Creationism Museum

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport!

I’m not every going to respond to the rest of your ridiculous post. I’m just going to say that actual science, not pop science, is much different than you have been told in high school (which apparently you are still attending).

[/quote]

here’s a good quote to address another dumbass argument of yours:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?” Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

82

lorisco, it is clear you cannot address any of my posts, rather, you simply write them off as ‘ridiculous’.

your posts are ridiculous and i still reply to them.

83

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport![/quote]

You can keep both species if they’ve each adapted to a different environment.

For example, you have some fishes. At one point, some event causes the fish population to become separated.

One population is caught in shallow waters, surrounded by ground. The other remains at sea.

Given the different environments, any mutation that facilitates the fish leaving water to tread on land will grant an advantage to the 1st group, but not the second.

So it is entirely possible for natural selection to preserve the various “ground adaptations” of the first group and not of the second one.

After some millions or billions of years, you end up with a ground dwelling creature who is “descended” from the original fish population and descendants of the original fishes that are very similar because their environment has not favored further adaptation.

That’s why you can have species that are hundreds of millions of years old (sharks, crocodiles, spiders, etc.) still living along side newer species.

New species appearing from accumulated adaptations do not necessarily obsolete the original specie. Especially if various environmental changes mean that they’re eventually not vying for the same limited resources.

84

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport!

I’m not every going to respond to the rest of your ridiculous post. I’m just going to say that actual science, not pop science, is much different than you have been told in high school (which apparently you are still attending).

here’s a good quote to address another dumbass argument of yours:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?” Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

[/quote]

I was going to mention this. And what pookie said.

85

if you don’t have any biology 101 text books from university/college, check out wikipedia and talk.origins. sick websites.

86

The thing that’s always amused me about the macro/ micro evolution debate is that it’s largely a matter of context.

If something changes incrementally once every 10 minutes and you watch it like a hawk every minute for 200 minutes then each change will be regard within a micro-context. However, if you wander off and shag the nearest evolved hominid for said period and then come back and see the effect of total change it’s like …wow…

In most cases, macro-evolution is simply the result of no-one having been around (probably due to lack of patience) to watch all the little changes and those that were around forgetting to pick up all the middle bits that were left beind in order to show someone what happened…

Either that, or God’s animal construction elves are pretty inefficient…

87

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport!

I’m not every going to respond to the rest of your ridiculous post. I’m just going to say that actual science, not pop science, is much different than you have been told in high school (which apparently you are still attending).

here’s a good quote to address another dumbass argument of yours:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?” Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

[/quote]

That’s a cute talking point but it doesn’t address the survival of the fittest model in which you stated. That is the issue, not descendants. Dork!

88

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport!

You can keep both species if they’ve each adapted to a different environment.

For example, you have some fishes. At one point, some event causes the fish population to become separated.

One population is caught in shallow waters, surrounded by ground. The other remains at sea.

Given the different environments, any mutation that facilitates the fish leaving water to tread on land will grant an advantage to the 1st group, but not the second.

So it is entirely possible for natural selection to preserve the various “ground adaptations” of the first group and not of the second one.

After some millions or billions of years, you end up with a ground dwelling creature who is “descended” from the original fish population and descendants of the original fishes that are very similar because their environment has not favored further adaptation.

That’s why you can have species that are hundreds of millions of years old (sharks, crocodiles, spiders, etc.) still living along side newer species.

New species appearing from accumulated adaptations do not necessarily obsolete the original specie. Especially if various environmental changes mean that they’re eventually not vying for the same limited resources.

[/quote]

Hey, stop helping huey, I want to hear whatever stupid ass things he can come up with.

Ps - good answer. That is a very reasonable premise.

89

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport!

I’m not every going to respond to the rest of your ridiculous post. I’m just going to say that actual science, not pop science, is much different than you have been told in high school (which apparently you are still attending).

here’s a good quote to address another dumbass argument of yours:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?” Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

That’s a cute talking point but it doesn’t address the survival of the fittest model in which you stated. That is the issue, not descendants. Dork!

