your views on creationism please

[CapnG]

My argument isn't that bias destroy's all aspects of evolutionary adaptation entirely, it's in key positions, which have to date, still to be proven. The leap from one dog type to another dog type isn't in question (chihuahuas and great Danes for example) the argument is that there is un-disputable proof that a fish became a dog. (yes simplified, but actually what the theory states when you break it down.)

Time has become the God of the Gaps, which is what evolutionist state. Just give enough time and organisms can change from a single cell, to a fish, to dog, or human etc.

Where is the solid proof for that?

To quote Lewis Black: "Fossils... FOSSILS! FOSSILS!! I win."

The question put forth by creationist is "If X evolved from Y, where are the transitional fosils?" This assumes evolution starts and stops. It doesn't. EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL.

Using racism as a "proof" the theory then began to build, and when fossils were found this became a way of classifying them.

Like it or not the phisiological differences between human "races" are dictated regionally and as such support the environmental adaptation aspect of evolutionary theory. Racism only enters the picture when one assumes superiority of one over another as Darwin did but then he was a product of his era.

When those then became indisputable facts, the next set of facts were bolstered by those original facts. (Eventually the racist elements faded away, but not for a very, very long time) So looking back, can you really say all these foundational facts have been interpreted correctly, without a doubt?

Those facts have been repeatedly re-examined as science has improved but the underlying principles are still sound.

So, unless this board is full of bigots ( i mean racial bigots, it is full of anti-religious bigots, which is ok I see ;-)

False equivelancy, people cannot choose their race.

 

[tyder001]

While I don't agree with several points and I have my own way of looking at life and even the way "I" approach the bible I will simply say this about the following.

That's correct. Unfortunately humans occupy linear timespace and as such cannot easily envision a "timeless" being.


"I have never had a problem envisioning timelessness." "I Am" It means a lot more than the old Charleston Heston "ten Commandments" movie.

 

[Randall]

Well ... here's an interesting video ...​

​

 

[Bob Watson]

I will let others explain it for me
BILL NYE!

adam savage!

Neil Degrasse Tyson!

 

[Bob Watson]

And now my Son..he is 5.."Daddy I think the world is so wonderful! This man from a church said God made the world...But I asked him to have God make me an Ice Cream cone and he said God can't just make me an Ice Cream cone! I said that if God made the world why can't he make me an Ice cream cone? And the man said Because your dad can make you an Ice cream cone!" I knelt down and said "He is right you don't need God to make an Ice Cream cone or the world..I will make you your Ice cream cone!...
from the mouth of babes...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That Adam Savage speech is classic.

 

[Rikki]

Bob and I teach our children that fairy stories are not real. that stories of Little red riding hood ect are just that..stories.
I find it difficult to believe that man started in a magic garden. with a magic tree. with a talking snake. that man kind decended from just 2...that the world was covered in a flood due to an angry God. sounds like a fairy story to me! if I told some one I believe that deep in an unknown woods was a gingerbread house would you believe me? So is it any different then some one saying that the earth was made in 6 real time days? there is little evidence that many places in the bible are real. where are the ruins of sodom and gamorra? where was jerrico? and where was the magic garden of eden? God set an Angel to watch the garden so if found we would see a real Angel! and if that happens then I will believe But untill then..let us replace the opening of the Bible "in the Beginning" with...ONCE UPON A TIME LONG AGO....

 

[Randall]

... But untill then..let us replace the opening of the Bible "in the Beginning" with...ONCE UPON A TIME LONG AGO....

But seriously, although evolution appears to be an established fact, our rather sudden rise in intelligence doesn't fit the "glacially slow" evolution that is typically promoted by opponents of creationism. I'm not saying we should all suddenly become converts, but at the same time I'm not closed to the possibility of alien intervention.

 

[boomerang]

Both science and religion have suffered from the simplistic, either/or debate of creation vs. evolution. It would be hard to elucidate what evidence of an evolutionary process has to do with either belief or non-belief in deity. This wouldn't be the first time in history organized religion has gone kicking and screaming into the future as it fights tooth-and-nail for power and control. Institutions of science have likewise behaved poorly by chanting the mantra "evolution did it" to account for processes more complex than allowed for by mutation and natural selection. Science has too often refused to question the central tenet of classical evolution for lack of explanatory mechanisms yet to be discovered.

Religion has been blind and science somewhat lame in this debate.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Anyone that BELIEVES that mankind, and indeed the Earth itself, is a product of chance apart from any form of intervention has ultimately FAILED to examine the evidence without prejudice or clear bias. There is simply NO WAY that life as we scientifically understand it came to be minus the direct involvement of an external agent. Religion has NOTHING to do with this matter either. It's just like Archeology. You can either play the facade that is Empirical Science's tunnel vision consensus and pay no attention to the factual evidence behind the curtain, or you look at the facts and scratch your head straight to China. That is providing you're on the opposite side of the globe from China when you honestly consider such a preponderance.

The biological transference of information/data alone stop the matter dead in tracks. There is simply NO WAY such an encoding process occurred minus intervention. No way.

 

[Rikki]

Dear Jeff Davis;
where is the magic garden of eden? please post a location on the map. please post a picture of the angel that gaurds it. please post photos of noahs ark.

 

[Nathaniel]

Dear Rikki, why are you approaching this subject from a religious/Christian perspective?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Jeff, I am certainly not religious and I accept evolution has many holes as a theory. Just a question on the subject of biological encoding arising- if we are questioning how DNA came about and if I read you correctly, you favour some outside intervention at least guiding a process that ends with working DNA, my only question is if some biological entity had a hand in it, then how did the encoding of its' genetics come about? I mean what was the first organism that had biological genetic encoding?

 

[Bob Watson]

my wife and I reread the post here. we were under the misunderstanding you wished views on biblical creation.
Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
if you wanted opinions on alien intervention in evolution like this
;Welcome to Lloyd Pye's Official Website
we are sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff, I am certainly not religious and I accept evolution has many holes as a theory. Just a question on the subject of biological encoding arising- if we are questioning how DNA came about and if I read you correctly, you favour some outside intervention at least guiding a process that ends with working DNA, my only question is if some biological entity had a hand in it, then how did the encoding of its' genetics come about? I mean what was the first organism that had biological genetic encoding?

Of course, no one has anyway of knowing that just like we have no way to know whether a "biological entity" had anything to do with the encoding of information within our DNA or not. It's just that ultimately, clear scientific information exists that indicates the Darwinian evolution model does not hold up any better than Billy Meier does as a contactee. It would be cool to believe in the fairy tail that is spontaneous generation if it wasn't so ludicrous a notion to begin with, but it simply makes zero sense and is truthfully more akin to a parlor magic trick than it is "science". Something cannot come from nothing. There are no examples of spontaneous generation in all of observed nature, why should it hypothetically exist just to support one theory? As stated, this view point is not religious. As a matter of fact, the view is one that dispenses with the type of Empirical faith that has thus far been invested by the Scientific Community's popular consensus within the failed notion that is the stand alone evolution model.

 

[Han]

"clear scientific information exists that indicates the Darwinian evolution model does not hold up any better than Billy Meier does as a contactee."

please share this "clear scientific information".

 

[Jeff Davis]

"clear scientific information exists that indicates the Darwinian evolution model does not hold up any better than Billy Meier does as a contactee."

please share this "clear scientific information".

There is so much I HONESTLY don't know where to start.

Possibly here: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would also recommend:

Not because of mind blowing scientific information, but rather to illuminate the corrupt and artificial nature of what has become of commercial Empirical science.

If you are looking for Empirically accepted data or publications you will not find any. To me, that's meaningless apart from commercial considerations. That's because the Darwinian model has been broken due to archeological discoveries (something that Empirical science is more afraid of than the UFOs) for better than 50 years. This being in such a sense that apart from consensus there is no strong evidence to support Darwin's claims in an ongoing sense due to these discoveries. Commercial interests however have managed to push these discoveries into dusty oblivion. Why?


Do you have any idea how many archeological discoveries have been made that blow Darwin's time line rise of man out of the water?

Show me a single repeatably testable experiment that supports the Darwinian theory?

Show me spontaneous generation in nature. If the matter is one involving nature at a progressive and therefore measurable rate/level, where is it?

Show me ANYTHING apart from consensus that scientifically supports evolution in fact, not theory, the same precise way that scientists demand non theoretically assembled information as hard evidence for the extraordinary to support such a rudimentary theory as spontaneously generated evolution.

Again, this is not a matter of religious beliefs. For the longest time I accepted and fully believed in an unquestioned sense what is the theory of Darwinian Evolution. That was until I realized based upon my own education that it required just as much faith to believe in as do the Bible stories.

Louis Pasteur denied and disproved SG quite a while ago. Meanwhile, the Darwin crowd has been philosophizing around as much ever since.

 

[5tomidnite]

As a Canadian, living in one of the more liberal provinces, I can say that most of the people I meet of my generation are not religious.

As a fellow Canadian let me use this joke (I can't remember the name of the comedian who came up with it) to explain how Canadians view religion.

"It's not that Canadians don't believe that Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did it."

Well something like that

 

[Han]

"If you are looking for Empirically accepted data or publications you will not find any".

 

[Jeff Davis]

"If you are looking for Empirically accepted data or publications you will not find any".

So why not take a look at the evidence that has not been Empirically accepted? It's certainly there in abundance. That's precisely what has made many other biologists and scientists change their positions. My God man, why in the name of logic would you be at all interested in the anomalous if all you will accept is Empirically validated evidence? Or, are we being choosy in the case of Darwinism?