Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
Some evolutionists have stated that those who believe in creation cannot be real scientists. Any use of science to support the biblical view of creation they call “pseudoscience.” But what is the truth?
Are there scientists who believe in creation and do real science? I believe there are. Some of the greatest men and women of science, past and present, are real scientists, and believe the Bible’s account of origins. True operational science has nothing to do with evolution. Science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution.
Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all.
Dr. David Melton Ph.D. cell biologist and creationist said, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”
Computers, cell phones, DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created not evolution. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.
Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible, but not with evolution.
Eleni and toadaly:
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." -Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945). ___
"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981. ___ "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." -Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
"Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." -Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44. ___-
"For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time - speaking in geological terms - without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all." -Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.D., D.Sc., Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), p. 64 ___
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." -Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.) ___
And here is a quote from Patterson to a colleague who wanted him to “make up” misinformation and he refused to do so. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?" -Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89. ___
"The fossil record of man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence... I have gone to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors." -Fix, William R., The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 150-153. (Note: Fix is not a creationist.) ___
"The gaps are gone, but the links remain -- missing." -Douglas Dewar ___
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero." -Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937). ___
*** And here is the real reason all of these lies are being perpetrated on the trusting and gullible public. THERE IS MONEY IN IT! Lots of it!! ***
"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science -- real science -- before moving into creation science." -Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.
I edited this to put a space between each quote.
"Eventually, all but the die hard ‘evolutionists’ abandoned Darwin’s gradual changing theory for a new and improved one called Punctuated Equilibrium."
PE is a discredited theory. It basically says that evolution happens in fits and starts, so you get all the problems of evolution AND the issues of why nothing happens for ages, then it all changes all of a sudden.
"Creationists say, according to their sources, that it occurred in different “days” meaning there was time between the speciation. Science calls it “equilibrium”, a period of ‘stasis’ when it appears there was no new speciation between events. "
Creation says "everything was created by an invisible sky daddy in its current form". You seem to be blending creationism with evolution. Which is it?
"If the Creationist agenda is Religion than so is the Atheist agenda Religion"
Creationism makes the huge assumption that there is a creator. Many people assume this to be god, or more specifically Yahweh if you're in the Christian world.
"The facts show there is no more evidence to ‘prove’ evolution than there is to “prove’ creation."
Again I ask you - Can you please provide ONE prediction that creationism makes that we can actually test to verify its authenticity?
"...the only difference is that the evolutionists have had to shift gears, and come closer to the creationist viewpoint because of the physical evidence."
I am still waiting for a picture of a living dinosaur.
"Right now science is not ‘good science’ it is ‘agenda science’."
And exactly what agenda is this? What possible gain could be made by burying "real creation science" in favour of the "atheist evolution agenda science"?
" Teach in the classroom all of the facts, all of the evidence, all of the controversies involving the different theories"
I agree. Let's teach the children about all the creation myths of this world including : The Bakuba account of demiurg The Maasai of Kenya The Mandinka people of southern Mali Voodoos Damballah (Sky-serpent loa and wise and loving Father archetype) The Yoruba creator called Olorun Unkulunkulu, the Zulu creator The Ainu people of Hokkaidō creation myth Hmong creation myth The Korean JoMulJu The Mansi people of Siberia creation myth Buddha Sakyamuni creation myth The Orok people of Sakhali creation myth The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami The first Division-Genesis in Tao Te Ching and partially in I Ching Ancient Finns creation myth The ancient Greek creation story The Voluspa Norse creation myth The Buddhist Trimurti of Brahma (the Creator) creation myth The Sikh Scripture, Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) creation myth Surat Shabda Yoga creation myth The Babylonian creation myth The Ennead creation myth The Ogdoad creation myth In Hermeticism creation myth The Muslim creation story found in the Qur'an. Jews and Christians creation myth Mandaeism creation myth The Zoroastrian story of creation Mesopotamian creation myth Kiowa Apache creation myth The Coatlique creation myth Cherokee creation myth Choctaw creation myth The Digueno creation Hopi creation myth Inuit Indian creation myth Iroquois creation myth Lakota creation myth Maidu creation myth Navajo mythology Seminole creation myth Tlingit creation myth Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime Polynesian creation myth Hawaiian Māui and Kumulipo creation myths The Māori creation myth Tagalog creation myth The Incan creation myth The Maya of Mesoamerica creation myth recounted in the book "Popol Vuh" Mormonism creation myth Raëlism creation myth Scientologists creation myth
Let the children decide what to make of it all.
"You don’t have to bring God into it, just the truth as is being provided by the physical evidence."
Sure - show me one example of physical evidence of creation.
"Give me one instance, verifiable, that I can read for myself that there has been speciation created in a laboratory"
Start here : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
"This is microevolution and creates only subspecies"
You lack an imagination - not to say you need one to believe in evolution. What would happen if you added up lots of little changes over millions of years? What if the one species was split into two populations by come geographic event/ Is it possible that they may change enough to be separate species? Why when we look the the DNA do we see massive similarities between creatures that are very much alike?
"The only predators of consequence were the Tasmanian tiger and aboriginal man and the dingo"
EVERY animal is a predator of other creatures. Explain how an "all loving god" would build a system that requires every living thing to kill other living things in order to survive.
"...could be the result of an intentional plant, an experiment."
Are you suggesting an all knowing creator would not know the outcomes of his design? Why the experiment?
"I have taken the time to anwer your questions, please take the time to 'intelligintly' answer mine!"
I always attempt to in the time I have available. Funny how you misspelt "intelligently" :)
I looked at the first web link you offered. So there is no confusion I will list it again. Here it is: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6645/abs/388868a0.html
Now I am going to show what crap that stuff is. Here is another site with exactly the same words. And tells the real story .
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Taxa/Echinodermata/Kimberellaquadrata.html
Look at the first word of the second paragraph! Duh! They put this thing together. The first time they did it they were perfectly happy! Until they realized it didn’t further their agenda. They “reconstructed” it!
This is what ‘reconstruct’ means:
1. To construct again; rebuild
2. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create
3. To cause to adopt a new attitude or outlook
Check it out for yourself! http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/R0088900.html This is The American Heritage Dictionary
They recreated this thing with a new appearance. Your article says, ” We reconstruct Kimberella as a bilaterally symmetrical, benthic animal with a non-mineralized, univalved shell, resembling a mollusc in many respects.” Let’s look at the bulls*t you are being fed here! They are saying they put it together differently so it would look like a bilaterally symmetrical bottom dwelling animal that had a one piece soft covering that resembled a mollusk in many respects.
Let’s stop for a minute to see what is being said here. They found this fossil evidence. They constructed it from the evidence (pieces obviously) and everyone was happy with the results. They even named it and accepted that was how the thing looked in real life. Then when it didn’t fit their agenda, they ‘re-created’ it to look like a snail or conch, with no hard shell looking the same on both sides. Then they renamed it again!! That is Science!!! Sadly that is the crap they are feeding you in school these days. No wonder kids cant read or write.
“From this piece of scientific fabrication they deduced this: “This is important evidence for the existence of large triploblastic metazoans in the Precambrian and indicates that the origin of the higher groups of protostomes lies well back in the Precambrian.”
