Creation vs Evolution

As Xmarks said

"2006 Nobel Physics Laureates Drs John C Mather and George Smoot. Done."

People who dispute his claims, and who apparently have a lot more credit then he does. So who would you believe some scientists that goes against most if not all of the rest of the scientific community who know about this stuff, or a Nobel prize winner?

Originally posted by Alliance
I do know the answer to my question, I'm verifying that YOU do.

"MACRO-evolution is something quite different. It is the teaching that one kind evolves into another. This has never been proven by science."

--John Vennari

I only stated those two because for some reason he wants to play argumentum ad verecundiam, and because of their recent acknowledgment; there are countless others.

Drs Mather and Smoot hold PhDs in Physics from the UC, Berkeley and MIT, respectively. They received their Nobel Prize for their work related to microwave background radiation lending support to the Big Bang theory.

There are probably literally hundreds, if not thousands of evidences for the long age of the Earth.

Nice spam, but that didn't answer my questions.

1. WHAT IS MACROEVOLUTION?
2. IS MACROEVOLUTION ACTUALLY AN SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT ACCEPTED BY SCIENCE?

Originally posted by Alliance
Nice spam, but that didn't answer my questions.

1. WHAT IS MACROEVOLUTION?
2. IS MACROEVOLUTION ACTUALLY AN SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT ACCEPTED BY SCIENCE?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question: has (macro) evolution been proven yes or no? No.

So then why is it the dominant view for the origin of life? It has not been proven yet it is being dogmatically taught in schools and universities (this is tragic for all those impressionable minds out there).

At least creationism has strong support for the Biblical view (science is discovering this as I write). In fact, the creationist view is more scientific in terms of the constants of physics.

[B]Design and the Anthropic Principle
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Summary

"Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges....The "coincidental" values of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe." [/B]

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A species is defined as a group of populations that evolve independently, are capable of interbreeding, but are reproductively isolated from other groups.

Macroevolution is simply where one species evolves into another species (bear in mind the above definition of a species). [b]There is no evidence of macroevoution ever having occurred. [/B]

1) In my research I have discovered that macroevolution has never occurred.

2) I do not believe that evolution (let alone macroevolution) is a scientific concept.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[COLOR=darkblue]
1) In my research I have discovered that macroevolution has never occurred.

You've never done research, least not that I've seen.

You certainly have not done scientific research in to evolution. And you have not done intellectual research either. If you had actually done so, you'd know both what evolution is and what the Theory of evolution actually says (as opposed to your misconceptions of the Theory) and you'd also be able to list credible sources on the issue (ie. sources written by people informed about what they are writing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

2) I do not believe that evolution (let alone macroevolution) is a scientific concept.

Macroevolution is not a scientific concept. It has not been promoted by scientists in half a century. You're arguing against a dead concept, like you come in here screaming about "how scientists are idiots because they think the earth is flat" or that an "atom is really not comparable to plum pudding"

Old news that proves one of two things: you're either uniformed (which is most certainly the case) or you're an idiot.

Actually LEARN the Theory of evolution before you smack it around. (actually, YOU never really smack it around, you cut and paste form other idiots who do so). I know both evolution and ID better than you. I find that sad, considering you think you're informed enough to make a decision.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I only stated those two because for some reason he wants to play argumentum ad verecundiam, and because of their recent acknowledgment; there are countless others.

Drs Mather and Smoot hold PhDs in Physics from the UC, Berkeley and MIT, respectively. They received their Nobel Prize for their work related to microwave background radiation lending support to the Big Bang theory.

There are probably literally hundreds, if not thousands of evidences for the long age of the Earth.

I figured that, but two names, one of which won a Nobel prize really should be enough...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We can post Chick Tracts again? 😕 Cool. 😎

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0006/0006_01.asp (Somebody loves you)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1018/1018_01.asp (Unloved?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0085/0085_01.asp
(A love story)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
(Did we descend from apes?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0020/0020_01.asp
(Am I a fool?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1021/1021_01.asp (What?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1002/1002_01.asp
(I do know it all)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1037/1037_01.asp
(I was born a sinner?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0061/0061_01.asp (mormonism)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp (masonry)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5022/5022_01.asp (masons)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0016/0016_01.asp (Buddah?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0622/0622_01.asp
(Korean - Greatest Story Ever Told)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1718/1718_01.asp
(Hebrew - Is Jesus Christ the Mashyiach [Messiah]?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp (Who is Allah?)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0029/0029_01.asp (The Deceived?)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1004/1004_01.asp (islam??)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1011/1011_01.asp (islam???)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1031/1031_01.asp (Is Islam a peaceful religion?)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1019/1019_01.asp (Ishmael or Isaac?)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1104/1104_01.asp (Allah?!?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0070/0070_01.asp (hinduism?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_01.asp (Jehovah's Witnesses?)

