Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Creationists and People

Modern Creationism is a new Religion.
Its so new they have different cults, or ideas, as to how
God takes his place in our world.They dont seem to accept or care about any people that lived upon this Earth more than 6000 years ago.
Because Modern Young Earth Creationism, throw away any Scientific belief that the age of the Earth is older than 6000 years old. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the Dinosaurs were created on day 1.
Since Genesis in the Bible states that God created all the animals and Man within a day.
That fossilization took only a few hundred years, and all the
major geologic features like the Grand Canyon were created in the days of Noah's Flood.

The Creationist Museum shows proof that man lived with the
Dinosaurs and even shows pictures of a Man riding and using a Dinosaurs to help till and plough the fields.
They do have one amazing fossilized Human and Dinosaur footprint, showing they lived and walked together.
I was told this particular human/dino fossil is always under armed guard, to prevent it being destroyed by unbelievers.

I suggest you carry on reading below first, as I will show you the amazing fossil, at the bottom of this page. Where you might want to linger?

I am not sure how Creationists can believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old....but here goes.

Fact
Since 4000 BC. up to todays date 2012 AD. = 6000 years in total.

Fact
Bishop Ussher stated that the world was created in 4004 BC.

Fact
Creationists, believing in a young Earth, agree that a 6000 year old Earth is about right.

Fact
If they believe that Adam and Eve were place upon this Earth in 4000 BC.
Then by 2500 BC the Earths population would total about 440.
Lets be generous, and assume half the Earth's population was living in Egypt.
Forgetting about the elderly and children. Some one had to build the 'Great Pyramid'.
This means that the Pyramid must have been built by about 40 men, who cut, quarried, dressed and moved 2,300,000 stone blocks, some of them weighed up to 50 tons over a period
of 40 years, to complete 'the Great Pyramid' within the Pharoah Kufu's lifetime. Thats about 4 blocks per man-day.

Go figure that even less men must have been used to build the smaller first Pyramid, some 200 years earlier, that would work out to about prehaps 20 men?
Remember just a few able-bodied men back in 3700 BC. were constructing the fortified cities of Mesopotamia, while the other 20 able-bodied men left in the World were constructing the Indus valley, Crete, and other world civilizations.

Later I will explain why the Creationists believe the Moon is very young since it only has a few inches of surface dust.....instead of the belief that the dust should be a few feet thick, comensurate with the belief that the Moon is
4.527 billion years,LOL
Not that its supposed to have dust feet thick. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why its dust is only naturally inches thick. Now here comes your Xmas pudding
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm Supposedly verified as NOT a fake. Lets all have a Happy Xmas, and accept each others improbable differences. Hehe

If we give our creationist brethren the benefit of the doubt and assume that the fossil is to the best of their knowledge genuine; a few questions remain to be asked. For example:

Has the rock been dated?

Has it been examined by an independent palaeontologist?

Has there been an identification of the animal responsible for the footprint?

There is plenty of evidence that very large, flightless birds and humans co-existed. Has this been considered?

Plenty of things to consider, but a bottle of single malt makes a better subject for Christmas investigation.

Happy Christmas, everyone. Perhaps I should say: especially Paul, as I guess you have more claim to the joys and blessings of this season than most of us.

Modern Creationism is a new Religion.
Its so new they have different cults, or ideas, as to how
God takes his place in our world.They don't seem to accept or care about any people that lived upon this Earth more than 6000 years ago.
Because Modern Young Earth Creationism, throw away any Scientific belief that the age of the Earth is older than 6000 years old. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the Dinosaurs were created on day 1.
Since Genesis in the Bible states that God created all the animals and Man within a day.

-------------------------
on day 1, LOL
try that again mike.

-------------------------
That fossilization took only a few hundred years, and all the
major geologic features like the Grand Canyon were created in the days of Noah's Flood.
-------------------------

exactly

-------------------------

The Creationist Museum shows proof that man lived with the
Dinosaurs and even shows pictures of a Man riding and using a Dinosaurs to help till and plough the fields.
They do have one amazing fossilized Human and Dinosaur footprint, showing they lived and walked together.
--------------------------
science says that the footprints of the humans were meerely other creatures
footprints that were made to look larger because of water , but they seem
to forget that this would make all dinosaur footprints appear to have
originated from tiny birds , made to look larger by water.

but science has the fossils of dinosaurs so they don't care.
but then again science doesn't have that magical link between ape and man
they only have assumption , of which the first 3 letters completely describe
the followers of this barrage of bullshit.

--------------------------

I was told this particular human/dino fossil is always under armed guard, to prevent it being destroyed by unbelievers.
--------------------------
I don't blame them at all , I think that is a reasonable thing
to do given that the follower's of the evolution religion might
want to destroy it to lessen the evidence against their beliefs.

doesn't the evolution religion keep their evidence under lock
and key in museum's and in the back rooms away from view?

--------------------------

I suggest you carry on reading below first, as I will show you the amazing fossil, at the bottom of this page. Where you might want to linger?

I am not sure how Creationists can believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old....but here goes.

Fact
Since 4000 BC. up to today's date 2012 AD. = 6000 years in total.

--------------------------
missing 12 years
big deal.
lets just say that 6000 years ago was 6000 years ago
and 2012 years ago was when AD began.
--------------------------

Fact
Bishop Ussher stated that the world was created in 4004 BC.

----------------------------

he was probably trying to fix somebody else's mistake

----------------------------

Fact
Creationists, believing in a young Earth, agree that a 6000 year old Earth is about right.

-----------------------------

NC

-----------------------------
Fact
If they believe that Adam and Eve were place upon this Earth in 4000 BC.
Then by 2500 BC the Earths population would total about 440.
-----------------------------
absolutely not , there's no way that the population could be calculated to
be that low over a time period of 1500 years.
----
which makes the following in red entirely erroneous
-----------------------------


Lets be generous, and assume half the Earth's population was living in Egypt.
Forgetting about the elderly and children. Some one had to build the 'Great Pyramid'.
This means that the Pyramid must have been built by about 40 men, who cut, quarried, dressed and moved 2,300,000 stone blocks, some of them weighed up to 50 tons over a period
of 40 years, to complete 'the Great Pyramid' within the Pharoah Kufu's lifetime. Thats about 4 blocks per man-day.

Go figure that even less men must have been used to build the smaller first Pyramid, some 200 years earlier, that would work out to about prehaps 20 men?
Remember just a few able-bodied men back in 3700 BC. were constructing the fortified cities of Mesopotamia, while the other 20 able-bodied men left in the World were constructing the Indus valley, Crete, and other world civilizations.

end of erroneous comments
---------------------------

Later I will explain why the Creationists believe the Moon is very young since it only has a few inches of surface dust.....instead of the belief that the dust should be a few feet thick, comensurate with the belief that the Moon is
4.527 billion years,LOL
Not that its supposed to have dust feet thick. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why its dust is only naturally inches thick.

--------------------------

excellent , this was mentioned several weeks go , I'm surprised you didn't post
the information back then , even so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation.

-------------------------

Now here comes your Xmas pudding
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm Supposedly verified as NOT a fake. Lets all have a Happy Xmas, and accept each others improbable differences. Hehe

--------------------------

yes Merry Christmas to all , even to those of you who should be ashamed
to celebrate a day associated with the birth of someone that you don't
even believe existed , a religion you curse on a daily basis.

I think atheist should all be forced to work on Christmas , LOL.
but that might attract the riff raff into the mix for that purpose alone.

atheist , I wonder how they celebrate Christmas , and why.

santa told me that he reads this forum , and that he was going to
give each of you a lump of coal , but decided that coal was too valuable
a gift.


so hes going to give all you atheist scientist types a nothing and let you make
what ever you can from it.

even santa's mad at you guys , you better watch out.
you better not pout , santa clause is comming to town.

muhahahahaha

Couldn't be that the evil Christian overlords used this time frame to cover up those pesky old pagan celebrations... never.
Not like the solstice was celebrated for 5000 years or so before Christianity came along... no, that makes no sense.
Why celebrate a yearly death and rebirth of the world, when you can celebrate the birth of a poverty stricken carpenter, born to a woman who never consummated her marriage with her husband, but totally didn't cheat.

One of these ideas seems legit... hmmm...

OR, it may be, that religious, atheist, or both (as is my case), just like to have a time of the year when we all celebrate, and nuts to what goes on in your head, or in the sky.
Love, share, and be merry.

Happy Chrisanzaasticeukkah! Or whatever.

I don't really know what they are but there not covered up , there just pesky old celebrations that no one seems to celebrate except a handful of people.

I don't even know that their pesky , so I guess I shouldn't have even said they
were pesky.

I wonder when the Christians will start throwing the atheist to the lion's
because their atheist, the way the atheist threw the Christians to the lion's because they were Christian's.

it must have been pretty bad to have such a weak religion that the follower's had to try and kill off the opposition.

like they are trying to kill off the opposition today with evolution.

we'll just wait and see who pull's through this time.

seem's to me that the odd's are pretty much against your team though.

survival of the fittest right?

Well, actually it wasn't atheists that threw the Christians to the lions. It was the people (the pagans) who worshiped other gods and the rulers who thought that the Christians were trouble makers because they refused to worship the emperors as gods.

Bill Gill

Well, I did a quick search and it didn't take long to find a non-creationist site that discusses the Delk Print.

The Paluxy Web Site does a pretty good analysis of the print based on the photographs provided by Delk. The author doesn't think much of it. He has a bunch of problems that he has seen just with the photos. Basically he figures it is just one more fake footprint among many.

Bill Gill

well the analysis of the prints sounded pretty good
and that would reveal a lot more that just looking.



that doesnt sound like its a fake to me.

and we ask this new unscientific evolution the same question!

why do you personally think different?

there must be a reason you can discuss.

and when will you be posting the moon dust proof?

that's sort of the way you pagan people made me feel when
I didn't bow down and blindly worship your god or evolution's
new emperor lenski

Reading through this thread I found myself thinking: "here goes another thread, circling the drain of non-verifiable/non-falsifiable belief sets".

Then I looked back at the OP and realised that that was precisely where it started.

WOW! Still on topic after 11 posts! Must be the influence of Christmas.

Now I understand why emotional, ad hominem tirades are tolerated on SAGG.

Shame! It could be a good science discuss forum.

I thought one of the essentials was respecting other people, and their views.

If Paul believes in 7 days of creation, he has every right to that belief, and to defend it.

If he does so in a way that is personally offensive to other members he should be taken to task for that. So should anyone else who demeans the forum by using similar tactics.

Anyone who has read Paul's posts must know that he is not going to "disappear with his tail between his legs". If causing any member of the forum to do that is anyone's objective, then I suggest that person is on the wrong forum.

Amen Bill S.

In a way I kind of enjoy Paul's posts. They give me a chance to show what a hugely intelligent person I am. And he keeps giving me chances to do that without having to actually do much thinking. Most of his ideas are so far out that you can shoot holes in them with a BB gun, no big guns required.

Orac isn't quite as much fun. Unfortunately he knows a lot and so I can't show off as well when I am in a discussion with him.

Bill Gill

Certainly, Bill S, respecting a person's right to have differing views is both wise and ethically correct - for ALL parties. Respecting those views is quite a different matter.

Just as people of various religious cults attack science in defence of their beliefs, so others attack those beliefs in defence of science. I see nothing amiss in that. All parties should have equal rights of attack and defense of ideas and beliefs. In that regard, religion should not have the privileged status it generally seems to claim, as evidenced in the extreme by the slaughters that have been perpetrated in its name. The essential point is that attacks upon persons, either verbally or physically are patently opposed to whatever high precepts may be held by theists and atheists alike.

The moderators have not only to deal with verbal offensiveness, but also to tackle the sometimes ticklish task of deciding where the line be drawn between science and NQS. I would venture to suggest that unless they are bold and resolute, this forum may fail to recover from its current low ebb. As Bill S. says, "This could be a good science discuss forum".

P.S. Wishing you all a joyful Christmas season and good fortune in the coming year (whatever your beliefs or lack thereof)

In no way am I suggesting that respecting someone's views entails agreeing with them, or not attacking them. However, simply pouring scorn on them, and making insulting comments (which is what I would consider being disrespectful) is rarely, if ever, the most effective form of attack, and is certainly distasteful.

I agree absolutely that religions should not enjoy a privileged status. Unfortunately, in this country, political correctness seems to be moving us towards a situation in which Christianity is the only religion it is safe to attack; but that's a different matter.

Yes; I know I said "discuss" instead of "discussion", but I think it was a bit mean to call attention to it.

May I state on behalf of all of us that write in SAGG
That we do not want anybody to disappear with 'their tail between their legs'....(especially Paul).
We have lost a few, very interesting and worthwhile writers
in the past.
SAGG provides us with a lot of comedy and interesting scientific writings, on an almost daily basis.
We need to gain sensible writers that sensibly contribute and add, to just about anything that is written.

I think it is a lot easier to put down or even hate a particular or group of writers, just for the sake of getting
ones name up on the 'board'. Step to 'far over the mark'
...yes - you may get a final nasty reply for your trouble,

I remember being taught this many years ago (dont know where it comes from)
Whenever one group of people is taught to hate another,
a lie is created (or written) to inflame that hatred
and justify a plot.

Hopefuly none of us will write in such a manner that it inflames hatred....we love our SAGG and want it to grow from strength to strength, else we may lose a Registered user forever.
We got 2896 Registered users, a number of holiday guests but
no more than a dozen regular serious writers.
Any-body come up with improvement suggestions?

now that you have all had your laugh , lets look at
some evidence of creation.



now thats a world class puzzle for someone like darwin and evolution
and quickly points a validating finger at Creation.




we might hear from Bill s that the document
origins of the species is too old or religious
or some excuse , and Bill Gill will plead to his
Gentile Readers claiming himself to be a genius again

I say its up to the readers , not those who recently
bloated in their pants.

Yes , that's exactly right , Mike.

and we can prove that evolution didn't occur.

something that evolution cannot say about Creation!

try and try as you may , just like you have been trying
for hundreds of years to do , you cant provide the transitional
life forms that should be there in the pre cambrian period
nor can you provide the supposed link between ape and man.

evolution has no foundation.

in fact if science really did use data and the scientific method
of determination , then science would state that evolution is what occurred naturally after Creation.

but science and its pig headed leaders and followers don't recognize fact's and data and finding's and such as that , they just want to dictate to everyone who is gullible enough to believe their lies , lies that are in place to protect their belief system.

nothing to do with what science should be.

BTW , if you think I'm wrong then lets see the transitional
life forms that no one so far has been able to find.

Paul, you have a typo there I wrote gentle, not gentile, I'm not writing just for non-Jews. I'm writing for any body who is interested in the subject that is under discussion. That includes Jews and Mormons (who frequently refer to non-Mormons as gentiles).

Bill Gill

Since, quite obviously, you either do not read, or fail to understand my posts, I'll stop wasting my time.

But the point was that you are writing to show how smart you
are , LOL.

which didn't work.

the usual tuck the tail between the legs and run scientific
method once again there , Bill s.

Thanks Paul, why would I need to continue with this discussion when you make my point about its futility for me so eloquently?

your welcome.

BTW

why is it that people who place so much faith in evolution
are the first to tuck - n - run?

you and Bill Gill and Mike enjoyed a good laugh at the
expense of other's who believe and know that Creation
actually happened , and when your faced with the same
problems that darwin encountered , which supports Creation
you simply ignore the established facts and data that has
been recorded for the past 170 years or so through the work of
well known experts in their fields.

and you guys think of evolution as being correct by claiming that Creation didnt happen and yourselves as the correct one's.

LOL , what a pot of excrement you brew.

no, we don't discount the record.

you non-creationist are the ones who discount the archaeological record of early life.

I'm talking about that terribly difficult stage in evolution
where magic first came into play.

what should have been recorded in the record was the
long gradual stages of evolution that evolution claims
would have happened , yet in stead of any transition at
all NONE there's suddenly a world full of fully formed life forms.

complete with eyes , skeletal framework , limbs , etc...

fully complete beings. (only they didn't evolve)
they just suddenly appeared.

or should I just simply say the missing transitions not found below the cambrian where evolution says they should be.

the place where Creation took place.

on the 5th Day

Paul, please show me where you think I had a laugh at anyone's expense.

whats the matter guys.
almost a page of replies and not one of you have
given a rebuttal to what I said about the pre cambrian period.

only spelling error comments from Bill Gill.
and
Bill s trying to make it look as if he has never said
anything negative about Creationist or Creation.

I think that's really sad that you guys don't have
anything that supports your belief system.

at least we do have the Bible and the archaeological record
that supports us.

you see we don't have to wonder or guess like evolution does
because Creation is recorded in both the Bible and in the
archaeological record.

so Creation is more of what science calls science than evolution is.

but its not a theory like evolution is because its
written down in layers of strata inside the earth where
no man can change it.

it cant be swept under the rug of science , or locked away
in a back room of a museum.


but I bet you guys wish you could do that to save your belief system from ruin.

Well, gentle readers here we go again. Paul is making unfounded claims to try to bolster his false claims of proof of creationism. So here are a handful of sites with info about PreCambrian fossils.

