Creationism vs. Evolution

[Matt W]

Once more. No more insults.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Redemption]

Onto Creationism and Evolution.

There is no evidence to support evolution. Darwin went on similarities between different species. We have found supposed "links" between man and ape. Proof that we once evolved from apes, I will proceed to disprove of that I know (Evidence given here is from 'The Evidence Bible' The Way of the Master, watch vid "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution".):

Lucy
Most experts agree she was a 3ft chimpanze.

Heidelberg Man
Built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human

Nebraska Man
Scientificly built up from one tooth, later found to be from an extinct pig.

Piltdown Man
The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

Peking Man
Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared.

Neanderthal Man
This skeleton, concluded by Dr. A.J.E Cave, found from 50 years ago is just of a normal man who suffered athritis.

New Guinea Man
Dates vack to 1970. This species has been found living in the region just north of Australia.

Cro-Magnon Man
One of the earliest and best established fossils is atleast equal in physique and brain capacity of that a modern day man. What's the difference?

Now, something more:

Was it an accident that your ears were designed to capture sound? Grooves, bumps and ridges are made to catch passing sound waves and channel them to the eardrum.

Your hands were made to grip and feel, due to conveniently places ridges on a bananna, we can hold them perfectly. Also they have a tab at the top, like a drink can. The bananna is built so it easily fits in our mouths, and the skin is bio-degradable.

You have 10,000,000,000 neurons in your brain, these are microscopic nerve cells. Your stomach, which prdouces four pints of gastric fluid each day, has 35,000,000 glands lining it. Are all these things just a cosmic accident? Of course not! A house doesn't get built by nature over millions of years does it?

This is just the tip of the iceburg, look at the website I suggested earlier: The Way of the Master and search for "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution".

Quote by: Jubloz Or how about the irony that biological evolution is criticized for not providing an explanation for the origins of life (an issue that's dealt with in another profession, as I've mentioned tirelessly), which, according to theists, is enough to warrant evolution false, yet theists cannot provide a clear explanation as to where their god(s)/God came from, yet follow their deity with 'unfaltering' faith? I'd at least like to see some level of consistency.

This is the beauty of it. God is an omnipresent being, he has always been, and always be. You I asume believe we are a cosmic accident.

There is no other way to explain how the universe was created. The universe isn't alive and it exists with no explaination from science. Evolution and some religious defience is based on obsurb ideas.

[rez]

Quote by: Redemption Onto Creationism and Evolution. There is no evidence to support evolution. Darwin went on similarities between different species. We have found supposed "links" between man and ape. Proof that we once evolved from apes, I will proceed to disprove of that I know (Evidence given here is from 'The Evidence Bible' The Way of the Master, watch vid "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution".):

So you think you debunked the fossil record, but how about the underlying mechanisms behind evolution such as genes?

Your hands were made to grip and feel, due to conveniently places ridges on a bananna, we can hold them perfectly. Also they have a tab at the top, like a drink can. The bananna is built so it easily fits in our mouths, and the skin is bio-degradable.

The penis was made to feel due to the conventienly placed fore skin at the head of the penis. Humans can hold them perfectly. They also have a smooth slender feel that can fit perfectly in the anus. The semen that comes out contains sugar, so humans can eat it and get many nutrients out of it. This must be the work of god.

A house doesn't get built by nature over millions of years does it?

But a house is not like nature at all. Didn't you know that? A house was designed for a known purpose that has been documented for many years. We see houses being built all the time. Have you seen a universe being built recently? Do you have the plans for making a universe?

Do you really lack the ability to compare two things together? A house is nothing like nature at all. I wonder how bad you did on the analogy section of the SAT...

This is the beauty of it. God is an omnipresent being, he has always been, and always be. You I asume believe we are a cosmic accident.

Cosmic accident? more like cosmic probability...

There is no other way to explain how the universe was created. The universe isn't alive and it exists with no explaination from science. Evolution and some religious defience is based on obsurb ideas.

Your critically thinking skills are weak at best. You can't make a simple analogy for your life and you provided no argument, but instead just a twist of words that can easily be twisted to defend evolution. Stop visiting godtube and watching Kirk Cameron talk about bananas and how they are perfectly designed for humans please.

