Evolution vs creation

Ich_Bin_Butler · #**151** 08-29-08, 12:06 PM

Hey, that's true. We don't let enough people die for natural selection to take place.

YamiB. · #**152** 08-30-08, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gleabs

He will be unable to account for the more than 100 million fossils that have been unearthed and point to the existence of perfect and flawless life forms. He will be unable explain how it is that THEY HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS and why THEY HAVE NOT ANY FORERUNNER WITH INTERMEDIATE FORM CHARACTERISTICS.

Specific example please.

Quote:

He will be unable to explain, as he has been unable to in the past, why THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INTERMEDIATE FORM among all the many millions of fossils that have been unearthed.

CC200: Transitional fossils

There are plenty of transitional fossils.

Quote:

He will be unable to account for the fossil skulls, millions of years old, that are identical to present-day tigers, horses, elephants, turtles, wolves, birds, rabbits, foxes, zebras, deer and other life forms, in terms of the theory of evolution. He will be unable to explain how it is that life forms appeared MILIONS OF YEARS AGO WITH THE SAME APPEARANCE THEY STILL HAVE TODAY and HOW THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.

I'd like actual evidence for all of the ones you have presented. Of course the premise you are trying to present is partially true there are many animals that have remained largely unchanged for a very long time. This in no way disproves evolution it just means that those animals were well suited enough to their niche that no changes occurring presented significant advantages in that niche.

Quote:

He would have to admit that the horse series, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel’s drawings, dinosaur fossils with feathers stuck on them and peppered moths pinned to tree trunks ARE ALL HOAXES

No reputable scientist claims that things like piltdown man and nebraska man were anything but hoaxes, it shows the weakness of the creationist side that they have to pull up long past hoaxes in some attempt to discredit evolution.

I assume this is the claim you are tyring to make with the horse statement.

CC216.2: Horse fossil record.

Quote:

He would have to admit that the fossils, numbering no more than a handful, that Darwinists have portrayed as intermediate forms have all been scientifically discredited, THAT THE FOSSIL OF A PERFECTLY FORMED FLYING BIRD CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH ARCHAEOPTERYX, depicted as an example of the transition from land to air, HAS BEEN DISCOVERED, THAT THE COELACANTH, which they cited as an example of the transition from water to land, IS STILL LIVING TODAY, and THAT LUCY HAS GONE DOWN IN HISTORY AS AN APE.

It is my understanind that Lucy was and an ape nobody claims otherwise, she is simply the ape that was an important step in the sequence that led from previously existing ape forms to the the apes now known as humans.

CC214.1: Archaeopteryx as a Transitional Bird

Being a transitional form does not mean it had to go extinct, it simply means that it came between two other organisms. Also turns out the ones found today are not the same ones found in fossils.

CB930.1: Coelacanth: A living fossil

Quote:

He will have no answer to the question of WHY THEY HID AWAY Cambrian fossils, living fossils that were unearthed subsequently, and finally 100 million fossils that exist today

CB930: Living fossils

Quote:

He will have nothing to say on the subject of the probability of a single functional protein, the building blocks of life, emerging by chance is just 1 in 10-950, and that in mathematical terms this means zero possibility. He will be unable to explain how life could have formed as a result of coincidences when not even a single cell can be manufactured under laboratory conditions.

This is abiogensis and has no bearing on the validity of evolution so I will not bother adressing it in this topic.

Quote:

HE WILL BE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO ACTUALLY SEES THE IMAGE IN THE BRAIN although there is no light either outside or inside that brain. NEITHER WILL HE BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO HEARS sounds, speech and music within the sound-proof brain. AND HE WILL HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHO IT IS THAT TAKES PLEASURE FROM, INTERPRETS AND REACTS TO THE IMAGES, MUSIC, TACTILE SENSATIONS AND SCENTS IN THE BRAIN.

What point are you trying to make here and what does it have to do with evolution?

I'm not at all surprised that Dawkins refused to debate with two-bit hacks like these people he has better things to do with his time I'm sure.

Gleabs · #**153** 08-30-08, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YamiB.

Specific example please.

CC200: Transitional fossils

There are plenty of transitional fossils.

I'd like actual evidence for all of the ones you have presented. Of course the premise you are trying to present is partially true there are many animals that have remained largely unchanged for a very long time. This in no way disproves evolution it just means that those animals were well suited enough to their niche that no changes occurring presented significant advantages in that niche.

No reputable scientist claims that things like piltdown man and nebraska man were anything but hoaxes, it shows the weakness of the creationist side that they have to pull up long past hoaxes in some attempt to discredit evolution.

I assume this is the claim you are tyring to make with the horse statement.

CC216.2: Horse fossil record.

It is my understanind that Lucy was and an ape nobody claims otherwise, she is simply the ape that was an important step in the sequence that led from previously existing ape forms to the the apes now known as humans.

CC214.1: Archaeopteryx as a Transitional Bird

Being a transitional form does not mean it had to go extinct, it simply means that it came between two other organisms. Also turns out the ones found today are not the same ones found in fossils.

CB930.1: Coelacanth: A living fossil

CB930: Living fossils

This is abiogensis and has no bearing on the validity of evolution so I will not bother adressing it in this topic.

What point are you trying to make here and what does it have to do with evolution?

I'm not at all surprised that Dawkins refused to debate with two-bit hacks like these people he has better things to do with his time I'm sure.

All the answers you need are here:
ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya

YamiB. · #**154** 08-30-08, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gleabs

All the answers you need are here:
ATLAS OF CREATION - Harun Yahya

I'll take that as a concession.

Syvzox · #**155** 09-07-08, 01:49 PM

In order to believe in creation, one need forfeit logic and reason.
In order to believe in evolution, one need forfeit not.
Those religious can cling to their faith, while those who are not can cling to reality.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.puretalkforum.com/f69/evolution-vs-creation-3396.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Evolution vs creation - Science & Technology at PureTalkForum.com	This thread	Refback	06-28-08 09:01 PM
Evolution vs creation - Science & Technology at PureTalkForum.com	This thread	Refback	06-25-08 07:51 PM
Evolution vs creation - Science & Technology at PureTalkForum.com	This thread	Refback	06-23-08 12:48 PM
Evolution vs creation - Science & Technology at PureTalkForum.com	This thread	Refback	06-23-08 12:45 PM
Evolution vs creation - Page 5 - PureTalkForum debates & discussion [Express Yourself]	This thread	Refback	03-23-08 05:11 PM
Digg - Evolution vs. Creation debate	This thread	Refback	03-16-08 06:32 AM
Evolution vs. Creation \| PureTalkForum Blog	This thread	Pingback	02-26-08 10:03 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode