quote: (post)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

You don't even have to click on the links, all you have to do is read the names of the pages to which they take you. I'm not saying there aren't scientific pages out there that have this quote and topic being discussed, I'm just saying that the majority of them represent a creationist agenda. One way creationists like to deny evolution is to claim it has an agenda. But, that's a paranoid sign of guilt, knowing it is they who have an agenda. I, again, suggest you just go ahead and come out of teh "creationism closet", because I don't think anyone is going to fall for it much longer. Saying "I don't subscribe to any theory" isn't the same as being right in all things. "The fact I don't have an absolute opinion means I haven't fallen for any of the propaganda these two sides are putting forth" isn't going to make people suddenly decide they have the wrong opinion. Whob would be proud of you though.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
FOR THE LAST TIME I'M NOT A CREATIONIST!!!

Calling me paranoid, accusing me of being a creationist, insults, are these your only rebuttals. I've posted multiple argument's yet you guy's just ignore it, either debate me and show me some evidence to evolution or pipe up.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
FOR THE LAST TIME I'M NOT A CREATIONIST!!!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I didn't say you were paranoid. I said creationists on those websites were paranoid.

You don't post any evidence. You just quoted a guy for which I provided a rebuttal. And you are trying to disprove evolution by pointing out two scientists who disagree with the huge majority of others. But NEITHER point of view does anything to disprove evolution, which is your agenda.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
FOR THE LAST TIME I'M NOT A CREATIONIST!!!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The Origin of the tetra pod

Quadrupeds( or Tetrapeds) is the general name given to vertebrate animals dwelling on land. Amphibians,reptiles,birds and mammals are included in this class.Darwinist believe these creatures evolved from fish living in the sea the problems with this claim is one

a fish would have to undergo great modifications to adapt to land.Basically, It's respiratory,excretory and skeletal systems would have to acquire the features of feet so that it could carry the wait of it's body and kidney. Also the whole excretory system would have to change to work in a terrestrial environment, and skin would have to develop new texture to prevent water loss. Unless these things happen a fish would only survive in land for a few minutes.

So how did they develop new organs?

"Let us imagine how a fish might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land: If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal"

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
"Group after group appears in the fossil record without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors. Paleontology attempts to explain this fact by saying that the fossil record is incomplete and that millions of years passed between the deposition of different layers. During these times, new creatures supposedly evolved. This view of an incomplete fossil record is essential if evolution is to be considered a viable theory. Darwin admits,

"We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views."1

After a century of further searching and examination of the fossil record, many paleontologists are beginning to believe that the fossil record is complete since none of the gaps in the fossil record that existed in Darwin's time has been filled by subsequent study. E.C. Olson observes,

"A third fundamental aspect of the record is somewhat different. Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors .... This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory theory of evolution must take it into consideration and provide an explanation."2

Evolutionists refuse to admit that this lack of transitional forms destroys the theory. Olson wants an explanation of the gaps, but I suspect he would not be pleased with the suggestion that the gaps are there because there was no evolution. There never has been a creature found with half-formed feet or a half-formed wing or feather. If Darwin's idea that all organs and organisms have arisen by slow, small modifications is correct, we should expect fossils like that to appear occasionally. Since the gaps are in the fossil record, these half-evolved monstrosities are postulated to have lived, but not to have been preserved. The gap, it seems, hides their existence.

Is this good-or fair-reasoning? Not really. In truth, it doesn't matter whether the fossil record is complete or not. If it is complete, meaning a large percentage of fossil life has been preserved, then the fossil record does not support evolution. If, however, the fossil record is very incomplete, meaning a small percentage of past life forms have been preserved, what right does science have to fill these gaps with imaginary animals for which there is not the slightest material evidence of their existence?"

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne


Darwin's theory about "Common ancestry" claimed all living things originated from one single common ancestor, and it took all it's varieties from a series of tiny changes so in other words life originated in simple common forms. According to Darwinism, One phylum must first emerge and then the other phylum must come about through minute changes over very long periods of time yet quite the contrary animals have been different and complex since they emerged. All animal the animal phyla known today originated at the same time during the middle of the Cambrian age, the period of abrupt appearances would be the Cambrian explosion which lasted for a short geological time 5 million years before then there is no record of anything but single celled organisms and primitive multicellular organisms all the phyla emerged completely formed and completely varied the organisms range from snails, sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, starfish etc. These organisms posses complex organs such as eye's, gills, and circulatory system, Which are exactly the same as those in modern systems, These structures are at one in the same time very advance and very different.

