Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.3%	[ 1138 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 489 ]
Catholic	14.1%	[ 407 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 37 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 412 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2895 ]

[Xenentos]

deadmanjake

Xenentos

deadmanjake

Xenentos

deadmanjake

Then explain the Archaeopteryx? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/

A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures

This would be true if they could prove one way or another if dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USNewsWorldReport/1997/08/18/228081

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/rothery/Rothery.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/metabolism.html

You also keep bringing up Darwin who despite having good eyesight, did not have the technical tools of today to fully research his theorys.

Then by what you have said about Darwin, His idea of evolution is flawwed in everyway. And therefore wrong.

Note: I never stated that dinos were warm or cold blooded, i stated reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish.

One can guess by your argument against me that you assumed that dinosaurs were reptiles. Try again.

last psot, i never stated that, you assumed.

[jaden kendam]

Xenentos

deadmanjake

Xenentos

deadmanjake

Xenentos

deadmanjake

Then explain the Archaeopteryx? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/

A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures

This would be true if they could prove one way or another if dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USNewsWorldReport/1997/08/18/228081

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/rothery/Rothery.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/metabolism.html

You also keep bringing up Darwin who despite having good eyesight, did not have the technical tools of today to fully research his theorys.

Then by what you have said about Darwin, His idea of evolution is flawwed in everyway. And therefore wrong.

Note: I never stated that dinos were warm or cold blooded, i stated reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish.

One can guess by your argument against me that you assumed that dinosaurs were reptiles. Try again.

last psot, i never stated that, you assumed.

In your argument, you mentioned that reptiles are cold blooded, while birds like the Arch, were warm blooded. As with your other arguments, you either did not specify nor qualify your argument. A guess as to what you inferred was not hard to reach.

[Shaviv]

Xenentos

Shaviv

Xenentos

Symos

Still, I haven't heard any more as to why there are variations of humans if evolution is a myth.

I havent heard anything to back up evolution as a fact involing any creature on this planet.

That's because you're in denial about all the research that's pointed to the same conclusion, and not one single piece of work that has disproved evolution.

Here's a tip - check out PubMed. It's a government-run library and search engine that can be used to find links to relevant and up-to-date research. Since you suggest that evolution is false, surely professional researchers would have found the same thing. I challenge you to show me one paper that disproves evolution. You don't even need to show me the paper; just the abstract will do.

I am not in denial, im just a messanger.

Wanna know what the fossil record really says?

Cause no one here has shown me that my posts before hand were incorrect.

When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”

Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.” Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

Now you show me what you have found backing up evo?

That's not how it works, kid. You make the extraordinary assertion (that some deity waved its hand and put us all here), you back it up. Besides, let's see.

- You use the buzzword "evolutionist", a term which has no meaning except to mark that person as someone who thinks more than you do.
- What precisely is Edmund Samuel's background?
- Who's "zoologist Coffin", and what is his background? Oh look - he's a young-earth creationist. You need to find impartial sources, kiddo.
- And Carl Sagan said that the evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. You, however, are not familiar with Isaac Newton and the Principle of Parsimony.

As for the lack of transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

And this has been all over the news, so you must be blind:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

Another nice website I would like you to debunk, dear, is here. It exposes a number of creationist "quotes" to be dishonest manipulations of what people actually said, or misrepresentations of who they are.

[breezzy]

Bailey_bob

FromFirstToLast_Rock

Queen of the tigers

Quote:

the bibles a story book, created from ppls imaginations.

bet you cant prove that.

Quote:

jesus did exsist but him n his 12 diciples were con artests

bet you cant prove that either.

I second that.
The amount of actual Scientific Fact that is in The Bible is staggering.
Such as the dimensions of the Ark. Scientists proved that this boat was almost impossible to capsize, due to its size and shape. They didn't have the technology back then to actually work this out!

yes but that just prooves my point, science didnt exsist 200 3000 years ago wen this bible weas suposedly writen it was all religion so how did science get in the bible? its a story made to scare kids into bein good

oh and to make ppl powerful, how powerful is the pope? he has control of half the earth,

the text book definition of science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.
surely it must have been around even then

[Darken_mortal]

Queen of the tigers

ive seen alot of monkeys. ive never seen any of them turn in to men.

well duh evolution takes thousands of years to see the effects as scaled as something like a monkey to a man.

[SUPERSQUIRRELX]

Darken_mortal

Queen of the tigers

ive seen alot of monkeys. ive never seen any of them turn in to men.

well duh evolution takes thousands of years to see the effects as scaled as something like a monkey to a man.

No according to Punctuated Equilibrium which is the widely accepted sub-theory of Evolution.

[Vryko Lakas]

SUPERSQUIRRELX

Darken_mortal

Queen of the tigers

ive seen alot of monkeys. ive never seen any of them turn in to men.

well duh evolution takes thousands of years to see the effects as scaled as something like a monkey to a man.

No according to Punctuated Equilibrium which is the widely accepted sub-theory of Evolution.

No, even PE doesn't allow for a "monkey to man" transition in so short a time.

[Tsubasa_Gaijin]

SUPERSQUIRRELX

Darken_mortal

Queen of the tigers

ive seen alot of monkeys. ive never seen any of them turn in to men.

well duh evolution takes thousands of years to see the effects as scaled as something like a monkey to a man.

No according to Punctuated Equilibrium which is the widely accepted sub-theory of Evolution.

Widely accepted? I call bull, its not widely accepted, maybe you wish it was, so you would accually have an arguement. It could only happen in the perfect surcomstances, there maybe the slightest truth behind PE, but it probably doesn't happen too often...

[that_chick_from_noir]

i dont belive in evelotion i belive in adeptation

a spices of moth is brown and blend in to the bark of a tree avoiding preditors one day a valcano erupts and covers the trees in ash now the moths are more visable and are etan but a few moths are bye some freak acsedent gray and thay servive to spread ther genetic code and now the spices are gray moths adeptation not evelotion

P.S. mabey god made apes and apes adapted into the comman human

im going to hit and run so dont bother replying just a little imput

[gigacannon]

that_chick_from_noir

i dont belive in evelotion i belive in adeptation

a spices of moth is brown and blend in to the bark of a tree avoiding preditors one day a valcano erupts and covers the trees in ash now the moths are more visable and are etan but a few moths are bye some freak acsedent gray and thay servive to spread ther genetic code and now the spices are gray moths adeptation not evelotion

P.S. mabey god made apes and apes adapted into the comman human

im going to hit and run so dont bother replying just a little imput

No, that's evolution. You believe in evolution, you just don't apparantly know what the word means.

[goshikyuu]

the funny thing is that Darwin, supposedly being smart, mentioned that the change between bird and fish were flying fish........Sounds a little out there if you ask me

[goshikyuu]

Another problem with evolution......no missing links can be found

[Empress Nikki the Fae]

goshikyuu

Another problem with evolution......no missing links can be found

No missing links are a good thing. rolleyes

[Empress Nikki the Fae]

goshikyuu

the funny thing is that Darwin, supposedly being smart, mentioned that the change between bird and fish were flying fish........Sounds a little out there if you ask me

Source?

[jaden kendam]

goshikyuu

Another problem with evolution......no missing links can be found

Did you not read the link on the Archaeopteryx? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/

"ive seen alot of monkeys. ive never seen any of them turn in to men."

I applaud you for taking the basic crationist argument which has been unfounded for quite a while now. really shows you pay attention.

Anyways, as I have pointed out in college seven years ago, and I will point out today, man did not evolve from monkeys. Man is more closely related to apes, but did not evolve from apes.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html