Creationist Lies
Out of context: Reply #33
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- Kes0
1. Observational science cannot determine how life originated. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Both Evolutionists and Creationists must look at the available evidence and form a hypothesis.
-------------------------------
Response: Observational science, as my post clearly states, is based on empirical observation. Empirical observation is not about, literally being able to SEE a quark, photon, evolution happening, etc... it's about conducting experiments that you CAN see, that prove a THEORY. THat is the foundation of science. This is why Creationism Fails the scientific test.2. Furthermore, Creation science IS based upon scientifice findings. Consider such biochemical marvels as the clotting cascade, the chemistry of vision, the bacterial flagellum, a single strand of DNA
----------------------------
Response: This is NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT. You are merely saying, LOOK, that is complicated, it can't have evolved. Your inability to comprehend 1000's of millions of years of genetic mutation IS NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT.3. The fact is that Darwinism is becoming an antiquated
-----------------------------
This is a gross lie and distrotion. That Newsweek poll i cited earlier said onl 700 in 480,000 earth and life science scientist believe in creationsim. That is 0.146% of scientists in the United States!4.The thousands of transitional fossils that Darwin predicted would be uncovered, have not been. The fossil record is an embarassment to Darwinism and evolutionsists know this.
------------------------------
Response: This is a patent lie. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. Also, considering 4billion years of history, and decay of this plant, transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.5. Consider also the Cambrian Explosion
------------------------------
Response: The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya. (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms
Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian . Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.6.It is neither observable nor falsifiable!!! so, technically cannot even qaulify as a theory. A belief would be more accurate.
------------------------------
Response: If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges. Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
7. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that a cognizant creative force is the author of all life.
-------------------------------
Response: Maybe you do not understand the word "evidence". Your inability to comprehend something, does not make for scientific evidence. Which is why it is only a belief system, a hypothesis like parallel universes etc...8. But Darwinists force fit the evidence to fit into a naturalistic model of origins.
----------------------------
Response: Well you're a conspiracy theory nut if you believe that. You have no respect for the objectivity of science. Maybe you should read how Darwin struggled with his conscious to comprehend his discoveries. A naturalistic model is based on evidence, post-priori, not some a priori faith in a "book called the bible". They are two distinctly different issues.8. False. There is not ONE SINGLE transitional fossil in existance that would suggest that one genome mutated into another
-----------------------------
This is the oft told lie of all Creationists. What exactly would constitute evidence to you? Look at these examples:1.T here are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
9. This is likely true of Creationists, but not of ID proponents. ID scientists are replete throughout the modern scientific community
-------------------------------
Response: Yes, but those ID "scientists" aren't anti-evolutionists. Many ID "scientists" believe evolution did occur, but by design. Which is why so many Christians have reconciled the powerful theory of evolution.10.Finally, those who vehemently adhere to an evolutionary model for origins do so without bothering to either take a hard look at some of evolution's assumptions, or to wrestle with the real problems that it faces.
-----------------------------
Response: I'll have you know i searched high and low to find arguments against your fallaciesCheck mate motha fucka!