Baptist University, where students and faculty accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and go on mission trips and expressly promote a Christian lifestyle on campus, etc.

And these professionally qualified science educators say EXPLICITLY that they teach evolution as a matter of course in their departments because it is "considered a proven fact."

What is your response to your evangelical Christian brethren?

Are you seriously going to claim that you know more about science than these degreed science educators do? Because your posts so far mark you as an under-educated Christian pastor or apologist who is pushing the standard CARTOON version of what fundamentalist Christians THINK is science.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#45 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Gillette,
ok, your answer is in two parts, Biology and Ggeology. First, we know that bacteria breed bateria and dogs breed dogs.
Not sure this is worth the time, but...

Yes, from one generation to another, a dog always produces a dog. Science would agree with that.

However, that first offspring (call it Generation 1) is always slightly different from its parents, due to the combination of parental genes and to gene mutations.

Now if you followed Generation 1 to Generation 2, 3, 4, 5--- etc. all the way to Generation 1 MILLION, a million years later, you would probably find that the offspring called Generation 1,000,000 is SO different from Generation 1 that the two species would no longer be able to mate with one another and science would therefore classify it as a new and different species.

THIS is what science says happens in the Theory of Evolution -- not a fish coming out of a rock.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#46 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
We know from genetics that the DNA will not improve with copying errors.(Does any computer program inprove with copying errors??) There may be some survival advantage, but the new information needed to turn an a bacteria into a biologist simply cannot happen. Science knows this.
Well, so says the CARTOON VERSION of genetics pushed by fundamentalist Christian pastors, etc.

A computer program does not reproduce itself like a biological organism. False analogy.

And a "survival advantage" is the WHOLE POINT of evolution. A "copying error" is no longer an "error" if it improved the live of the species and makes it easier to reproduce. It is a beneficial mutation in that case.

And bacteria don;t turn into biologists, according to science. Get an education.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#47 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a philosophy, not science.
Yes, we know, And you are not religious. You just have a personal relationship with Jesus, right?(((rolls eyes))))
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know rocks are millions of years old? This too is a faith statement.
No, it's a conclusion based on 100 years of research and evidence.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating is full of assumptions.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#48 Oct 12, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And the late Steven J Gould (strong opponent to Creationism) admitted the absence of intermediate forms is the trade secret of Paleontology.
Never try to quote a "strong opponent of creationism" for support for you position.

You will inevitably be made a FOOL of!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...

Excerpts:

"But did he [Gould] believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.

and Gould himself:

"Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.[He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)-- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond ...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#49 Oct 14, 2012
I think the biggest problem with Russel is that he can not make his mind up about what 'science' actually is.
A quick skim shows this confusion in contradicting positions.
Science supports all of creation.
Your science does not support evolution.
Therefore evolution is philosophy.
Well we can not have two different 'sciences'.

I don't think i need to say more.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#50 Oct 14, 2012
I think Russel decided that discretion is the better part of valor!:)
LowellGuy

United States

#51 Oct 15, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for taking the time to respond. "...the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium,..." What are the extensive series of fossils? And good old Archaeopteryx, well, according to Dr Alan Feduccia - a world expert on fossil birds, and an exolutionist, that's simply a perching bird, not something between a dinosaur and bird.If evolution were true, museums should be full of intermediate forms. Even Darwin knew the scarcity of the fossil record, saying there should be incredible long chains and links between various creatures. And the late Steven J Gould (strong opponent to Creationism) admitted the absence of intermediate forms is the trade secret of Paleontology. BTW, did you consider the second half of my post - the strange silence eminating from from the ivory towers of evolution??
What is quotemining?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#52 Oct 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is quotemining?
Quoting the Bible as saying: "There is no God." Psalm 14:1

When the actual quote is: "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#53 Oct 15, 2012
The example above being from the Bible. Most examples coming FROM Creationists, using pro-Evolutionist quotes and distorting them.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#54 Oct 15, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists aren't the ones who have been imprisoning, torturing, killing and wiping out entire peoples who refuse to convert to the "one true religion" for the past 2000 years like you xristians have.
Perhaps you've forgotten about the valid opposing views such as the Earth being round instead of flat or the sun going around the Earth instead of the other way around or the HUNDREDS of indigenous religions that no longer exist because you xristians crammed your FALSE religion down the throats of those few you allowed to live.
Stop huffing and puffing.If most people believed gravity did not exist, would that change the science of Gravity?? Give me some evidence for evolution.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#55 Oct 15, 2012
The Dude wrote:
There's a creation v evolution debate? I've never heard of such a thing. Nothing relevant to science anyway.
<quoted text>
Yes. The reason is due to the masses of evidence. If you disagree you need to do FAR more than merely quote two scientists out of context, especially when they disagree with you. Gould accepted evolution and acknowledged that transitional forms exist. Patterson has also commented on the fact that creationists keep quoting him in support of their views, despite the fact he does not do so in the slightest. Evolution on the other hand can quite easily be demonstrated, like thus:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
However if you have an alternative explanation that does a better job of explaining the evidence then I would very much like to hear your theory. But please make sure that it is a **scientific** theory, as pretty much everyone who rejects evolution around here do so for religious reasons and lie a lot by saying science refutes reality.
Dude, stop the bigotry. Let play the debate, not the man, agreed??Science refutes evolution, hands down. Where is your evidence from science for evolution??

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#56 Oct 16, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, stop the bigotry. Let play the debate, not the man, agreed??Science refutes evolution, hands down. Where is your evidence from science for evolution??
You are kidding right? All of the scientific out there supports evolution. Here check out this website:http://www.talkorigins .org/

All of the articles in it are backed up by peer reviewed scientific articles. You cannot say the same about any creationist sites.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#57 Oct 16, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop huffing and puffing.If most people believed gravity did not exist, would that change the science of Gravity?? Give me some evidence for evolution.
Since this has already been presented may I ask why you're asking for evidence that you have no interest in?

Also you have been demonstrated as making gross factual errors and being responsible for quotemining, or at the very least repeating known quotemines by liars for Jesus, and have still yet to address or admit to a single mistake.

In short, why are you being dishonest?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#58 Oct 16, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, stop the bigotry.
What bigotry? There is none in merely pointing out you were incorrect and dishonest in your approach. All I do is point out observable facts.
Russell wrote:
Let play the debate, not the man, agreed??
Oh, I agree. But apparently you don't. So when are you going to start debating?
Russell wrote:
Science refutes evolution, hands down.
Please back up your claim with objective scientific evidence.
Russell wrote:
Where is your evidence from science for evolution??
In the very post you just quoted. You still have not addressed it. So why are you complaining about having no evidence when it's already been provided?

Don't worry, everyone already knows.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#59 Oct 16, 2012
Russell, your position is Young Earth Creationist. Such a position is a rejection not only of biology but every scientific field there is. Your position is to deny reality then claim Goddidit with magic. Can you not see the inherent and unavoidable hypocrisy of your position?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#60 Oct 16, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, stop the bigotry. Let play the debate, not the man, agreed??Science refutes evolution, hands down. Where is your evidence from science for evolution??
Science claims there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Saturn. Where is your evidence that there is NO such teapot? Until you can disprove my assertion, it stands, right?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min Chimney1 134,184
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 17 min Dogen 718
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Brian_G 13,627
How would creationists explain... 8 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 11 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web