[ruiner]

Quote by: Redemption Onto Creationism and Evolution. There is no evidence to support evolution. Darwin went on similarities between different species. We have found supposed "links" between man and ape. Proof that we once evolved from apes, I will proceed to disprove of that I know (Evidence given here is from 'The Evidence Bible' The Way of the Master, watch vid "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution".): Lucy Most experts agree she was a 3ft chimpanze.

Even you and me (non-experts) can see the Lucy fossil is not chimpanzee, just from visual comparison:
PREMOG - Research

And obviously if most experts did believe Lucy was a 3ft chimpanzee then Lucy would be classified as a...chimpanzee

[Jack]

Your hands were made to grip and feel, due to conveniently places ridges on a bananna, we can hold them perfectly. Also they have a tab at the top, like a drink can. The bananna is built so it easily fits in our mouths, and the skin is bio-degradable.

The creationists who came up with this nonsense obviously never saw a natural banana.

Wild bananas have fairly dry fruits with large seeds and no pulp. In Southeast Asia, the primitive seeded bananas are termed tae manu, meaning animal feces, implying that they are only eaten during times of famine. The banana we see today is a result of years of selective breeding. So they were inteligently designed. Here are the inteligent designers, the early native pioneers of agriculture in Papua New Guinea. I'm sure they would appreciate Kirk Cameron's compliment but they'll be the first to admit that they are not Gods. -image- I'd suggest to Kirk Cameron that next time he does a little research before making silly claims that he can prove the existance of God with a banana.

One Fewer God

[Redemption]

Quote by: rez The penis was made to feel due to the conventienly placed fore skin at the head of the penis. Humans can hold them perfectly. They also have a smooth slender feel that can fit perfectly in the anus. The semen that comes out contains sugar, so humans can eat it and get many nutrients out of it. This must be the work of god.

Humans can hold penises so we can actually aim where we urinate.
They have a smooth slender feel that can fit into a vagina. Do you see people becoming pregnant by anus sex? No...

Quote by: rez But a house is not like nature at all. Didn't you know that? A house was designed for a known purpose that has been documented for many years. We see houses being built all the time. Have you seen a universe being built recently? Do you have the plans for making a universe?

Quote by: rez So you think you debunked the fossil record, but how about the underlying mechanisms behind evolution such as genes?

Organic life was designed to live. You have 10,000,000,000 neurons in your brain. The make up of your brain was purposely to be sentient and intelligent.
How did the single celled organisms just "split" in two cells? How did we evolve and just happen to have ears that perfectly can pick up sound. How do we have eyes the can see using such complicated biological build?
Was this imformation imbeded in our genes, did they learn that if that flesh was shaped and built right it could pick up sound? Of course genes don't know these things!

[vash the sane]

[quote=Redemption;474305]Humans can hold penises so we can actually aim where we urinate.
They have a smooth slender feel that can fit into a vagina. Do you see people becoming pregnant by anus sex? No...

Organic life was designed to live. You have 10,000,000,000 neurons in your brain. The make up of your brain was purposely to be sentient and intelligent. How did the single celled organisms just "split" in two cells? How did we evolve and just happen to have ears that perfectly can pick up sound. How do we have eyes the can see using such complicated biological build?

The evolution of the eye

Was this imformation imbeded in our genes, did they learn that if that flesh was shaped and built right it could pick up sound? Of course genes don't know these things!

What your arguing is know as Irreducible Complexity. And if you do enough research, you will see it's been almost completely debunked.

[gallo]

Quote by: Redemption There is no evidence to support evolution.

Do you mean that there is none, or that you don't understand it? Actually, even aside from biology, there is a lot of evidence from other sciences that support evolution such as astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, and geology. And when you look at biological sciences, there is genetics, bio-geography, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology - in fact every field of biology that you can think of. I suggest that you read 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Darwin went on similarities between different species.

No, he didn't. Have you actually read anything by Darwin?

We have found supposed "links" between man and ape.

Not exactly. We have found fossils of intermediate (i.e., transitional) species.

