While i was checking out the creationist site posted by Pahlu, I found this video, and its hilarious:
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/g...on/fonte23.mov
My goodness, everything is explained! :)
Printable View
While i was checking out the creationist site posted by Pahlu, I found this video, and its hilarious:
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/g...on/fonte23.mov
My goodness, everything is explained! :)
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.Quote:
Originally Posted by carinia
There are too many errors in ??Evolution? to itemize here, but let??s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. ??Evolution? thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example??one Darwin himself used??is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution??big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals??even fruit flies ??there simply isn??t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet??and this the producers don??t tell us??it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the ??150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.?
The producers of ??Evolution? unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and??voila!??the HIV returns to its original ??wild-type.? Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, ??Evolution? mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin??s mechanism and ??change over time? which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the ??Cambrian Explosion,? in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ)
The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.
Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.
Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.
If you count Alan H Linton saying that 'recently', as in 1979, then I guess its recent.
I just gave you an example of evolution - bird flu. Oh and swine flu I suppose too. Another good example is quick rise yeast used in bread making. It was developed by a natural selection process - the fastest yeast covered the petri dish the fastest over numerous generations. It is a seperate species. We observed it. It is documented. And just as Dejayou30 said, how can you have micro without macro?
Im not sure how Evolutionists "omit" information and creationists do not. The fossil record is not complete, thats a given. You cant expect every species that ever walked the face of the earth to be perfectly preserved. That actually puts the burden of proof on your side, why didn't the almighty put little signs next to the fossils that told us where they came from? The Cambrian explosion is an intensely interesting event that needs more explanation, but it in no way disproves evolution. Im not sure what 'execptions' to DNA you are talking about, other than as more species genomes are mapped, the more links we can find between species.
I am always amazed that a creationists arguement centers on either blatant disregard for facts that are painfully obvious and documented, or focuses on questions that havent been fully answered yet but have a pretty good hypothesis. Not to mention all your research is INCREDIBLY outdated, like nothing has changed since the 70's.
[quote=dejayou30]If transition from species to species has never been observed, how do you explain the fossil evidence that tracks the exact process? (Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ)
Have you read that article? There is no fossil evidence that tracks the exact process of evolution. Instead, there are many examples of similarities between supposed links, but no evidence that one evolved into another.
Nonsense. Micro is another way of saying life forms adapt to their environment within their designed limits. Some examples are numerous breeds of dogs, cats, roses, etc. But a cat never became a dog, a rose never became a cucumber, etc. Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.Quote:
The supposed "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a farce put forth by creationists. Both micro and macro evolution work on the same principles, the only difference is time. To say that micro evolution is possible and macro is not, is like saying it is possible to walk to the end of your block, but it is not possible to walk to Chicago. One just takes longer than the other.
Where are those millions of transitional forms? Where is one? When did I ever refer to the Bible in sharing information disproving evolution?Quote:
Please learn something about evolution if you really want to try to refute it, and quit posting your pseudoscience lies and bullshit here. There are millions of transitional forms that map the transition from birds to reptiles to mammals if you would close the Bible and look elsewhere for your information.
You are in denial and pathetically deceived.In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one??s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one??s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:Quote:
Also, the Cambrian explosion was not an appearance of all animal groups. There were no dogs, bunnies, cats, horses, etc. in the Cambrian explosion. Please learn real information instead of regurgitating the same tired creationist claims that have already been debunked by credible sources.
??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.? [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), ??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.? Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record??where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
??Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.]
If that weren??t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
??Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn??t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.? [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to ??several? superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences????more than enough? (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these ??superb examples? were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation??not unheard of among evolutionists??would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, ??Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.?
What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists?? own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak??s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this ??spokesperson??
Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, ??notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.? Yet these same alleged ??transitional sequences? remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the ??experts?) than any other. Isaak declares them ??notable examples,? apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.
One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish??s recently updated book:
Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8
Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for ??proof? of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary ??spokespersons? to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can??t possibly be wrong.
