21 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOK, let's say you're also right about this. That different design were drawn upon to
What you might think are patterns of divergence between man and ape may be only the designer of both biological systems drawing on what He had already designed to produce a different design (kind). I do not know what you are specifically referring to since we are speaking in generalities, which is really all we can do on this forum anyway.
produce different 'kinds'. Strike three.
Let's get specific then and consider the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) of central Asia.
"The greenish warbler is the first case in which we can see all the steps that occurred in the behavioral divergence of two species from their common ancestor. These results demonstrate how small evolutionary changes can lead to the differences that cause reproductive isolation between species, just as Darwin envisioned."
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcwarbler.htm
How then do you explain the ongoing observations of evolution?
edit. Or we could just as easily consider MRSA and other bacteria which have
been observed directly to have evolved.
Where is God's hand in this?
21 Feb 13
You should know I'm actually open-minded to the theory of creationism but certainly
not in the traditional sense of the word.
I posted on HAR's because there is an unexplained acceleration in evolution some
5 million years ago that led to our human characteristics.
It seems to me that if the devil were trying to hide the truth about creationism,
small minded, feeble arguments would be a choice tool for the job.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI believe God's hand was there in the very beginning of creation of birds. I believe God programmed limits within the DNA information code to prevent a lizard from eventually, by small changes, turning into a bird, unlike the evil-lutionists. However, I also believe that God allowed for gradual changes through adaption and natural selection to help preseve his creations. Therefore, we get the variations that Darwin saw.
OK, let's say you're also right about this. That different design were drawn upon to
produce different 'kinds'. Strike three.
Let's get specific then and consider the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) of central Asia.
"The greenish warbler is the first case in which we can see all the steps that occurred in the behavioral divergence of two ...[text shortened]... ich have
been observed directly to have evolved.
Where is God's hand in this?
Darwin never saw, or has anyone else, one kind of creature develop into another kind, except in graphic animation movies. It was his hypothesis that might have happened in the past and that all varieties of life might be able to be traced to one common ancestor. It is this hypothesis that evil-lutionist call a theory and some even call a fact of life that I am disagreeing with. Now do you understand my position?
If you are still confused, then look at this video from the link below:
21 Feb 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsBut those small changes are reflected in earnest in our DNA. We can see them.
I believe God's hand was there in the very beginning of creation of birds. I believe God programmed limits within the DNA information code to prevent a lizard from eventually, by small changes, turning into a bird, unlike the evil-lutionists. However, I also believe that God allowed for gradual changes through adaption and natural selection to help preseve ...[text shortened]... ed, then look at this video from the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W763lQR0tU
We can measure them. I can show you if you want. But I'm guessing you don't.
I tried watching the video but I got a bit of a headache and that buzzing noise really
pd me off. Also, it was idiotic.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYes indeed. Evil-lution is not only idiotic but it is also stupid. It is not smart like those evil-lutionists pretend in their movie.
But those small changes are reflected in earnest in our DNA. We can see them.
We can measure them. I can show you if you want. But I'm guessing you don't.
I tried watching the video but I got a bit of a headache and that buzzing noise really
pd me off. Also, it was idiotic.
Here is one that makes more sense, at least to me.
If you want to show me anything that you believe makes sense too, then go ahead.
21 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not denying that there are fossils that resulted from all the animals and plants being destroyed in the worldwide flood. I am denying the truth of the order that these fossils as being recorded to support the evil-lution hypothesis. Everyone knows that there was several frauds in an attempt to fill in the missing links in their fossil record to explai ...[text shortened]... of ape to man.
Yes, you are fools to believe false evidence and then claim there is no God.
I am denying the truth of the order that these fossils as being recorded to support the evolution hypothesis
Since it just so happens that the observation of the actual fossils along with all the other vast mountain of relevant evidence cannot be sanely interpreted in any other way other than as proof of evolution and thus against your religious beliefs, I guess you cannot ever accept any of the observations along with its sane interpretations of the actual physical evidence here.
You can deny the truth of what is observed until you are blue in the face, but what is observed remains what is observed which is proof of evolution.
