Leauki Leauki

The Word on Creationism

▼

The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

from JoeUser Forums

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 

religion
136,875 views 625 replies
Reply #151 from JoeUser Forums Top

But what DO atheists believe? I can make an educated guess. We believe that 2+2=4 because we can demonstrate it. We believe in 1=1.


1. Atheists believe all sorts of things, just not in a god or gods. Many atheists believe in aliens or astrology or spirits. Not believing in gods (a-theist) doesn't make a person more or less rational.

2. Theists can also make educated guesses.

3. I don't so much believe as I know that 2+2=4, because I believe in the mathematical axioms that the statement is based on.

4. I believe in 1=1 because I believe in certain mathematical axioms that are, like belief in G-d, useful tools in the real world (but cannot be proven).

Mathematics is a bad example for "real life", because mathematics isn't. Mathematics is a belief system used as a tool.
Reply #152 from JoeUser Forums Top

The content of that email, by the way, is fictional.


I am not surprised.



ATHEIST'S HOLIDAY


Anyway, April 1st is, I believe, a holiday set up by Christians in Europe to make fun of the remaining pagans (at least that's one theory for the holiday).

Atheist holidays include July 4th ("Independence Day") and Labour Day.

Jewish holidays are usually celebrated by atheist Jews as well, since they often commemorate historic events rather than specific religious beliefs (Jerusalem Day, Hanukkah, Purim). Some Jewish holidays are religious (Pesach, Sukkot, Yom Kippur). Others are mixed bags (New Year).

(Non-religious holidays are those that remain worthy of celebration on their own merits even if all faith is rejected. Rejecting Jewish faith would, for example, not diminish the historical fact of Jewish survival celebrated by Purim and Hanukkah.)

Theists also celebrate atheist holidays (like Independence Day) and Atheists celebrate holidays that are theist but are not understood as such (Christian New Year, i.e. the feast of St. Sylvester or what his name was).

I assume some atheists that believe in aliens also have "Space Day" or something like that. Theists who believe in aliens would probably join them in celebration.

At the end it turns out that the more you believe in, the more you can celebrate.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #154 from JoeUser Forums Top
We already had that guy.

I commented on him before. Don't think I could find the comment now. Look for it?
Reply #155 from JoeUser Forums Top
For those still interested in the actual subject, here is a site that debunks pretty much every single position Creationists come up with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Reply #156 from Stardock Forums Top

Same guy different video.

I posted it because there’s a reference to giving the atheist a holiday.

Reply #157 from JoeUser Forums Top
For those still interested in the actual subject, here is a site that debunks pretty much every single position Creationists come up with:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/


All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!

"When men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions. When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaption is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."----- Norman MacBeth, Darwin Retried, 1971.

Reply #158 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki,

Post #151 is quite insightful. Thanks.

1. Atheists believe all sorts of things,


Of course Atheists believe in things. Atheism is more a denial of the ultimate Cause of things including the law of our being.

The Atheist and the mind of a child.

Why is it dark?
Because the sun sets.
Why does the sun set?
Because the earth moves around it.
Why does the earth move around it?
Because of gravity.
What's gravity?
It's a law of nature.
Where does the law of nature come from?
Child, don't ask so many questions.







Reply #159 from JoeUser Forums Top

All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!


Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.

They have also observed, in the lab, how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".

It takes longer with mammals, but it was the equivalent of "redesigning" the way our whole digestive system works.
Reply #160 from JoeUser Forums Top
All that we can rightfully point to is change within species. As to change across species, they're dreaming Leauki. Snoresville!Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.They have also observed, in the lab, how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".It takes longer with mammals, but it was the equivalent of "redesigning" the way our whole digestive system works.


Leauki,

Your examples are both reasonable and relevant, but I fear you're wasting your time. The only evidence lula is willing to accept is if we could demonstrate a Goldschmidt-esque "hopeful monster" in the laboratory for her to see (i.e., induce a mutational event that would turn a gorilla into a man-like creature or a fish into a turtle-like creature). It doesn't matter that this notion is based on an erroneous understanding of how the evolutionary process works; as long as creationists can cling to this and other long-discredited ideas, they can continue to deny the fact of evolution.
Reply #161 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your examples are both reasonable and relevant, but I fear you're wasting your time.


