[[This debate is OLD. YEC and other forms of creationist arguments with evolution were THOROUGHLY disproven in the decade of the 90’s on that forum, and others.]]
What a load of crap- While you have your own PERSONAL OPINION- tryign to present it as fact is intellectually dishonest- they have NOT been ‘thoroughly disproven’- they have been refuted using ASSUMPTIONS! - don’t present ASSUMPTIONS as FACTS Sonny-
[[Anyone who wishes to understand evolutionary theory and see clearly stated arguments responding to several forms of creationism need only go to the talkorigins website and browse]]
Oh for crying out loud- TalkOrigins is NOTHING but a propoganda site that is RIFE with LIES, Half-Truths, and outright Deceitful crap! TrueOrigins.com EXPOSES a great majority of their outirght LIES Sonny! While you are certainly entitled to your biased opinion- don’t presume to present htem as factual becuase I will show you siter after site which exposes the complete lies you are being fed on sites like TalkOrigins!
[[I am a SIX-DAY CREATIONIST BIBLICAL TRADITIONALIST. But because you are unaware of how one can hold that position and still state that the evidence for evolution is clear, you think it’s not possible, so you assume I am a troll or disingenuous or something.]]
Nope- I simply think you are either a genuione Christian who has been misled, OR that you are a self-professed Christian who doesn’t know God via the forgiveness of sins through accepting Christ as Savior- just like God said to do, and someone who is deceived in their own mind. Troll? No- Misguided and misled? Absolutely- especially when you cite sites like TalkOrigins as the basis for your beliefs! IF you REALLY wanted to know the truth, you would ceede the refutatiosn and exposures of TrueOrigins as they contain TRUTH Sonny, and don’t rely on lies and half-truths to make their case- The fact that TalkOrigins contains so many Blatant LIES should be enough for you and others to recognize it for the sham that it is, but you and others apparently would much prefere believing the lies- just like hte bible says folks like you would. Just don’t expect logical thinkers and seekers of the TRUTH, and seekers of ALL the scientific evidences (and not just the spoon-fed evidences) to buy into the lies.
[[This is understandable, but it really would be quite more enlightening for you to try to understand my position, rather than getting foamy at the mouth about it.]]
Look- if you’re simply misguided about hte science, then your position and opinion are excusable. If you’re simply unaware of the coutner arguments and the scientfic refutations to sites like TalkOrigins, then again, it’s excusable- however, If you are aware of such sites, and STILL deny the science that refutes sites like TalkOrigins, then no, I’m afraid your position is innexcusable, and folks like myself will expose thel ies perpetrated in this forum. IF you truly are a Christian, then you owe it both to yourself, and to others who read your material, to look OBJECTIVELY at ALL of hte eivdence. Doing so WILL expose Macroevolution for what it is- a LIE that is unfortunately being foisted on our chiuldren. The truth is out there Sonny, but going into it with an a priori belief that an impossible hypothesis is preferable to the truth nothing will ever convince you otherwise.
You make hte acusation that Christians are supposedly ‘promoting’ the PERSONAL BELIEFS of folks like Demski when we cite hteir SCIENCE, but it appears that the only one promoting their BELIEFS here is you. It appears you’re having difficulty understanding that their BELIEFS are not written in stone, and thusly are nothign but PERSONAL OPINIONS that quite simply can NOT be backed up sciejntifically.
[[I’m not going to sit here and argue for evolutionary theory, my point is to show people sides of the argument they haven’t considered before.]]
No- Apparently your point is to convince people that the lies being peddled on TalkOrigins are truth when infact they are not- While there are SOME scientific facts by reputable people on TalkOrigins- the MAJORITY of the ‘evidences’ presented are nothign but smoke and mirror LIES that rely on nothign but PURE ASSUMPTIONS, and the Site TrueOrigins exposes this very fact tiem and time again.
[[The burden of proof lies with those going against the majority of science.]]
Actually, no it isn’t- the burden of proof is on Macroevolution because it has been mandated as our official science in our schools- And so far- Macroevolution has NOT been able to show itself as a valid scientific process. Infact, it’s much much worse., the science itself argues directly agaisnt Macroevolution at every step of the supposed imaginary process.
[[If they can cook your food in microwaves ovens, and shoot rockets to Jupiter, they have an understanding of scientific methodology that is utilitarian, it works. Now, along you come and tell them that in several hundreds lines of independent evidence, they are wrong on the subject of origins. So, the natural question is, “where is your alternative theory?”]]
Nope- wrong again- Along I coem and show the evidnece that hsows IC and that shows that Macroevolution is wrong- I don’t ‘tell them’ anything- I simply present the evidences from their own scientific endeavors.
[[Show us YOUR evidence to the contrary. Creationists have no evidence, not one shred. WHY?]]
Yes we do- IC, Radio Halos, Evidence for a young earth, evidences for a theory about the universe and the design etc etc etc- Your ASSERTION is incorrect!
[[The other methods are EASILY shot down.]]
Hmmm- Do you more easily ‘shot down’ than everythign you’ve presented here?
Do yourself a favour and spend a couple of weeks on this site- you’ll quickly come to understand the magnitude of LIES you’ve been fed over on TalkOrigins, and you’ll begin to get a better understanding of just how science is lying to you, and the extent to which they go to cover up their problems as well. But I suspect you’re just like hte rest and will deny the evidences till the end.
You can start with the complete scientific refutation of the much touted “29 evidences for Macroevolution” located here: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp For hwich not a single one stood up under scientific examination:
[[PREDICTION 13: ANATOMICAL CONVERGENCE
A corollary of the principle of evolutionary opportunism is convergence. Convergence is the case where different structures perform the same or similar functions in different species. Two distinct species have different histories and different structures; if both species evolve the same new function, they may recruit different structures to perform this new function. Convergence also must conform to the principle of structural continuity; convergence must be explained in terms of the structures of predicted ancestors.]]
Refuted!
“The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
If universal common ancestry is true, then some species will have structures that perform the same or a similar function performed by different structures in other species.
Some species have structures that perform the same or a similar function performed by different structures in other species.
It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that different species will have different structures that perform the same function.[31] As ReMine observes, “Evolutionary theory does not predict any adaptations, much less convergent adaptations.” (ReMine, 141.) This is but another example of taking a known pattern of life, claiming that pattern as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the pattern fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. “Evolutionists merely claim that extensive convergence is virtually inevitable. They do this because ‘convergence’ is abundant in nature.” (ReMine, 168.)
Moreover, “convergence” by definition involves two separate starting points (“distinct species”) that “converge” on a given structure and/or function. It says nothing about how those starting points came to be separate. So whatever else one may make of the phenomenon, convergence is not evidence for universal common ancestry, the proposition being argued by Dr. Theobald.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1d.asp#pred13
Did anyone at TalkOrigins walk you through these problems with Macroevolution? No? Hmmmm- you’d think someone of their scientific calibres would be intellectually honest enough to inform you of the evidneces which contradict what they were claiming eh? But apparently they ‘forgot’ to mention these problems to you eh? Who you gonna beleive Sonny? Those who HIDE contradictory evidences from you? Or those who will give you ALL the science behind the imaginary process of Macreovolution?