What's new

Science vs. Creationism

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.

...and who told you this...the evolution fossil "fairy?"

Evolutionists tell us that there was a time when birds did not exist-except as disgruntled reptiles. Well, now, let's suppose there were no birds. Could this earth survive? Let a scientist tell us. "Today, a countryside without birds would be unimaginable! And this is
as it should be, for without birds HUMANITY WOULD FACE DISASTER.

"We have only to note how many different kinds of injurious insects are being continuously and tirelessly destroyed by birds, to see what part the latter play in saving our field and orchard crops from destruction, as so many kinds of birds are entirely insectivores.

"Equally effective is the help of birds in man's fight against moles, mice, rats and other rodents which not only destroy the harvest in the fields, but also constitute a danger to human health as carriers of infectious diseases. These are only a few of the helpful roles played by birds in maintaining NATURE's EQUILIBRIUM". (Strange and Beautiful Birds, Josef Seget, page 5).

But notice, what scientists tell us about the arrival time of birds and insects. "Flying insects became a reality about 50 million years BEFORE the reptiles and birds took to the air, and for those 50 million years the only flying creatures were insects." (Insects, Ross Hutchins, pages 3, 4.)

But could the earth survive? Let's say it was only 50 million years, perhaps 25 million years, maybe 5 million years of difference. How about a thousand years? Would you believe a hundred? Let's see what would happen to a "birdless" earth!

"The descendants of a PAIR of houseflies, if they all lived and did well from April to August, would total 190,000,000,000,000,000,000 individuals. Fortunately, the balance of nature, in the form of natural controls, limits such population explosions among insects just as it does among other animals and among plants" (Insects, Ross Hutchins, page 9).

Granted, that insects eat other insects. Perhaps the earth would not be covered with 40 feet of insects in one year. But be sure that the earth COULD NOT SURVIVE unless birds and insects were CREATED TOGETHER to form that fantastic balance in nature, that man is just coming to understand.

Why don't evolutionists think about the ecological implications of their theories for a change? So obvious, even to the most CASUAL observer, if insects came first, then birds would have had to come next, rather than reptiles, as a world with only insects and then reptiles or land animals COULD not have existed for very long!

Genesis account of creation and the order things came into existence is absolutely correct! Check and mate!
 
Every "proper scientific" explanation of the the origin of man I've seen tracks him back to Africa, to the same area even now inhabited by both apes and black men.

And oh, by the way, I find the studies of Ape behavior very interesting. I don't see why anyone should think being an Ape is an insult. I don't even get mad if someone says I am like my cows/bulls. I love all of God's creatures.


How you can be right and wrong in one post? You are right about men evolving from apes in Africa. But God's creatures? How about Human creation of Gods?
List probably would be longer then dinosaur fossil list lol.
 
Last edited:
I kind of feel bad for CJ. All he does is cut and paste text...

Click here...

I just noticed his sig. he is a troll https://www.math.utah.edu/~c-mnpd/

My name is Phillip (surname edited out) and I'm a third-year Physics major at the University of Utah. In addition to physics, and science, in general, I'm interested in several sports including basketball, racquetball, and ultimate frisbee. I enjoy ballroom dancing, listening to classic rock, and reading nerdy science magazines such as Astronomy and Popular Science. I'm also an ethical vegan, an amateur (read: crappy) chess player, and the possessor of a rather large (20+) collection of obsolete computers.

Though I now spend most of my time toiling in the various physics buildings on the U of U campus, I can occasionally be found playing chess or spades as heck1er or circa_79 on Yahoo! games. If you see me online, don't hesitate to I.M.








https://www.math.utah.edu/~c-mnpd/cj_avatar2.gif
 
Last edited:
...So obvious, even to the most CASUAL observer, if insects came first, then birds would have had to come next, rather than reptiles, as a world with only insects and then reptiles or land animals COULD not have existed for very long!

Genesis account of creation and the order things came into existence is absolutely correct! Check and mate!

Your stupidity is beyond belief. I am speechless. Did it ever crossed your tiny brain that if first insects and birds were "created" together we would have evidence of both birds and insects from the same time in fossils?
 
Your stupidity is beyond belief. I am speechless. Did it ever crossed your tiny brain that if first insects and birds were "created" together we would have evidence of both birds and insects from the same time in fossils?

Dood read my post. He is trolling. Personally I'm glad, my world just got brighter now that I realized cj is fictional.
 
...and who told you this...the evolution fossil "fairy?"