Virtual Fossil Museum

The Precambrian Fossil Record

Solution to Darwin's dilemma

And if you want to do a quick search on the web you can find many more sites that also show lots of fossils.

So are you going to have the courtesy to answer my question, or just hide behind more unsubstantiated "smart" assertions?

Some interesting links there, Bill, but, of course they have validity as a pro-evolution argument only if you accept radiometric dating as reliable.

Matters of Faith

"When I was a child, I thought as a child." I accepted the beliefs and teachings of those who were important to me. It was inconceivable that they could be wrong. If my mother was wrong, what safety was there in my infant world?

Later I was able to look with a little more safety at the wider picture, and to ask questions such as: what would I believe now if I had been brought up as a Jew, Hindu or Buddhist?

I began to question what claim any ancient scripture had to being more authoritative than any other. Jews maintain that the Torah is the word of God. Christians make the same claim for the Bible. Is either of these claims any better than a claim that the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita or the teachings of the Buddha might be the word of God?

Until questions such as these can be answered with some degree of certainty, supporting arguments by quoting from any of these sources is pointless; unless the discussion is about the relative merits of the morals and ethics of the various teachings.

My belief? There can never have been a time when there was nothing, otherwise there would be nothing now.

If that belief is correct, then creation, evolution, belief and scientific enquiry all operate within the framework of an eternal/infinite reality. What the precise nature of that reality is, I don't know, and I strongly suspect no one else does.

One thing I am fairly sure of is that we all have a right to our beliefs, and, if we need to, to defend our beliefs.

I think we have a right to question the beliefs of others, if they bring their beliefs into an arena of discussion, but I think we should do so with courtesy and sensitivity. If another person is obviously afraid to question his/her beliefs and resorts to anger or abuse as a defence, I think we should acknowledge that fear as being very real, and, perhaps, back off, as a matter of sensitivity.

I also believe that I have no right to tell anyone else that his/her beliefs are wrong, and mine are right. I believe I have the right to similar courtesy in return, and that others also have that right.

I feel that in one way you are right about that, but in another there is the problem that many people try to force their beliefs on others. In the case of creationism the believers don't just try to persuade people, they try to force their beliefs into the schools. That is where they go wrong.

In my case I keep replying to Paul so that I can point out the errors in the creationist claims. There is so much evidence that evolution is a fact that I want to make sure that other people who read Paul's posts are not mislead by his belief's into accepting them as true.

Bill Gill

Unfortunately, if you are certain in your own mind that holding a particular belief is essential to something as important as eternal life, missionary zeal can easily get in the way of other people's rights.

Some 20 years ago I was talking to a Catholic Priest, a member of a Missionary Order, he said he thought we had no right to go to other people's countries and tell them that their beliefs were wrong, and ours were right. Sadly, such enlightenment is rare.

LOL

this

what is that , bacteria?
could you even see it?
with a magnifying glass?
would it take a microscope?

nothing in between !

then this


some as large as 50 cm in length!

excuse me but that does not solve the darwinian dilemma!

and it still proves Creation.

I'm still waiting to see some of the so much evidence , the
linski thingy didn't show evolution.

it showed that bacteria can begin to use a nutrient that it stopped using earlier, but it didn't show any thing new.

I have read that the linski thing was the best evidence that
evolution had , but still can you post something else?

I must admit Paul, the Video is very interesting if rather long.

My personal rather hurried thoughts came to mind rather quickly

When it comes to the Why, Where, and How life started here on Earth

....None of us want to believe in fairy tales, do we?
Every correct honest and science minded person would like to know the truth.
However the truth was not available 6000+ years ago.....Genesis was written by the cleverest men of their time, Over time, historical items were added by different groups of peoples.

Every different group of peoples in the world have their own even similar Bibles. They became similar due to cultural communication, where it happened..

A large proportion of peoples in the world treat the Bible as a Fairy tale with with later added local histories.
Nothing wrong in that....it was, and still is accepted as the truth, by many peoples.
The problem is, it does not answer my underlined question above.
Still yet is another large proportion of peoples that talk about an all seeing, and all encompassing invisible God-like Father, who created our world and who obviously should look out for us.
Thats another set of truths accepted by an larger group of (religious) peoples.

Both ideas still don't answer the underlined question above, and so a more modern and recent idea was formulated, called Creationism.

Creationism trys to use semi-scientific arguements in their hunt for the truth and to validate its points.
Creationists, deny Evolution.....because no-one has ever found Transitional life forms that would prove evolution as a fact to them.
That said- they cleverly accept the historical Biblical accounts (not wanting to upset the Bible thumpers) and state that Life must have started, been created, formed,
and controlled by an Intelligent Source.
Its a clever but unproven idea.

Nobody wants Fairy stories....we would all like the truth
If no transitional Life has been found....it may mean that we hav'nt looked around hard enough.
That does not mean that Creationism has to be correct, or even accepted.

Creationism makes a good point...that after the Cambrian explosion, there was no fossil records of the evolutionary theory that Darwin was so desperate find, to enable him to back up and prove his theory of Evolution.

Yet there are thousands of later records proving Evolution, ..... fish came out of the sea, developed lungs, and walked the Earth...continuing to develop, as did plant life.

The problem is that Creationists do not accept Evolution, because no fossil records later
than Cambrian show any signs of Oxygen breathing small animals.
They believe that all the animals that came later...were a product of Intelligent design.
That gave them eyes to see with, feet to run with, arms to fight with, and brains to survive, all courtesy of Intelligent design. There was an explosion of different animals, the reasons I will discuss later.

Since there are gaps in Creationism, and gaps in Evolution.....it follows that there is not
enough information to produce the truth, one way or another.
Truth is truth...it may take very many years into the future to find it, but eventually another more correct idea will come along, and tend to push out all our old ideas.
The more correct the answer, the quicker its acceptance.

