Creation vs. Evolution

[UnoMOTO]

back on topic then! Not cancer and meteors.

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Nature is not in caos as danoff stated and there is no fossil record of it being in caos

 

[wfooshee]

No I didn't, but I can't find a thread anywhere in here about Precast Concrete. So my Expertise will never get its shining moment. At any rate I will stick it out as long as I can in here. Most of you have had a two year head start and most likely are regurgitating the same responses to all the others before me. You all could spew all the facts you like in your studies per the profession that you have chosen but none of them will change my faith. As per the obivious we will still go on having fun trying to blow each other up.

Too bad you weren't around in the early 16th century to put Copernicus in his place, or about a hundred years later to take care of Galileo. Both presented ideas violently opposed by people "of faith" yet which are today accepted postulates of our view of the solar system.

(You here is not you personally, but people of faith who are blind to the science involved.) Your position now is no different than the church's position of that day. Your fear of the new information presents you with a possible loss of credibility (the church says such-and-such, and cannot be found to be wrong, and thus not perfect) which is only exacerbated by the continued insistence on denying the scientific evidence presented to you (like the lungfish, or the orbits of the planets, or the images of Jupiter's moons.) You have no problem saying that the church men of Copernicus's day, or Galileo's, must have been idiots, because they insisted that what was so obvious had to be wrong. They were so threatened by it they imprisoned the people who presented it.

THIS "DEBATE" IS NO DIFFERENT!!!! There will be a forum somewhere a few hundred years from now where people amaze themselves by talking about the primitives who insisted evolution was so much bunk, couldn't possibly be true.

Man's refusal to accept his place (and his descent) in the order of species is simple arrogance. I didn't come from there, couldn't possibly have.

But you share 99% of that creature's genes, and most of his physical characteristics!

back on topic then! Not cancer and meteors.

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Nature is not in caos as danoff stated and there is no fossil record of it being in caos

I showed you a transitional form, and you "rebutted" it by changing the subject. And for the most part, such transitional forms are replaced (made extinct) by the species that evolved from them. The very process of natural selection wipes out the intermediate species you're asking to see as "proof."

 

[Duke]

back on topic then! Not cancer and meteors.

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Nature is not in caos as danoff stated and there is no fossil record of it being in caos

Creationists always say that there are "no transitional forms" in the fossil record, but mostly they hear it from other Creationists. It's simply not true, as the four-finned lungfish up above clearly demonstrates.

The fossil record is full of transitional forms. In fact, every living entity you see around you is a transitional form, on its way to being something different.

What about the duckbilled platypus? A mammal that lays eggs, is happiest swimming, and has a bill? If that's not a transitional form, what is?!

What about whales, mammals with clearly defined finger structure supporting their ventral fins? Air breathers that have adapted to live 100% of their time in the ocean, yet retain the vestigial bone structure of when they walked on those fins? Is this not a transitional form?

You're not looking at a final product NOW, and never will be. You're looking at a snapshot of a billion-year old, open-ended process. You just need to get your head around what "a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally looooooooooooong time" is.

I lump the often-quoted "No transitional forms" assertion in with the "Not one single internal contradiction" assertion that Christians often make about the Bible. They all say it, but it's simply not true.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Creationists always say that there are "no transitional forms" in the fossil record, but mostly they hear it from other Creationists. It's simply not true, as the four-finned lungfish up above clearly demonstrates.

The fossil record is full of transitional forms. In fact, every living entity you see around you is a transitional form, on its way to being something different.

What about the duckbilled platypus? A mammal that lays eggs, is happiest swimming, and has a bill? If that's not a transitional form, what is?!

What about whales, mammals with clearly defined finger structure supporting their ventral fins? Air breathers that have adapted to live 100% of their time in the ocean, yet retain the vestigial bone structure of when they walked on those fins? Is this not a transitional form?

You're not looking at a final product NOW, and never will be. You're looking at a snapshot of a billion-year old, open-ended process. You just need to get your head around what "a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally looooooooooooong time" is.

I lump the often-quoted "No transitional forms" assertion in with the "Not one single internal contradiction" assertion that Christians often make about the Bible. They all say it, but it's simply not true.

You are still making the leap your self. The fish didn't develope lungs, legs or anything over night. It took millions of years right.