Evolutionists tell us that there was a time when birds did not exist-except as disgruntled reptiles. Well, now, let's suppose there were no birds. Could this earth survive? Let a scientist tell us. "Today, a countryside without birds would be unimaginable! And this is
as it should be, for without birds HUMANITY WOULD FACE DISASTER.

"We have only to note how many different kinds of injurious insects are being continuously and tirelessly destroyed by birds, to see what part the latter play in saving our field and orchard crops from destruction, as so many kinds of birds are entirely insectivores.

"Equally effective is the help of birds in man's fight against moles, mice, rats and other rodents which not only destroy the harvest in the fields, but also constitute a danger to human health as carriers of infectious diseases. These are only a few of the helpful roles played by birds in maintaining NATURE's EQUILIBRIUM". (Strange and Beautiful Birds, Josef Seget, page 5).

But notice, what scientists tell us about the arrival time of birds and insects. "Flying insects became a reality about 50 million years BEFORE the reptiles and birds took to the air, and for those 50 million years the only flying creatures were insects." (Insects, Ross Hutchins, pages 3, 4.)

But could the earth survive? Let's say it was only 50 million years, perhaps 25 million years, maybe 5 million years of difference. How about a thousand years? Would you believe a hundred? Let's see what would happen to a "birdless" earth!

"The descendants of a PAIR of houseflies, if they all lived and did well from April to August, would total 190,000,000,000,000,000,000 individuals. Fortunately, the balance of nature, in the form of natural controls, limits such population explosions among insects just as it does among other animals and among plants" (Insects, Ross Hutchins, page 9).

Granted, that insects eat other insects. Perhaps the earth would not be covered with 40 feet of insects in one year. But be sure that the earth COULD NOT SURVIVE unless birds and insects were CREATED TOGETHER to form that fantastic balance in nature, that man is just coming to understand.

Why don't evolutionists think about the ecological implications of their theories for a change? So obvious, even to the most CASUAL observer, if insects came first, then birds would have had to come next, rather than reptiles, as a world with only insects and then reptiles or land animals COULD not have existed for very long!

Genesis account of creation and the order things came into existence is absolutely correct! Check and mate!

Among the "controls" in nature are the limits of food supply, living space, and oxygen. . . . . not to mention communicable bacterial pathogens and predation besides birds. I don't think every born individual even in insects is necessarily viable nor capable of propagation. . . .Malthusian math just isn't reality. There will never be insects forty feet deep over the earth's surface, any more than there ever was an extra twenty thousand feet of water. . . .

There will always be kids who don't know the ABCs yet, and religious people who haven't learned about genetics or geology, and there will always be a need for children's stories to teach some humans on a level of beginning understanding, and the Genesis account of the Creation will always address a certain audience in a satisfying manner, regardless of the "age" in terms of history or individual understanding, just like it did for some people some ages ago.

Personally, I just don't see any need for the proponents of religious faith to make their case dependent on an absolutist view of the Bible, like the Infallible Word or Spirit-breathed Scripture formula. I just say anything about the Bible that isn't true just reflects man's inadequate ability to conceptually capture the faith in a logical manner. A good Biblical apologist would perhaps just say that God reveals "Himself" on some level appropriate to our ability. Maybe it's not so important to have the "faith" laid out scientifically in such a way nobody could refuse to "believe". That would strike me as a sort of universal Statist kind of God who had some control freak issues. . . . . and I'm just no ready to accept a model concept of "God" that looks that much like David Rockefeller, even if I do want to cling to a sort of anthropomorphistic notion of "God", maybe reducing the notion to a very simplistic term for convenience appropriate to my limited intelligence. . . ..

Much nicer kind of God who will let us understand things according to our own minds and wills. I could choose to just love a God like that. . . . .
 
How you can be right and wrong in one post? You are right about men evolving from apes in Africa. But God's creatures? How about Human creation of Gods?
List probably would be longer then dinosaur fossil lost lol.

Simple. I claim the privilege of seeing what I believe, and of saying what I think. . . . regardless of the sorts of logical "cages" others may feel committed to. . . . ..

Humans necessarily have to form their own notions of "God", just like children develop their concepts of their own parents. Wait 'til you see your kids trying to figure you out. If you don't learn to relax a little before then, and smile at the things people will think, you're gonna have a breakdown of some kind. . . . .

We all create the universe we see, somehow. It's a wonder any of us even like other people because the way we see things is so different. Used to bother me a lot when I was sixteen years old and thought I knew how to fix the whole world, if anyone would listen, too. I've lived long enough to value the folks who didn't agree with me but could still live with me and smile.

uuuhhhhhmmmmmm. . . . . ..

I even value some folks who laugh out loud at me. . . . .


