Topic: 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution - page 9. (Read 18771 times)

What if all the creationists have the same bias? (they do). Biologists and scientists look at the evidence and piece it together. Proof of a designer wouldn't be disregarded, but there isn't going to be any proof, and you don't need it anyway. If there was absolute proof of evolution you would disregard it like you do now. Gravity is only a theory but I don't see you questioning that. Belief in evolution takes faith based on evidence and the facts we have. Belief in god takes faith based on nothing but 'it says in the bible'.  "Who was there there millions and billions of years ago to prove what happened?" Who was there thousands of years ago for the creationists explanation of things? And please stop acting like god is a proven fact.

But what if all of the "peers" have the same bias?  In fact, many brilliant scientists have been ostracized for presenting any scientific data that appears to promote the creationist viewpoint.  If there was absolute proof that there was an intelligent designer it would be completely disreguarded because based on the "scientific" community's opinion there cannot be such a thing.  

As for your claim that creationism is "only" a belief, there is NO proof of evolution either.  It takes faith to believe in evolution just as much as it does creation.  Why?  Who was there there millions and billions of years ago to prove what happened? Evolution is a theory.  But the scientific community treats the theory like it is a proven fact.  That should be troubling to everyone.

What do you mean half-species? Are you really asking for a fish with legs or wings or something?

The fossil record does not produce a fossil for every individual. As was shown in the microbe study I linked earlier in the thread, a number of changes in the genetic record can develope without changing the organism, but then they can be switched on all at once.

IIUC: Fish did not evolve from exoskeletal invertebrates. Something like flatworms -> roundworms -> segmented worms -> chordates -> vertebrates.

Have you noticed that there are transitional animals still alive today? Like the coelecanth, which is a lobe-finned fish, transitional between the fish and tetrapods.

How do you account for vestigial organs, if not a sort of transitional evolution?


Actually, there are plenty of fossils of microbes. But not all microbes form fossils. Many animals leave very few fossils. Like frogs: there are very few fossils of frogs, but the few fossil frogs found show that they have been around a long time.

Lol at expecting there to be fossils of microscopic bacteria. Do you want some fossils of oxygen as well?

 Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

Now who claimed sharks did not evolve ?



Oh, and there are megalodon fossils for the fossil seekers out there.
I certainly would not have wanted to share the same waters with such a beast o.0

PS.
The small, friendly looking green one is the current state of evolution : The great white shark...

Please provide the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE showing your theory of Species A evolving into B, then B dying off.  There is no physical evidence of species changing from one to another completely different species, contrary to what you may think.  According to evolution, there should be countless fossils of these "transitional species."

Your failure to understand evolution in no way makes it less valid.   

Who says sharks and crocodiles are not evolving? They are successful in their niche, and so there is evolutionary pressure to stay as they are. There are many varieties of both crocodiles and sharks, if you look closely you will see they have been evolving.

Don't anthropomorphize evolution too much, creatures do not decide to evolve or not, they are all always evolving.

Think of it this way: Species A evolves into A and B, A is better fit so B dies off. Then A evolves into A and C, A is better fit so C dies off. Now, millions of years later, we have species A, can we say that A has not been evolving this whole time?

I must say intelligent design was a creative way to avoid admitting they were wrong. 

lol - most of us are clever enough not to need the tag, but we are dealing with creationists.   

Did someone forget the irony tag ?

Another question I have asked is, why did some species decide to stop evolving?  Such as sharks and crocodiles.  That baffles me

Well, that's it, they got me. I no longer believe in evolution. What really did it for me was the question, "If humans came from monkeys, how come there are still monkey?"    

Again. you are spouting pure bullshit.

Evolution has all the peer reviewed proof which is why its the current accepted theory.

Creationism has none of that because there is no proof, only belief - which in scientific terms is bullshit.

Things have patterns and symmetry usually because it is the most efficient way for them to be. Plenty of examples of this, and we do see evidence of things becoming more orderly over time - all the evidence for evolution being a prime example.

I do get that sensible arguments are wasted on you btw. You would rather believe that 99+% of scientists who have studied this are secretly employed by the conspiracy to undermine God and declare war on Christmas than consider the possibility that a metaphysical text written thousands of years ago by uneducated Palestinian men living in the desert might perhaps be somewhat flawed.

Edit: Not to say I'm not a fan of their other work - "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbour" are solid. But let's take the good bits and leave the bad, ok?

Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory? Creationists have zero of theirs.  Evolution doesn't boil down to just "a few fossils". There's far more evidence on top of the fossil record that backs that up, but you disregard that. You say there's no proof, but the only thing that would satifsy you is if you saw an monkey evolve into a human or a bird into a fish in front of your eyes, but that's not gonna happen.

And you just said a few posts up that there's information in the world and we need a designer for that to be put there. How did the information get in god? You contradict yourself continually. You ask for evidence yet require none for god. If nobody can understand god because he's outside of time (I thought he was everywhere?) then you cant possibly understand him. But I suppose it does make sense that god would write the bible in such childlike terms so us puny limited-capacity humans can understand it. Don't actually elaborate or explain any of the genius of the science behind all creation, just say "I did it and it was good" like that's an acceptable explanation and us idiotic humans will believe it without any evidence. Oh, wait... idiots do believe it.  Like I said before, if there was a god, the bible would be an absolute slap round the face to his intelligence and genius  .

But who is really disregarding the laws of science?  Evolutionists have so little proof of their theory.  For just one example, they use a few fossils that show micro-evolution (changes within a kind) and then make assumptions based on these fossils and then speculate that because they see some changes in a species that then we all just evolved from nothing, but there is no proof of any changes from species to another species or one kind to another kind and then you say that I am not bothering with the laws of science?  I am offended by that.  

There is great science that has support for intelligent design.  I am sorry if I have to use "biased" creation websites to show videos of this but unfortunately all of the so called "scientific" sites have become a club of evolution propaganda preachers that have the main goal of discrediting anything that would make them even consider that there was a God, or someone that they have to be accountable to other than themselves.


And as for God having information?  Of course He does.  We have a finite mind and have no understanding of anything outside of time or creation.  Everything in our world has a beginning and an end.  We cannot understand an infinite being because we are living in finite bodies. 

Why are you suddenly bothering with the laws of science? You disregard them for everything else unless it appears to suit you, but that info did come from somewhere. Millions of years of evolution. Why do you never apply your same logic to god himself. God must have "information" in him too, far more complex information than anything that is on this planet, yet he exists just fine to you.