That's because evolution from species to species takes billions of years. Human existence is the tiniest of tiniest speck on the geological timeline of the earth. Of course it has not been observed, it takes longer for something to evolve from species to species than humans have even been on this earth.Quote:
Macro is the notion that is possible, given enough time and the right conditions. Such changes from one kind to another has never been observed or made to happen in the lab.
Please learn about evolution and stop posting this nonsense. The stuff you are quoting is mostly at least 40 years old. Do you really think the evidence has not been solidified since then? Hell, the human genome wasn't mapped until 6 years ago. Science has evolved since those archaic quotes were made. There is an abundance of evidence in paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. that clearly supports evolution.
Also if evolution is false, what do you think is the correct way to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and where is your evidence?
Lastly, Duane Gish is totally retarded, and doesn't know anything about science. He may be credentialed, but his evidence and understanding of even basic scientific principles is severely lacking.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[7][8]
Gish has also been criticised for using a standardized presentation during debates. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that for several debates Gish's opening, assumptions about his opponent, slides and even jokes remained identical. In the debate itself, Shermer has written that while he stated he was not an atheist and willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.[9]
Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs.[10] Others have accused Gish of stonewalling arguments with fabricated facts or figures.[11]
Ian Plimer, head of the Geology department at the University of Newcastle, Australia, debated Gish in 1988. Plimer considered the debate to be political rather than scientific, and thus refused to argue genteelly about scientific minutiae. Instead, Plimer debated Gish in a street-fighting style which a Sydney Morning Herald reporter described as going in "boots and all, aiming for the opponents kneecaps". "Professor Plimer mocked, ridiculed and challenged every tenet that the movement holds dear, and made a string of blunt personal accusations about some of its more prominent members."[12]
If we cannot see evolution happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesn??t that suggest it doesn??t exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejayou30
Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.
There are too many errors in ??Evolution? to itemize here, but let??s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. ??Evolution? thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example??one Darwin himself used??is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution??big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals??even fruit flies ??there simply isn??t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet??and this the producers don??t tell us??it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the ??150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.?
The producers of ??Evolution? unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and??voila!??the HIV returns to its original ??wild-type.? Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, ??Evolution? mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin??s mechanism and ??change over time? which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the ??Cambrian Explosion,? in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
Can you give some examples of that evidence?Quote:
Please learn about evolution and stop posting this nonsense. The stuff you are quoting is mostly at least 40 years old. Do you really think the evidence has not been solidified since then? Hell, the human genome wasn't mapped until 6 years ago. Science has evolved since those archaic quotes were made. There is an abundance of evidence in paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. that clearly supports evolution.
Since science disproves evolution, the creation model remains the only valid explanation.Quote:
Also if evolution is false, what do you think is the correct way to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and where is your evidence?
Since you only focus on Gish being unreliable, are we to assume you agree with Ronald R. West, Steven Stanley, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, E.R. Leach, S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge?Quote:
Lastly, Duane Gish is totally retarded, and doesn't know anything about science. He may be credentialed, but his evidence and understanding of even basic scientific principles is severely lacking.
From Wikipedia:
If we cannot see creation happening and we cannot reproduce it in the lab, doesn't that suggest it doesn't exist? Surely that would be the conclusion of scientists about any other hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
(Cloning is not a reproduction of creationism)
I'm just using your logic... basically you're saying no one can PROVE evolution... you can't PROVE creationism.
OK, so where is the evidence of creation that would support your claim? Or are we just supposed to "believe" without any evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
The quotes you used from the legitimate scientists are 30-40 years old, and are therefore, mostly irrelevant. Given all the discoveries and the mountain of evidence that has been discovered since those claims have been made that wholly support the theory of evolution and not a single one contradicting it, do you think they would still stand by those quotes themselves? I really doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Sure I can:Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRaven7
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
??Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes? (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, ??Evidence that Demands a Verdict? by Josh McDowell.
[From ??Reincarnation in the Bible?? ]Book Details