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0402/0402_01.asp
(Korean - This Was Your Life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0716/0716_01.asp
(Japanese - This Was Your Life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0426/0426_01.asp
(Vietnamese - This Was Your Life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0401/0401_01.asp
(Chinese - This Was Your Life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
(English - This was your life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0715/0715_01.asp
(Zulu - This Was Your Life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0465/0465_01.asp
(Tagalog - This Was Your Life)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0520/0520_01.asp
(Spanish - This Was Your Life)

http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp (hundreds of tracts)
http://www.chick.com/catalog/TractLookUp.asp (different languages)

Please ban him for this...and the greatest story ever told was the Ramayana.

What you're asking is equivalent to asking, why are christians persectued for not beleiving in jesus?

You continue to say theres no proof of evolution, then people here provide you with the proof, and then u come out with crap like this. You say in your research, evoltuon has never occured. What research exactly? have you done a degree in this? have you tested this yourself? have you looked at the evidence that doesnt come from a fundamental chritian site, but from a proper scientific journal?

Hugh Ross has 5 peer reviewed publications to his name, the majority as co-author, the last dating three decades ago and as shown by Mark Perakh (PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics; Cal. State University, Fullerton... ZOMG!) in critique of his commercial publications he lacks understanding of some basic physical concepts.

His attempt at using anthropic principle was similarly shown flawed in a critique by Bill Jefferys (PhD, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy; University of Texas, Austin; Adjunct Professor of Statistics; University of Vermont... ZOMG!) and Michael Ikeda (PhD, Bureau of the Census... ZOMG!).

Yes, your select few "real scientists" are obviously "persecuted" for their religionism and not just that they present flawed unscientific notions. While the collective "not real scientists" and their copious empirical research into evolutionary processes obviously mean nought, after all they're "not real scientists" they don't believe an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infallible entity created the Earth and everything as is 6000 years ago.

It's great how stereotypicial and in many aspects anti-semite those comics are.

Also, the Christians always easily convince the people just by saying something. I mean, you could sum up all the comics with

A: "I am a proud Muslim/Mason/Buddhist/Mormon/Jehova's witness/Evolutionist/Rational Thinking Human...
B: "Jesus disagrees with your views. You should believe in Jesus"
A: "Maybe I should"
B: "Yeah you should"
A: "I believe in Jesus now!"

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Well, perhaps he is dogging the facts by failing to acknowledge them (dogging is a word too it means to mistreat, abuse, or disrespect). But I did intend to use the word dodging instead of dogging.

Makes sense, since it'd be hypocritical of you, if you were using "dogging."

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Makes sense, since it'd be hypocritical of you, if you were using "dogging."

It's also hypocritical of him to use "dodging"

Anyways, guys, lets just face it. JIA got us. I mean, we held the lie up as long as we could, but it was clear that the Christians would find out the truth one day. Lets just admit it...

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's also hypocritical of him to use "dodging"

Anyways, guys, lets just face it. JIA got us. I mean, we held the lie up as long as we could, but it was clear that the Christians would find out the truth one day. Lets just admit it...

Yes, now we must begin Alternate Phase 2b

JIA’s train of though: 99.9% or all evidence shows that Earth formed this way, 0.01% of the evidence is unexplained according to a couple of people therefore the 99.9% must be incorrect.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.freewebs.com/zorobabellegacy/Science

