Noaidi
slow walker
Can't for the life of me remember, but I think some dude named Darwin was involved at some point...
Darwin? No, doesn't ring a bell. Was he in the bible?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
Darwin? No, doesn't ring a bell. Was he in the bible?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Damn! You have a point! Maybe he created everything!!!
Heck, I'm pretty sure we even have some evidence that he actually existed! Y'know, pictures and stuff!
Seriously though...
Creationists; We've explained EXACTLY how a hypothesis is formulated, EXACTLY what is considered evidence, and EXACTLY what we need from you.
Can't you at least try?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Seems to me that to cover up just how weak ones faith is by merely piling on even more weak faith is self defeating.Can't you at least try?
But hey, if it wins converts....
newhope101
Active Member
Quote ToC?? Getting ahead of yourself, here. In what way is the "Theory of Creation" a valid scientific theory? (I'm assuming you mean ToC to stand for Theory of Creation, and not Theory of Crap...)
I love to sence your frustration when research (evidence for those that appear unclear) is posted that displays how ridiculous your theories are. Resorts to misrepresentation and nastiness. That's not a problem for me. How hatefull some of you are. Amuzing! And how easy it is to push your buttons. You simply cannot handle it. Is this and the other snides meant to be a serious rebuttal or just butt? Yep I guess there comes a time when you need to resort to sarcasm as the lowest form of wit where, some of you, well belong. I love it. Fancy having a go at me cause I haven't got a whole theory of creation completely worked out after the mess ToE is in. Some of you are truly unbelievable and so egocentric.
Darwin talks of first life crawling out of the sea and this is not a problem for you educated souls. Like Tiktaalik ..oh drat there were already tetrapod footprints...never mind. Maybe Darwin got the idea from the bible. Genesis was around before Darwin.
Anyway..Here's some more info for you all to look foolish over. There is just so much...what to choose. Hmmm.. well I've shown that evolution heads are all confused about dino-bird, let's see how dogs support Toe or the creation of kinds.
Oh surprise this tidbit states...all dogs came from unique ancestors. Hey appears to support my prattle and NOT yours....again. You evolutionists are the majority here and you are all being made a fool of without even realizing it, ....or maybe some of you are waking up to your sheepish tendencies to follow the leader and are getting anxious. How dare this proffessor say that Darwin 'got it wrong'...again!
From the evolution library
From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years.
At the same time, the entire history of dogs and their relationship with humans has undergone some rethinking recently, thanks in large part to high-tech molecular dating methods that can determine evolutionary relationships and chronologies.
The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.
Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.
Don't you just love this Danmac if you're there...all this lot can do is cast insults and try to form some sort of sick united front against us. It's the best they can do. Perhaps it's about time you lot showed us any genomic research on any species of anything that does not indicate one or two unique ancestors.That would be evidence without the accompanying catastrophic convuluted hypothesis. Remember the difference between supposition/hypothesis and evidence/facts. Evidence that suggests two unique common ancestors clearly speaks for itself as evidence should, if it is not circumstancial. This is seen in all species genomically tested thus far. Oh..except for humans where scientists absolutely had to come up with something else..hence mtEve & YAdam myth.
Hey Guys and Gals..Your own science is making fools of you all ..and Danmac and I just love it...no matter what level of wit you need to hide behind.
What else you got?????????????..preferably something intelligent!
I love to sence your frustration when research (evidence for those that appear unclear) is posted that displays how ridiculous your theories are. Resorts to misrepresentation and nastiness. That's not a problem for me. How hatefull some of you are. Amuzing! And how easy it is to push your buttons. You simply cannot handle it. Is this and the other snides meant to be a serious rebuttal or just butt? Yep I guess there comes a time when you need to resort to sarcasm as the lowest form of wit where, some of you, well belong. I love it. Fancy having a go at me cause I haven't got a whole theory of creation completely worked out after the mess ToE is in. Some of you are truly unbelievable and so egocentric.
Darwin talks of first life crawling out of the sea and this is not a problem for you educated souls. Like Tiktaalik ..oh drat there were already tetrapod footprints...never mind. Maybe Darwin got the idea from the bible. Genesis was around before Darwin.
Anyway..Here's some more info for you all to look foolish over. There is just so much...what to choose. Hmmm.. well I've shown that evolution heads are all confused about dino-bird, let's see how dogs support Toe or the creation of kinds.
Oh surprise this tidbit states...all dogs came from unique ancestors. Hey appears to support my prattle and NOT yours....again. You evolutionists are the majority here and you are all being made a fool of without even realizing it, ....or maybe some of you are waking up to your sheepish tendencies to follow the leader and are getting anxious. How dare this proffessor say that Darwin 'got it wrong'...again!
From the evolution library
From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years.
At the same time, the entire history of dogs and their relationship with humans has undergone some rethinking recently, thanks in large part to high-tech molecular dating methods that can determine evolutionary relationships and chronologies.
The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth.
Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors.
Don't you just love this Danmac if you're there...all this lot can do is cast insults and try to form some sort of sick united front against us. It's the best they can do. Perhaps it's about time you lot showed us any genomic research on any species of anything that does not indicate one or two unique ancestors.That would be evidence without the accompanying catastrophic convuluted hypothesis. Remember the difference between supposition/hypothesis and evidence/facts. Evidence that suggests two unique common ancestors clearly speaks for itself as evidence should, if it is not circumstancial. This is seen in all species genomically tested thus far. Oh..except for humans where scientists absolutely had to come up with something else..hence mtEve & YAdam myth.
