Human evolution vs Creationism

[grohl]

I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

 

[Vageetasjn]

Evolution is not a theory of chance. It employs accumulated progress/fitness for an organism in a given environment.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

 

[sandorski]

"Evolution" is the Guiding force.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I've always wondered how blood vessels knew how to snake all over the body to deliver nutrients, or how a patch of light sensitive cells connected to a series of neurons to produce "sight"

Truthfully, we don't know. However, the alternative to "not know" is not to believe in a guiding force. Its to do more research and to more experimentation. Personally, I think that while a living thing is incredibly interesting, when we break it down, its just a series of simple things that came together through interaction.

 

[grohl]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

I appreciate your reply which was really much better written than was my original question.

I really am not trying to rationalize my thoughts on intelligent design; I would welcome a website/book/link that could reinforce your statement of "overwhelming evidence".

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Evolution is not "random chance"!

 

[shabby]

Originally posted by: grohl
Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it

Thy name was God...

 

[Adn4n]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I've always wondered how blood vessels knew how to snake all over the body to deliver nutrients, or how a patch of light sensitive cells connected to a series of neurons to produce "sight"

If it hadn't happened though, you wouldn't be thinking about it. In the vastness of our universe, the chances are good for life to form.

WOOT 1000th post.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I've always wondered how blood vessels knew how to snake all over the body to deliver nutrients, or how a patch of light sensitive cells connected to a series of neurons to produce "sight"

Truthfully, we don't know. However, the alternative to "not know" is not to believe in a guiding force. Its to do more research and to more experimentation. Personally, I think that while a living thing is incredibly interesting, when we break it down, its just a series of simple things that came together through interaction.

Even the most basic life form, the cell, is incredibly complex

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I've always wondered how blood vessels knew how to snake all over the body to deliver nutrients, or how a patch of light sensitive cells connected to a series of neurons to produce "sight"

Truthfully, we don't know. However, the alternative to "not know" is not to believe in a guiding force. Its to do more research and to more experimentation. Personally, I think that while a living thing is incredibly interesting, when we break it down, its just a series of simple things that came together through interaction.

I think too many people get caught up on the "finished product" so to speak. People look at the complexity of a modern day human, mammal, insect, etc and look at the product on the order of a billion years of evolution. But in regards to how do these complex systems find a way, I think you can get some interesting insight in looking at optimization problems. In atomic scale simulations of molecules, atoms, and crystals, you basically start out with a guess state (or just a random initialization) and allow it to progress according to various rules of physics and see how the system progresses. If they want to find out how a protein is folded, they set up the initial state and allow the molecules to progress according to physics. It is interesting to see how the physical laws are a "guiding force" in itself towards a common goal like energy minimization. Even outside of biology, optimization problems are a common tools for designs. I have seen it in things like antenna design and lithographic masks. These optimization techniques allow for the creation of novel designs that satisfy performance criterion that would normally be unobtainable through traditional design techniques.

So I think if you take into account the way that even a complex system like a molecule can progress due to a rigorous system of rules towards a common set of states and keep in mind the gradual process of how biological systems have developed, then the idea becomes far more palatable. We can see this idea of commonality around us already. You mentioned the complexity of vision, but eyesight is just one method by which living beings detect electromagnetic radiation. Our own bodies react to UV rays by tanning the skin and producing melatonin that helps regulate our sleep cycle. We can sense infrared radiation by "feeling" heat. An eye at a very basic level would probably just be a simple chemical reaction to light, like photosynthesis. How the organism then develops this rudimentary reaction to light can lead to a single rudimentary photodetector, then a collection of detectors, and so on. Personally, I find it rather interesting that the visible spectrum is the range that most animals see in and it is also the range in which photosynthesis is excited. The fact that the visual spectrum contains the largest amount of energy that impinges on the Earth's surface is an interesting pointer towards the optimization of biological systems.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I've always wondered how blood vessels knew how to snake all over the body to deliver nutrients, or how a patch of light sensitive cells connected to a series of neurons to produce "sight"

Truthfully, we don't know. However, the alternative to "not know" is not to believe in a guiding force. Its to do more research and to more experimentation. Personally, I think that while a living thing is incredibly interesting, when we break it down, its just a series of simple things that came together through interaction.

