What's new

Science vs. Creationism

supposed "vestigial" examples of animals losing features and becoming less complex doesn't support the theory of gaining features and becoming more complex.

If you lose legs you are less complex.
If you lose a tail you are less complex.
If you lose hair you are less complex.
You are losing genetic information.

In order to go from molecule----->fish you have to gain features (gain genetic information)
In order to go from fish----->human you have to gain features

Here's an altered Ken Ham illustration.

91bd5c07-73e2-42ea-8498-a3d10abfa2db_zps1439926a.jpg

Complexity does not matter. Let me give you an example.

The Neanderthals had larger brains than we do (there is an argument that maybe their brains weren't 'wired' as well as ours but I have yet to see evidence for this) They were also stronger than we are. So why are we here and they aren't? Most likely because they needed more calories to survive. Even if they were slightly smarter than we are, and they were definitely stronger, they would have simply been outnumbered.

The territory of a band of early hominids was probably only as large as they could walk within a few days. This was likely true for both neanderthals and modern humans. So if the size of the area that you could forage was similar there is a clear advantage to being able to feed 12 people instead of 9.
 
The Neanderthals had larger brains than we do (there is an argument that maybe their brains weren't 'wired' as well as ours but I have yet to see evidence for this) They were also stronger than we are. So why are we here and they aren't? Most likely because they needed more calories to survive. Even if they were slightly smarter than we are, and they were definitely stronger, they would have simply been outnumbered.

NEANDERTHAL MAN is also one of the better-known parts of the so-called evolutionary chain. When the first skull portion was found one scientist called it the skullcap of an idiot. Gradually interpretations changed as more bones were discovered.

From early reconstructions that showed Neanderthals to be stooped and apelike, with long arms dangling down in front, we now have books that say that “Neanderthal probably did not look very different from some people of today.”

One encyclopedia now says that they were “completely human, fully erect.” What a change! Comparing the illustrations in various books will show the adjustments in the claimed appearance of Neanderthal man. And rather than his being an idiot, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern men!

One reason why some scientists thought of Neanderthal as squat and bent is most interesting. An early skeleton found had bowed legs and a bent form. Of course, since they were looking for apelike creatures to fit their theory, how easy it was to make a mistake! Later, upon further examination, it was shown that the skeleton was deformed due to arthritis!


Nor is that all. In their efforts to make their finds look like a link between ape and man, when Neanderthal’s foot bones were first reconstructed by evolutionists, “they were made to look like an ape’s,” says one book. But the same book admits that the feet actually “look and functioned very [much] like those of modern man.”

The facts are clear that there is not the claimed evidence of a chain linking man to primates. There were not “cavemen” in that sense. Not only are links missing—the chain itself does not really exist! What has been presented as evidence has, in most cases, been faked, changed, even reconstructed to fit a preconceived idea. In other cases, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted and misapplied!

....and this is EXACTLY what "heyhey" has done with his above post! A true "psuedo-intellectual"! They're more interested in trying to impress us with their "intelligence" and "wealth of knowledge" rather than actually pursuing the truth of a matter!
 
Beauty of science is that it is unbiased. Science does not care who's theory it is - creationist, science fiction writer, blonde with no education or biologist. Science evaluates evidence, facts, data, experiments and makes unbiased conclusion. And conclusion is simple - Evolution is a fact, Bible is fiction.

Science does, however, care where the money comes from...and how much can be had.
 
Science does, however, care where the money comes from...and how much can be had.

Exactly! And then there is this: the taking of liberties with the truth in the name of science, especially by evolutionists!

Sweeping, groundless assertions are stated as facts regarding man’s origin and ascent or descent from the lower animals. One scientist who with righteous indignation comes to grips with this matter of taking liberties with the truth and whose books have been published in fourteen languages, speaks of “the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man!

Exaggeratedly hairy plaster figures of bestial men glower savagely at us in museums all over the world, their features usually chocolate-brown in color, their hair wild and unkempt, their jaws prognathous [sticking forward] and their foreheads receding—and this despite the fact that we have absolutely no idea what color Paleolithic man’s skin was or how his hair grew and virtually no idea of his physiognomy” or facial features. Commenting of the impossibility of reconstructing hair, eyes, nose, lips or facial expression, he pointed out ‘The probabilities are that the expression of early man was not less benign than our own.’

When a museum displays models of Peking man, Neanderthal man and modern Homo sapiens [man] side by side, it encourages a conception of physical and intellectual development which is not in accord with the views of true science. Those who make such models tend to give their imagination free rein!

The exhibition of these half-human, half animal figures is symptomatic of the moral arrogance of our era and latently inspired by a smug feeling of ‘look how far we’ve come!’”

Why do evolutionist cling so stubbornly to outmoded theories? Why do they prefer to look for origins in the animal rather than in God? Obviously because they do not want to recognize the debt of gratitude they owe the Creator nor their need to be in subjection to him.
 
Science does, however, care where the money comes from...and how much can be had.

Religious maniacs fund way better than any research institutions. See Creation museum and Discovery institute. To bad all those millions of dollars are wasted on brainwashing people like CJ and PW instead of making actual science.
 
Religious maniacs fund way better than any research institutions. See Creation museum and Discovery institute. To bad all those millions of dollars are wasted on brainwashing people like CJ and PW instead of making actual science.

Sounds like a "oh yeah well my dad can beat up your dad" kind of argument. Just because they are better funded does not mean that the money has no influence on scientific endeavors. And if you think all scientists are so morally pure that they are completely above anything like fiddling with numbers to get the "right" results to keep the funding flowing, then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.
 
NEANDERTHAL MAN is also one of the better-known parts of the so-called evolutionary chain.

When the first skull portion was found one scientist called it the skullcap of an idiot. Gradually interpretations changed as more bones were discovered.

From early reconstructions that showed Neanderthals to be stooped and apelike, with long arms dangling down in front, we now have books that say that “Neanderthal probably did not look very different from some people of today.”

One encyclopedia now says that they were “completely human, fully erect.” What a change! Comparing the illustrations in various books will show the adjustments in the claimed appearance of Neanderthal man. And rather than his being an idiot, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern men!

You mean to say that we know more about them now that we have been studying them for over a century. I'm sure your not so stupid or naive to think that we would know less about them as we discovered new specimens.

One reason why some scientists thought of Neanderthal as squat and bent is most interesting. An early skeleton found had bowed legs and a bent form. Of course, since they were looking for apelike creatures to fit their theory, how easy it was to make a mistake! Later, upon further examination, it was shown that the skeleton was deformed due to arthritis!

Someone was wrong and then a biblical scholar came forward to prove... lolololol
Yeah it was more evil science.

Nor is that all. In their efforts to make their finds look like a link between ape and man, when Neanderthal’s foot bones were first reconstructed by evolutionists, “they were made to look like an ape’s,” says one book. But the same book admits that the feet actually “look and functioned very [much] like those of modern man.”

The facts are clear that there is not the claimed evidence of a chain linking man to primates. There were not “cavemen” in that sense. Not only are links missing—the chain itself does not really exist! What has been presented as evidence has, in most cases, been faked, changed, even reconstructed to fit a preconceived idea. In other cases, it has been interpreted, reinterpreted, misinterpreted and misapplied!

image017.jpg


....and this is EXACTLY what "heyhey" has done with his above post! A true "psuedo-intellectual"! They're more interested in trying to impress us with their "intelligence" and "wealth of knowledge" rather than actually pursuing the truth of a matter!

Pursue the truth? Do you mean by listening to the evidence and objectively interpreting it even if it upturns your preconceived ideas or do you mean to decide the truth and then ignore all the evidence that may contradict your own foolish notions?

I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. It is not my "wealth of knowledge" that is impressive, the vast wealth of evidence for evolution is what is impressive.
 
Sounds like a "oh yeah well my dad can beat up your dad" kind of argument. Just because they are better funded does not mean that the money has no influence on scientific endeavors. And if you think all scientists are so morally pure that they are completely above anything like fiddling with numbers to get the "right" results to keep the funding flowing, then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

Obviously there are some corrupt scientists in the world, but 99.86%? Plus if they would only care about money it would make more sense to promote and find any kind of evidence for creationism since that would guarantee non stop money flow.
 
Beauty of science is that it is unbiased. Science does not care who's theory it is - creationist, science fiction writer, blonde with no education or biologist. Science evaluates evidence, facts, data, experiments and makes unbiased conclusion. And conclusion is simple - Evolution is a fact, Bible is fiction.

“If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. .*.*. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to those who believe in a Divine Creator. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”


Facts and Legends
“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. .*.*. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

“There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate [the Darwinian theory of evolution] in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“Any science of the past .*.*. that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism.”—Origins Research.

“It is a legend .*.*. that Charles Darwin solved the problem of the origin of biological complexity. It is a legend that we have a good or even fair grasp on the origin of life, or that proper explanations refer only to so-called natural causes. To be sure, these and other legends of philosophical naturalism have a certain stature. One does not speak too harshly of them in polite company. But neither should one accept them uncritically.”—Origins Research.

“In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. .*.*. Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. .*.*. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that .*.*. the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”—Darwin’s Black Box.
 
“If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. .*.*. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to those who believe in a Divine Creator. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”


Facts and Legends
“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. .*.*. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

“There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate [the Darwinian theory of evolution] in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.”—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

“Any science of the past .*.*. that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism.”—Origins Research.

“It is a legend .*.*. that Charles Darwin solved the problem of the origin of biological complexity. It is a legend that we have a good or even fair grasp on the origin of life, or that proper explanations refer only to so-called natural causes. To be sure, these and other legends of philosophical naturalism have a certain stature. One does not speak too harshly of them in polite company. But neither should one accept them uncritically.”—Origins Research.

“In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. .*.*. Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.”—Darwin’s Black Box.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. .*.*. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that .*.*. the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”—Darwin’s Black Box.


Must be hard to find any more arguments if you keep coming back to Behe who's work was dismissed by scientific community, law cases and his own university.
Thanks for proving my point by the way. Behe, Ham and other creationists are funded to brainwash people like you - your posts prove that their funding is in no danger, lol.
 
How does it feel to be inferior to a man? You know - being the one created from MAN's rib?

You are made from some man's sperm (we assume anyway), does that make you automatically inferior to him?
 
Obviously there are some corrupt scientists in the world, but 99.86%?

“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

“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 whatsoever 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

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
 
“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

“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 whatsoever 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

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

By this idiotic logic, CarolinaJazz refuted his own point. Since the majority of the people in the world believe in a religion, then it must be wrong.

Keep 'em coming.
 
“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

“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 whatsoever 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

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

The evidence settles the matter. The only people that don't see it that way are people that don't want to give up their literal interpretation of the bible.
 
Back
Top