[/quote]

Fit = Most fit for their enviroment.

It take billions of years, and every animal is STILL evolving.

Plus, natural selection is the how, while creation is the how AND what. And it’s the what part most people have a problem with (seven days, fossil records don’t exist, carbon dating is wrong).

Natural selection has many, many holes. That doesn’t make it wrong. Just like the 9/11 story has many many holes, doesn’t make it a government conspiracy. The area 51 “weather balloon” story is a bit off, but that doesn’t mean aliens landed. (Credit given to South Park for the first part).

90

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.

Steveo, I understand your need to be dominated over (that’s why my wife wears the pants…and the leather knickers).

For us scientist types it is real hard to accept an ordered nature, intelligently designed. The reasons are thus:

  1. Heisenberg Uncertainty tells us that we cannot know (measure) all attributes of any given situation because when we attempt to make a measurement we perturb the system. This principle applies to everything. While this is a fact to science (mathematically) it doesn’t mean we won’t attempt to understand something about the natural world around us. After all, knowing something is better than knowing nothing. Intelligent design leaves no room for uncertainty because there is nothing to prove or disprove; we just simply state what happened and leave it at that. Kind of like when you were a kid and you asked mom why the sky is blue and she responded, “Because God made it that way.”

  2. Evolution is fact; it has been observed. It is not an ordered process. This means it is not predetermined. It is random. There are many parameters that trigger change–this is evolution when it results in the change of a species genetically. Again, this has been observed. [/quote]

Well, there you go again. “Evolution is fact.” You guys would love everyone to swallow this hook, line and sinker. The problem is that evolution is not fact, it has not been observed, and is not provable. It simply is an atheistic belief system which tries to explain how everything came to be without divine creation or intervention.

Where has it been observed that one species has arisen out of another? Where has it been observed that an elephant came out of a whale? Where has this been observed? Where has it been observed that a human came out of a monkey?

Face it, my friend, you want to believe in evolution and that’s your choice. The fact is that God existed before Darwin and Jesus taught about God 1800 years before Darwin. Darwinian evolution is just another attempt by atheists to cloke their beliefs in the guise of “science.” It is not science and it is not fact. Sorry.[quote]

After all is said and done you can build your own conclusions about accountability. Just because I do not believe in God does not mean I am unaccountable for my actions. Accountability has nothing to do with religion or God or Jesus. It has to do with accepting the consequence of our actions whether it be an eternity in Hell or life in prison, etc.

The absurdity of life is enough to make me believe there are no easy answers. While I am open minded about others beliefs I really do believe these beliefs tend to blind–mine included. The best we can do since we cannot know everything is to keep asking questions and not accept the world at face value. This does not preclude the existence of God.[/quote]

Yes, but who said we cannot know? Who said that the Bible is not true? Who said there is no God? (Actually, the Bible says “the fool has said in his heart there is not God…”).

91

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You cannot prove God anymore then you can disprove him.

I don’t give a shit whether someone has faith that God exists or not, I just don’t want them passing God and religion off as scientific fact.

In fact, I think religion is pretty damn important. It has a lot of evils, and needxs some serious fixing, but overall, a religionless world wouldn’t be all that different.

We’d just find something else to fight over (ala South Park).[/quote]

I agree with you! However, you should then agree with me that evolutionists should not pass off their belief as science either. Right?

92

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
in response to steve’s false claim that evolution must be accepted on faith, here is another great quote:

[b]The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This “seeing is believing” basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim. [/quote]

You can bold your posts and scream it from the mountaintop, but it doesn’t make your belief in the evolution fairytale any more scientific. Macroevolution has not been observed – ever. That is a lie. There is no evidence whatsover.[quote]

The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples’ set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay. [/b][/quote]

Again you fail to understand the difference between the provable and faith. No aspect of either creation or evolution can be observed or proven. It is simply accepted or not on faith. You have in evolution supposedly things in the fossil records, carbon dating, etc. (all of which I believe proves nothing about evolution)to support your belief.

Chrisitans have the Bible as our support. However, they both are still faith based and not science.

93

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
You know what I don’t understand?

Why would somebody who doesn’t believe in contemporary science, who doesn’t believe in basic things like carbon dating, for example… why would they hang around a website dedicated to scientific training?

I wonder if Steveo understands that adaptation to training is something that reinforces the evolution theory?

What about the difficulty in getting shredded… Was it a result of centuries of evolution, as man lived through famines and droughts, and the body adaptd by tenaciously holding on to bodyfat? Or is the difficulty in getting shredded just God’s will?

Wouldn’t Steveo feel more at home at
http://www.14thcenturybodybuilder.com

I agree with the poster (OT I think?) who said that evolution does not attempt to address the beginnings of life… and evolution is totally non-religious. You can believe in both God AND evolution too, and millions of people do. You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, and millions of people do. The only people who really have trouble with evolution are those who think that every single word of the Bible is to be taken literally… a pretty extreme position.[/quote]

Brad, yes this is an extreme position, but think of it this way. If God is real and thus His Word must be true since He is God and He cannot lie – then it is all true. I take His Word upon faith and I am staking my eternal destiny upon Him.

If you wish to stake your destiny on anything else – you better hope that you are right and I am wrong. For if I am wrong, I live a pretty good life and then ‘poof’ I am gone. However, my friend, if you are wrong and the Bible is correct about God and salvation and judgment, then what?

Think about it…

94

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
for steve:

then ‘just a theory’ bullshit also needs to stop. gravitational theory is also ‘just a theory’. doesn’t make it untrue, though.[/quote]

No, it is called the “Law of Gravitaion,” and it is observable!

Macroevolution is not observable and has never been observed. Therefore your comparison is a farce and a smokescreen. [quote]

let me explain the differences between laws and theories. things are drawn to the earth. that’s a fact. we can observe this. the explanation as to WHY this occurs is the theory.

biodiversity on earth is a fact. random mutations in members of species happen. organisms have changed over time through earth’s history, this is a fact. life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago. these are all facts.[/quote]

Not all facts. Were you there 2 billion years ago? Carbon dating and other types of dating presupposes something called “uniformitarinism” – that everything has always been the way it has been. This is not true – the Genesis Flood changed it all.

You say that biodiversity on earth is a fact. I agree. Then you say that organisms have changed over time is a fact. I agree insofar as you mean that species have gotten diverse over time. That is there are more kinds of cats now than 2000 years ago. More species of dogs, etc. Yes, all fact. However, a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog and nowhere have we ever observed a cat becoming a banana or a dog becoming some type of bird. [quote]

the theory of evolution explains these facts and why they occur. [/quote]

The belief of evolution attempts to explain these things and since it cannot be observed it must be taken upon faith. [quote]

some good quotes:

[b]If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. [/quote]

Again, a ludicrous argument since all of these things can be observed. Evolution is faith and no matter how much you want it to be science, it is and always will be a belief system.[quote]

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless. [/b][/quote]

No, Creationism is faith – just like evloution. Creation places faith in God. Darwinian evloution places faith in random processes not governed by anything other than cold mathematical processes.

95

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
hello steve,

i found these arguments of your in another thread you posted in where you ranted on with more lies about evolution.

let me address them:

(a) The theory does not lend itself to experimentaion and possible falsification. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory, but only a belief.

this is a lie. evolution COULD be falsified. there are many things that could be <but have not been, and probably never will be> discovered that would discredit evolution.

for example, if we found dinosaur bones dated as recently as last century, this would falsify evolution.

if someone could actually observe and document the spontaneous creation of life such as is stated in the bible in genesis, this would falsify evolution.

a static fossil record would falsify evolution.

i can go on, but i think the point is clear. if evidence is found to the contrary of the body of knowledge that makes up the theory of evolution, then please share it. it can be falsified, it’s just unlikely that it will ever occur.

gravitational theory could also be falsified… but again, that’s unlikely.

although creationism is not a valid scientific theory, it has been falsified.