Let’s look at the words here:
triloblastic means: Having three germ layers. Used of the vertebrate embryo. Metazoa means: It belongs to the animal kingdom with sponges, cnidarians or worms mollusk means: Any of numerous chiefly marine invertebrates of the phylum Mollusca, typically having a soft unsegmented body, a mantle, and a protective calcareous shell and including the edible shellfish and the snails.
They are saying this ‘thing’ that had no hard shell all of a sudden resembles a shellfish that has a hard shell. The logic here is looking at a worm and saying it looks like a lobster. Yea right? The lobster from last night’s dinner might look like a worm in the toilet bowl the next day. Come on that is not science. It is pure speculation and it is done through ‘intellectualizing’. “The old saying, “if you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsht”
A great dane and a pony resemble each other. They both have a head, four legs, hair, two ears, two eyes, a nose, a neck, a tail, heart, lungs, intestines, a mouth and an anus. And I don’t have to ‘reconstruct’ the parts to get the similarity. That doesn’t mean one turns into the other.
And here is the real science in all of this! They make the giant leap of saying a snail looks similar to a ‘vertebrate embryo’. I’ve blown my nose when I have a bad cold and saw what looked like a slug, does that mean they are related too?
If nobody questions the validity of this deceitfulness, next they will be saying they see a similarity with humans.
The problem is, all of this poorly done speculation is being called ‘fact’. It is not fact! It isn’t even science. Science fiction maybe, but not science.
askegg:
That is not what I am saying at all! I dont have a problem with science or atheists or agnostics. My issue with the Atheist only agenda for education is this. When Darwin had his ‘epiphany’, the Creationists said that life was placed here ‘all at once’ (relatively speaking), and the investigations began to prove Darwin right. Even during Darwin’s lifetime there were doubts of the validity of his “theory”. That is fine, there are doubts with any new idea, it is suppose to promote “good science”. Laws were passed to keep religion out of public schools (I agree with that position) because it relies on faith, which is interpreted by many to be nothing more than wishful thinking. Science after all is the discipline of looking at the facts; concrete evidence, no wishful thinking, no interpretation; just the whole story as it unfolded during the research. In science class, good science should be taught, what you teach is what you promote.
It wasn’t too long until there were serious doubts about the gradual speciation of life on earth as it was supposed to have happened according to evolution. Then paleontologists started to realize that in the Burgess shale of British Columbia, that was determined to be representative of the Cambrian Period of speciation, life didn’t appear to evolve slowly as Darwin speculated, but appeared to happen more like what the Creationists said is how it happened. More evidence showed up in Chenjang, China; again discrediting Darwin. Eventually, all but the die hard ‘evolutionists’ abandoned Darwin’s gradual changing theory for a new and improved one called Punctuated Equilibrium. Why? Because new speciation of life did seem to appear suddenly. Creationists say, according to their sources, that it occurred in different “days” meaning there was time between the speciation. Science calls it “equilibrium”, a period of ‘stasis’ when it appears there was no new speciation between events.
Good science demands that you disclose all of the facts; if you don’t it isn’t science any more. It is an agenda. No different than the one that the Creationists were accused of promoting. If the Creationist agenda is Religion than so is the Atheist agenda Religion. The Museum of Natural History is full of ‘wishful thinking’, in the form of “supposed” evidence to support the gradual development of man. The truth is, this is all fictional speculation and should be labeled as such. Neanderthal man, through DNA testing is being considered, by some anthropologists, as a separate species. There is enough difference in the DNA to question whether they could have successfully mated with our ancestors. This is however controversial now, especially since it is a new development as a result of new technology. This should be disclosed in the classroom. If this evidence and the similarity of PE and Creationist assertions aren’t disclosed, the students are being lied to.
The facts show there is no more evidence to ‘prove’ evolution than there is to “prove’ creation. At this time, the only difference is that the evolutionists have had to shift gears, and come closer to the creationist viewpoint because of the physical evidence, and the creationists have been able to stay secure in theirs.
Right now science is not ‘good science’ it is ‘agenda science’. Teach in the classroom all of the facts, all of the evidence, all of the controversies involving the different theories. You don’t have to bring God into it, just the truth as is being provided by the physical evidence.
Semi:
You said: "Given that this guy is a doctor, I was at least hoping for something scientific. All I got was pandering to a creationist crowd by oversimplifying older versions of the theory of evolution, while completely ignoring the most up to date evidence."
My comment: Dr. Walter Veith is a Zoologist and has taught at the you of Maine for many years. He is a scientist and very well qualified. Also, you might have watched one of his older version on YouTube. You could have watched more than one...Veith has made up-to-date creation vs evolution presentations all over the world. I have his newest videos and if you are interested I can give you the information to get some.
You said: "he makes an interesting comment. He says, the evolutionary process has been 'discounted, and we haven't got time to go into that'. Why not, Dr. Veith? Isn't that the point of this whole video? Apparently not."
My comment: Dr Veith does go into that and much more in his other videos. When he gives these seminars he is there for about four to six weeks at a time giving four to five presentations a week. He thoroughly covers ever aspect of evolutionism and creationism.
You said "At NO point in this presentation did he give a shred of insight into how creationism or an intelligent designer would allow for 'copying errors' or mutations in DNA, which he himself says are usually negative. At no point does he successfully disprove that it is variations in physical traits in combination with environmental factors that determine which members of a species survive and which do not. "
Semi, did you by chance notice that these YouTube videos are short; just a few minutes long? It is NOT a presentation, it's a sample of a single one. It is impossible to cover everything in just a few minutes. Like I have already said, he has up-to-date, full presentations available if you are interested.
You said: "We're done with Dr. Veith" I say, nope not a chance. Dr. Walter Veith will be around for a long, long time. You and your evolutionist friends may be done with him and that is fine. You can demean this brilliant scientist if you want, but it doesn't take any thing away from him; just makes you look foolish. Seriously though, you really are being unfair. If you really want to know what he is all about and what he is teaching I suggest you watch his newest scientific contributions.
I have learned something from evolutionists such as you semi, askegg, eleni, and a few others, all of which isn't a pleasant experience. It is impossible to present scientific evidence without receiving rude, demeaning, negative responses.
Personally, I have decided to not get into any more discussions about evolution because no matter what we creationists say evolutionists seem to put it down even if they have to stretch it to fit their point of view.
Evolutionists are like non-Christians who are not interested in Jesus Christ. I have learned many years ago to watch and listen to see if someone may be interested in learning about God, and if they are not I won't mention it because they are not ready to hear God's truth, and it would be a waste of time. Kinda like this...so! have fun arguing among yourselves, I'm done. See ya... ya all :)
I do pray that someday very soon you will find the Lord. He is coming and it won't be long before we see Him coming with all heavenly angels with Him. Will you be ready to meet thy God? For you're sake I hope so...
You really covered a lot of ground here, but I will do my best to address your points.
