Science vs. Religion

[20TexasTitan08]

Originally Posted by GMVisitor

If evolution is basically proven then how do you explain the following:


"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot
prove that a single species has ever changed."
- Charles Darwin

The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live
without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver,
et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This
implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among
preexisting characteristics.

According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the
same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`.

b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in
the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`.

c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial
plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon,
are highly inclined.

Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock
formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that
man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But
evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years
before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`.

MANY DATING TECHNIQUES SHOW THE EARTH AND SOLAR
SYSTEM TO BE YOUNG

1. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140
years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay
pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an
electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field.
If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current
would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have
survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be
older than 25,000 years.

2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on
just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium.
There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from
the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon,
mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when
compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the
oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million
years.

4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least
1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate
that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years.

Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal
Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual
measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a
rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore,
records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been
going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques
also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred
collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most
conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one
million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated
the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists
say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were
essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that
began 200 million years ago.

If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the
simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are
increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and
Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with
respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb
forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they
DEvolve.

Just a few things to think about

hmmm.... the points all seem valid but ehh...the man and dinosaur thing i can't say i believe. I too am a creationist, but a progressive creationist. Many read the horribly translated NIV and many other awfully translated bibles so they think it is 7 24 hour periods, but in actuallity the hebrew word "bara" has many different meanings and is the only word to describe the time it took God to create. The word can mean 24 hours, a time period, or a season. This fact and that God is not bound by time, It would be most logical that God created in 7 different unspecified time periods. This explains the dinosaurs.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by kman

for me its easier to accept that it evolved that way, otherwise the designer has a twisted sense of humor, no?

Actually it is an adaptive process rather than evolution. For whatever reason certain species of rabbits eat their waste, it is difficult to comprehend it from the animal's point of view.

Regurgitation perhaps is one of the most perplexing bird behaviors. It occurs when a bird throws up small amounts of food with the intention of feeding it to a loved one. Gross? Perhaps, to those who don't understand avian behavior. Normal? Absolutely

HOWEVER.............it is easier to understand an adaptive mechanism from man's point of view:

Modern snake delicacies in China and Japan includes snake tempura, snake soup, snake croquettes and snake stir fry. Snake aficionados say eating snake meat stimulates and energizes the body. They claim snake delicacies prepared with Ginseng does wonder for vim and vigor.

Evolution or Adaptation?

[kman]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Evolution or Adaptation?

both, as either is a better explanation than "intelligent design".

[20TexasTitan08]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Actually it is an adaptive process rather than evolution. For whatever reason certain species of rabbits eat their waste, it is difficult to comprehend it from the animal's point of view.

Regurgitation perhaps is one of the most perplexing bird behaviors. It occurs when a bird throws up small amounts of food with the intention of feeding it to a loved one. Gross? Perhaps, to those who don't understand avian behavior. Normal? Absolutely

HOWEVER.............it is easier to understand an adaptive mechanism from man's point of view:

Modern snake delicacies in China and Japan includes snake tempura, snake soup, snake croquettes and snake stir fry. Snake aficionados say eating snake meat stimulates and energizes the body. They claim snake delicacies prepared with Ginseng does wonder for vim and vigor.

Evolution or Adaptation?

adaption - or microevolution, but no macroevolution

[Kronos1965]

To help us distinguish between adaptation and evolution...

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...Evolution.html

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/r...Adaptation.asp

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by 20TexasTitan08

adaption - or microevolution, but no macroevolution

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT 20TT08!!!
All the examples I mentioned were adaptative in nature.
Micro-evolution are changes as an adaptive mechanism for effective survival of a specie or individual. It happens all the time such as a blind person developing far superior auditory and tactile senses.

Macro-evolution is Darwinian.

Even Darwin died in failure searching for any proof to his own theory that human evolved from another specie. No human like inter-specie fossil will ever be found because the missing link never existed!! The earth's crust says so!!

The closest so called evolutionists can come up with is man's ambulatory posture & stride changes. And yes, they are adaptive in nature, not a proof of man's evolution from another specie.

[gr8titan]

The debate is NOT science vs religion.
The real debate is whether the Darwinian Theory of Evolution can be proven with "modern day science" or not.

Crank up the volume, watch these two scientific presentations, then make up your mind.
30 years ago, "Nano-Technology" did not even exist. This modern day research puts the Darwinian theory in deep obsolescence: http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwi...tion-video.htm

Average IQ for man is 100 while Albert Einstein's IQ is estimated between 160-180!
What's yours? Here's a scientific presentation on intelligent design without a touch of religion.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...sign-video.htm

[chunko]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

The debate is NOT science vs religion.
The real debate is whether the Darwinian Theory of Evolution can be proven with "modern day science" or not.

Crank up the volume, watch these two scientific presentations, then make up your mind.
30 years ago, "Nano-Technology" did not even exist. This modern day research puts the Darwinian theory in deep obsolescence: http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwi...tion-video.htm

Average IQ for man is 100 while Albert Einstein's IQ is estimated between 160-180!
What's yours? Here's a scientific presentation on intelligent design without a touch of religion.
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intel...sign-video.htm

Given the extremely limited fossil record of early hominids, I would hardly consider a lack of fossilized records for a missing link proof of intelligent design or disproof of evolution. It simply re-emphasizes the point that the early hominid fossil record is extremely limited and may never offer answers, only more questions.

There are sooooo many other examples of evolution that it seems strange for someone to argue against it. Personally, I find it is much easier to disprove religious documents than evolution using basic logic, reasoning, and historical records.

Having said that, evolution and intelligent design can coexist, I mean, maybe the amoeba was intelligently designed. Although, then I wonder who designed the designer....and my brain starts to hurt. I've always wondered how there could be nothing one day, and something the next. Even if you believe in God, where did God come from...who created God, or how did (S)He come into existence.

[kman]

we're all martians, tom cruise said so.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by adavis99

Given the extremely limited fossil record of early hominids, I would hardly consider a lack of fossilized records for a missing link proof of intelligent design or disproof of evolution. It simply re-emphasizes the point that the early hominid fossil record is extremely limited and may never offer answers, only more questions.

I won't even try to explain any religion because Darwin himself cannot prove his own theory of evolution. Since Darwin claims to be a scientist, my interest is whether Darwin's theory of human evolution is provable with logic and modern scientific methods because there's a huge difference between specie adaptation VS Darwin's theory of macro-evolution. So let's get focused on Macro-evolution.

But yes, what you're holding on is exactly my point. At present time, there are over 6 billion humans, but not a single - solitary - fossil to prove any "intermediate human forms". NOT ONE!! HOW CAN IT BE EXTREMELY LIMITED when these alledged intermediate stages were the alledged source of over 6 billion humans? Is it because the Darwinians are looking for something that never existed? The earth's crust and logic says so!

BUT IRONICALLY, extinct (non-existent) animals from the smallest ameoba to the largest dinousaur are being unearthed all over the planet. They are all over the museums world-wide!! The life and habits of extinct species are easily proven with fossils BUT the origin of breathing-living-6 billion-plus humans cannot be accounted for by a single fossil?? It's funny how people believe him like a cult when Darwin himself is so confused about his own theory...unable to find proof for his hypothesis.

So are we now led to believe that the earth has somehow conspired to hide every trace of man's human evolution as Darwin hypothesized? The earth's crust my friend is a library of unadulterated information to support man's past existence! (whether it's geological, biological, social or political past) Preserved within the earth's crust is the undeniable history that no person could rebuttle nor disprove. If somehow you question the earth's geological honesty, I rest my case.

[chunko]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

I won't even try to explain any religion because Darwin himself cannot prove his own theory of evolution. Since Darwin claims to be a scientist, my interest is whether Darwin's theory of human evolution is provable with logic and modern scientific methods.

But yes, what you're holding on is exactly my point. At present time, there are over 6 billion humans, but not a single - solitary - fossil to prove any "intermediate human forms". NOT ONE!! HOW CAN IT BE EXTREMELY LIMITED when these alledged intermediate stages were the alledged source of over 6 billion humans? Is it because the Darwinians are looking for something that never existed? The earth's crust and logic says so!