The platypus didn't get that duckbill overnight, where is the fossil record of the transition?

where is the transitional fossial of the whale that just took his first step on land and died because it couldn't breath air. It had to mutate...er..evolve until it got the lungs and feet. If it took a reaaaaaly looooong time, there should be alooooooot of fossssssils!💡

 

[Pako]

*snip*

I lump the often-quoted "No transitional forms" assertion in with the "Not one single internal contradiction" assertion that Christians often make about the Bible. They all say it, but it's simply not true.

Already had a discussion on this with Famine earlier in this thread. He listed several contradictions and I refuted them but just because he didn't like my response does not invalidate them. God's word is simple, it's man that has complicated things....

 

[Danoff]

You are still making the leap your self. The fish didn't develope lungs, legs or anything over night. It took millions of years right.

The platypus didn't get that duckbill overnight, where is the fossil record of the transition?

where is the transitional fossial of the whale that just took his first step on land and died because it couldn't breath air. It had to mutate...er..evolve until it got the lungs and feet. If it took a reaaaaaly looooong time, there should be alooooooot of fossssssils!💡

Somehwere burried in this thread I posted several fossil examples of transitional species, including bifurcations of those species into multiple others. I believe it was Foolkiller that posted fossil transitions of the human species. There are lots of fossils, and they do bear out evolution. We can literally see evolution imprinted in rock. (Not that you should have to see it, because logically speaking - there is no way for it not to happen)

However, do keep in mind what I said about the Earth's crust getting recycled over time.

 

[Duke]

You are still making the leap your self. The fish didn't develope lungs, legs or anything over night. It took millions of years right.

Correct... and, as danoff states below, there are examples in this very thread of transitional forms.

The fossil record very clearly shows the developmental transitions from lizard to gliding lizard to pterodactyl to proto-bird to modern avians. It is clearly shown in transitional forms. If you're expecting a 60fps time-lapse video of it happening before your very eyes, you will be disappointed. But that doesn't mean that you can flatly deny that transitional forms exist.

Already had a discussion on this with Famine earlier in this thread. He listed several contradictions and I refuted them but just because he didn't like my response does not invalidate them. God's word is simple, it's man that has complicated things....

...and if God's word is simple, why can't man even agree if he can be seen or not? The Old Testament says both things - both that he is unseeable, and that he shows his face. Which is true? And how does that not qualify as a contradiction?

Somehwere burried in this thread I posted several fossil examples of transitional species, including bifurcations of those species into multiple others. I believe it was Foolkiller that posted fossil transitions of the human species. There are lots of fossils, and they do bear out evolution. We can literally see evolution imprinted in rock. (Not that you should have to see it, because logically speaking - there is no way for it not to happen).

 

[Pako]

*snip*

...and if God's word is simple, why can't man even agree if he can be seen or not? The Old Testament says both things - both that he is unseeable, and that he shows his face. Which is true? And how does that not qualify as a contradiction?

What verses specifically in the Old Testament are you referencing?

[edited]

Actually to save you some time, I'm sure you were referring to these passages that are listed in this document, I thought it a simple and accurate read.

http://65.114.254.176/content/pdf/tgnotes/Gazing.pdf

In case the link should go down, here it is in text form:

Tour Guide Notes: Gazing on the Face of God
Lesson 1 – Veritology: What is Truth?

Every once in a while one of my seminary students will raise the question: "Can we can actually 'gaze' upon the face of God?" After all, don't we remember the Scripture saying somewhere that no man has seen God? And isn't God a Spirit? So how can anyone actually "see" Him?
Good questions. Let's attempt to answer them.
But first, let me give the short answer. When we are talking about gazing upon the face of God, we are not talking about physically "seeing" Him. We are talking about looking at the glory of His attributes, His character, His nature. These are the primary "jewels" that we will gaze upon during our tours. In our first tour, for example, we explore the idea that He is Truth and the ultimate source of all Truth. In our second tour, we will ponder His very nature and character as the basis of all ethics. Later, we will look at His goodness and kindness, His sovereignty and His providence. Every tour will bring us face to face with the reality of who He really is. "Gazing upon the face of God," then, is a call for us to "look" at Who He is. It is the essential part of "knowing Him" that should be our number one objective in life. In other words, it is important to remember that when we speak of "gazing" upon His face, we are only speaking figuratively.

With that in mind, let's proceed to take a closer look at what might seem to be a contradiction in Scripture and try to clear away any remaining confusion.
Scripture does in fact say that no one can "see" God and live. This assertion is initially found in Exodus 33:20. Let me quote the passage from my Hebrew

Interlinear:
18And he [Moses] said, I pray, let me see Your glory.
19And He said, I will cause all My goodness to pass before your face, and I will proclaim by the name of Jehovah before you; and I will show favor to whom I will show favor, will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. 20And He said, You are not able to see My face; for no man can see Me and live.
So, Moses asked to see God's glory and God told him that he was "unable" to see his face – that, as a matter of fact, no one could see Him and live.
However, in Genesis 32, Jacob states, after having wrestled with God, that he "saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." Jacob even named the place "Peniel" which means "face of God."

In John Chapter 1, John says:
18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. [ESV]
Jesus Himself speaks of this idea of not "seeing" God, but qualifies His meaning by restricting the concept specifically to the Father:
46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. [NIV]
Both of these passages use the Greek word "horao." When Paul gives an intervening benediction in 1 Timothy 1:17, he says:
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. [ESV]
Here, Paul uses the same word, 'horao' but negates it with the prefix "a," just as we do in English when we speak of an "a-theist." Paul is saying that God is "not-seeable." We translate that as invisible.

And yet we still have the powerful passage in Isaiah, where the prophet states that his eyes have "seen" the King, the Lord of hosts (Isaiah 6:5).
How do we resolve this? God tells Moses that he is unable to see his face, but Jacob says that he saw God face to face. God tells Moses that no one can see him and live and Jesus says that no one has ever seen the Father, yet Isaiah claims that his eyes have seen the King. Do we have an irreconcilable problem here? After all, Philip was told that if he had seen Jesus, he had "seen" the Father. Moses spoke with God "face to face" (Exodus 33:11). In Exodus 24:9-10, we read that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders of Israel "went up and they saw the God of Israel … they beheld God, and ate and drank." Similarly, Job, in the midst of his suffering, consoles himself with the thought that one day he will "see God" in the flesh (Job 19:26). And this is only a sampling of the many scriptural passages that describe men and women as actually beholding the One who truly does reveal himself to man – a theme which may be said to culminate in the awe-inspiring declaration of Christ: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).
So the answer is no. There is no contradiction here.

In one case, we are being told that it is impossible for us to "see" the "unseeable" God in the fullness of His glory, and that even if we were able to, that sight would be too much for mortal man to bear. Yet God has graciously given us glimpses of Himself, as He did with Moses, and as He has done with Isaiah and others. Through the incarnation, He has allowed man to see the glory of God revealed in the flesh – indeed, it is possible to argue that it is only through Jesus Christ that man can behold the Father and live. In the midst of this, we must contend with the glorious mystery of the Trinity: one God, single in essence, yet existing in three persons.

Obviously, a more lengthy discussion is required; one in which we could dissect the relevant words and speak of the various "theophanies" narrated in the Bible. Hopefully, some day, we will post that discourse in the Library of Worldview Thought.

But, for our purpose here, it is vital to understand that our call to "gaze upon the face of God" does not amount to some wild claim that we are physically going to "see" the "eternal, invisible" God of all creation. Again, we are only using this phrase in a figurative sense.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Correct... and, as danoff states below, there are examples in this very thread of transitional forms.

The fossil record very clearly shows the developmental transitions from lizard to gliding lizard to pterodactyl to proto-bird to modern avians. It is clearly shown in transitional forms. If you're expecting a 60fps time-lapse video of it happening before your very eyes, you will be disappointed. But that doesn't mean that you can flatly deny that transitional forms exist.

Your still not explaining what I'm asking for. In nature for something to evolve it would expectedly have failiures. Enter danoff's caos theory. If that is true It would have to have a trial and error if you will. Where is the evidence that natures trial and error between spieces exsists? Nature surely didn't get it right the very first time between Lizard to gliding Lizard. Wheres the fossil of a stub...then a bigger stub.....then a bigger stub...to now where the gliding lizard currently lives. Over millions of years we must have millions of fossils.

And don't sink to "the earths crust has recycled it self" to prove your missing links. Thats just a convient cop out for what you cannot find. We have plenty of all the other fossils to debunk that.

