evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TopHat

  However, the article, as is typical, does not put forth any positive theory of creation, it simply attempts (poorly) to cast doubt on evolution, both cosmic and biological. The fact is that evolution has been observed and can be repeated. Evolution, as a process, is a fact, not a theory. The theory is how that process, over time, led to the development of a diverse number of species, from plants to animals to fungi and viruses. All of the available evidence supports the evolutionary path of the development of life. No evidence supports creation. Creationists can only attempt to chink away at evolution through such arguments like "it doesn't seem like it could happen." That's not an argument. If you want to attempt to show that creation has any validity, please show me some evidence.

  Steve, How come you DON'T surprise me with your statements...I could have told you what you would say before you said it. There is plenty of evidence to disprove evolution but you DO NOT want to see it...blind you are! Argue is what you want http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp
• 

  jstalin

  Persons desiring an informed creationist scientific perspective will find the following links helpful:

  http://www.creationresearch.org

  http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

  http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers

  http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/24/68/

  For responses to many of the claims by evolutionists here see my post history.

  Ok, just checked out the first link. A professional-looking organization which purports to have a peer-reviewed journal on creationism. So I click around a little to find a list of articles online, and I came across this one, the first on the list:

  http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

  It's typical of creationist logic, or lack thereof. Sure, it sounds like it's full of professional and specialized knowledge, but it still, as all creationist literature does, boils down to one thing - it...:

  "...illustrate[s] the daunting task facing random-chance, purposeless, undirected evolution in the origin of any form of a functional eye."

  In other words, again, it is saying, "well, it doesn't seem like it could happen." Despite the evidence of the development of the eye, from simple light-sentive spots on single-cell organisms, to compound eyes and the human eye, they try to argue that it just couldn't happen. And the only theory they posit as to how it happend? God made it. Don't the creationists see the lunacy of that argument? (Not to mention that the above statement shows a complete lack of understanding of what evolution even is!)

  In fact, the eye has developed independently through the evolutionary chain! That's an amazing finding - meaning that no one organism initially developed the precursers to eyes, leading to eye development - it has happened independently in the evolutionary chain amongst unrelated organisms! That means that the eye not only developed once, but several times!

  These creationist arguments have been proven false over and over, because they don't really present a theory of anything, all they try to do is say that it's unlikely that it could happen.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

  Satistical probabilty is a funny thing. Did you know that there are more combinations of the cards in a deck of playing cards than there are atoms in the universe? Lay all the cards down, one next to the other. The statistical probability of that exact combination of cards being laid down is considered to be nearly zero, yet, there it is! Every time you do the same, you are accomplishing something that the creationists claim could not happen, because that's how they approach evolution.
• 

  jstalin

  Steve, How come you DON'T surprise me with your statements...I could have told you what you would say before you said it. There is plenty of evidence to disprove evolution but you DO NOT want to see it...blind you are! Argue is what you want http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp

  Ah yes, the bird argument. Again, easily refuted with the simplest review of research.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur-bird_connection

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

  Again, all the evidence agrees with evolutionary theory. Your article just attempts to posit negative arguments, in the sense that it can't argue for anything, it only argues against - and poorly at that.

  Sure, you'll predict exactly what I will argue each time, because I have yet to see anyone on here argue in favor of creationism - only against evolution. Do you see the difference?
• 

  freetosee

  Hey all you Bullies, seems like this thread is carrying on well without the inspiration of Dido…
• 

  AlanF

  I've ceased being surprised by the willfull and gross ignorance displayed by most creation believers. It's sometimes amusing, but more often just sad. Ex-JWs who jump directly from the JW cult into some creationist belief system are doing no more than switching cults.

  AlanF
• 

  whyizit

  I've ceased being surprised by the willfull and gross ignorance displayed by most creation believers. It's sometimes amusing, but more often just sad. Ex-JWs who jump directly from the JW cult into some creationist belief system are doing no more than switching cults.

  AlanF

  *And the creationists are thinking the exact same thing about evolutionists!
• 

  TopHat

  I've ceased being surprised by the willfull and gross ignorance displayed by most creation believers. It's sometimes amusing, but more often just sad. Ex-JWs who jump directly from the JW cult into some creationist belief system are doing no more than switching cults.

  AlanF

  Damn! Anything else your most high minded hindness wants to bash? COOL IT ALANF! You can't always have your way.
• 

  TopHat

  Sure, you'll predict exactly what I will argue each time, because I have yet to see anyone on here argue in favor of creationism - only against evolution. Do you see the difference?

  The is just NOT SO! You refuse to except what creationist tell you! So no point in arguing about the subject. You can't prove evolution but in your delusion you think you can. You believe in The Delussional Dawkins. He contradicts himself I notice.
• 

  jstalin

  The is just NOT SO! You refuse to except what creationist tell you! So no point in arguing about the subject. You can't prove evolution but in your delusion you think you can. You believe in The Delussional Dawkins. He contradicts himself I notice.

  Ok, again, show me some evidence for creation. Not arguments against evolution - evidence for creation.

  And when did I mention Dawkins? Now you're deflecting the argument away from the issue! I'm not here to argue Dawkins, I'm arguing evolution!
• 

  AuldSoul

  jstalin,

  Ok, again, show me some evidence for creation. Not arguments against evolution - evidence for creation.

  Without enduring prejudicial remarks about what creationists are supposed to believe, I will be happy to do so. Can we agree you won't paint my arguments with the viewpoints of other groups before I begin?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul