We are now. For a long, long time we were just another ape.
Cite that humans has the greatest will to live? And that other animals don’t fight just as hard to survive
Look at the Dark Ages- no advancement.
Look at oh 3000 to 2000 bc- almost no advancement.
The rate of technological advancement is far from steady.
Just admit you are unwilling to honestly consider the opposing side, since that is clearly the case.
Nonsense all over. We don’t have any special will to live. And throughout most of recorded history, we’ve barely advanced at all. And you are ignoring what we have in common with flies; we can’t have a population bigger than we can feed. Which is obvious, and why your little population theory is obvious garbage.
It’s not especially “credible”, but you weren’t asking for anything that’s is serious dispute. The fact that the universe is old, and that the magnetic field goes up and down in strength are both well known and well established. You were doing the equivalent of asking for a cite that the sky was blue.
No, there aren’t. Evolution is one of the most firmly established facts in science.
No, they haven’t. They just lie and distort, since they are completely wrong and have no actual facts to argue with. Just like they lied and distorted in your completely wrong claims above. They have no choice but to lie and distort, unless they want to give up their fantasy, since all the facts are against them.
You clearly don’t have sources of information. What you have, are sources of lies.
shall we discuss the law of biogenesis(which states that all life comes from preceding life of its kind)?
The law of biogenesis is a scientific law, yet the evolutionist asks us to believe that: (a) inorganic gave rise to organic; (b) Nonliving gave rise to living; (c) amoral gave rise to moral; and (d) unconscious gave rise to conscious.
perhaps you should read this article (where this information is taken from) at Dripping Springs. It is about the illiterate simpletons of Creationism.
My God Tom, reads the two posts in question.
Clearly, **simster **is making a case of intellectual dishonesty; a choice of words he chose. (and a general case at that!)
Based on his own post, and choice of words/terms, it occurred to me there was a contradiction between his point in paragraph 4, and his ***position ***in paragraph 3----enough of a contradiction that he appeared (in my reading anyway) to qualify himself for the type of dishonesty he described.
In any event, he clearly understood the dichotomy when he answered “Do the words “To this point” not indicate anything to you? In case they don’t, thats what they call a “qualifier” - and it clearly indicates that I’m still open to such proof - should it ever be presented.”
I’m amazed that an intelligent reading of my post could come up with the implication that I was calling simster dishonest; but rather pointing out a dichotomy in his post. (a point he made when he pointed out his words were ‘qualified’; a point I accept)
Shhheeeessshhh! :dubious:
It would take more than just one article to convince me. As far as I’m concerned, that thing is just fiction, and a poor job at that.
Added on edit: I want to “restate” my opinion. That “article” is not fiction, it’s crap.
“A”, “B”, and “C” are all true. And “biogenesis” just refers to the fact that life doesn’t arise from lifelessness NOW. Most likely because anything half alive would get eaten right away. And “evolutionist” is just a word creationists use to pretend that evolution is some ideological faction, and not accepted scientific fact.
It’s an example of the standard religious practice of trying to pretend that religion and science are equals. As opposed to the truth, that science is the best path to knowledge we have, and religion being worthless garbage.
Argument #1: Creation is not scientific, because creation is not testable, reproducible, or repeatable. Evolution, on the other hand, is scientific, and should be taught in science curricula, while creation should not.
Response: For a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties that can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. In addition, the theory must be capable of falsification. That is, it must be possible to conceive of some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory. It is on the basis of such criteria that most evolutionists insist creation be denied respectability as a potential scientific explanation of origins. Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is nonfalsifiable. Notice, however, that the General Theory of Evolution (organic evolution) also fails to meet all three of these criteria. No one observed the origin of the Universe or the origin of life. Similarly, no one has observed the conversion of a fish into an amphibian or an ape-like creature into a man. Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, both evolutionists, have stated:
Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349).
In a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (on the mathematical probabilities of evolution actually having occurred), Murray Eden, in speaking about the falsifiability of evolution, said:
This cannot be done in evolution, taking it in its broad sense, and this is really all I meant when I called it tautologous in the first place. It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be ingenious or not in proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms which you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable theory (1967, p. 71).
Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally. Both, however, can be stated as scientific models. It is poor science, and even poorer science education, to restrict instruction solely to the evolution model. When evolutionists attempt to depict evolution as the only scientific model, they are no longer speaking in the context of scientific truth. Either they do not know what the data actually reveal, or they are deliberately attempting to deceive. Evolution fails to answer more questions than it purports to answer, and the creation model certainly has as much (and often more) to offer as an alternative model. It is not within the domain of science to prove any concept regarding ultimate origins. The best one can hope for in this area is an adequate model to explain circumstantial evidence at hand. When one observes the undeniable design of every living thing, the complexity of the Universe itself, and the intricate nature of life, the creation model becomes quite attractive. It at least possesses a potential explanation for such attributes. The evolution model does not, but instead asks us to believe that design, inherent complexity, and intricateness are all the result of chance processes operating over eons of time.