Proof that we once evolved from apes, I will proceed to disprove of that I know (Evidence given here is from 'The Evidence Bible' The Way of the Master, watch vid "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution".):

Not sure what that actually said. However, I can tell you that science is not about proof, so in fact, no scientist ever claims that we once evolved from apes, but that we share a common ancestor with apes.

By the way, the two Brokeback Mountain cowboys at the top of your page are impressive.

Lucy Most experts agree she was a 3ft chimpanze.

No, they don't. No expert thinks that she, or any of the more than 300 fossils of the same species were chimpanzees. Lucy's pelvis isn't even close to that of a chimpanzee. It is very similar to other hominids, being rotated under the viscera. The head of the femur would have caused the femur to slant inward, under the body, and the angle of the femur with the tibia and fibula confirm this. This is not even close to the anatomy of a chimp. The point where the skull joins the skull is under the skull, as in humans, rather than at the back, as in chimpanzees. These are all characteristics of a bipedal organism. Chimps are quadrupedal. Did you know that?

Heidelberg Man Built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human

I wonder if you have ever actually even looked at a picture of it along side of a human jaw? I guess you aren't aware that the single feature that is conceded to be "quite human" are the teeth.

Nebraska Man Scientificly built up from one tooth, later found to be from an extinct pig.

But it was never published and actually never claimed to be any sort of evidence for evolution. It was a news story because an amateur scientist claimed that it looked human. Are you aware that some pig teeth look quite similar to humans?

Piltdown Man The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

So what. Piltdown was debunked by actual scientists. It was accepted only in Great Britain with a few followers in America. It was rejected in Europe and Africa, where real fossils were being found.

Peking Man Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared.

How is the fact that the fossils have been lost evidence against evolution? What about the fossils that were found after WWII that we still have? What about the excellent casts of the original finds, that we still have?

Neanderthal Man This skeleton, concluded by Dr. A.J.E Cave, found from 50 years ago is just of a normal man who suffered arthritis.

Neanderthal Man is not a single fossil. You might at least adjust your dates. The skeleton in question was found over 100 years ago. Dr. Cave opined, in 1958, that the individual fossil in question did suffer from arthritis simply because he was old. However, he did not conclude that the fossil was that of a "normal man." In fact, anything but.

New Guinea Man Dates vack to 1970. This species has been found living in the region just north of Australia.

I'm not familiar with this creationist invention and I thought the the region just north of Australia was ocean.

Cro-Magnon Man One of the earliest and best established fossils is atleast equal in physique and brain capacity of that a modern day man. What's the difference?

Actually, Cro-Magnon is one of the more recent fossils. Cro-Magnon was us!

Now, something more:

How exciting!

Was it an accident that your ears were designed to capture sound? Grooves, bumps and ridges are made to catch passing sound waves and channel them to the eardrum.

Actually, no. Organisms with ears existed many millions of years ago. Organs that could sense vibrations were beneficial and through the process of mutation and natural selection they have become common. But my ears, are no match for my dog.

Your hands were made to grip and feel, due to conveniently places ridges on a bananna, we can hold them perfectly.

You can't be serious. I'm not quite sure if you are claiming that the banana (please note the correct spelling of "banana") was designed by a magical being to fit the human hand or if the human hand was designed to grab a banana. Again, you can't be serious.

Also they have a tab at the top, like a drink can. The bananna is built so it easily fits in our mouths, and the skin is bio-degradable.

Really? Then what about kumquats, Brussels sprouts, avocados, potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, lettuce, cabbage, corn, wheat, rye, barley, beans, peas, apples, peaches, pears, not to mention swine, deer, cattle, sheep and so on. Why is a banana evidence of a perfect world designed for man when none of these others fit either the hand or the mouth? What an ignorant idea.

You have 10,000,000,000 neurons in your brain, these are microscopic nerve cells. Your stomach, which prdouces four pints of gastric fluid each day, has 35,000,000 glands lining it. Are all these things just a cosmic accident? Of course not! A house doesn't get built by nature over millions of years does it?

Then we are in agreement, These are not accidents but the result of billions of years of evolution

This is just the tip of the iceburg, look at the website I suggested earlier:

I did. It seems to be just another scientifically illiterate, creationist site.

This is the beauty of it.

The beauty of what?

God is an omnipresent being,

Who's god?

he has always been, and always be.

