Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,799 Year: 4,056/9,624 Month: 927/974 Week: 254/286 Day: 15/46 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 310 (87963)
02-22-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
02-22-2004 9:24 AM


quote:
Well, I know one particular Creation Scientist who was an evolutionist for many years and then came to be Creationist. You'll have to understand that from a somewhat neutral position I'd have to disagree with your statement. A Scientist is a Scientist, I see no reason to doubt a Creation Scientist if he is a Scientist like all of the others.
Well, how are we to judge if someone is a scientist, or even a competant scientist?
Is he a scientist "like all the others"?
Or, has he given up science for religion, yet is trying to maintain a veneer of rationality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 02-22-2004 9:24 AM mike the wiz has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 310 (89997)
03-03-2004 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by truthlover
02-23-2004 4:00 AM


Re: we cannot be sure - true or false- I think
quote:
Others propose a flood with the fossils sorted by the speed and climbing ability of the fossilized animals.
When creationists try to argue this point, I like to ask them if grasses and flowering plants also ran for high ground, because they are only ever found in the uppermost layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by truthlover, posted 02-23-2004 4:00 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminTL, posted 03-03-2004 9:49 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 310 (90020)
03-03-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by AdminTL
03-03-2004 9:49 AM


Re: we cannot be sure - true or false- I think
LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AdminTL, posted 03-03-2004 9:49 AM AdminTL has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 310 (177028)
01-14-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RED WOLF
01-14-2005 9:14 AM


Re: This is a little off course but I think you will find it interesting
quote:
Darwin is Dead Jesus is Alive.
Jesus is alive?
Can he come over to my house for dinner? That would be cool.
And, you know, I would expect someone born nearly 200 years ago to be dead. How many 200 year old people do you know?
quote:
Who do you trust your life with?
Me.
quote:
There is adaptation yes.Evolution. I don't believe so.
What's the difference?
quote:
But can it even be proven? There are Three Basic concepts of Evolution. I Evolution (chance),
Evolution involves random (chance) mutation combined with natural selection. Selection is the opposite of chance.
quote:
II Progressive Evolution,
What's that?
quote:
III Theistic Evolution.
OK.
quote:
IF all three believe in evolution
All three what? The things you list are concepts or philosophies. They cannot "believe" anything. People "believe" things.
quote:
Why does each group "conclusively" PROVE the other two are impossible?
They do? How so? Please give examples.
quote:
And How about the evolution of man. There is still no prove of it being true, but it is still being taught.
Check out this webpage. It is a nice synopsis of the evidence for human evolution. Please come back here after you have read it and let us know if you have any further questions.
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution
Oh, and if humans have not evolved, then do you suggest that we are all clones of each other?
quote:
Heidlberg Man: Built form a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
I am not familiar with this one. Do you have a link to more information,. preferably with references to the professional scientific literature?
quote:
Nebraska Man: Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of a extinct pig.
Piltdown Man: THe jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Both of these hoaxes were discovered very quickly by scientists.
quote:
Peking Man: 500,000 years old. All evidence has disapeared.
You are mistaken. From the above webpage is the following information about Peking Man:
Creationist Arguments: Peking Man
quote:
Neaderthal Man: At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of a old man who suffered from arthritis.
Do you think that a source from almost fifty years ago might be kind of out of date, and that paleontology might have progressed a bit since then?
Anyway, there are many neanderthal fossils, read about them here:
Prominent Hominid Fossils
quote:
Cre-Magnon Man: One to the earliest ans best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capasity(sic} to modern man...so what is the difference?
Why don't you read the webpage and then tell us what the difference is?
quote:
Mondern Man: The genius who thinks we came from apes.
No, actually that is a major misconception.
Modern humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.
quote:
Evolutionists tested by te Potassium-Argon Method, Strata in which Leakey's Nutcracker Man was found and reported to be 1 3/4 Million years old. - But when they tested other material in the
same strata by Carbon-14, it showed 10,000 yrs old. Which is right?- Dr. Whitelaw, a professor in nuclear engineering, claims it to be less than 7,000 yrs. old.
A reference to the papers where these results were published, please.
quote:
A Living mollusk was tested by carbon-14 and found to be dead for 3,000 yrs.
A reference to the information, please.
quote:
Dr. Melvin Cook said that if oil in the earth was as old as geologists claim (80,000,000 years)it's pressure would have disipated long before this--the present pressure of oil indicates not over
10,000 yrs.
Reference to the source material for this claim, please.
quote:
We've been taught that it took millions of years to produce oil. This is a fact--scientists working
in a lab, produced a barrel of oil from one ton of garbage in only twenty minutes!
Where? When, Who? Reference?
quote:
We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times millionth of a second. Also that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons.- The
neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral--But-- The protons have positive charges. one law of electricity is that--LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Being that all of the protons on the nulceus are positivley charged - they should repel each other and scatter into space. What holds them together?
I don't know. What do physicists say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RED WOLF, posted 01-14-2005 9:14 AM RED WOLF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2005 3:06 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 310 (177050)
01-14-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
01-14-2005 3:06 PM


Re: Heidelberg Man
Ah, excellent link, thanks paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2005 3:06 PM PaulK has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 219 of 310 (178888)
01-20-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by xevolutionist
01-18-2005 9:34 PM


Re: Some concerns about proof
quote:
Sounds like your daughter is receiving an excellent education.
Not if she wants to be a Biologist.
Or a Population Genetecist.
Wouldn't it be better if they actually learned all about the Theory of Evolution so they could understand it, unlike you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by xevolutionist, posted 01-18-2005 9:34 PM xevolutionist has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 221 of 310 (178892)
01-20-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by pink sasquatch
01-20-2005 10:15 AM


Re: broken materials
quote:
So try again: Why would an intelligent creator put broken pathways in its creations?
Because He thinks it's funny to see humans suffer from scurvy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-20-2005 10:15 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 310 (179292)
01-21-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by xevolutionist
01-21-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Walking on fins
quote:
Descent with modification is the evidence I believe is missing. I do not believe that there are any bona fide examples.
Are you a clone of your parents?
Then you are decended from them, and modified.
quote:
And as Darwin theorized, there should be millions of examples of descent with modifications, or his term, transitional forms.
There are. Every organism is a transitional form between it's parents and it's offspring, unless they are clones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by xevolutionist, posted 01-21-2005 10:08 AM xevolutionist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024