Firstly, there are people who believe in creation yet are involved in the scientific field. They have managed to achieve a wondrous feat and not actually applied their rational minds to their own beliefs. It is quite possible for someone to spend the entire week studying evolutionary biology, then go to church on Sunday and worship their god of creation. They manage this by redefining the literal interpretations of the bible into symbolic or allegorical stories. Six days is NOT ACTUALLY six days, it REALLY MEANS 6 billion years. Man was made from dirt and magic breath really means he evolved. etc.
Many great scientists in history were devout believers. Even Darwin himself believed in God - he just wanted to understand how God did it. Strangely, at the time of publication that argument was not if evolution was true or not, but if it was the method god used or not.
It is true to say that most science does not require evolution to work, but that is like saying we do not require germ theory to understand the stars. However, exactly the same principles that lead to detailed and non-conflicting understanding in the fields of planetary orbits, telescopes, biology, chemistry, and medicine also lead you to conclude evolution is valid. The same standards of evidence apply to all fields and they all share common understandings of our universe and how it works. To dismiss one endeavour because it conflicts with an ancient book is disingenuous. Would you dismiss astronomy in favour astrology, or chemistry for alchemy if you book said so?
I have not heard of Dr. David Melton, but to say evolution has no place is biomedical research is a gross error. Evolutionary theory (including genetics) allow the medical fraternity to examine living organisms and how they work. We can determine the genetic codes that cause a virus to behave the way it does and alter it. This is just one application of evolutionary theory in action.
Evolution is not contrary to the laws of physics. It follows all known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. If it stood alone in stark contrast to the rest of science it would be written off and a crazy idea by scientists themselves. As it is, only creationist write it off, and some scientists manage to warp their beliefs enough to accommodate it, or just ignore it completely because their book written by ignorant goat herders in another country 2,000 years ago says so.
Order does not require design. We can see numerous examples of order arising from apparent chaos, yet there is no one there to design it. Your assertion that there is some intelligence behind this apparent design only begs the question - who designed your designer? Surely your designer is far more complex than the designs we see, and by the same logic MUST also require a designer?
If god does not require a designer (because he was always there or whatever), then surely we could argue that something even less complex could have always been here and not require a designer either. This is the position of most rational people.
Eleni: I. I do not use medicines (with the exception of aspirin for sunburn). I have asthma and I use local honey, there are no side effects. For the high blood pressure that I used to have: I eliminate salt in my diet and use spices. I cook all of my own food using whole foods whenever possible. For my bi-polar disorder I use sunshine and a tanning bed. I havent had an episode in a year. And again, no lasting side effects.
I dont believe there any real doctors any more. They are legalized drug dealers. There is a huge conflict of interest in the medical profession that needs to be addressed but probably never will. That is the fact that doctors invest their retirement income in Pharmaceutical companies and knowingly dispense medication that destroys their patients liver and sometime kidneys. Dont believe me? Just listen to the television commercials. More than half are for drugs. Listen to the side effects.
There are sleep studies out there that show a lack of restful sleep from stress causes a pre-diabetic condition, high blood pressure and an uncontrollable urge to eat, causing obesity. The automatic response from doctors for these symptoms is... here take this pill!. Oh! you have these side effects? Here, take another pill? And another and another. I read an article where the typical person who takes medication for a condition takes on the average two more medications to counteract the side effects of the medications.
For decades, chiropractors were considered quacks! Why! Because they didnt dispense medication or push for surgery! My sister had a rib removed because chiropractics was considered pseudo-science.
You want credentials? How about these! Colin Patterson, who was Senior Principle Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department of British Museum (Natural History), London (1962-1993) and studied the Cambrian Period fossils for 20 years, out of frustration said that evolution is an anti-theory that produces anti-knowledge and creates terms that explain nothing. Another famous quote of his is, "Can you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing, that is true?" He was an evolutionist and had a Phd. How many people have heard of him or his statements?
Everything about evolution is based on lies. Science holds every other opposing view, except the “scientific” one to the highest degree of scrutiny based on the “laws of physics”. In order for any idea to be considered it must pass this “scientific scrutiny”. Yet, the one that they use and base all of their “proof” on is exempt from this scrutiny. Why? Because it is a lie and it fails inspection at every step along the way. And the perpetuation of this lie is done in the only way it could ever be done. By cramming it down the throats of our students in school who are naïve and who will “fail” if they don’t accept it. Every time there is an attempt to bring another view into the schools it is vehemently opposed, out of fear of being exposed!
Since this debate appears to be dead I will put the final two nails in its coffin. First is the accusation that my statements are based on lies.
http://biology.swau.edu/faculty/nclasses/classes/patterson.pdf
Above is a transcript of the speech that Dr. Colin Patterson gave at the Museum of Natural History New York on November 5, 1981 in which he states that evidence for Evolution as a theory does not exist.
The second is that I made up the statement of evolutionary scientists being intimidating and putting financial pressure on anyone that disagrees with them. Congress did an investigation and found out that they agree it was absolutely done to Dr. Richard Sternberg. A second investigation was conducted and it was concluded that his civil rights were violated in an effort to have him discredited. Dr. Sternberg has two doctorates in biology and is a well-published scientist. His only offense was to allow an article about the theory of Intelligent Design in a biology journal. And up to the time of the article on the findings, the Museum of Natural History has refused to investigate it further.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News
I stand on my claim that there is no more real Science anymore. It is Cultist Religious Ignorance of the worst kind whose only chance at survival is to infect the innocent minds of our children under Nazi-like conditions in our schools, where if they do not submit to the brainwashing they are labeled troublemakers and incorrigibles. This unconscionable act is given additional weight by failing the student, thereby placing an undeserved stigma on him/her as being stupid and on the parent as having given birth to an intellectually challenged and disruptive child. The onus is put on the parent to reprimand the student and allow the raping of his/her intellect.
As we can see the plan has come to fruition and it is evident that even our most respected institutions, like the Museum of Natural History, has succumbed to this small-minded, one-dimensional distortion that we once proudly called Science. The only sense that I can make of it is that the ‘new’ concept of science has only one purpose, and that is the Atheist agenda: absolute elimination of any concept of a Creator, even if it is baseless and even if all credibility is lost.
Fortunately the Truth has a way of emerging, even in the most repressive of times. People like Dr. Patterson who, after spending much of their lives in search of an illusion, can stand in front of their peers and honestly say that all was for naught.
Wow. orion, next time you decide to bring evidence in favor of the creation side, you might want to abandon Veith. Given that this guy is a doctor, I was at least hoping for something scientific. All I got was pandering to a creationist crowd by oversimplifying older versions of the theory of evolution, while completely ignoring the most up to date evidence.
First, attacking Darwinism and Lemarcism doesn't do anything for creationism. After all, Darwin knew little to nothing of genetics, alleles, chromosomes, or traits, and while Mendel was doing work in these fields during Darwin's lifetime, the two unfortunately never combined their research. Neither Darwin or Lemarc were aware of mutations.
So let's talk about that. He goes on to describe what any college biology student learns about chromosome replication. And, at this point, I can see where toadaly and the average, intelligent viewer will lose interest, because all he does is make a few gene jokes, show some cute slides, and make funny noises.
But if you survive this, he makes an interesting comment. He says, the evolutionary process has been "discounted, and we haven't got time to go into that". Why not, Dr. Veith? Isn't that the point of this whole video? Apparently not.