(b) The theory violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

please share these laws with me, and i will address this lie. from what i can tell, i am skeptical that you know which laws you speak with. and just a little heads up, evolution in no way contradicts these laws.

(c) The macroevolution part of the theory is never observed in nature. We never see one species become another species. We only see ‘microevolution’ which is called ‘variation.’ A dog becomes a different kind of dog, but it sitll remains a dog. A dog never becomes a giraffe.

this is funny, because if we ever saw a dog become a giraffe, that would falsify evolution. evolution occurs gradually, we can not expect to see such significant changes in one lifetime. we do not have to WITNESS evolution first hand to provide proof for it. we can witness it after-the-fact through fossil records, analysis of DNA and physical remains, etc…

if you accept microevolution, then you accept macroevolution. what is the limit? can you provide some evidence that species STOP evolving at some specific point <i.e. maximum 5 mutations, then god steps on the brakes?>. since you are conceding the existence of microevolution, you are implicitly accepting macroevolution, which is essentially the same thing only over a longer period of time.

also, there is documentation of new species arising and being witnessed, apparently.

(d) Nobody was there at the time of Creation to observe it. Therefore, every explaination (including the Creation account of Genesis) is a religious belief that requires faith. In the case of Divine Creation – faith in God. In the case of evolution – faith in random processes.

wow… can you imagine if this argument was used at a murder trial? you know steve, in life we gather information, collect evidence, and draw logical conclusions. i hope i do not need to spell out how silly this objection is.

‘you weren’t there’… wow, typing is out makes me laugh.

the same stupid argument can be made towards your acceptance of creationism. but it is clear that your intentions here are to muddy the debate and make things obcure, and to degrade the validity of evolution to the level of ‘faith’, which is the level at which creationism lies.

evolution wasn’t ‘there’ anyways. it’s here. it’s not a place. it’s not a time. evolution doesn’t attempt to explain the creation of the world. so evolution is not something that only occured ‘back then’.

anyways, i hope you eventually open your eyes and reconcile your faith with evolution. because until then you are simply walking around with blinders on, and i feel sorry for you and people like you.

[/quote]

Well I am not going to go over old ground. I have provided explanation for all of my statements many times.

Let me though comment on one thing here. When I say ‘you weren’t there’ I am not saying that we cannot find out things using the scientific method about how organisms work, etc. What cannot be found out by experimentation or by finding bones is how it all started. How we came to be who we are. We weren’t there and we cannot find these things out simply by digging. An evolutionist finds a bone and says, “wow, look at this early Hominid. Looks like it developed from an early ancestor of an ape.” The evolutionist believes evolution and looks at the bone through his tainted glasses. He wants to see evolution and so he does.

The Creationist picks up the bone and exclaims, “wow, an early ape. Wonder what it died of?” The Creationist believes God and thus rejects evolution. He sees the bone through the prism of his faith as does the evloutionist but comes to a different conclusion.

Evolution is not fact. It is not observable, provable, it does not lend itself to be disproven and cannot hold water to the Law of Entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). No system – and yes the Universe as a whole is a closed system. No closed system tends to “wind up” – go to a increased state of order. It tends to disorder. Evolution asserts that simple (less ordered) organisms became more complex and more ordered. Simply impossible.

96

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Well, there you go again. “Evolution is fact.” You guys would love everyone to swallow this hook, line and sinker.
[/quote]
You may as well swallow now, because it’s the truth. There are two distinctly different things: 1) evolution (small “e”) and 2) The Theory of Evolution. The first thing is an observed fact, something we can see happen in short-lived species: their characteristics change so they get better at surviving. The second thing is a theory, the theory that all the diverse species we see around us are the result of evolution in action. We can’t actually observe that, per se. It’s not a fact, as such.

The two things have the same name, but they are really very different. Related, but different.

So evolution is a fact, but you are still free to dispute whether all the species we see are a result of its operation.

Scientists work with theories, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Some theories are better than others. Scientists are very good at picking which ones are right for them. Other theories they reject as being crocks of shit. We can probably leave this process up to them.