Take a Historical Geology class aka history of life.

Learn how we went from very simple one cell animals to large multi-cell organisms that started to specialize. Then add 100 million years and see what you get.

Also look at how humans have 'evolved' based on their habitat. Eskimo's are short and round because that body type holds heat well. Certain African tribes are very tall and thin because that shape dissipates heat well.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: grohl
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Objective? This is a very harsh topic to go through. Atheists have a very, very strong hatred for all things ID. Not just because it's not something the scientific method can directly prove, but because if it is true, it means they've wasted their lives and are going to burn.

I flirted with becoming an Atheist for awhile, i listened to a lot of intellectual people talk about ID, evolution, but I always went away with more questions than answers. My recommendation is look for sites or books that evaluation the truthfulness of claims made by evolutionists or creationists. There have been many lies published in scientific text books that were used as evidence. I believe there still are things printed in text books today that are proven false, but because it fits the theory, are included as evidence. I mentioned Kent Hovind earlier, he may not be objective, but he gives many examples of how many lies have been used over the years to support evolution.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

1. WTF. You don't think that a fossil that shows a between structure shows evolution? And no, it does not show that the creature is dead. Ceolacanth anyone?

2. Yes...thats how everything works in life. We build upon theories, and if they don't work, we reject the theory, and try again

3. I don't think you understand how evolution works. Common ancestors. Not, FISH TO BIRDS.

1. What evidence for a flood? Kent Howard is in jail for 10 years for 58 tax offenses. Amazing christian don't you think? This guys says dinosaurs and humans walked together, He thinks that a ice meteor came flying to earth and broke up. And it caused snow to call, and cracked the crust of the earth, and causing an ice age. He says the grand canyon was made in a couple of weeks and that human lifespans were longer than today.

This is guy is nuts

2. I just don't know what to say to this. Wow.


Some more

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)[106], HIV, West Nile virus, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination

Hovind believes "Satan has been using the great pyramid as his symbol for the New World Order."

Hovind believes that computer microchips "may be forerunners of the mark of the beas

Regarding barcodes and the security strip on money, Hovind stated they are tied to a government plot in which barcodes and the "magnetic tape through the center of the paper" money "is of the same type that is on the back of your credit card" for tracking money and people.[86] Thus, the government "want to be able to track the money and find out where it goes."

The aim, he believes, is to put "a chip into each of the major muscles and network them together so that a paralyzed person would be able to get some movement from their muscles" so that there "is going to be a system where you cannot buy or sell without the mark in the hands or in the forehead."[86]

Hovind disregards all fossil evidence, saying that "no fossils can count as evidence for evolution," because "all we know about that animal is that it died," and we do not know that it "had any kids, much less different kids."

ARE YOU KIDDING. ARE YOU ACTUALLY REFERENCING THIS CRAZY EXCUSE FOR A "Christian theme park operator"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

It is less of a science question and more of a philosophical question.

Read up on the Cosmological argument some times known as 'first cause' or 'first mover'

The easiest way to think of it is to think of a rock at the top of a hill. That rock will sit motionless unless something acts upon it. But once it starts to roll down hill it will roll to it hits the bottom. In order to go from sitting on the hill to rolling down the hill it needs a cause or 'first mover'

In this theory the universe is that rock and god is the first mover that got the rock rolling.
It is not a perfect theory and does not explain the reason for gods existence, but it does provide a need for god 'something had to get everything started' and it allows for evolution.

Also, the idea has been around forever (Plato) and it is the basis for much Christian thought. Mainly in the idea that god has to exist for the universe to exist.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: grohl
Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

No, there isn't any objective book on creationism, as that is a religious/spiritual/cultural/dogmatic/etc. perspective.