So he starts talking about single and muti-cellular organisms. He basically says that different genes carry instructions that determine the functions of various cells in multi-cellular organisms, to include physical traits. His point is that just because a species has changes in phenotypes, or different traits, doesn't mean it is a different species, as Darwin claimed, and therefore Darwin didn't know that it's all in the genes, and Darwin's theory is the basis of racism, and blah blah blah blah blah...
At NO point in this presentation did he give a shred of insight into how creationism or an intelligent designer would allow for "copying errors" or mutations in DNA, which he himself says are usually negative. At no point does he successfully disprove that it is variations in physical traits in combination with environmental factors that determine which members of a species survive and which do not.
In fact, he basically makes a good case for evolution, because he explains how the same species can have different traits based on its genetic structure. That's the whole basis of natural selection in a nutshell.
OK, orion, elone...now that I've watched your video, it's time for you to read the websites I've posted and think about them. Watching Dr. Veith has made me even more convinced that evolution is true!!!
I have been reading this with great pleasure. both sides have vehemently presented their arguments.
orion - I watched the video you posted. it was basic, presenting nothing new and quite honestly, I found his jokes to be nothing more than pandering to a creationist audience. I respect your beliefs but they are just that, beliefs. and the arguments you presented did nothing to change that. also, though the discussion became heated, I did not think that it was pointed at you, just your beliefs. if you throw something out there, expect a response. that is just a good, lively discussion. please try not to allow your feelings to be hurt.
elone - you present what at first glance appears to be valid reasoning but it doesn't survive scrutiny. there are many of your statements that appear to be fabrications, thrown in to support your belief. I challenge you on your story 'I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'' as a biochemist, familiar with the university and it's prestigious lineage in scientific research, this just did not happen. I have no more proof of my disbelief than the fact that I contacted a clinical geneticist friend of mine currently on staff at the university, and he was not aware of any evolutionary morphology seminar within the past 9 years. you appear to be intelligent but I do not believe that you "stumped" a body of qualified evolutionists, reducing one to admitting that evolution shouldn't be taught in school. adding statements such as that, made me doubt every other statement from you.
semi1900 and askegg - excellent arguments, backed by your obvious understanding of the scientific process. adamant, but excellent arguments none the less. I enjoyed every second. how could you not present your knowledge so forcibly when debating with someone so...how shall I say...dense? and that is directed at elone, not orion.
eleni - you displayed intelligence and grace in your debate. your apology was honest and I hope was appreciated.
thank you for a great debate. if I were on the fence, which I am not, I would have been easily swayed by semi, askegg and eleni. evolution, obviously, is the correct answer.
"Neanderthal man, through DNA testing is being considered, by some anthropologists, as a separate species."
The issue has never been whether Neanderthal Man was a separate species from h___ sapiens. The issue is whether Neanderthal Man and h___ sapiens shared a common ancestor.
"life didn’t appear to evolve slowly as Darwin speculated, but appeared to happen more like what the Creationists said is how it happened."
No, they didn't realize that. What they've realized about the Cambrian Explosion was that it wasn't really an explosion at all, as there are clearly some Precambrian fossils that show ancestry to those in the Cambrian period. Here are some examples: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6645/abs/388868a0.html http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5681/218 http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/3/617
There was no "sudden" appearance of animals with modern complexity. As for why it has appeared that way, there are many explanations, none of which lend themselves to creation. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.33.031504.103001?journalCode=earth http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/4/781 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/17/6536?ijkey=6dfca1db78c568a083bf5a812f10bedd625bccd9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
"At this time, the only difference is that the evolutionists have had to shift gears, and come closer to the creationist viewpoint because of the physical evidence, and the creationists have been able to stay secure in theirs."
Absolutely false. Recent fossil evidence has allowed paleontologists to further develop theories and make new discoveries about evolution and natural selection.
The creationists, many of whom rely on the Genesis account, have had their own story proven false. We know that the earth and tidal waters did not exist prior to the sun, stars, and most other celestial bodies, as Genesis seems to tell us. The idea of an earth with water and plant life, suspended in the universe with total darkness, is absurd, and should NEVER be taught to children in a public school setting.
In short, creation has no business in the classroom.
" The only evidence to support it is 'intimidation' and loss of a job."
Wow, how wrong can you be?
The fact you look much like your parents if proof of evolution (heredity), We know enough about genetics to alter the genomes and affect the phenotypes you exhibit (like you eye colour).
The fact you don't look exactly like your parent is more proof (variation). Variations occur due to inaccurate processes in DNA splicing, migrations within populations (gene flow), and sexual reproduction (gene shuffling).
Mutations in DNA are an observed event and do not always lead to gruesome freaks (as many creationists will try and point out). Most mutations are now benign (as many of the beneficial mutations have already occurred), yet there are still some improvements to be made - especially when the environment changes. We can trace genetic alterations across the population of the planet. We can see where we humans came from (Africa) using this genetic information.
We have observed speciation both in the natural world and under laboratory conditions. The huge number of different finch species in the Galapagos Islands is what sparked Darwin to investigate it in the first place. Why is it that there seems to be a species of finch to take advantage of every aspect of life there? Why do they share a very large percentage of DNA information? Why do they only occur in one place of the world? Why to other birds share significant DNA, yet are not finches at all? Why do kangaroos only exist in Australia? Why is the Tasmanian Devil restricted to Tasmania? Don't these questions keep you awake at night, or do you just write them off with "god did it - ain't that grand"?
There is SO much evidence for evolution available for anyone who cares to look at it. It is astonding there are people in this world who refuse to research a topic because it conflicts with their superstitious beliefs.
Perhaps you should actually read a book on the subject apart from the bible (which was written by people who had any idea about these things) before posting again and displaying your ignorance for all to see.
Askegg: Give me one instance, verifiable, that I can read for myself that there has been speciation created in a laboratory?
Give me some evidence to show that mutations, that could lead to future speciation, are benign.
I beg to differ with you about the Galapagos island finches. What Darwin observed was a difference of bead shape on the finches of the islands. This is microevolution and creates only subspecies. Science has now determined that sub speciation can never lead to a new and different species. No matter how many times the beak shape changes it is still a finch. And just because some finches used their beaks to peck booby legs for blood and others used theirs to crush seeds is not an indication they are going to ”morph’ into another animal. An example of this is the domestic cat; it is a subspecies of the African wildcat (Felis lybica). The domestic cat has had its DNA manipulated for hundreds of years by man and every time the results are always a cat! There is no indication that their offspring will be anything other than a cat.
The animals of Australia are perfect examples of 'creative design'. If they are the result of "evolutionary change' what was the stimulus behind the high number of marsupials? The only predators of consequence were the Tasmanian tiger and aboriginal man and the dingo. None was capable of devastating the population enough to cause an “evolutionary adaptation as drastic an adaptation. In Africa you have far more devastating predators, in number and veracity, and there is no wide spread marsupial population.
Since Australia is as isolated as it is, it seems to make sense that the high variety of marsupials there, as is seen nowhere else in the world, could be the result of an intentional plant, an experiment.
I have taken the time to anwer your questions, please take the time to 'intelligintly' answer mine!
"Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all. "
You really need to do your homework before you write things like this. Years of research in antibiotics, medical treatment and genetics has been possible because of our understanding of evolution and mutation.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1852567
" It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible."
Actually, the Big Bang explains more about astrophysics and the current state of the universe than the Genesis account ever does. Our understanding of quantum physics, a very revolutionary field, is confirming more about the Big Bang than we ever thought possible. The Genesis account, on the other hand, leaves us scratching our heads wondering how God could create the Earth and tides before creating the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, and the rest of the universe.
"Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible, but not with evolution."
Sounds like you're making more of a statement than a question, but you're also way off. Natural selection does not involve "random chance" to the extent that you think it does. If the world was created by an intelligent designer, why do we have mutations, which are basically copying errors during chromosome duplication? It's these copying errors that produce new traits in species, and how those traits cause a species to interact with its environment is the basis for evolution. Nothing illogical about it.
elone:
"The first time they did it they were perfectly happy! Until they realized it didn’t further their agenda. They “reconstructed” it! "
You're making this out to be something it's not. They didn't construct it once and then decide it didn't fit their agenda. At one time the organism was alive, with a skeletal structure. It died, and the bones were buried. They found all the pieces and put the bones back together. That's all it's saying.
"They are saying they put it together differently so it would look like a bilaterally symmetrical bottom dwelling animal that had a one piece soft covering that resembled a mollusk in many respects. "
Again...no they didn't. When they put it together, they found it resembled a mollusk. That's all there is to it. You're accusing them of putting bones together to make it look like what they want it to. Do you realize that some scientists have tried doing that before, and were discredited by their fellow evolution-believing scientists?
All you're doing is twisting the article's words to mean something they really don't. Basically, you're willing to accept scientists who uncover evidence not supporting evolution, but you twist the words of those who find evidence supporting it. It's a common creationist tactic, and it's tiring. Especially because we have heard absolutely zero evidence that an intelligent being designed anything.
As I said before, the Cambrian Explosion wasn't even real, there are evolutionary holdovers everywhere in nature to this day, and speciation has been observed many, many times.
"It is pointless trying to talk with you."
Not at all. All you need to do is answer my simple questions. Where is ONE photo of a living dinosaur that you say Mr. Hovind says are everywhere?
"That is not why I am here"
If debating the topics is not why you are here, then what is? Pushing your religious creationist point of view on the rest of us?
"To date I have not once seen you be polite to anyone."
I think I have been nothing but polite to the individual. I am ruthless on the points of argument. I can't help it if you take total defeat of your points personally.
"I do not like you and your disdain for others and their beliefs."
You may like like me, and that's find. My disdain for people superstitious beliefs come from their total lack of evidence they can provide to prove they are correct. Why not belief in alchemy, astrology, taro cards, spirit healing, reading chicken guts, or dianetics? The evidence for them is just as strong as it is for creation.
"Believe whatever you want even if it is wrong."
And you are welcome to do the same, just don't be offended if people say your wrong and prove why.
"If you want more information about what Dr. Kent Hovind has researched then you can buy his videos at: Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, FL 32503. Phone: 850-479-3466. Fax: 850-479-8562."
Most of Mr. Hovind's videos are available on Youtube and I have watched all I can stomach. If you really wish to contact Mr. Hovind, try the Federal Correctional Institution, Marianna, Florida.
eleni: Again you have proven my point that evolutionists have nothing to back up their "religion" except, accusations, intimidation and lies. Every one of these quotes came from prominent members of the scientific community.
Do some actual research and show me how these were taken out of context.
The truth is that ToE is ‘dead’. The reason it is dead is that the ‘real scientists’, the ones that actually do research, that have been doing so for 20 years or more have found nothing to back up their claims and their beliefs. Since they ARE real scientists they do what a real scientist does they re-examine those claims and beliefs. And in doing so, one by one they are realizing that they were sold a ‘bill of goods’ with nothing to back it up.
You asked for evidence of intimidation and financial pressure to continue the lie? Here it is! Sorry it took a few minutes to relocate it, but guess what! That is what we call “RESEARCH”. But you wouldn’t know anything about that.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9401/scopes.html
Let’s talk about the latest and greatest evolutionist ‘religion’, it is called Punctuated Equilibrium. Guess what honey! That is what the Creationists have been saying happened all along. But you are so wrapped up in spewing lies and accusations that you don’t have even enough honesty left to say, “You know what!, they do seem very similar.”
You are right! We are done! At least until you show me “with substantiation” that lies, accusations and insinuations are valid scientific evidence for ‘anything’.
elone, I don't know why you seem to be ignoring my posts, but I've responded already to much of what you've brought up. The Cambrian Explosion was false, transitional fossils do exist, and to answer your latest, speciation has been observed, check out these links: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"The animals of Australia are perfect examples of 'creative design'"
Ancestors of the marsupial species currently in Australia migrated there prior to that continent's break from the other "southern" landmasses, about 120m years ago. Their evolution began when they were still on that large landmass, which was comparitively very warm and moist, with high ocean levels limiting movement. It was in this environment that marsupials originated and thrived, and after they had begun migrating toward the southern portion of the supercontinent, it split apart due to plate tectonics, with Australia/Antarctica then later breaking up. Obviously, marsupial mammal species on Antarctica could not survive the climate change that continent eventually went through. On Australia, marsupials had no competitors, and evolved to fill a variety of niches.
To sum it up, Australia wasn't always isolated, and marsupials first evolved before it was, migrating there and thriving after the continent broke away and went through climate change.
orion, if you ever do come back and read this, I won't apologize for any of my comments. I'm not going to sugarcoat things, especially when I take the time to watch something you post and you apparently don't bother doing the same with the information I posted. If this discussion has taught me anything, it's that creationists will cling to the few scientists who support their own position, while ignoring or twisting what evolution is all about.
I'm not going to watch any more of his videos, at least until you agree to read some of the information others have posted. Watching his 9-minute biology presentation was enough for me until then. And there are many, many scientists who have given rebuttals to everything he's said.
You're really not interested in hearing someone else's position, that's become clear to me throughout this thread. It's either, "listen to Dr. Veith about creation and accept the truth and God and Jesus" or "I'm not going to talk to you anymore because you're a bunch of meanies". Did it ever occur to you that several of the atheists and agnostics posting here have read the Bible more thoroughly than most Christians, or that many of us, at one time, did believe in creation but have simply found the evidence against it too overwhelming?
We've been hearing from Christians for almost 2000 years that Jesus return is imminent. It's time to move on.
Elone,
So you admit that it is some type of atheistic conspiracy. Thanks for making that clear even though a simple "yes" would have sufficed. It is not the scientific community's job to publish any kind of trash and waste time showing everyone why it's wrong. Reputable journals only publish work that conforms to the scientific method. Creationism does not and cannot conform. Michael Behe, when he was a witness in the Dover trial, had to twist science in order to defend his creationist viewpoints and then got nailed for it when he had to admit that, by his definition, astrology would be a science too.
