Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 3,459)

Showing posts 69,161 - 69,180 of112,787
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73504
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#4 His expectation of intermediate fossils

During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory" (p. 287).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73505
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#5 His failure to see the limits of variation of species

Darwin got the idea about natural selection in part from observing artificial selection. For instance, he noted the way pigeon breeders came up with a great variety of pigeons. Yet we should remember, they are still all classified as pigeons!

He thought that from this variety, given enough time, pigeons could eventually evolve into some other type of birds, such as eagles or vultures, and gradually, even to other creatures such as mammalian bats.

No one seriously disputes the notion of "change over time" in biology—heredity sees to that. We vary from our parents and grandparents—but that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. It is really an attempt to explain how microorganisms, insects, fish, birds, tigers, bears and even human beings actually became what they presently are through the passage of time.

Darwinian evolution—what is taught in the schools—is about macroevolution, or changes beyond the limits of the species kind to create another distinct species. It consists of three suppositions: 1) all living things descend from a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanisms for the changes are natural selection and mutation; and 3) these are unguided, natural processes with no intelligence at work behind them.

But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another? Never.
Drink the hivE

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73506
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

There Was A House Featured In The Book Where One Person Had All Udo Related Experiences...

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73507
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#6 His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.

Darwin was aware of what is called the "Cambrian explosion"—fossils of a bewildering variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same low level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life.

Instead of a few related organisms appearing early in the fossil record as he hoped, there was an explosion of life—where the various main body types (called phyla) of living creatures seem to arise around the same time—in fact, 32 of the 33 phyla that we see today. Comparing this development to the progress of man's inventions, it would be as if a toaster, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air conditioner and a car all of a sudden came on the scene with no mechanical devices preceding them.

Regarding the Cambrian explosion, Time magazine notes: "Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeline Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).

This "Big Bang" of completely different creatures deep in the fossil record posed an enormous problem that Darwin had to admit undermined his theory.

He wrote: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great ... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (The Origin of Species, pp. 309-310).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73508
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#7 His theory of homology

In his studies, Darwin noticed that different types of creatures shared some common features, such as the five fingers of a human hand and the five digits of a bat's wing or of a dolphin's fin. He postulated that this similarity in different species, which he called "homology," was evidence for a common ancestry.

Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another. There is, however, another and simpler way to explain these common features. Instead of having a common ancestor, these similar features could simply be the result of a common design.

We see this common design in how man builds things. We construct a car, a cart and a vacuum cleaner with four wheels, but this doesn't mean they have a common ancestor —merely a common design. Four wheels happen to give more stability and strength than three wheels and can better distribute the weight on top. We can deduce that a wise designer would have used this type of model of four legs to give stability and strength to many of the creatures that were made, instead of using three legs.

Really, does it make more sense that a designer used these same patterns because they worked so well, or that blind chance in natural selection and mutations just happened to come up with the optimal design after so many trial-and-error attempts? If the latter was the case, where is the evidence of the many failed models that should have ended up in the scrap heap of the fossil record, as Darwin predicted? No such evidence has been found.

Indeed, when creatures that are supposedly far removed from one another on the evolutionary tree share common advanced characteristics, evolutionists maintain that these characteristics evolved separately. But what are the odds of the same complex characteristic evolving by chance multiple times? Again, common design is clearly a far more logical explanation.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73509
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#8 His theory of human beings evolving from apes.

The similarity (between man and chimps) is now down to about 93 percent, according to more recent studies—results that curiously have not made many headlines. Stephan Anitei, science editor for Softpedia, writes: "Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7%. There are obvious similarities between chimpanzees and humans, but also high differences in body structure, brain, intellect, and behavior, etc." ("How Much DNA Do We Share With Chimps?" Softpedia, Nov. 20, 2006, p. 1).