You can find references to evolution in 13th century and earlier spiritual material, but that is different from scientific evolution, and as the spiritual material tends to weigh more heavily on the divine and figurative, it doesn't really lend itself to an "objective" perspective.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: grohl
Human evolution vs Creationism

You do realize that these are not mutually exclusive? The origin of life is a seperate issue from evolution, and is a far thornier one. There's plenty of folks out there who accept the fact of evolution and yet are sceptical of the idea of abiogenisis, including quite a few who aren't religious at all as well as those who are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: grohl

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

I appreciate your reply which was really much better written than was my original question.

I really am not trying to rationalize my thoughts on intelligent design; I would welcome a website/book/link that could reinforce your statement of "overwhelming evidence".

The book I can think of that most directly refers to what you're talking about is Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker. It specifically makes the case for evolution, and also addresses the plausibility of a guiding designer. The end of the book goes a bit into the whole atheism thing that Dawkins is notorious for, but regardless of that he really is an expert on evolutionary biology and his books are very accessible and readable for regular people like you and me.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

1. WTF. You don't think that a fossil that shows a between structure shows evolution? And no, it does not show that the creature is dead. Ceolacanth anyone?

2. Yes...thats how everything works in life. We build upon theories, and if they don't work, we reject the theory, and try again

3. I don't think you understand how evolution works. Common ancestors. Not, FISH TO BIRDS.

1. What evidence for a flood? Kent Howard is in jail for 10 years for 58 tax offenses. Amazing christian don't you think? This guys says dinosaurs and humans walked together, He thinks that a ice meteor came flying to earth and broke up. And it caused snow to call, and cracked the crust of the earth, and causing an ice age. He says the grand canyon was made in a couple of weeks and that human lifespans were longer than today.

This is guy is nuts

2. I just don't know what to say to this. Wow.

Ok...

1) If evolution is true, don't you think that millions and billions of "transitional" fossils would be found? Fossils are just that, fossils, you have no idea if that creature had any offspring at all.

2) Well we agree on something, i think.

3) I didn't say a daddy fish and a mommy fish gave birth to a pelican, maybe you didn't understand what I wrote? I'm talking of creature species A over billions of years evolving into creature species B. I can't make it any plainer.

4) Your assault on his character does nothing to his work and only shows that maybe you can't or don't want to debate what he actually talked about? He does have a lot of theories, as you mentioned some, but he doesn't believe in them more than a theory from what i've seen. Take a look at the evidence he's found in his videos, that he's debated with hundreds of college professors over. IF you dare, but please stop the ad homenum attacks, they only make you desparate and foolish. If you want to mock that he got himself locked up for claiming all his property was God's and not the state, have at it, but it doesn't all invalidate his scientific work.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: grohl
Human evolution vs Creationism

You do realize that these are not mutually exclusive? The origin of life is a seperate issue from evolution, and is a far thornier one. There's plenty of folks out there who accept the fact of evolution and yet are sceptical of the idea of abiogenisis, including quite a few who aren't religious at all as well as those who are.

Depends on who you ask. While I will admit that there are people who accept the evolutionary theory of the development of life while still being open to the idea of a spiritual ORIGIN of life, Creationism as portrayed by most modern supporters tends to be of the variety that directly conflicts with evolutionary theory...that life as we know it today was either created this way by a creator or was "guided" to develop this way by the same supreme being. Now maybe those people simply make the most noise, but the origin question seems far less of an issue...if only because the science behind it is far less certain.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Hovind disregards all fossil evidence, saying that "no fossils can count as evidence for evolution," because "all we know about that animal is that it died," and we do not know that it "had any kids, much less different kids."

ARE YOU KIDDING. ARE YOU ACTUALLY REFERENCING THIS CRAZY EXCUSE FOR A "Christian theme park operator"

You seem fixed on his theories that he doesn't even talk about as facts. How about his scientific evidence? Google for his debates, he brings up a lot of evidence to college professors, none of which they can refute, including the fallacy of using fossil records to support evolution.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: tenshodo13


1. WTF. You don't think that a fossil that shows a between structure shows evolution? And no, it does not show that the creature is dead. Ceolacanth anyone?