Nice when you don't have to laugh alone.

That said, it's probably a good exercise for me to try to exercise a little logic in discussing stuff like religion and science. . . .
 
Last edited:
Wow just like his "Creator"

well, I suppose if CJ is the "Phillip" dude. . . . which seems logical considering the avatar source. . . . I'd have to wonder if he's really a "Christian" at all. Not many really "Christian" ethical vegans, ya know. . . .
 
There's a lot of whitewashing of the past going on here.

The whites are, in genetic terms, the mutants with the dysfunctional or disabled genes who can't make the melanin in sufficient quantities for meaningful protection against the sun.

In temperate and polar climates, having less melanin seems to be a survival advantage. for example, in Asia, the japanese and the Northern Chinese tend to be much lighter than the Thai or Cambodians.

Every "proper scientific" explanation of the the origin of man I've seen tracks him back to Africa, to the same area even now inhabited by both apes and black men.

I agree, but this does not mean African natives are more closely related to non-human apes.

And oh, by the way, I find the studies of Ape behavior very interesting. I don't see why anyone should think being an Ape is an insult. I don't even get mad if someone says I am like my cows/bulls. I love all of God's creatures.

Well said.
 
Could this earth survive?

The earth would be just fine.

yes, we built up a system of argiculture that relies on the environment we have, including the presence of birds. Before there were birds, there were other ecological systems in place for catching insects.
 
I kind of feel bad for CJ. All he does is cut and paste text...

...so if I want to copy and paste someones viewpoint and/or observation...what's wrong with that? Saves me time for one and the wording, as expressed by the individuals I'm using are stated so very clearly and eloquently, I could hardly improve on it! I'm sure they don't hold it against me that I use their sound reasoning on the subject to shoot down your bogus, pathetic and feeble attempt at discrediting a Grand Creator and Designer!
 
...so if I want to copy and paste someones viewpoint and/or observation...what's wrong with that? Saves me time for one and the wording, as expressed by the individuals I'm using are stated so very clearly and eloquently, I could hardly improve on it! I'm sure they don't hold it against me that I use their sound reasoning on the subject to shoot down your bogus, pathetic and feeble attempt at discrediting a Grand Creator and Designer!

How is flawed, inaccurate, and ignorant reasoning sound and factual, scientific evidence bogus, pathetic and feeble?

Oh wait, the answer is indoctrination.
 
Did it ever crossed your tiny brain that if first insects and birds were "created" together we would have evidence of both birds and insects from the same time in fossils?

One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth.

The fossil record is an overwhelming and devastating contradiction to evolution. Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion!

Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less! What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record?

That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!

If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there!

In the small portion that includes insects, again we find no fossil evidence of evolution, whatsoever!

The problems only get worse for the evolutionist. Not only is there no sign of evolution leading up to the complex invertebrates, but also missing in action are the enormous number of transitionals that must have existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates. The transformation from invertebrate to vertebrate would have been a major event in the earth’s evolutionary history. Yet the fossil record does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation!

The nightmare gets worse for the evolutionist when we consider that the wide diversity of body plans that suddenly appear in this brief 2 to 3 million year window are markedly distinct morphologically from each other. This disparity of body plans is followed by stasis, where there are no incremental alterations to the body plans through the entire history of the fossil record up to the present! This is precisely what one would expect if special creation were true, and a stark contradiction to evolution.

So all that is left is a sliver of a corner of the fossil record, the vertebrates. This is the rabbit in the hat for the evolutionist. The bulk of this sliver is made up of fish, where we again find no sign of evolution whatsoever. A small remainder of this miniscule sliver is left for the land-dwelling vertebrates. Of the land-dwelling vertebrate species unearthed, 95% are represented by a bone or less. Yet this is where the evolutionist concentrates all his efforts to "show" to his audience that "the fossil record supports evolution"! Their audience is completely unaware that all of the examples they are being shown come from an incredibly puny section marred with incomplete data.

They are conveniently left in the dark regarding the other 99.99% of the data, from a portion of the fossil record that is far more complete, that shows NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER! This is their sleight-of-hand. This is a sham. This is brainwashing. There is no other way to put it!
 
In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!

Says who? You??? lol.
Invertebrate evolution is well documented and studied. Every new false claim of yours just makes you look more and more ignorant and desperate. I suggest you finish with one claim/argument, which we dismissed before jumping to the other one. As we already denied countless false statements of yours and yet you are still desperately trying to find some kind of straw to support your "creator". I admire the effort, but you need to learn to lose with dignity one day.
 
Back
Top