Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- Kes0
oh fuck off discipler. I know what i copy/pasted.
Jesus. What do you mean off topic?
eugh
ok, fair enough
Transition fossils:
1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.
Intermediate fossils include
* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago. Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans ).And there are fossils intermediate between these.
2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape .
Right, i cut and pasted that
What of it?
- discipler0
Young earth info including info on petrification:
- discipler0
if anybody has a question, they can search through what has been posted (not that anybody is going to glean a tremendous amount of knowledge from it, what with all the conflicting voices and misinformation available in this monster).
- TheTick0
Oh discipler you do make me laugh. I like the book you just refrenced. I just googled it's publisher - surprise The world's Leading Christian publisher.
When you start directing me to something not written by a christian publisher I'll take an interest in the validity of your argument.
Remove the plank in your own eye brother
- mrdobolina0
when do you suppose the stone age took place?
- TheTick0
JazX - in re: to the CO2 levels. I'm only stating that there is evidence that human industrial activity is most probably increasing current CO2 levels among other warming factors.
That the earth had higher levels at other times in it's history is a given. The issue is to have awareness of our influence and some preparedness for the impact on human social and cultural factors of this warming, and also the potential environmental effects.
I'm not a negative nelly on this. Some species will most assuredlt benefit and others won't, but there could be the potential for distabilization to the human environment with political effects we might not be aware of. That's it.
- JazX0
Pressure, temperature, water, time, and some sort of vegetation are the key elements for the formation of coal. According to evolutionary theory, the slow accumulation and decomposition of vegetation living in past ages accounts for the coal seams. However, this theory can not answer why such large amounts of original vegetation without soil can be found in the areas that are now coal seams, or how these coal seams became so thick - some being over two hundred feet in depth.
Scientist Robert Gentry analyzed coalified wood found on the Colorado Plateau in order to determine how long it took for coal to form.1 By treating coal with epoxy and slicing it into thin sheets, Dr. Gentry was able to examine tiny, compressed radiohalos found in the coal. Radiohalos are discolorations in the coal, ejected by radioactive elements in the centers (such as uranium).
According to evolutionary theory, in order for these halos to form, several processes must have occurred. First, water-saturated logs must have been laid down in several different geologic formations, including the Triassic, Jurassic and Eocene layers. Later, uranium solutions infiltrated the water-saturated logs, and uranium decay products were collected at tiny sites within the logs. The radioactive decay from the tiny particles ejected spherical radiation damage regions around those sites, thus producing halos. Finally, a pressure event on the site of the formations compressed the logs as well as the radioactive halos within them. However, because coal is not a malleable substance, scientists know that these logs had not turned to coal at the time the compression event occurred. This points to a quick burial and coalification of the logs – rather than a long time period.
- JazX0
Back to that theory, TheTick, if gravity, chemistry and/or pressure were to change over time, regardless of creator or evolution, there's a possibilty that a major catastrophic event might occur. Hmmm, puts a funny slant on extinction episodes.
give me link! I demand it!
- opiate0
Get a load of this crap. Heard it on the radio yesterday.
- TheTick0
Oh discipler you do make me laugh. I like the book you just refrenced. I just googled it's publisher - surprise The world's Leading Christian publisher.
When you start directing me to something not written by a christian publisher I'll take an interest in the validity of your argument.
Remove the plank in your own eye brother
- discipler0
an infinite uncaused being doesn't require a creator, by definition, Hym. You missed the point. A shame you let a misunderstanding of that truth send you into Atheism.
- discipler0
aaahhh, parthenogenesis eh, subflux? ;) Here's one to chew on: if the mechanism by which a trait is inhereted is that it conveys a survival advantage to the possessor, then why are we not all self-fertile hermaphrodites, like earthworms? Dimorphic sexuality - male and female - has no reason to ever arise under evolution since every organism would already have within itself the seeds of its own survival.
- jakeyj0
nope sorry this is not a creationist free zone. i'm one.
- laurus0
Well, when I hear creationists I start thinking we haven't evolved from apes, at least not by much.
it's a great form of science--starting with the answer and then finding facts that fit it, sweeping the ones that don't fit under the carpet. I'm not saying religion is inferior to science--it becomes so when it searches for proof for something that's based on belief.
BTW, evolution can, and was observed. And yes there are transitional species--in fact, they all are.
- kld0
amen
- Kuz0
The value of the second law of thermodynamics is that it quantitatively describes the energetic aspects of the chemical elements and the compounds they form. The chemical potential energy (the enthalpy of formation) that is bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is less than that in their elements. Thus, energetically , the second law says that the majority of compounds now known could spontaneously form from the corresponding elements. In complete contrast, watches or cars are not lower in thermodynamic energy than the total energy of their individual components. Therefore, the second law says that it is totally inappropriate to compare them with the behavior of chemical compounds and elements.
- trainer0
1. Darwinian Macroevolution is easily falsifiable. Just find a T-Rex skeleton with a human skeleton inside - the theory says that can't happen.
2. "Logic dictates that everything that has a beginning, has a cause"
...except for the intelligent designer. I fail to see how that isn't a contradiction. Why can the intelligent designer spring forth without cause, without a meta-designer? And if it can, why couldn't the universe itself have done the same?
- TheTick0
Guys, discipler is rhetorical master. He'll only take up specific arguments and run them in logical circles. You cannot win. He is playing by different rules. You're playing chess and he's playing soccer. Impossible to win.
I like Nietzcshe's take on the situation best:
"Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God" "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin" "salvation" "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginarybeings ("God," "spirits," "souls"); an imaginarynatural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginaryteleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").--This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the later at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of "abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. . . . This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality."
- discipler0
I love the "Creationism is crap" approach here. How insightful. Forget about all the compelling scientific fact put forth by the numerous PHD's... no, instead of discussing the actual science - it doesn't fit in with my fallacious paradigm about how science and "religion" should be seperate, so I'll just call it "crap" or "trite".
Sigh.
Oh, JazX, here is the official site for I.D.: http://www.ideacenter.org/
- JazX0
The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, we know this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.
It does raise my eyebrows... get my point...