Staredit Network

It HAS to be real days because plants were made before the sun and moon. Otherwise the plants will die. It's a fact that plants can survive without light for about less than 1 day.

Also there's one thing I want to say: IT IS NEVER AGAINST THE LAW TO TEACH THE BIBLE OR CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS!

Also below is a proof that evolution is full of holes.

1)There are 6 basic concepts of evoultion.

Cosmic Evolution
Chemical Evolution
Evolution of Stars and Planets from Gas
Organic Evolution
Macro-Evolution
Micro-Evolution

The last one has been observed so the first 5 is believed in faith.

2)Lucy the oldest known ancestor of humans is 2.9 million years old.

Only 2.9 Million? Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years. Now, most experts agree that Lucy is just an unusual chimpanzee not a missing link.

3)Removed because the graph was taken off.

4)Scientists tell the age of fossils since they know the age of the layer of rock where they were found.

Isn't that circular reasoning? Petrified trees are often found going through many of the layers. Some are even upside down. Thus, running through millions of years worth of rock.

5)Human embryos have gill slits proving man evolved through the fish stage millions of years ago!

Earnst Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869 and they were proven to be wrong in 1874. Those folds of skins are not gills. They grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat.

6)Vestigial organs like the human tail bone prove we evolved from animals with tails!

There are nine muscles that attach to the tail bone, it is not "vestigial"!

7)Whales have a vestigial pelivs. This proves that they evolved from a land dwelling creature.

Those bones serve as anchor points for muscles. Without them whales cannot reproduce. They have nothing to do with walking on land. Even if there were "vestigial" organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?

8)The binding force of the atom is gluons.

Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has seen or even measured them. They don't exist. It's a desperate theory to explain away truth!

9)You all know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the necleus billions of times every millionth of a second, and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutal. But, protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucelus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space.

If gluons aren't the answer... what is?

10)What is thoughts such as dreams, etc. made of? Not made from but made of.

And you're telling me that creationism doesen't have holes in it?

With logic like that, I'm going to assume you're an atheist.

This discussion is giving me such a god damn headache.

lol, I don't blame ya.


That's a lot better than getting the estimated ages of a whole bunch of people, and using that to decide how old the earth is.

Also, we know for certain carbon dating can go back to 50,000 years. It's called half life. (Not the game) Everything over that is an educated guess. Simple as that. How off they may be, I don't know. I'm not a scientist.

BTW - If evolution has holes, then creationism has canyons.

This is an excelent theory, but indeed difficult to prove.

Everything else, gg, no rm.

really? i thought dreams are just like day dreams but more defined
all the dreams that i had lasted for a very short time before i woke up, so i think during that time, our conscious mind starts to reawaken and imagine random things

Exactly.
If you're going to take shotsat Evolution, here's a cannoball at Creationism.
Why would God, or anything, create us with several ribs (Lower ones) and an entire organ (appendix) that we have absolutely no use for?

Wouldn't veiwing novas ect. be veiwing this cycle?

We've measured what they do. What other way is there to determine if something exsists than to see the effects it has on its surroundings. We see anything due to the fact that it reflects light from its surroundings. Similar sorta thing.

DTBK summed up the rest, but ya, science makes sense because it can be related to. I don't think I can relate personally to things appearing out of nothing and a creator before there was anything...

Well it can work if you try hard. Lucid Dreaming

1) Just because it is not observed does not make it unscientific. Plus, this argument destroys creationism: Creation of animals and plants has never been observed. Not only that, what about the historical sciences of paleontology and paleoanthropology? Creationists use these sciences when backing up their bullshiz Noah's Ark and Bible history arguments, but then refute them when they are not convenient.

2) My bio of leakey didn't show this 2000 million year old skull you speak of. where are the sources on your experts? Don't give me Creation Institute bullshiz either.

4) The circular reasoning argument is invalid, the geological column is used to date fossils and fossils are used to date rocks only after it was established with radiocarbon dating and other methods such as ice cores. Also, gravity is tautological yet true. Unless you believe in intelligent falling?

5) Great job on knocking down our straw man. Few evolutionist even offer this as proof of anything.

6) Really? Well what about male nipples, panda's useless thumbs, and the appendix? what about false and useless ribs in humans? There are plenty of other vestigal useless components of a body.

7) Don't repeat yourself. I don't understand your last sentence, evolution is perfectly capable of making animals lose structures and organs.

8) This has a lot to do with evolution. [/sarcasm] With your kind of reasoning, again, what is not observed must not be true, then god is wrong. Plus, as I said before, just because something is not observed does not make it false.

9) It's called the strong nuclear force, mini-brain. Neutrons and protons do exist, as well as electrons. they have been observed. Now your questioning one of the most well-founded parts of atomic theory.

10) Electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

I think moose is still new to serious discussion right now. So I'm not gonna write his name down in my "da da, da derrrrrrrrr" sheet.

I think part of it is the trend among 11 and 12-year-olds and not having first hand exposure to viewpoints other than their own. (By first hand I meant not-online)

Why not?
if we had less lower ribs we would be more succeptable to injury.
as for the appendix maybe it serves an unknown purpose that we are not aware of yet.

source
they believe it has not been proven that it is useless.


evolution DOES have holes in it but so does intelligent design. one is where we evoled from nothing another is that we were created by nothing. i choose creation.