I would like to throw in some (to me) obvious ideas regarding the lack of post Cambrian life.
Tribolites in all their beautiful forms are found all over the world in the mountain ranges of Wales, Canada, and China. All found about the same height above sea level
Remember they were all fossilised on the sea floor, covered by silt, sand or fine dust.

And then the records show, they were no more. Life died.
I would like to posit that they died because of a sudden large amount of dust covered them so thickly that it killed their food source, even making it difficult for
them to move around, plus with no food they died ---all over the world.

Pauls film shows that the Tribolytes fed upon all the soft bodied microscopic egg shaped embryo life that had existed for 60 million years before the Cambrian Tribolytes evolved.

All of the Cambrian fossils show that they had compact articulated bodies, complete with legs, mouth and anus.
Then they died everywhere...I'm suggesting the shallow seabeds all over the world were covered in a fine silt.
Life had to start again. Soft bodied life along sea-shores, developed and ate their own developing soft life.
They could not nibble Tribolyte's for food, they were hard shelled and fossilising under silt.
These new soft bodied creatures were not even found together with Tribolytes, or above them in the strata.

These were the development of new soft life , that eventually developed into Jelly fish, articulated worms and fish........Oh yes many millions of years later.
Sorry I am writing quickly, and not bothering about looking up Epoch dates.

I would also like to suggest that this new soft bodied life
after death, did not survive in the strong sea tides around the worlds shallow coasts. Dead they left no trace.

Later when all the different Phyla, left the sea shore and eventually ventured inland to die...THEN they became the sudden explosion of the very many different fossils found, in the world that the Creationists attribute to an Intelligence Source.

At that time, there must have been many different animals developing aplenty.
But the newly developed dead ones must have been battered to pieces in the strong surf tides
Which is why nobody. including Creationists has found any of this new animal life that evolution was evolving,...until they walked lived and died inland.

The continents separated slowly, leaving shallow seas, when these tiny animals left the sea, and populated various places inland, and died inland. Only then could the modern archeologists dig down, find and place that multitude of animals into the evolutionry catalogue.

My idea is- that there will never be any earlier evolutionary transitional animals to be found, they were all destroyed and battered by the surf.
So eat your heart out Creationists.

We mine for coal, drill for oil, change the valleys to build dams, but no Transitional animal life has been found, as yet.
Life began in the sea, the various types of animals developed on the sea shores. They died leaving no trace util they walked inland.
Is the above a possible answer?

We dont know the answers, regarding Earths life. But you can be sure what we believe in today has a percentage of fairy story, and incorrect data attached to it.

SO IS THAT AN OPEN INVITATION TO ME PAUL

I mean I wouldn't want to be ACUSED OF STARTING a conversation on religion


CAN I DISSCUSS YOUR CRAZY BELIEFS AND HOW UNSCIENTIFIC AND IMPOSSIBLE THEY ARE?

I am checking here because I am coming in boots and all with a whole pile of questions I have for you.

SCIENCE DOESN'T PROVE THINGS IT WORKS BY FALSIFIABILITY

In that Evolution has never been falsified then your total argument is crap from a scientific point.

The reverse is not true of your religious beliefs have manifestly been proven false and most religions even run a mile from any claim of literal accuracy of genesis.


This is the point you keep missing we don't have to prove evolution is right you don't like it prove it is wrong ... good luck with that :-)

If you want science to have to prove evolution then you should have to prove the alternative ... again good luck.

exactly , and further down you say



you cant find proof of evolution so you say that because evolution has no proof then Creation must not be correct.
that seem's way out of line to me as a logical thinking person.

that also does not mean that evolution has to be correct, or even accepted , but it is accepted and taught in schools
as if it were correct , and creation is not taught in schools , although Creation is seen clearly in the fossil record to have
taken place.




that's the problem that evolution endures to this day, according to the fossil record the life forms that suddenly appeared in the cambrian did not evolve from any of the life forms found in the
fossil record of the pre cambrian period , they just materialized, as if by magic.




I'm not following that one , the very many fossils found in the cambrian were sea creatures , not land creatures.











that's hardly plausible , because for the most part the fossils that have been found were covered at or around the moment of death and preserved because they were covered , this is why they are
mostly intact , if they were not covered then scavengers would have consumed them and there would be no fossils.

in the video it shows fossils being found in what was a reef.
and it was underneath the cambrian strata on the reef that no
evidence of evolution was found.

The problem you have is the story of genesis fails even for the average 12 year old.

When was the last 950 year old person you saw walking around?
Do you really think you could get all the animals in the world on a small boat?

So literal creation via genesis is falsified as an idea even to a 12 year old or are you going to expand your definition on creation out wider to some god making some beginning?

here's the video link again in case anyone missed it.

exactly , and further down you say



you cant find proof of evolution so you say that because evolution has no proof then Creation must not be correct.
that seem's way out of line to me as a logical thinking person.

that also does not mean that evolution has to be correct, or even accepted , but it is accepted and taught in schools
as if it were correct , and creation is not taught in schools , although Creation is seen clearly in the fossil record to have
taken place.



that's the problem that evolution endures to this day, according to the fossil record the life forms that suddenly appeared in the cambrian did not evolve from any of the life forms found in the
fossil record of the pre cambrian period , they just materialized, as if by magic.