Hey Guys and Gals..Your own science is making fools of you all ..and Danmac and I just love it...no matter what level of wit you need to hide behind.
What else you got?????????????..preferably something intelligent!
Last edited:
I get the gyst that you're not really familiar with genetics or biology, particularly if you call mDNA Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam "myths."
I'm not sure exactly what you're implying with the discussion of two independent domestication events with modern dogs but I think I get the gyst that you believe this means there were two individual wolves involved in that? Is that true? If so, then you really don't have a grasp on evolutionary processes. If that's not what you were saying then I think you need to be a little more clear on what you were saying.
Last edited:
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the pathways of evolution are not the same as the occurence of evolution. Darwin was a genius for discovering the "replication, variation, selection" mechanism, and those still stand today. He got loads of the pathways wrong; this is known, and accepted.
Noaidi
slow walker
My (admittedly rather flippant) comment was in response to your idea that creationism had been, in your view, upgraded to a theory. Providing evidence for creationism has not been a strong feature of this discussion, so to now refer to it as a theory is wholly inappropriate.
No offence to you was intended. Apologies if it came across that way.
Edit: could you explain your reasoning for using the terms 'spread, adapted and diversified' in an earlier post? What do they mean to you?
Last edited:
Wotan
Active Member
"Perhaps it's about time you lot showed us any genomic research on any species of anything that does not indicate one or two unique ancestors"
Not trying to ruffle your feathers here (they seen to be rather disturbed already) but where did the "ancestors" come from?
You REALLY should know something about what you are objecting to before making your objection. It actually DOES make a difference in the weight of your argument. Seriously.
Now w/o being condescending at all - you are aware that populations evolve NOT individuals right? You DO realize the full implications of that - right????
Not trying to ruffle your feathers here (they seen to be rather disturbed already) but where did the "ancestors" come from?
You REALLY should know something about what you are objecting to before making your objection. It actually DOES make a difference in the weight of your argument. Seriously.
Now w/o being condescending at all - you are aware that populations evolve NOT individuals right? You DO realize the full implications of that - right????
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Our frustration, if any, has nothing to do with "our" theories, but rather with your "theory".
I would say that we are answering you in the same spirit that you have answered us. We have asked for evidence, or at least, a workable hypothesis in FAVOUR of Creationism and all you have given us is meaningless drivel in the form of out of context quotes from science articles with their meanings taken WAY beyond the scope of their intention and sometimes taken as credit for a view their authors do not have. In the meantime we have done our best to explain the science to you while at the same time reminding you of what this tread is about; positive evidence for Creationism.
Well, as you know, atheism is the egocentric and arrogant belief that the Universe was NOT created with you in mind.
While these findings aren't fully confirmed yet, all they might do is push the appearance of tetrapods back a few million years. Hardly mind blowing when we're dealing with something that took place almost 400 million years ago, but very interesting. As always science improves our understanding of the world.
You have done no such thing. You have (mis?)quoted an article that indicates that the split between birds and dinosaurs might have taken place earlier than we previously thought. Again, that is interesting, but hardly something that will shake the foundation of the Theory of Evolution.
Darwin got a lot of things wrong as any biologist can tell you. But hey, wait a minute...does this mean that you think that the Theory of Evolution has been standing still since Darwin's time? That might explain a lot! Mate, the Theory of Evolution is in a state of constant change and improvement, just like every scientific Theory we have. Stating that some scientist got something wrong over 150 years ago is not going to buy you anything.
Hardly news. This has been known for a long time and it is, again, a question that my fifth graders could have answered for you. Seriously, if you consider this to be a revelation of some kind, then you really need to hit some biology textbooks.
You seem to be really messed up when it comes the theory of Common Descent. This should give you some idea of what we are talking about: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
Right back at ya mate. Try to answer the question given by the title of the tread perhaps. That would, unlike the other stuff you've been posting, actually be mind blowing.
Last edited:
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Seriously?
Those other footprints are just an animal related to tetrapods crawling across the sea floor, BTW Darwin did not say that.
When did we get confused over "Dino-Bird"?
Now who was resorting to insults?
What was that about supporting creation?
I've read On the Origin of Species, don't remember that.
Don't you just love that almost everybody on this forum, all they can do is do cast insults and form some sick united front against us. Maybe this video will help with there idea everything has unique ancestors, but I bet they won't look.
Last edited:
Danmac
Well-Known Member
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Ah some creative math, so easily destroyed( see here)
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
First of all you are assuming the universe is programmed.
Then you say your god programmed it.
So who programmed your god?
You posit an eternal god, but struggle to accept an eternal universe. Atleast there is physical evidence of the universe.
Define "program".
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
leave God out of this for a moment because we are talking about the physical world.
Is the universe really eternal?
According to science its not. All astrophysicists today conclude that the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions. And its still expanding.
So the question is, what or who created it?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
they are the predefined behaviors found in all creatures
They are behaviors which do not need to be learned such as migration for example.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Ah, but the Big Bang was not necessarily the beginning of THE universe. It was merely the beginning of what we KNOW as the universe.
Also, this would deal with Cosmology, not Biology.
Last edited: