MVP
Well-Known Member
I guess because you guys are blinded by your faith and ignore the EVIDENCE.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
I guess because you guys are blinded by your faith and ignore the EVIDENCE.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Creationists as well believe in hundreds of other ridiculous things. Does not make it true.
Genetic entropy by Sanford was long ago shattered to pieces.
Long article for those interested:
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...I agree! But those of us who observe and believe in a Divine Creator....will not give up the fight to suede-intellectuals who have no leg to stand on and want us to except and believe the most pathetic hoax ever perpetuated in human history!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Isn't it strange how suspicious you are about all that is recorded in the Bible as fact and yet how ready you are to swallow all the theories of scientists, which they admit are only theories and which are continually being proved wrong!
And as for man’s being just full of vestigial organs, there was a time when physiologists held that there were some 180 vestigial organs in the human body but today only a handful are mentioned, and many doctors now refuse to term any organs vestigial. Just because man does not know the function of an organ does not make it vestigial. As one professor expressed it: “He would be a rash man indeed who would now assert that any part of the human body is useless.”
MVP
Well-Known Member
0.14% vs 99.86%. You think you have a chance?
MVP
Well-Known Member
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.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
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!
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Science does, however, care where the money comes from...and how much can be had.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
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.