Thanks. But I'm afraid you misunderstood what my goal was.

I know I cannot convince Creationists. To understand evolution, one has to read books about it or do research; and they won't. But I am not trying to convince Creationists of the wisdom of embracing evolution.

I am trying to convince atheists and secular individuals that religion doesn't make one irrational and that a belief in G-d doesn't mean rejecting scientific research. I am also trying to make the point that to understand biology and religion, one has to read up on both.
+1 Loading…
Reply #162 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am trying to convince atheists and secular individuals that religion doesn't make one irrational and that a belief in G-d doesn't mean rejecting scientific research. I am also trying to make the point that to understand biology and religion, one has to read up on both.


You're right. I did misunderstand, but now I see.

I think Richard Dawkins would disagree with your premise that religion and science are fundamentally compatible. He never bought into Gould's concept (although not really something that originated with SJG) of "non-overlapping magisteria." (Gould was the first to give this concept that particular name, what my grandfather would have called a "ten-dollar word.") I haven't read The God Delusion, but I will have to do so in the near future.

Unless Dawkins has persuasive arguments that convince me otherwise, however, I've never really believed that science and religion have to be incompatible. I have a broad and shallow knowledge of religious beliefs and a deep and somewhat narrow knowledge of scientific principles and practices. To me, the two areas ask different questions and seek different answers. Both are concerned with mysteries that the other cannot address within its given context and utilizing its chosen methods. I expect most reasonable people would agree with this position.

I would say that religious belief actually is inherently irrational--specifically in the sense that faith is something that cannot be justified on the grounds of objective empirical study. So I'm not certain that I agree with that statement, but it's certainly true that there are many believers (adherents to various Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other sects) who have a good understanding of science. As long as your faith merely informs the way you view the world rather than restricting the way you view the world, I think that ensures that you have room in your mind for all ways of gaining knowledge. This tends to be the area where the faith of fundamentalists fails them, as it constricts what they can accept as reality.

Addressing your final point, I can't imagine anyone would seriously question that statement. To argue about a topic from ignorance is simply to ignore the old maxim: it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.



Reply #163 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, they have observed, in the lab, how two breeds of fruitflies became two species of fruitflies.


Begin with fruitflies....end with fruitflies...

how two breeds of bacteria evolved into two different species of bacteria with two different ways of "eating".


Begin with bacteria....end with bacteria

Neither one of these examples is evidence for Darwinism nor demonstrates what Darwinism posits...

Also, wouldn't you agree that experiments such as these that we can cause to occur in laboratory settings do not or could not necessarily ever happen in nature?

To understand evolution, one has to read books about it or do research; and they won't.


Leauki,

No offense, but you're mistaken. I've read every science textbook from the 6th to 12th grades, including the AP level on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I've seen documentaries, videos and read position papers.

I'm tired of the guesswork of those who took Darwin's theory of Godless Evolution and ran with it and find nothing new in Dawkins.

I am open to being convinced by any true believer in Darwinism but all efforts have failed thus far that proves we are descended from the apes. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "the evolutionist seems to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing!"

As far as I can tell the only thing about Darwin's theory that has evolved is Darwin's theory itself.

I am trying to convince atheists and secular individuals that religion doesn't make one irrational and that a belief in G-d doesn't mean rejecting scientific research. I am also trying to make the point that to understand biology and religion, one has to read up on both.


A worthy goal!
Reply #164 from JoeUser Forums Top

As long as your faith merely informs the way you view the world rather than restricting the way you view the world, I think that ensures that you have room in your mind for all ways of gaining knowledge.


"Religion is a smart man’s admission that he cannot know everything. Religious fundamentalism is a stupid man’s admission that he thinks he knows enough."

-- Moshe Wilkinson
Reply #165 from JoeUser Forums Top


WARRENI POSTS:
Lula,

Time-Life is not really a definitive work of "secular" biology. Time-Life books are cheaply-produced and frequently contain errors and outdated information as the primary literature passes them by and they are not updated.