[center]Evolution has been seen, creationism has not.
Scientists have studied generations of birds living on an island. Each generation has specific adaptations that came from the previos generation thriving from those adaptations (Beak size/shape). I'm just remembering an old episode of 'Nova' that I saw.
No one has ever seen an armidillo just pop into existance, and it's not going to happen anytime soon.
I trust my sences, if I can see/feel/hear/all those it, it's real/true.
"Finally we've come to our sences, and worship a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago."[/center]

The evolution of the trout is a perfect example in nature of the evolution process.

Trouts swim horizontally. This is becuase the top of their body is dark, and the bottom of their body is light. So looking down towards the bottom of the ocean, the trouts blends with the darkness. And looking up, the trout blends with the light. This is to help with camflouge. Well trouts didn't always swim horizonotally, they used to swim normally, like other fish, but over time they began to change their swimming habits becuase they learned they were harder to detect that way. BUT, now they had one eye on top and one eye on bottom. So also over time they actually evolved to have both of their eyes on the top of their bodies.

NOW, in the present day, when baby trouts are born, they are actually born with their eyes on opposite sides, as it was, i don't know, maybe millions of years ago. And, as it matures, the eye actually moves across its body to the other side.

I'm not exactly sure which ones, they may not be the lower ones, but a few of our ribs serve no purpose at all. I forget, it's been a while since I looked this up. They were either too brittle to stop anything or in a position where they didn't actually protect anything in the first place. I'm not sure.

Without a few extra rips... I think one might be able to bend their spine in an unhealthy way ;o

As for the appendix, isn't there some theory that it captures virii and such that the body can't deal with?



Or how a volcano can explode and mimick millions of years of layers when it starts to settle. ;o


As for evolution, no one here understands it enough to be able to stand by it without accepting most of it in blind faith. Like creationism.
Because it's logical? lololol... ;o

Right now, the appendix serves no function because of evolution. It used to capture virii and such, before the days of cooking.
Some people have also hypothesized the functions of the appendix, but no function of the appendix has ever been proven. Because of burden of proof, we can therefore assume that the statement "The appendix serves a function" is false, and the statement "The appendix has an unknown, undsicovered function" is a violation of Occam's Razor.
Plus, like I said earlier, by creationists logic, their own theory is false. If we haven't observed macroevolution directly, it's false. But since when has creation been observed? Trying to prove evolution false also is not positive proof of creationism, this is known as the fallacy of false alternatives; i.e if A is false B must be true. But shouldn't N stand on its own, regardless of A? Plus, there may be alternatives C, D and e that we do not know of.

P.S, reading the Wikipedia article, it offers no proof of appendix functions. Also, people who lack an appendix suffer from no impaired function.

P.P.S Evolution does not involve as much blind faith as creationism. We have evidence, whereas any form of evidence for creationsim exist only as attacks on evolution, this is not valid because it is creating false alternatives. Plus, creationism is raw blind faith. It has no theory as to who the creator is and no explanation as to a reason for our creation. Evolution does not a require a reason for existence because a. it does not deal with the creation of life and b. it acts on nature, it does not introduce an intelligent creator who acts for a reason.

I have to research more on the volcano and tree issue, but from what I know, thye also use radiocarbon and radiometery to date fossils and rocks as well. Then, after the geological coulmn is establsihed, they use rocks to date fossils.

ok as for creationism and how we came to be out of "nothing" scientists have done experiments mimicing when the world was first around (volcanic stages) and in the heat and other particles atoms combine and fall apart rapidly. to get on with it they have found actual pieces of DNA and numerous organs etc. that are inside single cell organisms individually created in the harsh environment. Long story short they have only been doing this for a few years and in very small labratorys so it is possible for a single cell organsim to be created purly by chance when our entire world was in the volcanic stage hence entire world was like these laboratorys. from there evolution takes place, as for backwards evolution you know how environments change??? yea that tends to happen and its been proven that it happens.. evoltion: a creature that gained some sort of advantage in its environment enableing it to live longer thus spread its genes around and eventually the "evolved genes" will replace old genes. so in a sense the wale didnt "backwards evolve" it evolved because its environment changed. and some lost apandeges/gained bigger lungs etc. and eventually evolved to match a more "aquatic" environment

i do think god created the universe and all things but it would not simply make us just "appear" furthermore the world bieing created in 6 days is simply stupid to me... this may sound offensive but if god really loved us he would have made us in more than a few hours.... if the bible is true were just icing on the cake a meaningless trophy that serves no purpose but to boost gods ego. as for meaning to life why do you need one if you knew the meaning to life would you strive to get to it?? if you already achieved the meaning would your life be anymore fulfilled??? in truth if i told you the meaning you would probably laugh uncomfortably and change the subject...

created to live created to die
noone knows the reasons why
the earth and mountains sea and sky
are a blink of a dream in a dreamers eye

All mooseeye is saying is that he believes there are many holes to Evolution. He's not saying that creationism doesn't have any, nor trying to make creationism look any better than evolution.

The biggest hole i see in either of these theories is that in creationism, they say the Earth and the Universe was made in 6 days that were probably of equal length to earth days. I truly do not think there could be anyway it was done in six days. Seeing how Moses wrote this book waaaaay back ago, we probably can't be sure exactly how long these "days" are.