|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 11:20:31 AM | What have I learned from this thread?
1) Galileo was a guy who was condemned to death by the Catholic Church for going against logic.
2) There is no scientific proof for either evolution or creationism. However, creationism is more logical because it does not require proof as its accuracy is manifestly perfect as a result of its divine source, the Bible. This book was written by people who are now dead and say that they were taking dictation from God. As whenever someone says they are taking dictation from a diety they must be telling the truth as they would have no reason to fabricate or invent details of creation.
3) Evolution is a religion, and scientists are its clergy. It is actually more dogmatic and irrational than Christianity. This is because evolution requires proof and scientifically structured arguments, where Creationism just requires you believe it is true. Adversely, most scientific theories, such as evolution itself, are politically driven. Right now the current fad of the scientists in charge is evolution, but in the following decades who knows what jibberish people will be accepting as true?
4) The Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around it (as Galileo contradicted this and he apparently went against logic this is a forgone conclusion). Thefor the lunar landings have all been fake as have been the mars landings. As these were the result of science based on a heliocentric solar system, which is clearly false. So scientists are not only wrong, but are great con-artists and thieves who steal government money to spend on farcical experiments. Where does all that money really go? How do we know it isn't terrorism?
5) The Earth is actually only several thousand years old. When God created it, he/she/it created it to give the illusion it was millions of years old. This is why Adam and Eve both had a naval even though they were direct creations of God (though Eve was technically made from a rib). God did this because he needed all of the mechanisms in nature to work in stand alone mode (he doesn't want to keep creating people out of earth).
6) Dinosaurs lived in recent geological times, and were recorded in the Old Testament. However they were eating Jews so they had to be obliterated in the flood.
7) Carbon dating is only accurate up to a few thousand years, not up 30 to 100 thousand years as believed by many foolish scientists today. Also, scientists all believe that the earth has always had the same climate and radiation levels. Another flaw in the carbon dating measurement scam. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 4:00:29 PM | Hello everyone! . I was bored and checked out this forum, read all this stuff. Although I am a Buddist I got curious and checked out answers in genesis stuf to see what all this was about. I broused on internet to see Evolution/Creation things for myself. I came across the letter that Dr. Eldredge (the curator of invertebrate paleomtology at the american universtiy) wrote: " I completely agree with your comment that I did not include the direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book about Evolution. If I knew any transitional fossil or living organism, I would have included them. You suggest that the artist should draw the picture of transitional fossil. But where would he get the information from, his own imagination? I could not honestly provide it." There is more but you have to read it all if you want to. It is all in Paterson, personal communication, documented in Darwin's enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, EL Cajon, CA, 1988 pp. 88-90. This is refference. So you see, even evolutionists do not have any transitional fossils. This is because evolution did not happened. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 4:07:12 PM | | Oops, I guess I got names wrong but the point is that top Evolutionist says there are no transitional links. I think it was Dr. Patterson who wrote the letter I mentioned. He is a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the Brittish Museum of Natural history. | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 505 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 4:18:34 PM | | people are taller now than they used to be. thats evolution. we changed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 4:30:06 PM | | But what about the lack of transitional fossils? There is not even one. | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 507 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 4:32:18 PM | | o yes, and we do change. But that does not mean that we will become some other type of a creature | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 509 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 4:37:19 PM | but if we've changed doesnt that mean that we ARE a different creature?
although i do know what you mean. you're talking about one species to another. i dont know if thats true or not but it makes more sense than being made out of clay and ribs | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 5:14:08 PM | Ribs and clay are just a figurative language . I was told that the word "earth" is "erets" which means: dirt, land, matter or the substance of which things are formed. God formed everything out of chemical elements which are figuratively called "the dust of the earth". I do not know much about christianity sinse I am a Buddist. But I believe we should respect religions and not to make fun of them. | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 511 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 5:19:53 PM | | but sometimes they're funny. i dont mind people laughing at what i think. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 512 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 5:20:19 PM | Dear Rumiko,
*sigh* selective quoting I’m afraid on Sutherland’s part :(
And it's a really well known misquote in Biology circles, to the point where professors playing devil's advocate for the Creationist side will preface their argument with a disclaimer.
Aside from that quote from Patterson’s book Evolution you mentioned, which features in the Sutherland’s creationist book:
"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. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
(originally 'one' isn't bolded)
Dr Patterson’s book Evolution also contains (but predictably isn’t quoted by Sutherland):
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes ..."