And you don't see the logical contradiction in that? How interesting. Why couldn't the universe have the same attributes?

You I asume believe we are a cosmic accident.

Your assumption is wrong.

There is no other way to explain how the universe was created.

Or at least you reject other explanations

The universe isn't alive

Duh!

and it exists with no explaination from science.

Not true. There are seveala explanations. However, just because you think that there are no explanations doesn't mean that your mythological explanation is true.

Evolution and some religious defience is based on obsurb ideas.

I'm not sure what that said, but I think you said that evolution (an observed fact) and creationism (a myth) are absurd. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

[Jack]

Organic life was designed to live...The make up of your brain was purposely to be sentient and intelligent.

Where's the supporting evidence for these contentions? If ID wants to be taken as science, where's the testable and falsifiable evidence to support the notion of design and purpose? What are the objective, consistent standards for design and purpose?

[gallo]

Quote by: Redemption Humans can hold penises so we can actually aim where we urinate.

I see. So dogs, cats, bears, elephants, beavers, kangaroos and so forth, weren't intelligently designed since none of them actually can't hold their penises and aim their urination.

They have a smooth slender feel that can fit into a vagina. Do you see people becoming pregnant by anus sex? No...

Do you mean "anal sex"? However, since it is used for other purposes to which it also seems to fit, how can you claim design by a magical being?

[snip]of "I don't understand so I'll just pretend that I'm asking meaningful questions."[/snip]

There is no question that everything is the result of a magical and invisible being. Why would anyone doubt it?

[nerdvincent]

JCVI: Research / Projects / Synthetic Bacterial Genome / Press Release

Dearest Fundies,
Do we need God?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo Do you mean that there is none, or that you don't understand it? Actually, even aside from biology, there is a lot of evidence from other sciences that support evolution such as astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, and geology. And when you look at biological sciences, there is genetics, bio-geography, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology - in fact every field of biology that you can think of. I suggest that you read 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

And yet, for all your mumbo jumbo rhetoric, if you follow your own rules of evidence, you can't make the claim that creationism is impossible, for the simple fact is that you can neither disprove it, nor can you provide proof of some other source for the origin of life.

[Kite]

Quote by: Zeebadee And yet, for all your mumbo jumbo rhetoric, if you follow your own rules of evidence, you can't make the claim that creationism is impossible, for the simple fact is that you can neither disprove it, nor can you provide proof of some other source for the origin of life.

One theory of gravity is that what comes up must come down, because the earth has its own gravitational pull. Another theory is that what goes up comes back down because little invisible and intangible gremlins grab on to anything that goes up and yanks it back down to earth. We can't exactly disprove the second theory, yes, but why would we even put stock in it when the first has a much more logical and sensible explanation?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kite One theory of gravity is that what comes up must come down, because the earth has its own gravitational pull. Another theory is that what goes up comes back down because little invisible and intangible gremlins grab on to anything that goes up and yanks it back down to earth. We can't exactly disprove the second theory, yes, but why would we even put stock in it when the first has a much more logical and sensible explanation?

Ok, fair enough. Now just give us your "much more logical and sensible explanation" of the origin of life and the universe.

[Kite]

Go read a few pages of this thread, you should get a general idea.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kite Go read a few pages of this thread, you should get a general idea.

Well, the thread is 98 pages long. I looked back a few pages, but only saw a couple of entries by you, neither of which addressed my request for information from you. Perhaps you could sum up what you consider to be a "much more logical and sensible explanation" for me? Thanks!!

[Kite]

What I meant was read a few pages of the thread to get a general idea of what evolution is, as it is much more logically sound than creationism.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kite What I meant was read a few pages of the thread to get a general idea of what evolution is, as it is much more logically sound than creationism.

Creationism addresses the origins of life, what part of the TOE provides a "much more logical and sensible explanation" for such origins, or for the existence of the universe?

[Kite]

I seem to remember something about a big bang? Doppler effect? Universal Background Radiation? Of course, thats not the theory of evolution, but what are the odds that there would be one theory that would explain the origin of the universe AND the creation of all sentient life on earth in a convenient storybook format?

[rez]

A logical and more sensible explanation would be M-Theory.