You seem like a highly intelligent person in all other respects but you're dead wrong on this. It's a shame too because evolution doesn't necessary rule out of a god and so there is no need to deny it so vehemently. Nevertheless, I must challenge you again on two points:
If evolution is pseudoscience, stop using medicines and start using prayer only. Will you do that?
Please show us your scientific degree/credentials and any research you've done to prove your point. It will certainly help lend some kind of credibility to your case.
If you can't or won't address these points, we're done. I'm here to learn and educate, not to fight.
Thank you! for the much needed information you posted for all to see. It was way over due and much appreciated! I thought the links were impressive!
With your documented evidence/information that you posted, it has removed all doubt that the theory of evolution is false, at least for anybody who has an open mind and are searching for truths. Again thank you.
Being a Christian in schools today would be extremely hard on a child's sense of self worth and intelligence unless he/she were backed completely by the parents and his church and even still the challenges our kids are facing are enormous to say the least!
Elone, I am sure you believe that the Lord's second coming will be very soon now; I do too. With all these signs being fulfilled it won't be long until we see our Creator God Almighty coming to take His people home. I live day by day awaiting this wonderful time as I know you do to.
What you've said here is extremely important to the growth to all looking for answers...I actually think you've silenced the 'nay-sayers' (for a while at least :) ) Praise the Lord for blessing you with this very true and impressive data!
Keep up the good work, my friend.
"The cambrian fossils show fully formed organisms with fully functioning organs and absolutely no fossil evidence leading up to it"
1) You could argue that ALL fossils have fully formed organs.
2) The Cambrian is not called an explosion for nothing. It happened so quickly there was very little time for the most unlikely process of fossilisation to occur. It's a matter of probabilities. It has been estimated that if the entire population of the USA died were subject to possible fossilisation, we would probably get half a skeleton. When evolution occurs so rapidly as it did in the Cambrian, the number of fossils will be very low.
3) There probably are a few fossils from this period, but given the expected rarity of these items, we have not found them yet. It is not feasible to dig up the entire Earth's surface and retrieve every fossil specimen, and even if we did creationists would still point to all the tiny gaps between the forms and say "look! there's a gap!".
4) You are stating that creation occurred, then SUPER evolution happened to account for the number of species we see today. Yet, you denounce evolution entirely? Which is it?
Thank you Amoeba. It is difficult to get across concepts to people who seem to lack a basic understanding of chemistry, physics, biology, or maths - let alone something like evolution. Even so, the central concepts of evolution are not that hard to understand.
Ever so slightly, fife changes with each generation. Some are better suited to survival than others and will have a slight advantage in passing on their genetic information to the next generation. Over vast periods of time these tiny changes add up to very large ones, sometimes so large that a species split apart by some geological event may not be able to breed with each other anymore.
When we look at the evidence (and creationists only seem to look at fossils), absolutely everything points to this theory being true.
To give creationists a fair go, we should give them the opportunity to present a prediction their theory makes so we can verify its authenticity. So far every single one I have spoken to has failed to do so. That being the case, why not believe in the FSM - he has an equal amount of evidence, so is therefore just as likely (praise his noodly appendage).
"I believe he has been smeared by those who are against him."
You mean all rational people.
"Dr. Hovind has given lectures all over the US, in many universities, colleges, schools, government meetings and so on"
Yes he has - all spouting the same rubbish.
"He knows his stuff and he has a huge amount of proof."
NO. Every time Mr. Hovind opens his mouth its hard to keep up with the number of logical fallacies he is committing. His "evidence" sounds remotely plausible until you give it any thought whatsoever.
"Evolutionist hate him because the information rings true and is founded on proven facts."
His information may ring true to other creationist who want to believe it, but in reality it ONLY rings true. Truth is, there is no truth in it.
"Plus he has thousands of sworn eye witness accounts with photos and videos of dinos now, today."
Please how me ONE photo of a living dinosaur.
"You really should get his videos and watch them."
I have - they are an insult to intellect.
"They are facsenating"
You misspelt that, let me help - "They are feces"
I really dislike calling someone a liar, but I just can't let this go by.
askegg said "Kent Hovind is crazy. He actually believes a giant ice meteor came to Earth, broke apart, and landed at the pole. This caused the ice age that wiped out the dinosaurs."
I want to see your references so post them. I want to see for myself.
Dr Kent Hovind does not believe that nor has he ever said such a thing. How do I know?...because I've watch several of his videos about dinos and creation. He explains how the flood killed the majority, but Noah took babies on the ark.
Down thru history the dinos lived with humans around the world and a few are still alive today. He has literely thousands of sworn testimonies from eye witness and pictures/videos of them.
I just finished watching Dr. Kent Hovind's video; "Dinosaurs and the Bible" and it was done very professionally.
If you want more information about what Dr. Kent Hovind has researched then you can buy his videos at: Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, FL 32503. Phone: 850-479-3466. Fax: 850-479-8562.
...all she laid out was a 25 year old sermon, "The text of my sermon will be from Gillespie's book, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", from a professor at Southwestern Adventist University, a tiny fundamentalist college in Keene, Tx, who said there is nothing we know about either evolution or creation, and concluded his sermon with "In other words, evolution may very well be true but basing one's systematics on that belief will give bad systematics."
I have to wonder if either of the above two posters actually read the link...
She also showed that in at least one journal, it's touch for creationists to promote ID. Big deal, what would you expect? Scientific journals require new evidence, not conjecture. You don't submit an article that says "hey look, evolution is true", you submit articles on common parasistic DNA strands among apes and things like that.
If a creationist were to submit new evidence such as "the eye forms independently of DNA" or something else that directly supports ID, it certainly would be published.
The bottom line is, there are transitionary fossils despite creationist claims to the contrary. Here's a summary of a few of the ones in existence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
If you read it carefully, you'll see how he talks about obvious evolutionary holdovers on modern cetaceans, a few of which are occasionally born with a limb that is more foot-like than fin-like. This is a mutation, and it's in the cetacean gene pool because over time they returned to the water after previously being land-dwelling creatures. This is just one of many examples, and creationism can't logically explain why a cetacean would be born with a foot.
And keep in mind that only two continents-Europe and North America-have been thoroughly excavated for fossils. When Africa and Asia, the world's two largest land masses, are excavated, there will be many more transitionary fossils in existence.
Your original question, can creationists be in science...yes they can, but they obviously are on the fringe and are not taken seriously.
Not that I want to turn this into a debate about evolution, but this can't be left unchallenged.
The Cambrian explosion is explained by the appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, which is extremely advantageous to life. The life that was there are the time suddenly had the chemical means to rapidly expand and evolve to fill every niche. As resources are limited, organisms had to compete. Those that were better suited to the environment, and/or had better mechanisms for survival (including capturing food, or killing competition) survived. This is natural selection in action.
The geological record is highly compressed and things that happen over millions of years can be represented in small layers of rock. Add to that the extremely small chance of fossilisation and it is highly probable that we will see exactly what we do see - a quick transition from microbes to abundant life. Proponents of punctuated equilibrium (such as yourself) miss the finer details for geology, chemistry, biology, and evolution.
I'd like to post a clarification and public apology to elone. In my next-to-the-last comment, I wrote:
"When you present the lies of Kent Hovind (a fraud) and AIG as truth, that makes you a liar too."