I have little doubt that if you had a religious reason to also deny the existence of volcanoes, you would right now be shooting your mouth off about those terribly evil scientists called volcanologists spreading Satan's lies about there being volcanoes and we are all such stupid fools for our belief in volcanoes when, in fact, just like when you deny evolution, it is you who is being the fool. And every time we show you pictures of volcanoes, you would say that that's all 'just illustrations' (a common Creationist propaganda trick) or they are not volcanoes but merely mountains.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by humyAs it happens the young earth hypothesis does deny volcanoes, or at least the cause of stratocone volcanoes. A young earth cannot have been shaped by millions of years of tectonics and the results of plate movements are ascribed to a gigantenormous flood. The evidence says stratocones form above subduction zones, the young earth blather says such things can't exist because they take too long to form.I am denying the truth of the order that these fossils as being recorded to support the evolution hypothesis
Since it just so happens that the observation of the actual fossils along with all the other vast mountain of relevant evidence cannot be sanely interpreted in any other way other than as proof of evolution and thus against your re ...[text shortened]... ons' (a common Creationist propaganda trick) or they are not volcanoes but merely mountains.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KeplerBut in spite of that, they exist. I guess their god put them their just to tweek our nose.
As it happens the young earth hypothesis does deny volcanoes, or at least the cause of stratocone volcanoes. A young earth cannot have been shaped by millions of years of tectonics and the results of plate movements are ascribed to a gigantenormous flood. The evidence says stratocones form above subduction zones, the young earth blather says such things can't exist because they take too long to form.
21 Feb 13
4 edits
Originally posted by Kepler
As it happens the young earth hypothesis does deny volcanoes, or at least the cause of stratocone volcanoes. A young earth cannot have been shaped by millions of years of tectonics and the results of plate movements are ascribed to a gigantenormous flood. The evidence says stratocones form above subduction zones, the young earth blather says such things can't exist because they take too long to form.
As it happens the young earth hypothesis does deny volcanoes, or at least the cause of stratocone volcanoes.
LOL. I didn't realize that.
I should have thought of a different example; perhaps, for religious reasons, denying that the far-side of the moon exists?
-they would say you have never seen the far-side so how do you know that is exists, moron!
Oh, and if you show them pictures from moon satellites of the far-side, they would just say that they are "just illustrations".
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by humyAs always gaps in our knowledge can be filled with handy god-goo, available at all good churches, synagogues, mosques etc. I prefer David Hilbert's response "Wir müssen wissen — wir werden wissen!"As it happens the young earth hypothesis does deny volcanoes, or at least the cause of stratocone volcanoes.
LOL. I didn't realize that.
I should have thought of a different example; perhaps, for religious reasons, denying that the far-side of the moon exists?
-they would say you have never seen the far-side so how do you know that is ...[text shortened]... from moon satellites of the far-side, they would just say that they are "just illustrations".
21 Feb 13
3 edits
Originally posted by humyAll the evil-lutionists have are illustrations of what they believe the fossils prove and those illustrations have even changed over a few years time. They also make up the time to fit their presupposed order, so they are actually without any proof. Some fossils and illustrations have been proved to be fakes but the evil-lutionists refuse to tell the kids they teach this fact. Now they are making animated movies like the one in the link below to spread their propaganda.I am denying the truth of the order that these fossils as being recorded to support the evolution hypothesis
Since it just so happens that the observation of the actual fossils along with all the other vast mountain of relevant evidence cannot be sanely interpreted in any other way other than as proof of evolution and thus against your re ons' (a common Creationist propaganda trick) or they are not volcanoes but merely mountains.
Examples of evil-lution fraud:
1. Piltdown man
2. Nebraska man
3. Java man
4. Orce man
5. Neanderthal man
6. Lucy ape-man
7. Faked embryonic drawings
8. Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
Textbook Fraud:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm
Other cases of Evil-lutuin fraud:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you think about what is taught about the fossil records in that the older fossils are of simpler life forms, and as time progressed the life forms became more complex?
All the evil-lutionists have are illustrations of what they believe the fossils prove and those illustrations have even changed over a few years time. They also make up the time to fit their presupposed order, so they are actually without any proof. Some fossils and illustrations have been proved to be fakes but the evil-lutionists refuse to tell the kids ...[text shortened]... :
http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by joe beyserYou might not want to go there. A trilobite is quite a complex thing that doesn't exist now but a sponge is quite simple and yet does still exist.
What do you think about what is taught about the fossil records in that the older fossils are of simpler life forms, and as time progressed the life forms became more complex?