The disprooveing of evalootion thread

GO TEAM! *waves flag*

 

Acctually, what I realized I often do, is sit on the fence on issues, to avoid taking an opinion on them. Maybe the reason I have more of a less leteral theology in regards to the Old Testament is because I am afraid of taking that position. I don't know. It doesn't really make me open-minded, it makes me sort of a bafoon.

 

i dont know where you got that info from but its wayyyy wrong,, more creationlist reaching

 

Ok, I found an article about the acctual problem you presented. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis-overthrust.html At least I think this is what you were referencing. The first response I had was just a quick one that I knew I could find late at night before bed.

 

well by open-minded i meant you're not the typical "well, it doesn't matter what you say, either way i'm right" kind of Christian
i mean, i'm pretty sure you have enough faith that you think that your opinion is the true one, which makes perfect sense, because it's your FAITH, ya know? why not believe your faith is right.
what i was saying is that no matter what, at the end of the day, your faith is what keeps you going in your religion. you don't seem to have to fight for your own theology, and i respect that
=)
i don't think you're a bafoon

 

The Talkorigins Propaganda 'theory' on 'Overthrust' accounting for the nearly impossible to find 'Columns' is, plainly stated, Ridiculous.
Because they are a sneaky propaganda site they fall all over themselves to basically pull off the same trick as with Columns - sifting through the entire planet to find the tiny handful of examples that 'do compare' and holding them up as primary examples.
Overthrust does happen but in farrrrrrrrrrr more cases than they let on - it doesnt even come close to explaining away the total lack of 'Eras' in any sort of order that the Textbook Example claims to have.

What they do NOT tell you is that global flooding is the much much better explanation for the layers of sedimentary rock.
Much much better.

In fact, its so obvious and works so well that they cant even get past it anymore.
However.. being totally unable to admit that massive deluge would explain everything (because forbid - that would sound like Genesis!) there is now a 'plea bargain' in which they concede that 'many huge regional floods happened' ... but over millions of years of course.

But yeah.. you almost cannot believe the shock on peoples faces (and I was one of them) when they learn that those 'Columns' (recall 'Pleisostene', 'Jurassic' etc) are not real and are just an artists depiction of what things 'should look like'.

Oh but.. 'Overthrust' is why 99% of the planet has them all backwards, mixed-up, in no consistent order and of all different cominations etc.
Yeah... and a bowl of Magic Soup morphed into all life on Earth too.
Geez.

 

Another point I'd like to bring up is how evolutionists constantly have to change their arguments as their old theorys get disproved. Facts don't change. Creationist have used the same Bible ever since it was written. For example evolutionists get so excited whenever they discover a new "missing link" that they call it such before knowing much about it. They assume that something is true before they prove it, and that's just not good science. One example is a pig's tooth being mistaken for a "missing link". Now if you don't have enough evidence to even tell a pig's tooth from the tooth of an ape-man, then you have no business putting that in school text books and proclaiming it as fact.

 

it's not in school books as a FACT
it's a theory
neither is creationism
it's part of a RELIGION
theories are a part of science, that's why they're in science books

 

The Pigs tooth aside... This is most definately one of the most signifigant issues to understand whenever you hear the word 'Evolution'.
Its not an actual 'thing'.
The theory of evolution doesnt have to stand by anything and this gives it a tremendous 'advantage' in slipping and sliding around whenever and wherever it needs to.
Example being that Darwinism has indeed been refuted by research. So.. we just call the new version 'NeoDarwinism'.
If that doesnt work its scratched out and something new 'evolves'.
Dating gets proven wrong on this month.. its just changed to something else and so on.
Creationists have no such luxury - the Genesis ones at least. They have to stand or fall on a written account.
Sure, there is some wiggle room given in interpretation but nothing like the 'anything goes' Evolutionist gets away with.

Whats truly remarkable.. and im totally serious about this.. is how year after year chunks of Evolution theory are dismissed, refuted and abandoned
YET
They are just kinda 'left in place' for the viewing public to keep looking at.

Just as an example: How many people in here know that 'Lucy' was conclusively determined to be nothing more than a Giant Gibbon (actually most Paleontologists always did think that anyways).
'Australopithicus (lucy)' is no longer part of the imaginary 'ascent' chain and is no longer part of the Theory of Evolution?