(taken from Dripping Springs)
The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with either the origin of the universe or the origin of life! It deals only with what happens once living things already exist.
Oh, please. We have a massive amount of evidence for evolution. We see and deal with evolution happening all the time, in everything from wildlife to cancer. And we have plenty of evidence for the early history of the universe - which has nothing to do with the evolution of life, anyway.
Just as important, there are no credible alternatives to evolution. And no, Creationism isn’t credible; it’s pure nonsense. Evolution has a huge amount of evidence supporting it, none against it. While Creationism has massive evidence against it, and none for it.
Pure garbage, again. Evolution is seen ALL THE TIME, much less “observable experimentally”. And evolution is, indeed, the only scientific model. Creationism is NOT a scientific model, but baseless myth. The “undeniable design of every living thing” is in fact quite easy to deny because it doesn’t exist. And on, and on.
All you are doing is demonstrating how little you know.
I believe “the origin of life and origin of the universe” was used to state that neither evolutionist nor creationist has witnessed the origin.
Right after that it says “Similarly, no one has observed the conversion of a fish into an amphibian or an ape-like creature into a man”… that would have EVERYTHING to do with the theory of evolution.
But there is evidence for the scientific theories of how the universe came to be; zero for the religious ones.
Except that evolution HAS been observed.
Argument #5: The creationists are unable to support their own case with scientific evidence. All they can do is attack the evolutionist’s case with “negative evidence.” Why don’t creationists have any scientific evidence to support their case?
Response: This argument is parroted carelessly by evolutionists who ought to know better. In multiple debates with evolutionists, creation scientists have affirmed piece after piece of positive evidence for the creation model. Evidences from the various fields of science are piled one on top of the other to make the strongest possible case for creation. In fact, entire books have been written on the subject. Creationists continually point out to evolutionists that the Law of Biogenesis states explicitly that life comes only from life of its kind, and that this law is the cornerstone of all biology. Creationists continually point out that the fossil record is replete with gaps, and is devoid of the transitional forms that evolution must have if it is to preserve its case. Creationists continually point out that there are a multitude of evidences pointing to a young Earth (e.g.: oil well fluid pressures, the helium inventory in the atmosphere, population kinetics, the Earth’s rapid magnetic decay, polonium halos in the “oldest” rocks, etc.) that by definition would preclude evolution. Creationists continually point out that genetic mutations reduce viability, rather than changing one species into another. Creationists continually point out that natural selection preserves the status quo and eliminates those organisms that are “changed” from the norm. Creationists continually point out that the laws of thermodynamics clearly indicate that the Universe: (a) could not have created itself; and (b) is running down and becoming less ordered, not building up and becoming more ordered. Creationists continually point out that the Universe is contingent, and that contingent entities ultimately are dependent upon a non-contingent entity—a concept that fits the creation model perfectly, but that is something the evolution model cannot explain.
One by one the arguments of the evolutionist can be, and have been, answered. Name-calling, special-pleading, begging the question, and other such tactics ultimately are inadequate in responding to the scientific evidences presented by creationists. Eventually the subterfuge employed by evolutionists is seen to be both illogical and meritless. The arguments offered by creationists remain unrefuted.
(taken from Dripping Springs)
Again there is no such thing as an “evolutionists” your continued use of the word only makes you look ignorant.
WE haven’t watched such a series of changes in the lab. But we do have the fossil record and evolutionary changes have been observed in living things.
Every statement in your post is false.
Seriously Lacunas Quell, you’re coming off as massively ignorant. You’re spouting unscientific drivel like it should be taken seriously. This is like someone who can’t read arguing about penmanship. You simply are unable to effectively comment on evolution because of your ignorance and unwillingness to change it.
You’re embarrassing yourself. Don’t you see that acting like this only makes the religious seem like stupid backwards children? You’re actively working against what you’re trying to achieve here.
Wow, that Apologetics Press just prints industrial strength ignorance.
I know for sure that this bit:
Is 100% bullshit.
oh. I guess that the fine folk at wiki are ignorant too.
Present some photographs of these fossils.
Are you talking about physical evolution or adaptation?
I agree that they are ignorant. Clearly ignorant people wrote those articles. They should be deleted.
By The By
I have sent a private message to Darwin’s Finch. As you might guess from the name, he’s quite an expert on evolution. I’m confident he has all kinds of proof readily at hand.
Here’s some skulls.
Same thing.
Lets see a larger context:
But in ignorant circles? Without a doubt! 
It is already old news that the transitional forms for the whales and the ancestors of the whales that lived on land were found.
http://evolutiondiary.com/2009/02/09/early-whales-gave-birth-on-land-fossils-reveal/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16375247@N00/591281297
Stop posting the industrial strength ignorance as if it is good information, your last effort was really pathetic Lacunas Quell.