97

[quote]unearth wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
this is a lie. where has evolution failed conventional scientific inquiry?

There has been no verified missing link full fossil discovered between man and ape! Hello!

First off, humans are a variety of ape. Just in case you didn’t understand the previous sentence I’ll repeat in. Humans ARE apes.

Next, our divergence from a similar ancestor can be traced (linked) as follows:

Ardipithicus ramidus
5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis
4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis
4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus
3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis
2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus
2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic
400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens
200 thousand years ago to present[/quote]

So when you go to the zoo, do you run to the ape house and greet your relatives?

98

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Evolutionary theory holds that one species evolves into another species via intermediary specifies. For this to hold true there would need to be thousands of these intermediary species say between an ape and man. Yet, to date no such species have actually been discovered and verified. While lack of evidence may not be proven false, it sure doesn’t support it as anything more than theory.

There are many fossils that show the intermediary steps between, say, australopithecus and modern man.

Creationists always ask for another intermediary specie. Give them Man and Man-1, and they ask where’s Man-0.5? Give them that, and they want another intermediary. Unless you somehow manage to produce the entire lineage between Eve (the African hominid, not the Biblical one) and her modern descendant, they claim any missing intermediary as a failure of the theory.

Intermediary fossils also exists in abundance for elephants, horses, birds, etc.

For evolution to be proven in the lab would require an evolutionary change to actually occur in the controlled laboratory setting. Since this is not possible, it can’t be tested in the lab.

Speciation has been observed in lab settings. Most experiments involve life forms which have short life spans (such as bacteria or earth worms) so as to be able to observe tens or hundreds of generations in a matter of months.

Put “speciation” in google and read.

There are ways to empirically observe the evidence of God. There have been many substantiated studies conducted with ill patients and the effects of prayer that provide evidence of the existence of some power at work that cannot be currently measured.

Actually, all scientific tests of prayer show no differences for “prayed for” groups vs. non-prayed for groups.

That is funny! An internet know it all telling me I don’t understand research.

Could we know for what company or school you actually do research?

Well, not going to get into this further, let’s just say that I’m actually involved in medical research for a living. So you might want to rethink that statement.

You keep repeating that, yet you show little to zero understanding of just about every scientific subject you comment on. Do you mop the floors at that lab?

Since you don’t appear to know, what you are referring to is called microevolution, or what is commonly called adaptation within species. But, this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about macroevolution, or one species changing into another species.

Which is just a long series of microevolutions repeated over millions or billions of years.

Each microevolution that survives takes the individual a little bit apart from it’s parents. If the specie covers a large area, they’ll be exposed to various environments and some mutations will be advantageous in one area an not as much in another one. As various mutations prove advantageous to various groups, you’ll eventually see those groups “drift apart” until you’ve got two completely different species who can’t interbreed anymore.

Creationists think that macro-evolution requires a monkey to give birth to a human; and claim that since they’ve never seen that, it’s false. That’s not what the theory says at all.
[/quote]

Pookie – c’mon now. Since macroevolution cannot be observed I say that it is faith. Not false (although I believe it to be false since I believe God is right).

My position as a Creationist is that since evloution is unscientific, unprovable, and not observable it is simply faith and should be taught it a religion class and not in Biology class.

99

[quote]Kainjer wrote:
[/quote]

I feel quite honored and undeserving…sniff, sniff.

lol

100

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
If you wish to stake your destiny on anything else – you better hope that you are right and I am wrong. For if I am wrong, I live a pretty good life and then ‘poof’ I am gone. However, my friend, if you are wrong and the Bible is correct about God and salvation and judgment, then what?
[/quote]
That was a good argument back in the day when it was just the Catholic Church and a bunch of pagans, but nowadays informed consumers have a wider array of choices.

Your argument is only an argument for professing some religion or another. It’s not an argument for taking up with Christianity specifically. Rationally, what you should do is study all religions and find out which one has the very worst version of “hell.” That’s the one you should take up with. Following the logic of your argument.