If your book really says this, it's a sad distortion of reality. An adaptive radiation occurs when a group of organisms moves into a new habitat with many empty ecological niches. It involves relatively rapid evolutionary change resulting in different morphological forms that can take advantage of these niches. Darwin's finches are the classic example.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.


I apologize for taking so long to respond.


Re: Time-Life books....

Time-Life is part and parcel of the liberal, secular media establishment that pushes Darwinism as "fact".

These books don't appear to be cheaply produced...in between its glossy cover is page after page of beautfiully colored drawings depicting Darwin's "molecules to mankind" Evolutionary tree.

Time-Life is full of errors, man's imaginations, but guess what...these are the same errors, same drawings in classroom science textbooks.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.


Gee, which one is it? True blue believers in Darwinism accuse Genesis of being a Creationist fantasy!

What you and Leauki seem to misunderstand is the difference between evolution true science, what some call micro-evolution, and false science, which is what Time-Life is peddling as Macro-Evolution.

This goes to the first sentence of Leauki's article..

True science (evolution = change within kind) is the truth about nature and how it works, and false science (macroevolution = change across different species)is a lie.




Reply #166 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.


WARRENI POSTS:
.... Over time, however, directed (by processes like selection) mutations can and do lead to the evolution of new species. You are attempting to state that we are waiting for some kind of mutational event that will create a flying pig in a lab. That's also a creationist fantasy, the "hopeful monster" straw man.


Read your own words...the highlighted part...."evolution of new species".

This is the crux of the debate. Variety within kind is not evolution; neither is natural selection.

Evolution of new and different species is macro-evolution, exactly the same as what Time-Life describes and shows drawings. To date, while theories showing Darwin's "molecules to man natural transformation" in which new higher genetic info is gained, have evolved, none have been proven.

In order to be true, Darwin's Evolution requires improvement. Macro-Evolutionists try to use mutations as the mechanism that cross species evolution occurred in the past. In order for this to happen, mutations must be 100% beneficial all the time, however, just the opposite is true.

With very few exceptions, mutations can't produce a higher organism. Mutations are considered damage to a single DNA unit, injuring the individual.



Reply #167 from JoeUser Forums Top

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.


Thought that should be quoted once more.

The Creationists still owe us their "theory" on how G-d stops two breeds from evolving into two types of animals different enough to be accepted as "different" by Creationists.

We can demonstrate, in a lab, that animals change between generations and that those changes grow more substantial over many generations. From that we can extrapolate that such change could explain the diversity of animal and plant life we have on earth. So far the theory, unproven as it will always remain, has been confirmed by everything we found.

Creationists CANNOT demonstrate how any god can affect or effect anything at all. So we have nothing to extrapolate from.

Evolution might be totally wrong and Creationism might be totally right; nevertheless, the one is a science (because it can be demonstrated, tested, and makes predictions) and the other isn't (unless somebody demonstrates it, tells us how to test it, and makes a prediction based on it).

Reply #168 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 166


Lula posts: But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.WARRENI POSTS: .... Over time, however, directed (by processes like selection) mutations can and do lead to the evolution of new species. You are attempting to state that we are waiting for some kind of mutational event that will create a flying pig in a lab. That's also a creationist fantasy, the "hopeful monster" straw man.Read your own words...the highlighted part...."evolution of new species". This is the crux of the debate. Variety within kind is not evolution; neither is natural selection. Evolution of new and different species is macro-evolution, exactly the same as what Time-Life describes and shows drawings. To date, while theories showing Darwin's "molecules to man natural transformation" in which new higher genetic info is gained, have evolved, none have been proven.In order to be true, Darwin's Evolution requires improvement. Macro-Evolutionists try to use mutations as the mechanism that cross species evolution occurred in the past. In order for this to happen, mutations must be 100% beneficial all the time, however, just the opposite is true. With very few exceptions, mutations can't produce a higher organism. Mutations are considered damage to a single DNA unit, injuring the individual.