Again, the question has to be asked: Is the similarity between chimpanzees and men due to a common ancestor or to a common Designer? If a common ancestor, why are human beings so drastically different now from this ancestor while chimpanzees have remained much the same? The fact is, we are not seeing any evolution presently going on in either chimpanzees or human beings.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73510
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#9 His theory of the tree of life.

The only drawing Darwin had in his book The Origin of Species is that of the supposed "tree of life." It pictures the imaginary transformation of a common ancestor (at the root level) into the different species we see today (at the twig level). Yet the drawing is actually based on slight variations within a species after many generations, and then he adds some suppositions.

Again Darwin went well beyond the evidence. He took limited evidence about adaptations and extrapolated it to the idea that a species or genus (group of interbreeding species) can transform into a completely different one—all based on speculation. He cleverly said, "I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formulation of genera [plural of genus] alone" (p. 121). He had to say this since no more direct evidence was forthcoming.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73511
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#9 His theory of the tree of life.
Part 2

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection. What Darwin claimed is true for all species has not been demonstrated for even one species" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 2006, p. 64).

So instead of a "tree of life" that begins with one or a few common ancestors and then branches out, there is actually an inverted and quite divided "tree of life," where the branches of life were very diverse and numerous at the beginning. Through extinction and sudden appearances, we have fewer kinds of life-forms today than in the past.

"Of all the icons of evolution," adds Dr. Wells, "the tree of life is the most pervasive because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory...Yet Darwin knew—and scientists have recently confirmed—that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's tree of life has been uprooted" (ibid., p. 51).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73512
Feb 1, 2013
 
10 Ways Darwin got it Wrong

#10 His rejection of biblical creation by God

Charles Darwin was a man of his times. The 19th century saw many major social upheavals—political, philosophical, economic and religious—and Darwin was deeply shaped by them.

Some 11 years after writing The Origin of Species, he candidly admitted his two main purposes for writing it: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...

"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 92).

Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious—for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible. He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us—a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.

Instead he pigeonholed creationists as having to believe in a recent creation and in "fixed" species confined to specific geographical regions. This was a straw man he set up so he could then bash it time after time in his writings. For him, evolution was "scientific" and was to be viewed with an open mind—but within a closed materialistic system—minimizing or eliminating any role for intelligent design or God.

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

Darwin's bicentennial has arrived but, as Phillip Johnson predicts, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the trash heap of history. Johnson concludes: "Every history of the twentieth century has three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx, and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud have fallen... I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be the mightiest of the three" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113).

www.gnmagazine.org ...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73513
Feb 1, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That is one possibility.
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So if nothing was created as you claim, you imply that it(Universe) has always been here...is that your claim?

That is one possibility.

So your saying there's a possibility that the big bang theory is wrong?
Drink the hivE

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73514
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Are U Saying That - Since Walmart Pay' People 2 Prevent Theft?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch...
2 posts removed

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73517
Feb 1, 2013
 
"The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8,“... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says,“... and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.
What does “day” mean?

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.1
One of the passages they give for yom‘s meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase,“evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.
What if the days were millions of years?
The whole of the creation restored ... to what?

The Bible says there will be a future restoration (Acts 3:21), with no death or suffering. How could all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if you allow millions of years (with death and suffering) for the world’s creation.
The idea of millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was built up over a long time. As soon as people allow for millions of years, they allow for the fossil record to be millions of years old. This creates an insurmountable problem regarding the gospel. The fossil record consists of the death of billions of creatures. In fact, it is a record of death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record.
The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined.
If there were death, disease, and suffering before Adam rebelled—then what did sin do to the world? What does Paul mean in Romans 8 when he says the whole of creation groans in pain because of the Curse? How can all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering, unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world."

