creationist vs evolutionists debate, the big one.

Actually i did study. Asshole.

Absolute dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are two methods evolutionists commonly use for dating the earth. However, these methods are not always accurate; evolutionists have dated rocks from Hawaiian lava flows (known to be only 200 years old) at three billion years old using the potassium-argon dating method. In addition, carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2,300 years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination.

Also, The archaeopteryx has been used to show a link between reptiles and birds, because it seemed to exhibit characteristics of reptiles as well as characteristics of birds, but this could not be a transitional animal since fossils of modern birds and the archaeopteryx have been found together in the same soil. Yet according to the evolutionists' theory, the modern birds supposedly evolved from the Archaeopteryx, then the Archaeopteryx died out and became extinct. Furthermore, scientists have discovered fossils of flying beetles which are thousands of years old, yet they ook exactly the same as beetles do today. Other life forms also look exactly like their ancient counterparts.

Birds or any other flying creatures could not have evolved. Evolution could not have happened slowly, nor could it have happened rapidly. In fact, it could not have happened at all. Consider if you will, what good would it do to have arms or legs evolve into wings SLOWLY, before they were fully operational (good neither for running, grasping, or flying). If that is what happened, why doesn't the fossil record show any transitional life forms? But on the other hand, if the evolution happened SUDDENLY, how could the creature survive, and learn a new way to capture food, or even how to transport itself ?

Another thing which shows that creation is more probable than evolution is the fossil record. If evolution were true, the fossil record should support it, but it best supports the creation theory. For example, squashed trilobite fossils have been found in human footprint fossils even though evolutionists say trilobites were extinct 230 million years before man came into existence. Furthermore, the fins of fish which supposedly evolved into the amphibians' legs are only embedded in the fish's flesh tissue, not in its skeletal structure, so they could not have become the animal's legs. In 1859, when Darwin came out with Origin of the Species, no transitional fossils had been found, but Darwin said that was because not enough fossils had yet been discovered. He said eventually transitional fossils would be discovered. However, after more than 150 years and 100 million fossils, not one t ansitional fossil has been discovered between a species and its alleged ancestor.

 

archaeopteryx isnt the missing link, archaeopteryx is know as the earliest bird, the acutal fossile record that show the link between dinosour and bird is caudipteryx, a dinosour with bird feature including bird feather, hollowed bone, wishbones and similar hips structures. IIRC caudipteryx permature wing which isnt ready for flying, but the hollowed bone allow it to run out run most of the predetor.

if you understand evolution you will know that its not only one feature that allow life to survive, it caome in combination. IF bird cant evole because it cant fly in the early stage of evolution (permature wing), then i guess you never heard of the provb learn to craw before you learn to walk, learn to walk before you learn to run.

ahh... The Antelope Springs (‘Meister’) ‘footprint’, while that fossile show a squashed trilobite fossils, but the footprint is highly questionable because

1. the footprint isnt complete and it isnt look human, if its belong to a human then he or she who left the print must be wearing a sandal or other footwear.

2. trilobite is a water creature, to able to squashed trilobite, he or she must live in the water as well, since human is a land creature it isnt possible for a human to squashed the trilobite with thier foot unless they have some kind of diving equipment.

some look the same is because of the advantages, Blattoptera is the oldest cockroach that outlive the dinosour and become a pest in our live, and they look almost the same compare to morden cockroach...... insect that have evolve very little include scorpion, beetle and wasp.

tiktaalik roseae support the idea of life origin from sea because its fin consist of basic wrist bones and simple fingers, they cant walk or crawl, but they move similar to how seal move, even though they have alot of fish like feature, they also have a pair of lungs which most land creature do.

fossil record support the theory of evolution.....and BTW Darwin for the theory of evolution without using the fossil record, he form the theory by studying the similary of life sample that he collected from his journey.

 

oh not another idiot spouting shit

you have done no study what so ever sir! all you sound like you have done is watch a few creationist sermons cause its the same misguided and very very very wrong knowledge that you think you know about evolution.

every point you made was stupid especially this

are you a moron, this is the same shit i hear from creationists all the time and its very very very wrong. fossils of transitional species have been found many of them and if you had done your study properly by actually looking at the fossil record and not searching through the bible and saying "nope not there, means that's got to be a lie" you would have seen it there and i would not have to be making you look like a fool.

you seem to have no idea of what evolution is at all so why are you trying to argue it, you have nether backed up you claims with reliable sources nor have you given a backed up and scientifically proven "theory" as to what the alternative is

and i am probably going to need to tell you as i do every fool that just dribbles stupid speeches, evolution has been shown to be correct time and time again, its worldly recognized (bar religious fools) as how life grew on this planet and is supported by stupid amounts of data not only in the fossil record but also by genetics and many other scientific fields of study it has been scrutinized time and time again but still is the most strongest of all study's.
it is a theory but yet again your someone that doesn't know the meaning. ALL scientific study's are called "theory" because we do not claim absolute truth, it's and idea but then it needs to be supported by evidence and scrutinized by peer review, it still can then be disproved by anything else which needs to go through the same process.
our understanding of evolution is one of the strongest fields of study there is.

and it beats a book that has been almost entirely disproved not just by science but by history too and not to mention by it's self.

you're just arguing an already lost battle, all the things you are saying have already been said and shown to just be foolish and even the creationist sources that you obviously are getting your ideas from have already been taken to court and the creationists been convicted of fraud.

i don't know really what to say apart from grow up and actually some real research on the subject you are trying to argue with so you don't make you're self look like the total idiot you have done.

 

Well said, sir.

I guess the bottom line is, no one can 100% completely prove evolution is how we came about. There are too many variables that we might not even be able to understand. And by just stating that evolution is how we came to be is in many ways insulting to Religious people because maybe there is a God. I don't care what anyone says, because nothing you say can prove that there isn't. It's a vicious circle we're all going at, because in the end, no one's is going to be correct. As a matter of fact there will be no end (at least not in this life time) because everyone has their own opinion about everything, forcing it down someones throat isn't going to change that. It's not going to make anyone more correct than before. We'll know the true when we die, or we won't, because maybe there is no after life. I'll save us all a lot of bickering and bashing by saying this topic is in limbo until death!

 

To equitypetey, how can you say that evolution has been proved right? Its been proved wrong so many times, the scientists keep having to change their story so that it fits what they find. So how can it be possible for evolution to be proved right, but they still have to change their idea of the world everytime they find a fossile.

Also you can keep saying that there are many transistory fossils that have been found, but could you give an example?

 

oh my you have no understanding of science do you

evolution we know happens and it is one of the only things we can actually be definitely certain on.
as regards to changing their story's its not as simple as that, to a certain extent you are right they change bits but that IS the nature of science when some one comes along with new evidence there work is scrutinized and if it shows to be correct it is then accepted. science welcomes someone to correct it, it means our knowledge can only grow and stop us from being mindless fools (but it makes no difference when people choose to ignore it)

seriously stop arguing a subject you show little or no actual knowledge on

and as regard to transitional species i am no expert so i wiil not answer you nor will i try but
this guy is so listen to him (it explains transitional species and the stupid claims by creationists so sit down listen and shut up, but i guess you'll still ignore it any way)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

 

in the bible, the world was created in 6days. 6 days, the world was created. But this doesn't mean it really was created on 6 days, according to some historians 6 days for God is like 6 billion years or like that. think wisely dude.

 

we are not talking about the ins and out of how god did it if he did
this is the debate on whether it is how creationists believe it to be poof magic poof adam and eve poof or the known, repeatedly tested recorded and evidential theory of evolution.

to think wisely good sir is to not ignore proof that slaps you in the face just because your religions says that anything but magic is a lie

 

i do believe in evolution, but only micro evolution. I think that your body can adapt to things slowly and stuff, but i dont believe that an animal can go from one species to another. There can be variation between a species, but not a change from one species to another

 

Ok a lot of people here believe in evolution so I want them to explain this then because I don't understand this.

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/evolution.gif

Now that you saw that explaint it to me like i was five.

Another thing is that I do belive in God and obviously i'm a creationalist and when you look in The Bible it predicts every single empire through history, so why would it be wrong about the past? And so you don't deny this, the original scrols for the Old Testament (in which these reveletions apear) where dated with carbon dating and all of the were writen before those empires formed. Also look at the events going on today which Christ foretold are all coming true when He said it.

Lastly anyone can try to disproof God, but anyone that truly believe in him won't believe in evolution because the Bible says:

2 Corinthians 5:7
We live by faith, not by sight.

 

And again i say it doesn't matter I posted just to make a point i didn't expext for most people to believe, but i know someone out there will. To top it all the Bible says that God won't allow anyone to change HIS word. Believe what you want and I what i want.

 

The bible does say stone gays becuase for the Isrealites that was wrong. It's still a sin but since Jesus came and died the laws of God are a little different.

Why is it ok for people to bash christians for their beliefs but if you bash gays its wrong? WTF?

 

What about the dead sea scrolls which show that the bible has not been altered since at least 200 B.C. to 68 A.D. (when the scrolls were written)

 

You said it yourself everything is put into context, the words have changed but not the meaning of them and as for the priest and monks if you took a little time to reasd the Bible you woudl see that God doesn't approve of that. Those are what are called false prophets.

 

again you did not see the video i posted and you still are coming out with the same retarded dribble

micro evolution is evolution uh if you can see how that works then you should know how it all works.
and evolution states NO WHERE that one animal can go from one to another (that sir is your misunderstanding of evolution probably from creationist sources i hear this all the time and it wrong) but instead evolution states that species can be traced back to common ancestors so for instance there are many species of deer, one did not suddenly turn in to a different one that's not how it works but if you go back you will see that they will have had a common ancestor.

just watch the frigging video it explains it and shows why and where the information you've gotten from your creationist sources are fundamentally wrong

 

it may have been only part of the bible but it still shows that it has been acurately recorded from then till now.

I am not a mindless automatos that follows everything the church says, I listen to what they say and then form my own opinion based on my knowledge of a topic. Also hitler was an evolutionist and look how he fucked up our world. Some of the reasons behind hitler was his belief of natural selection. He thought that the german race was the most powerful and because of that they should rule the world. I think that's a very serious crime...

Lol i love how I'm only 14 and still you guys are listening to me... its pretty cool

 

i did watch the video and it was stupid they used "missing links" that have been proven as frauds. Also I do not misunderstand evolution. If your unhappy with what I've learned about it then talk to the public school system.