Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by leonheartmm
over 40% of amercians believe the earth is less than 10000 years old{coincidentially, thats the same number of evangelists in america} and now i understand why.

Originally posted by eezy45
I think not. If there is a perfect being, and he goes and creates all life on earth, why should he use this ultra-easy system anyway? Why are bananas 60% genetically identical to us then? I mean.. this sounds as if he liked it a little easier.

And again, what about the retrovirus evidence?

I have to agree with feceman, this isnt exactly the best argument agains creationists. Just saying its too easy for god to make is a bit too....naive
(believe me, its aint an ultra easy system, i've studied this for 3 years, and theres still alot we dont know).
Dont get me wrong, i'm not trying to advocate that there is a god or not, i'm just saying that you argument thats its too easy for god is kinda....lame (sorry)

oops double post

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Is that a real statistic?

Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process (or) Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process (or) God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

God guided process || God had no part || Created in present form || Other/Don't Know
30% || 13% || 48% || 9%

That's disturbing

Sorry if I'm just reposting old information, but as far as there being no evidence of transitional creatures, there's:
Archaeopteryx- A early bird-like dinosaur with wings.
An early whale that lived on land.
A creature in between a fish and a tetrapod. It is very fish like, but it has a neck, and the beginning of digits and a proto-wrist.

I hate it when creationists puke out crap about there no being no transitional beings without actually looking and doing any research and finding that there actually is thousands of transitional species.

Originally posted by eezy45
I think not. If there is a perfect being, and he goes and creates all life on earth, why should he use this ultra-easy system anyway? Why are bananas 60% genetically identical to us then? I mean.. this sounds as if he liked it a little easier.

And again, what about the retrovirus evidence?

OMG DNA IS ONLY FOUR BASE PAIRS GOD ISNT REAL

And I haven't even watch the video. I'm just making commentary.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
I hate it when creationists puke out crap about there no being no transitional beings without actually looking and doing any research and finding that there actually is thousands of transitional species.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
Sorry if I'm just reposting old information, but as far as there being no evidence of transitional creatures, there's:
Archaeopteryx- A early bird-like dinosaur with wings.
An early whale that lived on land.
A creature in between a fish and a tetrapod. It is very fish like, but it has a neck, and the beginning of digits and a proto-wrist.

The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist view that birds have always been birds.

Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight—the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying. Once more, a forger adding feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals.

[...]

Thewissen and coworkers state that Ambulocetus was about the size of a male sea lion, weighing about 650 lbs. and had a robust radius and ulna (the two bones in the upper forearm). They report that the structure of the forearm would have allowed powerful elbow extension by triceps, and that, unlike modem cetaceans, elbow, wrist, and digital joints were flexible and synovial (lubricated). The hand was long and broad, with five digits. The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof. They suggest that unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had a long tail, and that it probably did not possess flukes.

The authors state, "Unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus certainly was able to walk on land, probably in a way similar to modern sea lions or fur seals. In water, it combined aspects of the locomotion of modern seals, otters, and cetaceans: Like modern cetaceans, it swam by moving its spine up and down; but like seals, the main propulsive surface was provided by its feet." One wonders what in the world a whale was doing with hind limbs that terminated in a foot with hooves, or with any kind of powerful forelimbs and hind limbs at all.

[...]

G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean. If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans).

You know the theory of Evolution does not contradict Creationism. . .I don't see why put them at odds.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Newsweek Poll, March 31st 2007. Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process (or) Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process (or) God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

God guided process || God had no part || Created in present form || Other/Don't Know
30% || 13% || 48% || 9%

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Holy crap. I just lost all faith in humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhlERjW0bhw&mode=related&search=

OMFG ST00PID AMERICANS ERTH LESS TAHN 10k yrs?!11!11!1

OMG ALL OF YOU SHUT UP...

this is fricking rediculous.

That's what she said 'til I belted her upside the head and told her to make me a sammitch.

Excellent. You're right about fossils being a mosaic, but "transitional" forms are observed, both in the fossil record and in modern studies.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Is that a real statistic?

yes, its as authentic as they get.

Originally posted by FeceMan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhlERjW0bhw&mode=related&search=

OMFG ST00PID AMERICANS ERTH LESS TAHN 10k yrs?!11!11!1

And french people are gay..

And...

And...

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You know the theory of Evolution does not contradict Creationism. . .I don't see why put them at odds.

It contradicts the idea that the earth is 7000 years old, which some creationists claim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It contradicts the idea that the earth is 7000 years old, which some creationists claim.

Ya, people like that, believe the bible literally. If you don't take the bible literally, then evolution does not necessarily contradict creationism.

Originally posted by Bardock42

It contradicts the idea that the earth is 7000 years old, which some creationists claim.

You failed to distinguished Creationist from Young earth creationist.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You failed to distinguished Creationist from Young earth creationist.

Please define "Young earth creationist".