 

lula,


As long as you insist on defining your own terms and making ludicrous and unsupported assertions regarding what is and is not science, I don't see how we can have a discussion and pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

I reiterate: the distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution is false dichotomy, posited by creationists because it suits their purposes. Evolution is change over time. That's not "having it both ways." That is the classic definition of evolution. The time it takes go from a fish-like organism to a salamander-like organism is considerably larger in scope than the time it takes to go from one protist to another. Here's the trick: because you can't see it with your own eyes, it doesn't make it "false." Do you accept that your body is composed of atoms with protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons? Why? Can you see them? No, and neither can you directly observe large-scale evolutionary processes. But the process is the same, irrespective of time scale.

No, science does not assume that the majority of mutations are beneficial, and whoever suggested that to you lied. Yes, the vast majority of (non-silent) mutational events are detrimental to the organism, and that's why selection is important. If you hadn't been so hung up on the taxonomically-nonsensical creationist notion of "kinds" when you quoted my earlier post, you'd have seen (and understood?) my statement that directed mutations lead to the evolution of new species. Selective pressures favor mutations that do confer an advantage to an organism in a particular environment, and this leads to changes in allele frequencies in a population and often leads to speciation.

Evolutionary theory requires "improvement" only in a very loose sense of the term: a mutation that confers some selective advantage in a particular environment at a particular point in time. An "improvement" by your standards doesn't really mean anything in the natural world. A retrovirus may be one of the simplest and most perfect organisms that has ever existed.

What is a DNA unit, anyway?

 

Reply #169 from JoeUser Forums Top
WARRENI POSTS:

I reiterate: the distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution is false dichotomy, posited by creationists because it suits their purposes. Evolution is change over time. That's not "having it both ways." That is the classic definition of evolution. The time it takes go from a fish-like organism to a salamander-like organism is considerably larger in scope than the time it takes to go from one protist to another. Here's the trick: because you can't see it with your own eyes, it doesn't make it "false." Do you accept that your body is composed of atoms with protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons? Why? Can you see them? No, and neither can you directly observe large-scale evolutionary processes. But the process is the same, irrespective of time scale.


Note what is highlighted...

If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss.

Are you descended from the apes? Could you explain how this happened?













Reply #170 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 169
If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss. Are you descended from the apes? Could you explain how this happened?

 

lula,

There are many items in the fossil record that could be called transitional. The issue here is that the term "transitional" is controversial at best. It implies an old way of thinking, the use of a "key" characteristic to define a taxonomic group rather than shared evolutionary history. I can show you feathered reptiles and whales that walk on land. Is that what you want?

No, I am not "descended from apes" and neither are you. Don't get too excited. This is a common creationist misapprehension, sometimes deliberate and sometimes not. You cannot point to some larger clade like hominids or cetaceans or arachnids or annelids and say, "This modern group descends from this other modern group." That's not how evolution works. You and I and all other modern humans are descendants of ape-like ancestors. As for the process, I just described it to you, several times.

 

Reply #171 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula posts:
If what you say is true, then there should be millions of fossils of creatures in the in-between stages of transformation... where are they? Produce them and we'll have some real science to discuss.



The issue here is that the term "transitional" is controversial at best.


Please, no word games, Warreni. You know as well as I of what I'm speaking...it's the missing links of Darwin's evolution tree....the fossils between your hypothetical ape-like ancestor and modern man. Evolution depends on a staggering number of rough drafts which lived in the unobserved past, have gone extinct, and replaced by their evolved descendants. They're missing because no one has ever seen one.

As each type evolves into something else, (you called it "large scale evolutionary process"), there there should be a staggering number in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the dexcendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution claims fish evolved into amphibians, that reptiles evolved into birds, that apelike creatures evolved into man. If fish evolved into amphibians, there should be distinct lifeforms along the way, say, 90% fish, 10% amphibian, then 80/20. Unless and until these transitional forms are found, proof of your so called "large scale evolutionary process", then and only then, will we have some real science to discuss.




You and I and all other modern humans are descendants of ape-like ancestors.