I'm not following that one , the very many fossils found in the cambrian were sea creatures , not land creatures.











that's hardly plausible , because for the most part the fossils that have been found were covered at or around the moment of death and preserved because they were covered , this is why they are
mostly intact , if they were not covered then scavengers would have consumed them and there would be no fossils. [/quote]

I could understand why you would think that way if there
were no fossils found in the pre cambrian strata.

but there are fossils found in the pre cambrian strata.

so logic demands that they all did not die in the surf and
become ripped to shreads.

the problem with evolution is that there are no fossils
that can be linked to the many diverse forms of cambrian life.

its as if these cambrian forms of life were just there all
of a sudden , everywhere on the earth , fully developed , as if they had been transported from another planet where they had spent billions of years evolving.




during the cambrian and pre cambrian periods the ocean was above the places where the cambrian and pre cambrian fossils are found on land today.

so none of them made it onto land either , yet their fossils
are readily found in the strata.

there just aren't any transitional fossils found that would prove that evolution actually took place.

the fact that there are no transitional fossils shows more proof of Creation than evolution.



they didnt have to walk away from the sea shore in order for us to find their fossils , the sea shore walked away from them in a way because the land that contains their fossils rose above the water.

Could be we are all wasting our time here.

I suppose that you have not openly or directly made
negative comments on this forum about Christians or Creation.

perhaps it's the names used Bill and Bill S. that confused me.
perhaps its the volume of people that I have to reply to in
almost every discussion that I enter into in this forum.

its as if I begin a discussion with one person then someone else takes over then someone else takes over a little while later.

no continuity is the continuity.

just like when I was discussing some things with Mike and then Orac jumps in with his ranting then you jump in requiring an
answer to something I said earlier.

but I'm used to that because that's the way the wolf pack
attack's their victim's , nipping at the heel's of their next
meal until the meal has been tired down.

then the alpha male jump's in , the problem in SAGG is that
the pack does not have a alpha male that can win a battle.

so they all lose , and lose alot.



could this be the leader of the forum suggesting that
the pack find an easier victim?

Ha-ha-ha-ha...splitting my sides...
You can always be relied upon to add humour to the mix, Bill, but that's a peach

Haha you are funny.

If you call making up absolute crap that noone believes a win you have issues. Everyone is against you because what you say is crap and obviously crap.

The pack of everyone "nips" at you because you dribble rubbish that is unbelievable pure and simple.

Then you try and reverse science and we have to prove evolution where it is up to you to disprove evolution like we can disproved your version of creation.

That brings on the dummy spit from you about don't mention religion, stop mentioning religion or I will cry ... blah blah blah.

Then you call that a win :-)

For most of us here this is not a competetion we are here to discuss science.

The problem for you is you aren't here to discuss science you are here to peddle your religion and it is obvious as hell to everyone.

Incase you haven't noticed everyone has picked it up and is laughing at you ... YOU WON :-)

its more like I was right on the money , and you are just wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion





the pre cambrian was where the development should have occurred
just like I have been saying , but there was no development.
there was no evolution.
they just appeared.

I'm not sure exactly what your attempting to do Mike
but it sure looks as if you don't know what your takling about at all.



I dont believe in evolution , I have said that plenty of times.
I believe that the development changes that are seen are simply
due to the environment.

and I did say ( its as if ) heres what I said.

but you guys are not the only one's who are reading the post , so
given the evidence I have presented and the lack of evidence you guys have presented , I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is me that they are laughing at, LOL.

there are 92 people viewing the forum right now.
I would venture to say that at least all of them except those who
normally post here are laughing at you guys.

not me.

there's no reason for them to laugh at what I have written.

Oh they are rioting in the street demanding that the jewish torah as interpretted by some radical fundementalists is taught as creation.

Meanwhile all science is in complete disarray demanding that evolution has been falsified and needs to be replaced by goat god philosophy.

YEP you are indeed the biggest WINNER I have ever met!!!!!!

NEWSFLASH READING DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW, THEY MAY NOT BE SUPPORTING SCIENCE VIEW EITHER THUS WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THE STATUS QUO UNLESS THEY DECIDE TO ACT OR TALK.



And you evidence for the above statement is Mr Winner?
I personally assume nothing if they aren't commenting I can't say anything about what they believe because I am not delusional like WINNERS.

As people above have explained you have bigger issues than evolution, evolution being wrong would not prove creation because there may be other theories out there which may supercede both those theories. You have turned something into a two horse race which isn't a two horse race.

So again your win is only in your own mind.

So who did the creating?--- because surely if there is 'creationism' there must be a creator, or otherwise it will just be an 'ism' (which is in the dictionary as a suffix- and with a whole host of interesting meanings resulting from its usage.)

Choose from the following from The Penguin English Dictionary.

2. a) a state or property
b) a pathological state or property.
3. a) a doctrine or cult.
b) prejudice

Some very apt meanings there I think.

Oops, Ellis. I expect there will follow the usual vitriolic slamming of atheism and agnosticism. We could discuss rheumatism instead, but that might be a sign of pragmatism. Wouldn't want too much of that now would we.

Absolutely right; so any negative connotations are in the mind of the "beholder".



Undoubtedly it is regrettable that the presence of just two Bills should occasion such profound disorientation. You may recall that I expressed the intention to leave this thread; perhaps that would have helped. I interpreted you attempt at a provocative response as being designed as a deterrent from such action. Perhaps you saw me as part of your illusory wolf pack, which could ill afford depletion if you were to sustain any momentum towards intellectual martyrdom for your beliefs.

Your confusion may have caused you to overlook the fact that on more than one occasion I have said I accept that people's beliefs, perhaps especially their religious beliefs, are deeply important to them and should not me mocked.

Obviously if a person brings his/her beliefs into a discussion forum, it is reasonable to assume that they are there for discussion.



Does that not have something to do with the fact that this is a discussion forum? Do you not join in discussions?

There is always the PM option if open discussion is too threatening.

Paul doesn't want to discuss anything he wants to tell you the one thing that is important to him that his strange version of creation is correct. He will pervert and change any and all facts and science to that end.

Unfortunately it is behaviour that is too common to alot of religions being simple indoctrination by lies and deception.

