Science vs. Creationism

[carolinajazz]

You are being ignorant. Fossil record disproves it. We know that land animals appeared before birds based on fossil records and that birds evolved later from dinosaurs. Bible says God created birds first. Checkmate, science wins.

....checkmate? If I played you in a game of chess....I'd have your queen captured before the 1st 25 moves!

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. .*.*. the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major*forms of life were established fits best.”

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution .*.*. is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”

The fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History

 

[MVP]

....checkmate? If I played you in a game of chess....I'd have your queen captured before the 1st 25 moves!

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. .*.*. the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major*forms of life were established fits best.”

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution .*.*. is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”

The fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History

FALSE yet again!
Where does it supports Biblical claim of birds being first before land animals? And I will remind you again, 99.86% of world scientists support evolution. Good for you quoting one ancient zoologist from 1981 who is not even known to be an expert in the field and who himself admitted that "his data is more religious that really scientific". Or finding creationist chemist who runs his own ministry entitled ‘Creation Compass". None of it counts as SCIENCE or EVIDENCE!
And Alfred Romer died in 1973. He was quite reputable paleontologist and he would be very happy to see current and updated fossil records. He was nowhere near being creationist BTW, so I would suggest you stop dragging his name into this nonsense. ( Romer was very keen in investigating vertebrate evolution. Comparing facts from paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology, he taught the basic structural and functional changes that happened during the evolution of fishes to primitive terrestrial vertebrates and from these to all other tetrapods. He always emphasized the evolutionary significance of the relationship between the form and function of animals and the environment.
Through his textbook Vertebrate Paleontology Romer laid the foundation for the traditional classification of vertebrates. He drew together the (then) widely scattered taxonomy of the different vertebrate groups and combined them in a simplified scheme, emphasizing orderliness and overview. Based on his research of early amphibians, he reorganised the labyrinthodontians. Romer's classification was followed by many subsequent authors, notably Robert L. Carroll, and is still in use)

 

[MVP]

....checkmate? If I played you in a game of chess....I'd have your queen captured before the 1st 25 moves!

So capturing my queen wins game in chess?

 

[♪alt13]

....so you want biblical information current to some mythical character, both gross in appearance and nature, that would make Lady Gaga blush?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-10-hermaphrodite-facts-and-famous-790403

No I want to know if god made man and woman, who made intersex children?

 

[carolinajazz]

FALSE yet again!
Where does it supports Biblical claim of birds being first before land animals? And I will remind you again, 99.86% of world scientists support evolution.

A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account:
“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”b This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

....so your banking on and saying that the "majority" viewpoint is ALWAYS the correct viewpoint?

In democratic lands the majority rules, but that is no basis for believing that majorities are always right or that might of numbers makes right. Large numbers tend to create a false sense of security.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
― Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

“I don't imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over.”
― Henrik Ibsen

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
― Bertrand Russell

 

[♪alt13]

A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account:
“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”b This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

....so your banking on and saying that the "majority" viewpoint is ALWAYS the correct viewpoint?

In democratic lands the majority rules, but that is no basis for believing that majorities are always right or that might of numbers makes right. Large numbers tend to create a false sense of security.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”
― Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

“I don't imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over.”
― Henrik Ibsen

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
― Bertrand Russell

You are either incredibly stupid or are trolling.(probably both)

 

[PearlWatson]

Well, one has an extragenomic collection of DNA called a plasmid, which confers the genes for this pilus being constructed. As far as how the first plasmids were constructed, let me just say it's a pretty well-understood process, and it isn't murky-- sadly, I am just a little busy with things, and I don't have time to gather sources to illustrate it to you in a simple way.

I want to know why they were "constructed" not how they were "constructed."

In other words; is the "construction" a built in defense mechanism to certain external stimuli?

 

[PearlWatson]

We know that wings have evolved many times...
Pterodactyls evolved wings and insects evolved wings. Even just looking at mammals you have Bats, flying squirrels, sugar gliders all evolved some type of wing independently... So having wings evolved multiple times in dinosaurs is not out of the question

We "know" no such thing.

We know all these different animals have wings.

Then we have your speculation that wings were spontaneously generated from a random mutation or multiple random mutations that occurred on speculative ancestors who didn't have wings.

 

[PearlWatson]

I understand the impulse, but that's just rude.

I understand his impulse too.

He and a few other Darwinists are treating any criticisms of Darwinism as religious heresy, no matter the source.

How dare anyone attack their faith!

 

[PearlWatson]

Scary if true.

Do you know what was seriously scary. The Eugenics movement based on the idea that life is an accident and that there are genetically "favored races," from Darwin and his cousin.

 

[MVP]

You are either incredibly stupid or are trolling.(probably both)

It is scary how many of us arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[One Brow]

Do you know what was seriously scary. The Eugenics movement based on the idea that life is an accident and that there are genetically "favored races," from Darwin and his cousin.

The ideas of the eugenics movement existed long before Darwin was born, even though it went by a different name. Darwin actively opposed such ideas in his writings. However, it's true that wicked people draw post hoc justification from a variety of places, and some have used evolutionary theory, just as some have used the Bible. It's still a lie to claim evolutionary theory was a cause.

 

[MVP]

A well-known geologist said this about the Genesis creation account

Who cares!!!?
I say it is absolute hogwash, same scientific value as story about Prometheus stealing fire from Gods of Olympus . I have Dr and MS degrees so maybe that makes me more reputable than "well know geologist".

 

[MVP]

Do you know what was seriously scary. The Eugenics movement based on the idea that life is an accident and that there are genetically "favored races," from Darwin and his cousin.

What that has to do with rubbish CJ is posting?

 

[One Brow]

Serious question, how do they identify a fossil, especially to call it a new animal, from a single portion of a broken bone. I read about them identifying a species related to the platypus based off part of a jaw and nothing else. How is that enough to know it isn't just a different animal of the same species like a person with big feet or something?

A serious answer would best be undertaken by professional paleontologists (we have a biologist and a pre-med person here, but no paleontologists, to my knowledge). I believe they often use things like tooth count and type, relative thickness to length, locations where muscles would have attached, etc. Even though Chris Bosh is much taller than me and Peter Dinklage is much shorter, we all have the same number and types of teeth, out jaw muscles attaching to the part of our jaw, roughly the same amount of curvature in our jawlines, etc.

Even then, whether a new fossil represents a different species is often a matter of dispute. For example, some recent finds have called into question whether fossils that were originally considered separate species of genus homo are the same species after all.

 

[MVP]

his geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events—from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals—is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

No it is not. Land animals appear in fossil records millions of years before birds. Just man up and admit that Bible myth/tale is incorrect and incompatible with scientific data.
Does not mean you need to stop believing it, you have that right man, believe in all tales it has there, 900 year old men, flood, ark with pair of every animal on Earth including platypuses, in woman being created from man's rib, etc, etc. Believe and enjoy it, but don't argue with well established facts as it makes you look stubborn, unable to accept truth and really not deserving any respect.

 

[PearlWatson]

some have used evolutionary theory

 

[PearlWatson]

Land animals appear in fossil records millions of years before birds.

Are you contradicting yourself or what?

You just got through saying "dinosaurs" with wings are ancestors of birds.....
The "archosaur" ancestor was speculated to have lived 250 million years ago...was it able to fly?

 

[PearlWatson]

There has been 27 discovered human ancestors species ranging from 6million years ago to 40,000 years ago!!

species=race?
species=different shape of scull?

 

[PearlWatson]

there is numerous fossils with feather imprints, so no it is not speculation it is fact. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.

How old are these "fossils" to have beta-keratin? Doesn't that decompose faster than millions of years?