Then your faith is according to the gospel of Darwin and his followers.

Mine is in Almighty God and according to His word in the Biblical account which provides us with the starting point for the history of mankind. My ancestors date back to Adam and Eve. (Pssst...and so do yours!)







Reply #172 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is difficult, for some, to understand that there is no such thing as a "transitional" animal.

No branch is "transitional".

If we ever find a "transitional" fossil, in the sense the Creationists understand the word, Darwin's theory would have been proven wrong.

"Random chance", "transitional", "macro-evolution": three words that have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Unfortunately it takes some reading to understand Darwin's theory and most Creationists openly admit that they won't do that.
Reply #173 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is difficult, for some, to understand that there is no such thing as a "transitional" animal.

No branch is "transitional".

If we ever find a "transitional" fossil, in the sense the Creationists understand the word, Darwin's theory would have been proven wrong.

"Random chance", "transitional", "macro-evolution": three words that have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Unfortunately it takes some reading to understand Darwin's theory and most Creationists openly admit that they won't do that.



Leauki,

Have you ever heard of or read Jeremias Wells, "History of Western Civilization"?

He writes that after Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, mankind's intellect was darkened, his will weakened, and his tendencies were subjected to evil inclinations. His unruly nature divided society into 2 camps based on 2 opposing principles...."A camp of those who live solely for the pleasures of this world and one for those who order themselves and society for the glory of God. Therein lies the drama."

As far back as Copernicus, a "war" began pitting science against religious truths. Many in scientific circles regarded Genesis and Christianity as an obstacle to scientific progress. They declared the religious truths of Adam and Eve, Original Sin and Christ's Redemption as legend, myth, or misconception, etc.

With an outlook on disproving that the universe and man were created by God, science developed new theories and views and hypotheses. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is essentially a set of ideas promoted by atheistic or agnostic scientists, naturalists, and materialists.

To most people, Darwin's Theory of (Natural) Evolution essentially means that over billions of years, all present forms of life---plant, animal and human---"evolved" or emerged from a common cell by chance processes without a transcendent Creator anywhere in the picture.

Granted, there are many conflicting versions of Darwin's Theory. Once older theories run into conceptual problems, newer versions emerge, their proponents always hoping to find the elusive mechanism for how this macro-evolutionary process occurred/is occurring.

Evolutionists still have to show a clear pattern of descent with modification both conceptually and from evidence in the fossils. If Eovlution did occur, it should be possible to show lineages and to establish phylogeny (a closely identified "tree" structure ancestry), but this has not been done.

There are no fossils that show these "transitional" lineages, none whatsoever.

Anyone who believes they descended from an ape-like creature believes on Darwinian faith becasue that camp has shown no proof of its claim.

The following quote is from ReMine, The Biotic Message.

"Life was designed to resist all naturalistic interpretations. Therefore, the biomessage sender had to defeat the appearance of lineage. This was done with diversity (which) is the antithesis of lineage. Diversity destroys the semblance of lineage...Diversity thwarts phylogeny.

The pattern of life at the molecular level of proteins and genes follows message theory precisely. It could hardly be more potent evidence. Life's many molecular phenograms and cladograms fomr a smooth, distince pattern that refutes transposition and unmaking processes. That pattern allows the absence of gradual intergraduation and phylogeny to take on real force as evidence against evolution. That pattern also unifies life and reveals an incredible degree of planning and design."


The actual fossil evidence supports Genesis. In contrast to evolutionary depictions of a "tree or bush like" ancestry, the fossil evidence of both creatures and plants found is one of parallel vertical ancestry. Most of the phyla appear all of a sudden, in the Campbrian Period, the field evidence is that of well preserved unique types of fossils and absolute absence of "transitional", or "intermediate" or "links" life forms.












Reply #174 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am surprised people are calling you anti christian, it was obvious you are christian from the article and you even said that creationism is sacralige cause it basically says "god is stupid".

Reply #175 from JoeUser Forums Top
Taltamir,

I am not Christian. But I understand your point. It is valid.

About me:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Welcome.html

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/About_Me.html