"Many people also wrongly assume that all the scientists
must believe in evolution; or that if they do not, then it
must be because of some religious or emotional reasons and not
because of the facts or logic. This is called "presumptuous"
and "prejudiced". Look, if a professional scientist does not
believe in evolution, you should at least be skeptical of it
yourself and try to find out why a scientist does not believe
in something that supposedly has so much solid, scientific
proof. Also consider the strong probability that many scien-
tists may only claim publicly to believe in evolution, because
of fear of peer pressure. The scientific community is like
some kind of club, and one of the requirements to be a member
these days is to say you believe in evolution. It takes real
courage for a scientist to stand up in defiance of the club
and tell the world that evolutionism is a sham, because he
will run the real risk of being utterly rejected by many other
scientists if he does. There are websites on the internet
that list details of many accounts of just such peer pressure,
persecution, and discrimination systematicly utilized to de-
stroy any scientist or student of science who rejects the lie
of evolution. There is a definite and deliberate vocalized
conspiracy to flunk creationists out of the scientific commu-
nity regardless of the quality and caliber of their work.

We also all know that there is change going on in
nature and that water wears away rocks and that things die
off, etc.; but the evolutionist deceitfully calls all these
little irrelevant facts of everyday life prime examples of
evolution all around us. They think that if they can make
people think that evolution means "change" then there will be
no way to deny that evolution is real. Now, who would even
want to deny that some changes have taken place? No one is
arguing against the idea of change that I know of.

Real scientists have been fighting against all the lies of
evolution from its inception, basing their opposition on long-
proven scientific laws and discoveries and logical reasoning.
The accumulation of evidence over the years has now become so
forceful and powerful as to be overwhelming. The dam to hold
back the Truth is beginning to break in spite of all the money
and lies that the wealthy evolutionists keep stuffing into the
growing cracks.

One honest, famous atheistic evolutionist named Margaret
Meade wrote books teaching evolution to students in schools.
This woman is considered to be one of the foremost authorities
and one of the most well-informed, knowledgeable experts on
evolution by evolutionists themselves. Many of the leading
evolutionists of today learned much of what they believe from
the books of Margaret Meade. Reportedly in the front of many
of her books this statement was found, "Although I am a con-
firmed evolutionist, I must admit as an honest scientist that
there is not one iota of concrete evidence to support the
theory of evolution." "NOT ONE IOTA" of concrete evidence,
she said! Well, she was at least halfway honest. She did ad-
mit to believing in some oddball, whacko theory that has no
proof whatsoever, none. Now, how scientific is that? That's
what evolutionists are calling "science".

(Of course evolutionists don't
use simple words like these; they like to use big, juicy,
hard-to-remember and hard-to-pronounce strange new words like
"pleistocene" and "ramapithecus" to express themselves).

Remember now, Darwin gave us this idea back in the days
when science considered the use of leeches to suck your blood
as a viable, acceptable, realistic method to treat medical
patients. Don't let these evolutionists trick you into the
trap of thinking that their evolutionary ideas are something
modern science has come up with. Evolution is from the day of
the leech.

The evolutionists themselves don't seem to no-
tice that they have not addressed the issues that challenge
evolution but merely replied with challenges of their own. It
is similar to watching two sword-fighters thrusting at one
another with neither of them bothering to parry the other's
lethal thrusts. First you parry, then you thrust. First an-
swer the question or challenge, then make your own challenge
or ask your own question.

Again and again the popular theory of evolution has now
been thoroughly disproven by responsible science, but many
irresponsible, socalled scientists and their misguided disci-
ples support it anyway, finally even asserting evolution to be
no longer a theory, but a proven fact. There is good science,
and there is bad science; real science and fake. Evolution is
extremely bad science. Good scientists are now having a dif-
ficult time overcoming the media-hysteria and setting the
record straight about evolution in the face of fake science
and a well-heeled, worldwide campaign of deception on the part
of evolutionists."

Every body suffers.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, it is obvious that you are dogging the facts. What does RVG's religious persuasion have to do with his scientific findings?

Well, do you think that someone who is part of a man made religion can know the truth?

BTW How do you "dogging the facts"?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: scientific evidence supports creationism not big bang/evolutionary theory.

Fact: you know this that is why you failed to address this in your post choosing rather to hurl insults at me (it's okay I still luh you man [in a Christian, non-homosexual, strictly brotherly-kind-of, play-cousin, childhood friend that you grew up with, homie that you used to go clubbin with kind of way]).

Originally posted by Marxman
I can't tell if this was a joke or a really uncomfortable way to try and cover up the fact that you're gay.

Well, you know he does love Jesus. 😉