My question is how the earth came to overflow with such a large variety of complex creatures with no common ancestry?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
One of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, And as with many other Cambrian fossils, it has spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer is, "How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Other one of the Phyla that emerged during the Cambrian age is the chordata, Those creatures with a central nervous system with a brain case and a spinal column.Vertebrates are sub groups of chordates.Vertebrates divided into into such fundamental classes as fish,amphibians,reptiles,birds, and mammals are perhaps the most dominate creatures in the animal kingdom.

Evolutionary paleontologists try to view every phylum is a continuation of another phylum, they claim that the chordata phylum evolved from another invertebrate's one but members of chordata emerged in the Cambrian age invalidates that claim. The oldest member of the chordata phylum identified from the Cambrian age is a sea creature called Pikaia which emerged at the same time as all the other species in the phylum which could be proposed as it's ancestor and with no intermediate forms between them.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, you've only got three options in this debate. And two of them ar eth esame thing. You've got Evolution. You've got Creationism. And, you've got Intelligent Design. If none of these is a theory to which you subscribe, then WTF are you doing in this thread?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
This isn't a Evolution vs thread.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I didn't say it was. I'm asking you what your perspective is on the situation. And you refuse to say to which theory you subscribe.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Omega
So trying to use Feduccia as a claim against evolution is like trying to use a physicist who does not accept the Big Bang to claim gravity is an illusion

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Omega
Blue Nocturne>

Of course Alan Feduccia doesn't want dinosaurs to be the origin of birds. He wants to sell his OWN books: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...ce&n=283155



Note, however, that Feduccia does not speak AGAINST evolution. He's merely a scientist questioning if birds descend from dinosaurs as all palaeozoologist say.
So trying to use Feduccia as a claim against evolution is like trying to use a physicist who does not accept the Big Bang to claim gravity is an illusion

The same goes for Storrs Olsson. Debate and new ideas are one of the hallmarks of science, which Creationism lacks completely.
Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the fact of evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution.

Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.

Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.

I'll give you ONE last chance because I'm in a good mood... Doi you kno how mutations occur? Do you know about the cosmis background radiation. Do you accept that mutations DO occur? And can occur at random? With me so far?

Now lets say an ice-age is coming at one wolf has mutated to acquire lighter fur, while another has acquired darker fur. Just a random mutation. But there's more snow and longer winters, so the wolf with the lighter fur i slightly better camouflaged when hunting, while the wolf with the darker fur is easily spotted by prey.
So the light-furred wolf survives and gets to pass its genes on. The trait "light fur" is favourable due to a set of random events = new ice-age and lighter fur.
Still with me?

So since these new traits are randomly acquired they can't be 100 % beneficial. But they can be more beneficial than others... natural selection at work.
And I do not see how a 100 % beneficial trait would prove evolution. That's the Creationist who should look for that.

And you, good sir, sound like one, as you use argumenst from answersingenesis.com ...

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Earlier I said neither, ID is intresting but I don't belive in some creator diety so I don't fit into any catergory.

Look are you gonna seriously debate me or what?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Omega
Blue Nocturne>










Now lets say an ice-age is coming at one wolf has mutated to acquire lighter fur, while another has acquired darker fur. Just a random mutation. But there's more snow and longer winters, so the wolf with the lighter fur i slightly better camouflaged when hunting, while the wolf with the darker fur is easily spotted by prey.
So the light-furred wolf survives and gets to pass its genes on. The trait "light fur" is favourable due to a set of random events = new ice-age and lighter fur.
Still with me?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by The Omega
Blue Nocturne>


So since these new traits are randomly acquired they can't be 100 % beneficial. But they can be more beneficial than others... natural selection at work.
And I do not see how a 100 % beneficial trait would prove evolution. That's the Creationist who should look for that.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not the question though. We didn't ask what you don't believe, we (at least I) were wondering what you do believe....

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm not supporting mr Allen I just quoted him from national geographic and I don't support creationism.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How is that an example of evolution through mutation if the wolf mutated it did not gain any new traits WTF?



Again mutations do not create new traits ever.