(Evolution 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. pp. 131-133)
Furthermore, Luther Sunderland apparently so misquoted Dr Patterson that Dr Patterson has since made many attempts to correct him.
'In Patterson's own words, from a 1982 letter to teacher Steven Binkley:
I was asked to talk on "evolutionism and creationism," and knowing the meetings of the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among specialists, I put a case for difficulties and problems with evolution, specifically in the field of systematics.
I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland ... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views.
(http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/sundrlnd.htm )
Might want to also check here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 513 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 5:37:48 PM |
But I believe we should respect religions and not to make fun of them.
I agree that we should respect people’s choice of beliefs.
And, I will also critically review what’s presented or misrepresented as the case may be. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 5:58:26 PM |
But I believe we should respect religions and not to make fun of them.
I agree that we should respect people’s choice of beliefs.
Well, as long as those beliefs don't hurt others, then I agree. Hurting others can also be in a psychological way, such as parents or authority figures who brainwash people into believing in a religion with the threat of eternal damnation if they don't obey. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:06:33 PM | | Well I was told God is love and hell was not created for humans but for devil and his angels. That is to say God does not send anyone to hell. Some people might choose to go there by their own free will. About evolution issues. This scientist I mentioned is not the only one. No scientist at all ever saw any transitional fossils. They found fosilised moskito they dated zillions years old. Evolutionist said moskitos did not changed a bit in those billions of years. There is standart geologic column evolutionists use now. In real world the strata is not arranged the way geologic column shows. The ages assigned to those strata were determined over 150 years ago and were based on pure assumptions sinse they did not have radiometric dating back then | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:07:59 PM | Here sre some good quotes I thought I would post!!
I'm astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it's hard to find my way around Chinatown.-Woody Allen
The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything-Goethe
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.-Unknown
Faith is under the left nipple.-Martin Luther
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstien
We are here to do good to others. What the others are here for, I don't know.-W.H. Auden
THere ain't no answer. There ain't going to be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer.-Gertrude Stein
What can you say about a society that says God is dead and Elvis is alive?-Irv Kupcinet
Sin is geographical.-Bertrand Russell
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:13:25 PM | But I believe we should respect religions and not to make fun of them.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
There is difference between levity and cruelty. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:16:04 PM | | Very good. Finaly I realised it is not religion thet hurts us, people, but our stupidity | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:18:48 PM | | Why do you hate religion so much? This is called intolerance by the way and it hurts. So some people are jerks and misrepresent their religion. I know Budda did not hurt anyone. Neither did Jesus but he was a matyr, was cruelly killed and so were the first christians. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:23:46 PM |
Why do you hate religion so much?
I said no such thing.
Show me exactly where I said I hated Siddhartha Gautama and Yeshu Ha-Notzri.
Do not deliberately distort and misrepresent the view points of others in this thread. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:26:33 PM |
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.-Unknown
That one was from Einstien, Jimmy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:26:35 PM | | You could have fooled me. The way you mentioned the word "cruelty" in connection to religion | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:31:09 PM | You weren't fooled. You are misrepresenting what I have said and it is unlikely you are fooling anyone observing this thread so I would suggest you desist before it backfires.
From my previous post:
There is difference between levity and cruelty
This statement is to be taken at face value. It implies nothing but what it says, and it says nothing about religion being intrinsically cruel. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 524 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 6:57:37 PM | No scientist at all ever saw any transitional fossils. They found fosilised moskito they dated zillions years old. Evolutionist said moskitos did not changed a bit in those billions of years. There is standart geologic column evolutionists use now. In real world the strata is not arranged the way geologic column shows. The ages assigned to those strata were determined over 150 years ago and were based on pure assumptions sinse they did not have radiometric dating back then
source?
Try to keep the use of hyperbole to a minimum (i.e. zillions). You’re in a thread were the different viewpoints are dating the age of the earth at about 6000-7000 years to 4.5 billion years. Radioactive dating have been discussed with links to support the various viewpoints previously.
-----------
PS: cool quotes Jimmy
What on earth does "Sin is geographical" mean? Is this talking about moral/cultural relativism? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/4/2005 7:00:19 PM | Where has anyone on this thread said that the earth was 6,000-7,000 years old?
God bless and take care,
Jimmy | |
|
|
| Page 21 of 156
|
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 |
|
Home
login 
