Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- discipler0
subflux, any scientist knows of the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation. But most evolutionists concentrate on a few specimens which they claim are intermediate but don't stand up under scrutiny (the total being just enough to fit in a small box).
Intelligent Design does not ignore the variation and range of adaptibility displayed by living organisms. What it does posit is that the range of adaptibility of organisms is finite. The genome of a dog yields a tremendous range of phenotypical expression, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes... but at the end of the day, they are both still dogs, not cats. And this is exactly what science actually observes. No scientist has ever seen a dog become something other than a dog, or vice-versa.
As for Punctuated Equilibrium, get the latest data: http://www.answersingenesis.org/…
The evidence is skimpy, usually based on a few bones and teeth. But the best this could show is the sorting of existing information. But the origin of the distinct types, requires the origin of new information (see discussion below), and this is not supported by the fossils. There are gaps between all 32 mammal orders, as the evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson said:
Furthermore, on transitional forms, the evidence is skimpy, usually based on a few bones and teeth. But the best this could show is the sorting of existing information. But the origin of the distinct types, requires the origin of new information and this is not supported by the fossils. There are gaps between all 32 mammal orders, as the evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson said: "the earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."
Finally, Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently because of our different axioms. Evolutionists interpret the sequence of layers as a sequence of ages with different types of creatures; creationists interpret them as a sequence of burial by a global flood and its after-effects. This makes better sense of phenomena such as ‘living fossils’ and finding creatures such as the coelacanth, which isn’t found in rocks ‘dated’ younger than 70 million years.
- Kes0
awesome subflux! You so elequantly satirised his claim that Creationism is a scientific theory!
i can hear discipler busy typing away. Ah man, when i go and he gets the last word, he's gonna think he's won or sumthin.
- Kes0
shit discipler... now you've gone off ona tangent?
what happened to you rebuttals?
*sigh
ok, time to demolish your last bunch o crap.
if i can be bothered..
mmm, watch this sapce...
- Mimio0
I think the most compelling fact supporting evolution is the fossil record supports proves that simple organism came first followed by more complex species all the way through the ages up until now. It's progressive, things are clearly moving in the direction towards higher complexity and sophistication.
- mrdobolina0
discipler, I forgot. do you think the earth is only 6,000 years old?
- TheTick0
"Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant"
By Richard Dawkins - an real life actual evolutionary scientist as opposed to the imaginary or fake ones Discipler and other ID lunatics like to quote for their "scientific" studies:
- anzelina0
i hate religious threads.
but it's friday, ima let it slide.
- Mimio0
Dawkins is great, You should read "The Blind Watchmaker" discipler.
- cinder0
100 years ago we bled people who were sick to get the 'bad humors' out of their blood.
The difference is that, now, we're incredibly arrogant. We don't believe we could be wrong . . . until we prove ourselves wrong when we find new scientific evidence that counteracts the old.
Anyone who argues that Evolutionism is an unchanging 'final' theory is a fool.
We have over 3000 years of history to prove that no theory lasts more than a century or two.
- bumblefuck0
good times
- TheTick0
Whatever you do, don't start a political thread. THEY are watching...shhhh...
Jesus loves you.
- discipler0
It would be impossible for me to respond to the number of objections in this thread. If there is going to be any kind of meaningful discussion here, it would need to be moderated by someone. I don't see that happening. And Kes, you can cut n' paste slanted article snippets until you're blue in the face, there will always be people who support the position you are struggling with. That is no way to have a productive discussion. If you'd like, pick a single topic and let's chat about it and then move on to the next. :) Or, would you be just as happy with me cutting and pasting all the articles that refute your's? A cut n' paste war? :)
- pocho0
It's dem dinosaurs, I tell ya! The dinosaurs!
- mrdobolina0
discipler, again. do you think the world is only 6,000 years old?
- Mimio0
That's why it's called a theory cinder. It's a work in progress. I doubt we'll be rethinking all of the countless scientific discoveries since Copernicus.
- Kes0
1. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.
--------------------------------...
Response: This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:* Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
* Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
* Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
* Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
* The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003).
* Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
* Something that no one has thought of yet.2. Intelligent Design does not ignore the variation and range of adaptibility displayed by living organisms.
------------------------------
Response: Stop trying to make Creationism and Intelligent Design the one and same thing you dishonest little man. ID allows for evolution, Creatioism does not3.No scientist has ever seen a dog become something other than a dog, or vice-versa.
------------------------------
Response: Of course not you muppet! It occurs of millions of years, and all evidence points to this. No scientist has actually "seen" gravity either. //Personally I think invisible midgets run around holding everything in place.4. There are gaps between all 32 mammal orders
-----------------------------
Response: Eugh, you are so tiresome. THere are is evidence of gradual change from one fossil to another, as the examples i listed you (did you even read them?). How on earth are you meant to show genome mutation in fossils? What do you mean by this? Fossils, if put next to each other, show a rodent getting bigger and bigger and bigger, until it becomes a dog! You can't see genes in bones you muppet!5. Furthermore, on transitional forms, the evidence is skimpy, usually based on a few bones and teeth. But the best this could show is the sorting of existing information.
-----------------------------
Response: Not true. Some fascinatingly complete and complex - and lot more than "just a few teeth" have been discovered. Also these are dated to show a change in time from one end to another. Just a sorting of information?? LOl what the fuck is that anyway dude? How about, a mammoth resorted its information and became an elephant - and stayed that way! gasp! evolution!6. Finally, Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently because of our different axioms
-----------------------------
Response: LOL. I don't know about you "Creationist" types, but evolutionists don't actually INTERPRET the layers. Geologists do. The evolutionists use the data found by geologists.hehe
- discipler0
mrdobs, yes, I'm a young-earth creationist.
and Theistic Evolution is a discussion in itself.
- anzelina0
this thread confused me, until i realized i have some people blocked. weehee!
- mrdobolina0
well then, sir. you are a fucking crackpot.
- Kes0
And Kes, you can cut n' paste slanted article snippets until you're blue in the face, there will always be people who support the position you are struggling with.
-------------------------------Oi prick, you cut and paste to your hearts content? Don't gimme unfounded accusations os slanted this or whatever, argue the actual points or fuck off. If you want a point by point discussion, go ahead, i dont know what exactly you freaks have a problem with.