I have been trying , basically pleading for the believers
of evolution to present an argument in favor of evolution.

all I get is words , thing's that evolutionist have heard from
other evolutionist , as they pat each other on the back and invent
more and more fake evidence in the form of drawings and models
of what they perceive evolution would look like if evolution would have occured.

they never can produce a single piece of evidence.

just words that they have heard or read in evolutionist book's.

they might as well be reciting from comic book's as comic book's
closely resemble the proof that is established through drawing's
and clay modeling of the characters in the evolution saga fable.

why would evolution need to produce any hard evidence when
evolution can simply make its own evidence using drawings and modeling clay?

For the last time we don't have to PROVE evolution it simply needs to be falsified if its wrong.

NO ONE HAS EVER FALSIFIED IT.

Why would we waste our time trying to prove it to you as you would never accept our proof because you have a problem if it is true your religion, GOD and beliefs die and thus you couldn't accept any proof.

ON THE REVERSE THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS EASY TO FALSIFY and Darwin easily did that when he created the theory of evolution.

You think it's a comic story who gives a rats you can't and haven't falsified evolution so it's not worth wasting time on.

Evolution still is installed as science theory because it has never been formally falsified ... GET IT ... NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

Thats how science works and although simple you seem to struggle with basics like this.

You similarly struggled with why creationism couldn't be taught as science in schools because the law upheld the simple rules of science. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster created as threat/paradody by scientist showed what would happen if we don't adhere to the science rules any stupidity could call itself science and demand to be taught as science.

The law doesn't give a rats whether you believe in evolution, Science doesn't give a rats if you believe in evolution and I am certainly not going to waste my time in a pointless argument with you because I don't give a rats if you believe in evolution.

Evolution remains the current theory of development of life on the planet by science and nothing you can do short of a formal falsification will change that ... get over it.

Stop wasting peoples time if you want to have a crack at falsifying it go for it otherwise move on.

see what I mean , no evidence , no proof , not even a hint
of a feasible theory , nothing , nothing at all.

only ranting and raving and comic book fairy tale stories
that describe what is supposed to be a part of science.

evolution can not prove itself using Creation , because
evolution denies Creation.

yet , the blind followers of evolution do try.

they laugh at those who believe in Creation , because they have
all their drawing's and their models that they invented to protect themselves.

No we chose not to engage in pointless exchanges ... science is not a popularity contest and doesn't need us to rally numbers to defend it.

Science is very comfortable with evolution and it's standing.

For me personally I laugh at your genesis version of creation because it is so obviously wrong at a child level. I also laugh at your lack of understanding of how science works :-)


Basically wow a religious fruitloop such as yourself doesn't believe in evolution I am sure that is going to rock everyones world. I am comfortable anyone reading this forum gets the picture ... LOL.

I cannot understand why there is so much animosity towards Evolution. Surely it is possible for believers, and I know some who do, to believe that the world was developed by God along the plan described in Genesis, which actually gets the whole birth of the universe remarkably accurately for the time in which it was written.

I think that the universe (and etc) arose from undirected chaos or even nothing! But it surely would not be difficult to believe that Evolution, which now slowly being verified, gives the most accurate outline of the origin of everything! And believe it is directed by God, if you must.

It is wrong not to allow children access to provable science, and instead to teach them, knowingly, incorrect information.

exactly , that's why we should stop teaching them evolution.

Frequently this sort of animosity is born of fear, often unrecognised and/or unacknowledged, but very real none-the-less.

Questioning one's fundamental beliefs, especially if those beliefs are linked to the concept of eternal life/salvation, requires a degree of courage that tends to be proportional to the fervour with which the belief is held.

I suspect that one would need personal experience of this sort of situation in order even to begin to know how it must feel.

in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.

I'm not looking at it from a creationist viewpoint , I'm looking
at it from a logical viewpoint.

evolution does not seem logical to me.
and from what I have read and seen it is not logical
to many other's either.

there's no fear involved , believe me.
whenever I would read up on evolution , I would find thing's
that just didn't fit into any logical picture.

BTW , I did believe that evolution occurred at some point
in the past , this was before I began to question science
due to the corruptness in science today.

I began to question all aspects of science not just evolution
I'm developing my own personal theory that evolution may have
been deployed to reduce the number of people joining the
ranks of the religious because the religious pay 10% of their
income to their churches , this would release mountains of
dollars to be spent on what the rich people sell , including books on evolution.

LOL

Science is not a popularity contest.

As per the high court rulings you can have the majority of a state disagree with evolution and you still can't get a majority of people to vote to overturn it and teach something else.

Science has simple rules and noone gets to vote on whats right and wrong a fact you keep ignoring.

In the same way noone cares evolution doesn't seem logical to you this isn't about you it's about what can be shown using logic. You somehow believe in a literal version of genesis which makes no logical sense and you don't want to discuss so I hardly think anyone would be surprised it makes no sense to you, I mean literal genesis creation makes perfect sense right.

I have no real view evolution it's not something that really interests me. I believe it I guess because it makes logical sense. I dislike your literal genesis creation because to me it's crazy beyond any sort of common sense but again what I like or dislike does not make evolution right and genesis creation wrong and nor does science care what I think.

Nobody has falsified evolution so it stands in science it doesn't matter if you or I like it or not opinions don't come into things.

Thats how science works so continuing to bleat and whine on about it is pointless.

tell that to the states that are teaching Creation vs evolution.

our constitution does not allow our government to dictate
to the states in matters concerning religion.

its called separation of church and state.

the mountain of evidence that is easily available that
shows evidence that evolution is based on flawed logic
can be used to remove the teaching of evolution in public schools.

basically it can be shown that the purpose of evolution
was meant to destroy belief in Creation.

if the federal courts rule to stand in the way of a state who's citizens want Creation to be taught to their children
vs evolution then the federal courts are ruling unconstitutionally.

any ruling or law that has been passed to prevent the teaching
of Creation yet allows the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional.

there are colleges in the U.S. that are denying students admission because their high school used a text book that
teaches Creation.