It should have read:
"When you present the lies of Kent Hovind (a fraud) and AIG as truth once you know better, that makes you a liar too."
By leaving this out, I seemed to imply that elone is a liar. That was not my intention. I was trying to communicate the idea that when someone becomes aware that a person is lying, they also are in danger of becoming a liar if they continue to spread those mistruths. I do realize, however, that many people can read the evidence and not understand or agree with what's presented.
In essence, I deeply apologize to elone for seeming to call him a liar. It wasn't intended but I can certainly understand why people might read it that way. Please chalk it up to a poor choice of words on my part and not any ill will.
Kent Hovind is crazy. He actually believes a giant ice meteor came to Earth, broke apart, and landed at the pole. This caused the ice age that wiped out the dinosaurs.
He also believes the atmosphere was at a much higher pressure which would raise the amount of oxygen in the air and accounts for the giants in the bible. Why was the pressure higher - because of the ice canopy surrounding the Earth. Of course he never explains how sunlight got through it, or how the Earth managed to stay inside this hollow sphere of ice, etc.
This is a guy who honestly believes that god created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago. Why 6,000? They took all the names in the bible and added up their ages. Wow - you can't beat science like that!
Kent is now serving time in jail because he believed that we was exempt from paying taxes because he was "doing the lords work".
"A great dane and a pony resemble each other. They both have a head, four legs, hair, two ears, two eyes, a nose, a neck, a tail, heart, lungs, intestines, a mouth and an anus. And I don’t have to ‘reconstruct’ the parts to get the similarity. That doesn’t mean one turns into the other. "
No, but nested set mathematics is all in favour of genetic evolution.
"The truth! which is somewhere in the middle."
So god created evolution. Thank you :)
Toadaly - they won't understand the reason. Just as they cannot explain nylon eating bacteria, or the emergence of antio-biotic immune deadly diseases which threaten a large portion of the worlds population.
We have still not seen a picture of a living dinosaur (to spite being surrounded by them), not any predictions that creation make in order to prove its validity. Still, I live in hope.
Disdain for others is wrong (and I'm not accusing anyone of this); however, disdain or lack of respect for a belief is not wrong. Your beliefs are not entitled to any respect and neither are mine. Beliefs must stand or fall based on the evidence provided.
As we all seem to have very different standards here, there's no point in continuing this any further. And let's remember that criticizing beliefs is not the same as criticizing the person. We all fall victim to faulty thinking at times and, when we do, we must often be corrected. Whether we accept that correction or not is entirely upon us.
As I said before, I'm done and I will not argue the points. Likewise, I will also not resort to ad hominem attacks and ridicule. While my view of creationism is scathing and scornful, my view of the person who believes in it is not. Peace.
Elone,
It is clear you have no idea what evolutionary theory actually is and why so many people believe it to be true. It is also clear you have never read any books on the subject or looked at the evidence.
Your strawman version of evolution is completely incorrect and no where near what anyone believes - not even the global conspiracy of atheist scientists bent on bringing about the new world order you so vehemently claim exists.
Is it also abundantly clear that you are not interested in learning what the theory actually says, nor looking at your arguments objectively, or examining the evidence for yourself. Of course you are entitled to your views, but stubbornly ignoring the oppositions view to the point of not even understanding it is the height of wilful ignorance.
Believe what you will.
To: all the creationists on this site From: joseph1949
The creationists on this site are all foaming at the mouth for an example of evolution.
Well, I am going to give you one. It is as close as your mouth!!!
If you take your finger and move it between your upper teeth and cheek you will feel a bump on each side of your upper jaw. The bumps are the large sockets for your dog teeth. Our ancestors (read: monkey/ape-like creatures) had large canine teeth. They needed the teeth for eating and fighting. Over time we evolved so that we did not need the large canine teeth. We still have the large sockets, but no canine teeth.
This is a simple fact. Get over it!!!
by
"I can see that you are a very humble person who respects other people's beliefs even though they may not be your own...NOT!"
Respect is earnt, not entitled. Provide logical reasons and evidence and I will believe anything.
"I can honestly say that you've been by far the rudest, big mouth I've talked with on here to date!"
Ad hominem attacks? Don't have any real counter arguments?
"I do not believe that you've watch even one of Dr. Hovind's videos because if you had you would have heard the eye witnesses accounts, watched the videos and seen the pictures! LOL! Faker!"
So I ask you to provide ONE link to a picture of a living dinosaur, and you call me a faker?
askegg,
"Do you do ANY research?" Didn't think I needed to until you posted your information, but now I will check it out. I am sorry for calling you a liar...please forgive.
I believe he has been smeared by those who are against him. Dr. Hovind has given lectures all over the US, in many universities, colleges, schools, government meetings and so on. He knows his stuff and he has a huge amount of proof.
Evolutionist hate him because the information rings true and is founded on proven facts. Plus he has thousands of sworn eye witness accounts with photos and videos of dinos now, today.
You really should get his videos and watch them. They are facsenating.
I just finished reading about hovind. what a crackpot. he never attended an accredited college and some of his degrees were mail order. even other creationists denounce him.
elone - "I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'' I do not believe you. maybe that person said "I do know one thing- YOU weren't taught in high school"
thanks for your fact checking eleni.
If someone does not believe in evolution it's because they have not studiesd it or been exposed to it. And/Or are in denial for some religious reason.
Evolution is just so logical and has so much evidence, that any well educated person believes in it. A person has to be ignorant to not believe in evolution.
People who believe in Bible's creation story can be scientist, just not in astronomy or orgins of life, because creation violates the principle of parsimony, because it's not necessary .
Though I think anyone with logic would realize the Bible's is just a story book.
eleni: Evolution is "pseudoscience". The only evidence to support it is 'intimidation' and loss of a job. There are many qualified scientists out there with valid views but they cannot get their papers published because the journals are controlled by knuckle draggers. If that wasnt the case, publish the "pseudoscientific" journal and discredit it publicly. It isnt being done because the only evidence against it is intimidation and financial pressure and if the truth of this came out the "scientific community" would be seen for the wh*res that they are.
By the way,
The only names I have called you are deluded and crazy, and I base this opinion on the evidence of your posts.
The remainder of my questions have been aimed your arguments, and I do not believe any of them have been rude or big mouthed. Of course, you are equally voicing your opinion in a public forum, so must be just as big mouthed as I am accused of.
I await your response to Mr. Hovind Ice Canopy theory. I might say, I am rather surprised you have not heard of it given your extensive expertise on the man and his seminars.
Elone,
Are you honestly suggesting that every endeavour of science (including the ones responsible for the computer your using, the car you drive, the medicine you use, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the building your in, etc) is all correct - except this one theory.
This one theory is ALL wrong and is being covered up by a giant global conspiracy of atheistic scientists because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions to a god they KNOW exists?
Are you really surprised when people call you deluded, or crazy?
toadly,
you asked: "orion, I watched the first minute of that, and I don't see anything interesting in it. Can you summarize?
You really need to watch the whole nine minutes of it, plus there are more right there to click on and watch.