 

[Duke]

Your still not explaining what I'm asking for. In nature for something to evolve it would expectedly have failiures. Enter danoff's caos theory. If that is true It would have to have a trial and error if you will. Where is the evidence that natures trial and error between spieces exsists? Nature surely didn't get it right the very first time between Lizard to gliding Lizard. Wheres the fossil of a stub...then a bigger stub.....then a bigger stub...to now where the gliding lizard currently lives. Over millions of years we must have millions of fossils.

I'm telling you, these fossils exist, just like you describe. You're simply denying they do (or, more likely, taking the word of an anti-Evo that they do not exist). There will never be a perfect, smooth, uninterrupted set of fossils that do what you are saying.

But you can see a progression of related changes in bone structure in the existing fossil record. In fact, did you know that many modern birds share particular bone structures in the hips, shoulders, and skull with alligators and crocodiles? Birds are much more closely related to reptiles than they are to mammals. Conversely, you can see how bats made a similar transition later in the cycle, from tree dwelling mammals to gliding mammals to flying mammals.

And don't sink to "the earths crust has recycled it self" to prove your missing links. Thats just a convient cop out for what you cannot find. We have plenty of all the other fossils to debunk that.

That's mighty rich, coming from someone who relies on the ultimate cop out of "God did it in His mysterious way" to explain things you don't understand.

 

[Danoff]

Your still not explaining what I'm asking for. In nature for something to evolve it would expectedly have failiures. Enter danoff's caos theory. If that is true It would have to have a trial and error if you will. Where is the evidence that natures trial and error between spieces exsists? Nature surely didn't get it right the very first time between Lizard to gliding Lizard. Wheres the fossil of a stub...then a bigger stub.....then a bigger stub...to now where the gliding lizard currently lives. Over millions of years we must have millions of fossils.

Your appendix, spleen, and tonsils are good examples of the errors you're looking for. Lots of animals have body parts that don't function marvelously or even cause them problems. Even your eyesight has problems with it (try the finger trick and you'll see a dead spot). Lots of animals have eyesight problems. Occasionally people are born with tails (there are pictures in this thread). Every example of a birth defect or malformed limb is an example of nature's error. I don't even need to go to different species to find it, humans show tons of trial and error in the genetic crap shoot.

And don't sink to "the earths crust has recycled it self" to prove your missing links. Thats just a convient cop out for what you cannot find. We have plenty of all the other fossils to debunk that.

Well if the earth's crust doesn't melt, are we losing magma? Volcanoes spew magma on a regular basis, it has to be replaced by something, otherwise the Earth is going to run out of magma eventually. Surely you don't think that's the case. The only other conclusion is that I am right - that the Earth's crust is recycled over a long period of time.

...and what links am I missing?

 

[Swift]

03R1, I'm on your side. Honestly. However, the current science of evolution up till this point is fairly defensible. While there is still not a concrete undeniable "law", there is evidence to support the current theory. Hence, it's extremely difficult to fight the supports of evolution with science. I'm quite sure there are some wholes in the evolutionary theory, however, I have yet to find them.

Creation is a thing that is logical to me because it takes care of everything while evolution just tries to explain human development. Now, if you look at it from the point of human development, it's a much more defensible science. But I, like you, have problems when people that favor this theory say there is no missing link(or links). That makes no sense. There has to be some mid-term(s) animals in between ape and man. How else could the evolutionary theory be correct?

 

[Earth]

Birds are much more closely related to reptiles than they are to mammals.

From the movie Jurrasic Park

Tim: Do you really think birds came from dinosaurs? Because they look nothing like dinosaurs to me

There's plenty of reasons to believe God did it, and the only reason why some scientists don't is because God cannot be seen or measured, therefore he is not scientific until they can see or measure him.

If God was to reveal himself through whatever means I highly doubt scientists would ask him "How did you create/use evolution to bring about all life?"

No, they would ask him "How did you create life?" because there's no reason creation cannot be a 'scientific' point if God can be seen/measured.

I have a question.

How can God not be a scientific possiblity but space aliens can be 'a very plausible' possibility?

edit

There has to be some mid-term(s) animals in between ape and man. How else could the evolutionary theory be correct?