I say let them have those students that they want , and build
colleges for those students that they don't want.

at least they will not be living a lie by attending a school
of higher learning where they learn to believe lies.



you have that wrong , I would venture that those who first started evolution were innocent , they truly believed that
they were correct , but after all the evidence against evolution that is available today has slipped into mainstream knowledge it will be seen that evolution was a ploy to remove religion.

and those who have invested in a education in evolution will
be looking for a new career especially the teachers.

Do you practice being able to not read what people write ... you can teach religion as religion noone is stopping that.

What you can't do is teach creation as science because it has been falsified or in some forms not testable.

Hence the issue is dead and no appeals or constitution was broken it is simply not science. If the whole of USA voted to teach creation as science the USA of would simply cease to teach science and it's institutions would fail to be reecognized as science institutes .... Get it.

Now go cry in the corner and whine and whinge no one cares creation can't be taught as science period and it has nothing to do with the constituation or any other rights ... science decides the rules of science not countries.




Funny how noone has managed to do produce sucg evidence except in your crazy fundemntalist circles.




And now we have the fundementalist conspiracy theory ... lol





If the teaching is science then no it isn't unconstitutional it is correct and upheld by the law. Noone is stopping the teaching of creation it just can't be taught as science it probably can't be taught as mathematics or as art or a pile of other schoool disciplines either.


Then you drift back into conspiracy theory ... sob sob sob sob

Now you have had you big cry do you need some tissues and a shoulder to cry on to get over it?

a school is not a place where religion should be taught.



evolution is testable , and evolution has been falsified every time evolution think's its found something that shows evolution.

these have been found to be false yet they are still being portrayed as evidence of evolution.

but they are evidence of evolution because evolution itself
is false.

ramapithecus = false
piltdown man = false
java man = false
nebraska man = false
lucy = false
neanderthal man = false
etc...etc...etc...


not one instance of what evolution claims as being evolution has
ever been found.

nothing.

which brings evolution into the category of religion.

and religion should not be taught in schools.

Creation is not religion , Creation actually happened and
has been verified by the fossil record.

the fact that all life forms just appeared with no evoloutionary
history shows Creation.

there's really no way that Creation can be taught as a science
because we don't know how to Create , we just know it happened.

so we can't teach creation , but we can see the results of Creation every time we try to find evolution.

if I'm looking for a red barn , but all I can find is gold barns
every time I think I've found where a red barn might be located
then eventually I'm going to begin to think that there must
not be any red paint.

so I look for the ingredient's of what I think red paint consist of , and I mix those ingredients together but I always end up
with gold paint , then I decide to try and manipulate the ingredients around to try and make some red paint , but it
always turns out to be gold paint.

eventually , after several hundred years , I'm going to
decide that the logical thing to do is to accept that there
is no red paint and that I cant make red paint to use
to paint a barn with.

and that is the reason why I have never been able to find any
red barns.

and that is the reason why I can only find gold barns.

You missed out quite a few ,Paul.

If you add to to the groups you have stated as false.

ramapithecus = false
piltdown man = false
(java man = false)
nebraska man = false
lucy = false
neanderthal man = false
You forgot the Chinese Peking Man, and others, Paul.

Here are a few more ancient Man Species:-

Homo floresiensis, Man

http://www.livescience.com/25415-hobbit-homo-floresiensis.html

Where the wrist bones, hand and skull,
point to a new human species

Pleistocene Man

http://pleistocenecoalition.com/#vanlandingham

A lot of the above was kept secret and not released
until after 1926.

Paranthropus boisei Man

http://www.macroevolution.net/paranthropus-boisei.html

One of the largest and oldest species of early man.

Now if you place these 8 different species in some sort
of cronological order, you might see that their tools, their art, their weapons and food, get better and better,
as the years progress. Thats Evolution

>Oh I nearly forgot 'OMO Man' the oldest hominid found yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269299.stm

Paul I could argue how wrong all that is but that would actually require effort and caring about your views of evolution :-)

The evolution argument has to be strong in science because there is no money in that area of science. If it was weak I could imagine a pile of scientists would knocking on various religion doors asking for research funding to falsify evolution. I mean for such a scientist the Nobel science prize, accolades and money from numerous churches and groups of thankful vestal virgins waits. Strangely no scientist has taken up the lucrative offer so I can only conclude that evolution must be very solid.

There has been a topical article about scientist Peter Higgs taking scientist Richard Dawkins to task about his anti-religion zealotry by Lubos Motl which is worth a read. My personal position is very close to Lubos's view that both extreme fundementalism are bad

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/richard-dawkins-vs-peter-higgs.html#more

I particually agree with this statement




Thus science cares not whether there is a GOD or not as the presence of a GOD would change very little of any significance for science.

I see a few extinct apes.





and a small human , possibly much like a pigmy.
something that would be expected due to inbreeding.



I'm not even sure that the above is a human skull as some
of the tooth sockets look as if they housed large ape like
teeth.




what is needed is a gradient from one of the so called
common ancestors to modern human to prove evolution.

not the finding of extinct species of apes.

or the finding of small modern humans such as pygmies.

its obvious that if so many dinosaur fossils are found given there age according to evolution there should also be a massive number of fossils found that would show the evolutionary process of
transition from a common ancestor in incremental stages that occur over millions of years , so if evolution is true , then why have these transitional fossils not been found in abundance?

but science can't seem to find a gradient from any species that
shows any evolution.


that's really strange to me, why evolution is such a important science , yet not one transition has ever been found.

and transition from one creature to another higher evolved creature is what evolution is supposed to be about.


tiny incremental changes over a very long time period.

not sudden appearances of species without any transition.