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73518
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
"The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.
If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8,“... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says,“... and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.
What does “day” mean?
<snip>."
Nice Job!! Cutting and pasting from sites full of stupid, aimed at keeping the stpuid stupid! Good job, Spary!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73519
Feb 1, 2013
 
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Nice Job!! Cutting and pasting from sites full of stupid, aimed at keeping the stpuid stupid! Good job, Spary!
Thanks anytime Toad.
1 post removed

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73521
Feb 2, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just it, if people used such light touch interfaces instead of these mechanical keyboards more, there'd be fewer ailments resulting from over use. The ailments are caused by repetitive muscle use, and thus the fewer muscles used, the less the ailments will afflict us.
Actually, no, you touch the table where the light projection is, barely tapping it, anything that breaks the reflection will be interpreted as a keypress. It's a small box with laser projectors and light sensors, sort of like the motion systems for video game consoles, only the projection onto the table is also visible to the human eye as well so you see a keyboard .... made of light. It's not 3D, but it's still so cool. Another benefit is that it takes up less space when not in use! Forgot to mention that benefit.
I don't like posting sales sites, as they are spam as well, but I'll make an exception to this.
http://www.hammacher.com/Product/81759...
Ah is see, though the keypad does look a bit wider spaced than normally. Hey and the pricing is within your reach! Though i''ll bet you have your eye on a different one. Normally i do not type on a table or using a table, i simply find the most comfy position to maximise my time.
I'm a great fan of the sort of architect table, but then small size and adjustable to any position. So if using such a devise it would have to come with a really good connect, instead of just being fit for a flat surface.
1 post removed

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73523
Feb 2, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, are you saying a passage that says be good and worship god or the additional 603 commandments that crop up in the OT means that all the rest of the babble is irrelevant? Those verses I mentioned exist, they represent examples, and by no means all the atrocities and hatred metered out by the babble. I have given you the verse numbers and still you deny that they exist. You really are deliberately ignorant
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the last jc was actually a terrorist who was crucified for murder, i.e. the babble is a liar
Misquoter???
Genesis 7:11-24
King James Version (KJV)
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Exodus 12:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13
King James Version (KJV)
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Tell me what is misquoted about those passages?
OR ARE YOU LYING TO PROTECT YOUR OWN LITTLE DELUSIONAL BUBBLE?
Read through the commandments of Jesus and Moses through God, liar!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73524
Feb 2, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There is evidence that can take us back to 10^-34th of a second after the big bang, the evidence that you exist for one thing. Actually its about 10^-20th of a second the difference between is the time it took the fundamental laws that govern this universe to resolve. The fact that you deliberately ignore that evidence is your problem.
Prior to that there is mathematical conjecture based on the fact that the maths works, the atomic domain exists (you exist so you cant deny that) and the quantum domain can be in some small part observed.
So can you offer any evidence that goddidit?
I have heard thousands of that/this/these those un-supported lies in the name of science, yours is no different...

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73525
Feb 2, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why yes - a misquoter is anyone who takes vague or ambiguous Biblical scripture and disagrees with Charlie's particular interpretation.
:-p
Likewise.
You all are even more into this.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73526
Feb 2, 2013
 
GatorBUILT wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you mean educatived?!?
I will crush you...I will stomp your petulant, childish responses EVERY time...I am not nice to foolos...I make them suffer puiblicly...humiliate them, make an example of how being stupid-PRO-ACTIVELY STUPID, is to humiliated and condemned...how a pissant with a computer, whom thinks contrite, glib responses is actually progressing humanity...you willo lose every time, any time, anywhere...FOREVER...the AGE of religion is gone...the Age of ENlightenment has come and crushed your antiquted bull$hit...do move along before I decide to go all biblical on your a$$...you have been warned...if you think my intellect is superior, you'd best steer clear of the martial arts...keep your wife, daughters, mother and sisters away, I have KNOWN(biblically) many of your Xian females...and they LOVE me...I OWN you, B!TCH...
Little kid, it is too late to cry fowl. Lol

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73527
Feb 2, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"No one says any life was created"
I do! I claim God created all life.
Where is your evidence for your claim?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 69,161 - 69,180 of112,787
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••