BUT IRONICALLY, extinct (non-existent) animals from the smallest ameoba to the largest dinousaur are being unearthed all over the planet. They are all over the museums world-wide!! The life and habits of extinct species are easily proven with fossils BUT the origin of breathing-living-6 billion-plus humans cannot be accounted for by a single fossil?? It's funny how people believe him like a cult when Darwin himself is so confused about his own theory...unable to find proof for his hypothesis.

So are we now led to believe that the earth has somehow conspired to hide every trace of man's human evolution as Darwin hypothesized? The earth's crust my friend is a library of unadulterated information to support man's past existence! (whether it's geological, biological, social or political past) Preserved within the earth's crust is the undeniable history that no person could rebuttle nor disprove. If somehow you question the earth's geological honesty, I rest my case.

What exactly do you mean there is NO evidence. The evidence is simply incomplete. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html will show you man examples of the evolution of species from ape like to human like...with FOSSIL records. True, the fossil record is incomplete...but fossilization takes place in only a very limited number of circumstances...circumstances that are even rarer in the geographic location (subsaharan Africa) where people split from chimps...

In a way, I see where your coming from...but then somethings you say seem to be coming out of left field.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by adavis99

What exactly do you mean there is NO evidence. The evidence is simply incomplete. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html will show you man examples of the evolution of species from ape like to human like...with FOSSIL records. True, the fossil record is incomplete...but fossilization takes place in only a very limited number of circumstances...circumstances that are even rarer in the geographic location (subsaharan Africa) where people split from chimps...

In a way, I see where your coming from...but then somethings you say seem to be coming out of left field.

You see, the burden of proof is on whoever is making any claim. In this case, Darwin is claiming Macro-evolution, which is the "change of one specie to another specie", produced the human specie. The link you provided supports changes within the same family and/or same specie. It does not support any inter-specie change. Additionally, your link admits to an incomplete connection from apes to humans. Not to be sidetracked, this is not the issue under dabate.

The transformation from one specie to another (Macro-evolution) is the issue. Provide a proof that such intermediate forms exist. Where is the fossil of a half human and half something?? The burden of prooof is on the evolutionists.

I can not prove what I believe does not exist. To the contrary, all Darwinians believe that macro-evolution exists, or had existed, therefore, there has to be skeletal remains of these intermediate forms. Especially of a theory that supports the arrival of 6 billion people. Where are the intermediate fossilized forms? Or are you saying the earth has selectively fossilized the past? NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL TO PROVE THE PRESENCE OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS???

Now, where did you say the left field was?

[kman]

how do we explain that humans and apes share 99.9% of the same genetic code? does it seem plausible that within the family tree of hominids, humans and apes would have shared the same ancestor?
how do we explain that some of us still act and look like apes?
Is it all just a coincidence?

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by kman

how do we explain that humans and apes share 99.9% of the same genetic code? does it seem plausible that within the family tree of hominids, humans and apes would have shared the same ancestor?
how do we explain that some of us still act and look like apes?
Is it all just a coincidence?

An ostrich, an eagle, a rooster and a turkey are different from one another. They also adapt and respond to the environment differently but why do they have similar genetic code?
Just like your question, the answer is elementary: They're in the same family/specie.

Darwin is talking "MACRO-EVOLUTION"...which is the change from one specie (ex: frog) to another specie (ex: prince). One completely different genetic changing to another like an amoeba to a dinousaur. There has to be intermediate forms if evolution really happened.

[kman]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

An ostrich, an eagle, a rooster and a turkey are different from one another. They also adapt and respond to the environment differently but why do they have similar genetic code?
Just like your question, the answer is elementary: They're in the same family/specie.

Darwin is talking "MACRO-EVOLUTION"...which is the change from one specie (ex: frog) to another specie (ex: prince). One completely different genetic changing to another.

ok so you do believe that man and apes are of the same family and evolved from the same ancestor, i misunderstood you, sorry for that.