I bet you anything textbooks still include it.
Discovery channel shows still refer to it.
I bet articles about it are not removed from Evofundie websites?

Did you know that a signifigant portion of the population still thinks that Natural Selection is the 'proof' and 'mechanism' of Evolution in action?
No real Evolutionist today thinks that is the case but yet - they DO NOT MIND if the public continues holding that mistaken understanding.

There could be a list of a 100 other examples including the now defunct but ultra famous 'Peppered Moth' or the recent Archaeoraptor hoax (proof dinosaurs morphed into birds).
The famous textbook 'Eohippus' considered the 'ultimate' example of fossils 'morphing' into a horse.

Good gad.. there are people who still think 'Embryonic Recapitulation' (where a fetus goes through 'evolution stages') is still somewhere in a textbook as 'more proof' - even though the guy was actually arrested and charged for that over a century ago and no sane Evolutionist on the planet thinks that is real.

But they dont mind if YOU think its still valid!

 

yeah, the bible IS still around isn't it...
good job erasmus

=P

 

Wow, that guy's good. Now, let's see what the evolutionists can come up with to disprove creation.

 

Science is about the search for facts. Science is a philosophy. Scientific method is such. http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Things are never proven, only proven false...

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp ‘Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.’ Evolutionary anthropology textbooks claimed this, and creationists followed suit. However, this actually misunderstood Dubois, as Stephen Jay Gould has shown. It’s true that Dubois claimed that Java man (which he called Pithecanthropus erectus) had the proportions of a gibbon. But Dubois had an eccentric view of evolution (universally discounted today) that demanded a precise correlation between brain size and body weight. Dubois’ claim about Java man actually contradicted the reconstructed evidence of its likely body mass. But it was necessary for Dubois’ idiosyncratic proposal that the alleged transitional sequence leading to man fit into a mathematical series. So Dubois’ gibbon claim was designed to reinforce its ‘missing link‘ status.
Did you mean this, and not Lucy? Just wondering...

I do know that the Peppered moth thing was faked thank you. I can't answer to the Archaeoraptor. A few peoples folly isn't the folly of an entire group. Please expand on your Eohippus comment.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/images/202drawings.jpg
Ok, at first I thouhgt this was the funniest picture ever cause I thought it went in rows, and was the developmen of one animal.

EDIT: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html Here is the TalkOrigins articl about the issue (I know you don't like talkorigins, but still give it a read, please?)

 

how does the cromagnum man whos brain was 20% larger than ours fit into creationelism? where did fossils come from? why are there only undrewater fossils before a certain point? etc.. etc.. seems that creationelist are the one who lack any proof,

 

http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ar_hb2548/Haeckels_embryos.htm

Claim #2 on here is about the being convicted of fraud thing, seems that is false too.

 

There are fossils being formed today, but most of them came about during the flood.

Have you heard of the Amalekites?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 13:28-33; Deuteronomy 1:28;2:10;9:2

What do you mean by a certain point?

 

Two of his relatives are asking for documentation of the Charges.
Good possibility none exist.

Either way.. its a shame you cant actually convict some Evolutionists for deliberately lying and hoaxing people... but then again our courts would be booked full for years on nothing but those cases.

 

well in that sense
it's a shame you can't do anything about fundamentalist christians mass converting people by telling them what's "right" and taking away everyone's freedom of religion.
it's not even that it's an american thing, religion is a personal choice. giving people propaganda about their religion and most of all guilt trips into converting them, that's just heartless and cruel.

 

None of that makes any sense.
Do you mean I can start telling you 'whats right' and you are so weak minded that it will 'take away your freedom'?

'Religion' is a 'Personal choice' - Im not even sure what you think that is supposed to mean exactly?

What if people are 'given' accurate and truthful propaganda?
Why is it 'Cruel'?

Im not even sure what is going on it that post of yours but it might sound like you would like to see 'any ideas' be validated and permitted EXCEPT any Christian ones?
I mean.. what are you getting at?

And why do you look a lot like a Canadian with a tan?

 

Disproving creation and god is like disproving the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.