What did the ape come from? If I remember correctly it was suppose to have come from a rodent. Lots of missing links from rodent to ape then to man.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Your appendix, spleen, and tonsils are good examples of the errors you're looking for. Lots of animals have body parts that don't function marvelously or even cause them problems. Even your eyesight has problems with it (try the finger trick and you'll see a dead spot). Lots of animals have eyesight problems. Occasionally people are born with tails (there are pictures in this thread). Every example of a birth defect or malformed limb is an example of nature's error. I don't even need to go to different species to find it, humans show tons of trial and error in the genetic crap shoot.

All that is very true within each speices. It is just as you explained, a birth defect. All of those birth defects will not continue due to natural selection. Servival of the fittest, right?


[/QUOTE]Well if the earth's crust doesn't melt, are we losing magma? Volcanoes spew magma on a regular basis, it has to be replaced by something, otherwise the Earth is going to run out of magma eventually. Surely you don't think that's the case. The only other conclusion is that I am right - that the Earth's crust is recycled over a long period of time.[/QUOTE]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I didn't say that the earths crust doesn't recycle, I SAID that You can't use that as an excuse for your missing fossil record. You use fossils to prove your point. I am not going to accept you saying that THE EARTH ATE MY FOSSIL!

[/QUOTE]...and what links am I missing?[/QUOTE]

Tons...but chew on this one.For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species. Show me a "catdog" fossil.

edit; Sorry for me not getting the quote thing figured out yet

 

[Duke]

But I, like you, have problems when people that favor this theory say there is no missing link(or links). That makes no sense. There has to be some mid-term(s) animals in between ape and man. How else could the evolutionary theory be correct?

There are many hominids/primates that demonstrate commonality between apes and humans. You're still missing the somewhat subtle point that both apes and man descended from a common ancestor, NOT from each other.

It's not an ape form, but please check out this set of transitional forms that exist in the fossil record.

But if you're looking for something that is the front half of a frog stuck on the back half of a fish as your 'transitional form', then you are sadly mistaken on how evolution works.

 

[Danoff]

There has to be some mid-term(s) animals in between ape and man. How else could the evolutionary theory be correct?

There was. A common ancestry, that we both bifurcated from.

The following is based on recovered fossils and skeletons and comes from the wikipedia entry on evolution. 0 is present day, the scale to the right is going back in time.

Notice the bifurcation toward the middle.

 

[Earth]

Give me the ancestry of an Ape

track its orgins for me as far back as you can go.

Thanks

 

[Duke]

Give me the ancestry of an Ape

track its orgins for me as far back as you can go.

Thanks

we'll put in some effort if you will

Thanks

 

[Earth]

Oh, I thought you would copy and paste another image that nobody understands

Nevermind then

 

[Danoff]

Give me the ancestry of an Ape

track its orgins for me as far back as you can go.

Thanks

Well you've basically got it right there in that figure I posted taking you back to Sahelanthropus Tchandensis. Did you want us to trace that back to ooze?

Oh, I thought you would copy and paste another image that nobody understands

From where? From our list of images to confuse creationsists? From the disk that they hand out at the "evo" meetings? I wouldn't be so quick to say nobody understands either. It's actually pretty simple stuff.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Oh, I thought you would copy and paste another image that nobody understands

Nevermind then

 

[Earth]

Sahelanthropus Tchandensis...all I can say is...sounds tasty!

Ooze? Is this ninja turtles or science lol

 

[Danoff]

Sahelanthropus Tchandensis...all I can say is...sounds tasty!

Ooze? Is this ninja turtles or science lol

Both.

 

[Famine]

Well if the earth's crust doesn't melt, are we losing magma? Volcanoes spew magma on a regular basis, it has to be replaced by something, otherwise the Earth is going to run out of magma eventually. Surely you don't think that's the case. The only other conclusion is that I am right - that the Earth's crust is recycled over a long period of time.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I didn't say that the earths crust doesn't recycle, I SAID that You can't use that as an excuse for your missing fossil record. You use fossils to prove your point. I am not going to accept you saying that THE EARTH ATE MY FOSSIL!

That's your problem, not ours.

Here's the thing. There's lots of fossil - and genetic - evidence for everything we've said. Lots of it. I mean loooooooots.

We do not have a representative fossil of every animal that has ever lived - which seems to be your prerequisite for accepting any part of the evolutionary process to be true - because there's quite a lot of animals and an awful lot of the planet for them to inhabit. But we have enough representatives of a number of different species and intermediate species to observe trends. We don't throw out all of this evidence because there might be a gap here or there - the gaps don't prove that God did it - because all of the other evidence tells us what we'd expect to be there.