2. Yes...thats how everything works in life. We build upon theories, and if they don't work, we reject the theory, and try again

3. I don't think you understand how evolution works. Common ancestors. Not, FISH TO BIRDS.

1. What evidence for a flood? Kent Howard is in jail for 10 years for 58 tax offenses. Amazing christian don't you think? This guys says dinosaurs and humans walked together, He thinks that a ice meteor came flying to earth and broke up. And it caused snow to call, and cracked the crust of the earth, and causing an ice age. He says the grand canyon was made in a couple of weeks and that human lifespans were longer than today.

This is guy is nuts

2. I just don't know what to say to this. Wow.

Ok...

1) If evolution is true, don't you think that millions and billions of "transitional" fossils would be found? Fossils are just that, fossils, you have no idea if that creature had any offspring at all.

2) Well we agree on something, i think.

3) I didn't say a daddy fish and a mommy fish gave birth to a pelican, maybe you didn't understand what I wrote? I'm talking of creature species A over billions of years evolving into creature species B. I can't make it any plainer.

4) Your assault on his character does nothing to his work and only shows that maybe you can't or don't want to debate what he actually talked about? He does have a lot of theories, as you mentioned some, but he doesn't believe in them more than a theory from what i've seen. Take a look at the evidence he's found in his videos, that he's debated with hundreds of college professors over. IF you dare, but please stop the ad homenum attacks, they only make you desparate and foolish. If you want to mock that he got himself locked up for claiming all his property was God's and not the state, have at it, but it doesn't all invalidate his scientific work.

I do not think we've ever found millions of fossils of any single species. But we do have transitionary fossils. For example, there are a number of fossils of feathered dinosaurs like the Archaeopteryx.

 

[IronWing]

This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: tenshodo13


1. WTF. You don't think that a fossil that shows a between structure shows evolution? And no, it does not show that the creature is dead. Ceolacanth anyone?

2. Yes...thats how everything works in life. We build upon theories, and if they don't work, we reject the theory, and try again

3. I don't think you understand how evolution works. Common ancestors. Not, FISH TO BIRDS.

1. What evidence for a flood? Kent Howard is in jail for 10 years for 58 tax offenses. Amazing christian don't you think? This guys says dinosaurs and humans walked together, He thinks that a ice meteor came flying to earth and broke up. And it caused snow to call, and cracked the crust of the earth, and causing an ice age. He says the grand canyon was made in a couple of weeks and that human lifespans were longer than today.

This is guy is nuts

2. I just don't know what to say to this. Wow.

Ok...

1) If evolution is true, don't you think that millions and billions of "transitional" fossils would be found? Fossils are just that, fossils, you have no idea if that creature had any offspring at all.

2) Well we agree on something, i think.

3) I didn't say a daddy fish and a mommy fish gave birth to a pelican, maybe you didn't understand what I wrote? I'm talking of creature species A over billions of years evolving into creature species B. I can't make it any plainer.

4) Your assault on his character does nothing to his work and only shows that maybe you can't or don't want to debate what he actually talked about? He does have a lot of theories, as you mentioned some, but he doesn't believe in them more than a theory from what i've seen. Take a look at the evidence he's found in his videos, that he's debated with hundreds of college professors over. IF you dare, but please stop the ad homenum attacks, they only make you desparate and foolish. If you want to mock that he got himself locked up for claiming all his property was God's and not the state, have at it, but it doesn't all invalidate his scientific work.

I do not think we've ever found millions of fossils of any single species. But we do have transitionary fossils. For example, there are a number of fossils of feathered dinosaurs like the Archaeopteryx.

Even if you assumed that a lizard was evolving into a bird, by the same token it's even easier to assume that it was a dinosaur with feathers to keep warm or it was simply a strange looking dinosaur that could fly. Take a look at the plattapus, does it prove that ducks evolved from badgers millions of years ago? Of course not.