I have pretty much already mentioned who Dr. Walter Veith is, that he is a Zoologist, taught at the you of Maine for many years until he became a non-believer of evolution. Dr. Veith tells of his conversion and why evolution is impossible.
Please watch the video for more information. God bless
First, I have heard of Colin Patterson. He has been misquoted by creationists such as yourself for many years and has written extensively to try to correct those misquotes. Unfortunately, misquoting is nothing new for creationists.
Second, you seem to have surrendered all logical thought and bought into quackery. I sincerely hope it doesn't kill you before you figure out you're wrong. But, since you seem to really buy into herbology, chiropractic, and suntanning, most likely you will suffer for your mistakes. I'm truly sorry.
They can't get their papers published because they have not come up with one single successful hypothesis that is testable, observable or repeatable. Creationism is pseudoscience and, as I've said before, if you don't accept the fact of evolution, you are welcome to stop benefitting from vaccinations and all the medicines we've developed because of it. In fact, I'd think one would have more confidence in prayers to this alleged Creator than in pills put out by the atheistic conspiracy of scientists that you imply exists.
askegg:
It is pointless trying to talk with you. That is not why I am here. To date I have not once seen you be polite to anyone.
I do not like you and your disdain for others and their beliefs. Believe whatever you want even if it is wrong.
If you want more information about what Dr. Kent Hovind has researched then you can buy his videos at: Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, FL 32503. Phone: 850-479-3466. Fax: 850-479-8562.
askegg,
I can see that you are a very humble person who respects other people's beliefs even though they may not be your own...NOT! I can honestly say that you've been by far the rudest, big mouth I've talked with on here to date!
I do not believe that you've watch even one of Dr. Hovind's videos because if you had you would have heard the eye witnesses accounts, watched the videos and seen the pictures! LOL! Faker!
elone, evolution does not elliminate the concept of a Creator. Further, the vast majority of western scientists are Christians.
Yes, there are a few cases where Creationists have had their civil rights violated. The same can be said of almost any group, including those who teach evolutionary theory in states like Texas and Colorado.
...enough with the ridiculous vast scientific atheist conspiracy theory.
I didn't call you a liar, just deluded and crazy.
Search Youtube for "Hovind Theory" to get it straight from the horses mouth. Here is a sample:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Gve81JHSVDg
Also see the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KentHovind#TheHovind_Theory
Its EVEN on his OWN web site: http://www.kent-hovind.com/theory.htm
Do you do ANY research?
I don't believe there is a god. I was pointing out that it is entirely possible for theists to conclude that "god created evolution" so they can have their cake and eat it to.
Of course, in the process they completely write off the Genesis story as allegory. It makes you wonder which other parts of the Bible are allegory - perhaps outlandish things like the resurrection ?
I saw a 10 minute clip of "Expelled". Like most creationist proaganda, it focuses on Darwin rather than everything that's been discovered in the past 150 years, equates evolution with Lamarkianism, uses ad hom arguments regarding Nazi's, quotes from legitimate scientists out of context, and on and on.
It's garbage. I used to kind of respect Ben Stein. No more.
Do you really want an answer to the question or did you just want to preach creationism? If you wanted to preach, you didn't do a very good job of getting your facts right (as has been shown above).
Of course creationists can make valuable scientific contributions in fields other than life origins. However, they are totally wrong about evolution.
amoeba: You are mixing two completely different statements tha I made into one. The statemet about evolution not being taught in school came in respone to Colin Patterson's question, not mine. I see where I did not give Colin Patterson credit for the quote. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I wil edit to show it came from him.
I don't see why this is such an arguement, atleast on the creationist side. What I mean to say is, why is it so hard to accept that EVOLUTION is Gods CREATION. Why can't it be that god created a design for all the tiny mutations that happen of thousands of millions of years that all add up to evolution.
wow...I believed nothing of everything you just said. I dodt think you should be saying things like that. "god" did not create the law of physics by the way. or anything else. all your saying is that evolution dosnt help us because god created all the things we now have. which is just ridiculouse.
This is interesting. Please watch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkBL6U4hrWc&feature=related
Dr. Walter veith is a Zoologist. He has many videos about evolution and creation.
Dr. Veith is a highly intellectual man who for years was an evolutionist before coming over to the creationist belief.
*** "Everything about evolution is based on lies."
That's only true if you limit your information about evolution to Creationist sources. Speciation is directly observed in the lab and in nature.
Do you know why people get a flu shot every year?
Evolution states that life evolved from simple to more complex. The cambrian fossils show fully formed organisms with fully functioning organs and absolutely no fossil evidence leading up to it. It supports creationism, puff!! it is there.
Immediately under these fully formed complex organisms are fossils of single cell organisms, nothing intermediary. The fits perfectly with the concept of creation and appears to rule out evolution as a mechanism of their development
"Nazi-like conditions in our schools" this is off subject but I am weary of the term "nazi" being thrown around so easily...
"enough with the ridiculous vast scientific atheist conspiracy theory. " well said toadly
"Dr. Veith is a highly intellectual man ..."
That may be, but I prefer to do my own thinking, rather than let others do it for me.
I guess Jesus wasn't called the shepherd, and his followers his flock for nothing.
toadaly, Im am not sure if that is totally true. From what I have been reading on the web, there are quite a few, the problem is that the evolutionist dogma has control and they cannot get their papers published.
askegg: "Creation says 'everything was created by an invisible sky daddy in its current form'. You seem to be blending creationism with evolution. Which is it?"
The truth! which is somewhere in the middle.
Just checked your sources and almost all of them are misquotes or were taken out of context. When you present the lies of Kent Hovind (a fraud) and AIG as truth, that makes you a liar too.
We're done now.
elone, excellent job of setting the record straight - one would have to be blind or purposely unwilling to look at the truth not to understand/believe what you've laid out...Great Job !!
elone, you're more than welcome to list scientists with reputable credentials who practice within relevant fields, who are also Creationists. I'm aware of only a few.
Well yes they can be real scientists, they simply will not work in any fields that deal with evolution... Nothing stops them from working in other fields...
Excuse me - that is not his web site at all, but a refutation of his theory.
Here is another good refutation: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=S5kGp_BoyAU
*** "Are there scientists who believe in creation and do real science?"
Yes, but only a handful in fields relevant to evolutionary theory.
no because they break the unwritten 'rules' of being a scientist: skepticism creativity and you cant be biased to be a scientist
amoeba please present the site where you read about Dr Kent Hovind, I would really apprecitate reading it myself, thank you.
orion, I watched the first minute of that, and I don't see anything interesting in it. Can you summarize?
elone, why the emphasis on mutations in regard to speciation? Specition happens even without them.
askegg: "So god created evolution. Thank you "
So you concede that God was the initiator!
Check out Ben Stein's new movie (in theaters April 18)
Expelled "No intelligence allowed"
elone, do you know why people get a flu vaccine every year, rather than just once?
Yep, presenting facts and apologizing for mistakes sure is rude and demeaning.
Orion and Amblessed: Give praise to our Lord, I am but his humble servant.
Elone, Alright!! Great points! Truth in every word! :) God bless you! :)
Google the "cambrian period" to see how valid evolution is.
elone, why do people get a flu vaccine each year?
"literally"
