Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

He's not making the point that it is incomplete, He's making the point that it couldn't have happened.

And he is.

Yes, natural selection and adaptation are straightforward and they can be observed in dogs but observed doing what? Dogs are still dogs. God didn't put natural selection and adaptation in dogs so they could evolve into something else, God put them there so they could survive as dogs.

Observed? Observed doing what?

Why? Because evolutionist say it is, that's why but they haven't proved it.

First, the "simple" one celled life forms, that evolution is based on, are not simple as was once thought but are extremely complex. Where did that complexity come from?

Second, the complexity can also be explained by God just making it that way in the first place, which would explain why everything, even "simple" one celled creatures are extremely complex, something evolution has no answer for.

Fossils are just that fossils. They show that a great number of different animals have lived on the Earth and a great number of them have gone extinct but to say they support evolution just isn't true.

It's a little finding an old photo of someone that looks like you and drawing the conclusion he was your great grandfather, it could be but then again it could just be a photo of someone that just looks like you.

That's what is being done with fossils.

 

god i read the first 15 pages of this and i have to say there are way to many straw man arguments jumbali uses

 

So do you believe that all species did at one time share the Earth together?

 

I do believe that Rodenuudle exists and shares the Earth with the gas stove in his kitchen.
Now what inference do you draw from that ?

 

You are mistaken. If anything, I am not the one setting up a straw man argument.

I state clearly that it's not known to me what evolutionary mechanism is responsible for species becoming what we observe them to be.
I am not the one inventing some other scientifically invalid theories as explanation of speciation or claiming those other theoories have more validity than darwinism.

 

That you might be mistaken. His stove could very well be electric.

 

I don't know how you got that from what I said but no, not necessarily. :hat:

 

Electric or gas powered, gas stoves exist. So does Rudenoodle. Now what inference do you make from it?

 

It couldn't have because.....what's the evidence? I'm always interested.

I'm just looking at the evidence OWB. Your right it hasn't been proved.

1 billion years of evolution.

Actually evolution has mechanisms to explain it. Gene duplication accompanied by gene mutation is one way information and complexity can increase.

You're forgetting one thing. Time. All of the them fall in the correct rock layers that show an overall increase in complexity. I'm just looking at the evidence. If you have evidence that disputes or questions this I'm interested in looking at it. The Cambian explosion for example.

I'm not saying the fossils are perfect, but when you look at them as a whole I don't see how you can just turn a blind I and say it's all false.

 

Ask jumbuli55, I believe he has a nice post somewhere about it that is an interesting read.

I too I'm looking at the evidence but I come up with different conclusions.

The question isn't how long but how. Evolution at one time thought that one celled creatures were simple and that life got more and more complex but the simple truth is that no life is simple. All one celled creatures are amazingly complex, Science has found no simple creatures. So if the "simple" one celled creatures, the "beginnings" of Evolution, were already complex where did that complexity come from?

That's nice if life started off simple but as I just mentioned there are no simple life forms. You say that; "Gene duplication accompanied by gene mutation is one way information and complexity can increase" but the trouble is that life started off very complex to begin with, so "gene duplication accompanied by gene mutation" didn't have a chance to make life complex if it was complex from the beginning.

Time? No, I'm not forgetting time, because there hasn't been enough time for evolution to have happened.

As for looking at the evidence, I'm afraid you may be confusing the facts with the conclusions that have been drawn from the facts. Facts are always true but conclusions are oft times wrong.

No one is denying that fossils exist or that they don't come in layers but the conclusions drawn by Evolutionists from those facts I believe are wrong.

 

But evolutionists firmly believe (or they wilfully play practical jokes on us) that evidence per se equates conclusion.
Or that you can come up with any arbitrary conclusion, as long as you have some irrelevant evidence to shoehorn your theory.

Gas stove in kitchen is comprised of atoms, just as rudenoodle is. So, Evrika! Gas stove is rudenoodle's remote cousin and they both evolved by means of random chance and natural selection from the same ancestral Big Bang. It's just that gas stove's grand-grand-grand ancestor, who was a sibling of rudenoodle's grand's, wasn't as lucky so his descendants ended up to be the gas stoves
You are a lucky man, rudenoodle! Every time you go to kitchen look at your gas stove and pray to Darwin for establishing rules whereby you didn't become a gas stove!

 

I agree with this.

The conclusion is up in the air.

 

Notice how they resort to Ad Hominem as soon as they run out of any logical responce.

 

The "how" is fairly simple. Life forms are born from their parent life forms. Genes change over time. All this can be observed. There's no evidence (that I know of) that show life can manifest instantaneously.

The question is. Is life today more complex than it was in the past?

I agree with you though that all life is complex.

With your defintion of complexity humans and bacteria would be considered the same thing. The diversity of life today is much different than what it was like 3 billion years ago. Do you have any evidence that 3 billion years isn't enough time for evolution to happen?

When did I ever say the theory of evolution was a fact?

What is your theory?

 

His theory is god blinked them into existence.

I thought this short video was pretty close to the discussions had in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=sub

 

His theory may well be that, but what's your theory?
And how is it less religious in essence than one of Creationists?
At least Creatinists openly admit that their theory originates in their religious beliefs, while hoax perpetrating darwinists have audacity to claim that their's has anything to do with the Science.

Religious dogma worshiping zealot makes fun of "Creationists believing in darndest things" ?


What an irony!!! What an irony !!!

 

The only alternative is not that God set out to decieve us but that God did not start over from scratch each time he made a different animal.

If a person was writing instruction manuals for a living, why start over from scratch each time, why not use the same working formula and just change the parts that need to be changed to fit the the machine being described. That would make all the manuals seem related and that they "evolved" from each other but in fact they just had the same author.

Likewise "DNA" are the "plans" for making living creatures, most of the same DNA is used for every creature and only the parts that need to be changed to make a different creature have been changed. So why would deception be involved, in fact that is what would be expected to be found, if an intelligent being had created all living things.

Obviously Richard Dawkins doesn't think God is more intelligent than random chance, which would seem to make Richard Dawkins, in this case dumber than random chance.

 

And your theory is that given enough monkeys and enough typewriters and enough time...

Thanks but I think I'll stay with God blinked them into existence.

 

They will eventualy create a religion and write a bible?

 

Darwin's "theory" is indeed an illustrous example of a monkey who has created religion by shuffling some random ideas that surely entered his head while he was high on something.

And his followers have audacity to call it science?

What an irony !!! What an irony !!!