Take Mendeleev. When he came up with the Periodic Table, he didn't have a completely contiguous line of elements - there were gaps. Did he chuck it all away and say "God did it"? Nope. He left gaps and even predicted the properties of the elements that would fill those gaps (melting and boiling points, colour, density, atomic mass and so on). Over the following century, elements were discovered, in nature, that filled those gaps and, shock of shocks, they had very similar properties to those that Mendeleev posited a hundred years earlier.


There's also lots of the planet. Lots of it. I mean loooooooooots. The planet is huge, and archeaologists don't get to all of it. In fact there's quite a great deal of it they've got no chance of getting to - 70% of it is underwater. 65 million years ago, right around the time the dinosaurs bit the big one, the continents were in different places because not only is the surface big, it's not very stable. It moves, erupts, drives down into the mantle, becomes a mountain unexpectedly - it's quite a bizarre place.

You don't accept that - fine. Tell me where earthquakes, volcanoes and mountain ranges come from then.

 

[Danoff]

All that is very true within each speices. It is just as you explained, a birth defect. All of those birth defects will not continue due to natural selection. Servival of the fittest, right?

Mutations don't get passed on, they simply occur as part of the imperfect process of biological reproduction (or, you could just figure God wanted your foot to be funny looking).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I didn't say that the earths crust doesn't recycle, I SAID that You can't use that as an excuse for your missing fossil record. You use fossils to prove your point. I am not going to accept you saying that THE EARTH ATE MY FOSSIL!

I didn't say that, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I will say that, however, if you ask me to go back far enough.

Tons...but chew on this one.For example, all the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic boundaries of the dog kind. Although there is ample evidence of changes within kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds, such as, for example, a dog becoming a cat or a horse becoming a cow; such changes are not possible since a dog does not have the information in its genes to become a cat...It is the various distribution and recombination of genes which ultimately produce the variations and physiological differences that we find within a family unit, race, or natural species. Show me a "catdog" fossil.

I would if dogs descended from cats (or vice versa), but they didn't, so I don't have to bother. Can you look at a prarie dog, a rabbit, a ferrit, a weasel, or a gopher and tell me you can't see similarities between those and cats and dogs?

 

[Pako]

Granted, some fossil records actually show us what used to live on earth, but how can a scientist that's looking for a missing link be un-biased when they are putting piles of fossils together to make the whole? Isn't that one of your objections with the existence of God?

Hasn't some of the dinosaurs from our childhood actually been decided that they really didn't exist, that archaeologists actually put the pieces together wrong?

 

[Danoff]

Granted, some fossil records actually show us what used to live on earth, but how can a scientist that's looking for a missing link be un-biased when they are putting piles of fossils together to make the whole?

Because they don't want their work to be discredited by scientists that come after them... like in the example you give below.

Hasn't some of the dinosaurs from our childhood actually been decided that they really didn't exist, that archaeologists actually put the pieces together wrong?

They do their best. Sometimes they get it wrong, but eventually someone looking to make a name for themselves and land a research grant will come along and debunk.

 

[Duke]

Oh, I thought you would copy and paste another image that nobody understands

Nevermind then

The fact that you're not willing to make the effort to understand it does NOT mean that nobody understands it. Anyone who makes the effort to investigate and read can understand evolution, and just how well it is supported by physical evidence and logical, scientific thought.

Creationism (no matter what religion), on the other hand, is by definition not understandable. It is a supernatural, mystic explanation of the phenomenon. The whole point of Creationism is that it boils down to "God did it in His mysterious way" - there is no further depth of understanding possible in Creationism, so no amount of dilligent effort, careful research, or deductive thinking CAN increase anyone's understanding of it.

 

[UnoMOTO]

That's your problem, not ours.

Do you forget which side of the fence I'm on. I'm not the one with the problem. When I get to heaven Jesus will pat me on the back and tell me nice try! When you get there all we will here is...but...but...we had fossils!

You don't accept that - fine. Tell me where earthquakes, volcanoes and mountain ranges come from then.

God created a living breathing earth you silly boy!

Edit: shoot...where the thread on correctly qouting replies

 

[Famine]

Edit: Ah, I see.

So you don't accept that the crust of the planet moves around on tectonic plates, I guess?