I believe that it takes much more "blind" faith to believe that human beings
are here as the result of:
Life arose by spontaneous generation (also called "abiogenesis"). Under a [refuted] chemically reducing atmosphere energized by lightning and by UV light from the sun, Earth's early oceans collected the chemical building blocks of life, forming a vast organic soup. Here, simple organic molecules (monomers) linked up (polymerized) to form complex macromolecules. Eventually, enough protein and DNA molecules randomly assembled to form the first living cell - a microbe which grew, divided, and replicated itself.
than the faith to believe that there is an intelligent designer in the
universe.
are here as the result of:
Life arose by spontaneous generation (also called "abiogenesis"). Under a [refuted] chemically reducing atmosphere energized by lightning and by UV light from the sun, Earth's early oceans collected the chemical building blocks of life, forming a vast organic soup. Here, simple organic molecules (monomers) linked up (polymerized) to form complex macromolecules. Eventually, enough protein and DNA molecules randomly assembled to form the first living cell - a microbe which grew, divided, and replicated itself.
than the faith to believe that there is an intelligent designer in the
universe.
Reality check to the claims of evolution:
http://www.darwinisdead.com/primrose_path_of_evolutionary_story-telling.htm
http://www.darwinisdead.com/primrose_path_of_evolutionary_story-telling.htm
What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution? Why do you creationists constantly bring that up? Evolution has absoltuely ZERO to do with how life arose.
Now you're just throwing a bunch of shit on the wall to see what will stick. Straight out of the Joe Contrarian and doc mercer School of Debating.
Since you discount the majority of these scientists as not qualified to
question evolution (ROFL), let's hear your qualifications to tout
evolution, because for sure to say something like the above, your
qualifications must be better than the majority of the scientists
in that list. I'm anxiously waiting.
DEAC, I completely agree with your viewpoints on all counts. I sometimes even watch hours of youtube videos "refuting" evolution just for laughs. That being said, I was slightly inebriated at the time of creating this thread, and I don't want this to turn nasty. It's fine to debate, but if you do, you know what you're going to hear. And I would hate to have someone get banned for a thread I created. Also, cognitive dissonance describes a feeling of unrest one experiences when their actions don't match their thoughts. In this case, I truly believe that Railbird, Joe C., and Festering Zit believe this.
I can't throw a 70 yard deep pass either but I can tell the difference between Ryan Leaf and Joe Montana.
What qualifications does one need to observe that one side has mountains and mountains of evidence and the other side has a 2000 year old story written by nomadic Hebrew sun worshippers?
:lolBIG:
Don't worry, I'm doing fairly well in containing myself. Even if I wasn't, if I got banned, it would be my fault- not yours.
From Wikipedia:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.
More spin. You make me laugh. this whole thing started when I said
that one's view of the age of the earth depended on one's view
of creation/evolution. Now you're trying to make some lame point
about abiogenesis (the origins of life) not being relevant. Please tell
me how abiogenesis is not relevant to "Creation." Give me
a friggen break.
Let's agree to disagree on this whole debate, as I don't think
either of us is going to move the other one iota.
Mountains and mountains of evidence? Are you high on crack?
Where are the mountains and mountains of transitional fossil forms?
Should We Expect To Find Transitional Forms In The Fossil Record?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
A favorite argument of creationists has always been the lack of transitional organisms preserved in the fossil record. The argument goes like this: If one basic type of animal evolved into another basic type, it must have passed through "in between" stages, or transitional forms. Whether or not these transitions were ever preserved as fossils, they must have existed. In fact, they must have existed by the trillions.
Consider an evolutionary favorite—the evolution of a four-legged land animal (variously described as cow-like or wolf-like), into a whale. Surely this incredible transition couldn't take place in just a few steps—legs into flippers, fur into oily skin, etc. Where are the transitional forms?
Evolutionists sometimes brag that they have abundant evidence of transitions, but when pressed, the examples are almost always minor variations within a category, as expected within creation thinking, and thus certainly not proof of evolution.
In general, evolutionists are quick to admit the almost complete lack of transitional fossils. In fact, many of the current leaders in evolutionary thought have made their careers attempting to explain this lack by proposing that evolution of isolated groups went so rapidly in the past that no individuals of the in-between forms were fossilized. Why should we expect to find fossils of organisms which existed only for a short time? Furthermore, they point out that fossilization rarely occurs today. It usually takes massive flooding and rapid burial.
But then a new question arises. How complete is the fossil record? Can we legitimately expect to find these transitions?
Dr. Michael Denton, an agnostic but a decided non-evolutionist compiled a chart on "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record" in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by comparing the number of living types to fossil types, gleaning information from Romer's classic book, Vertebrate Paleontology. He found that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils. (Orders are larger groupings of families which are larger than genera which are larger then species.) Many creationists consider the groupings family or genus to best approximates the Genesis kind. Of living families of terrestrial vertebrates, 79.1% are represented, a number which jumps to 87.8% if birds (hardly ever preserved) are excluded. Thus, the fossil record of even terrestrial vertebrates is seen to be remarkably complete.
But far less than 1% of all fossils are terrestrial vertebrates. Approximately 95% are marine invertebrates, with the rest being mostly plants, fish, and insects. Land fossils are notoriously scarce, and when found are usually fragmentary. With partial evidence an evolutionary story can sometimes be told.
When we look at the invertebrates, we see separate and distinct categories (i.e., clams, corals, trilobites, etc.) existing in the earliest strata with no hint of ancestors or of intermediates. We find clams by the trillions, with a lot of variety among them, but no evolution. Furthermore, we have no idea how vertebrate fish could have arisen from any invertebrate. Where there are good data, we see no evolution. Where the data are scanty, evolutionists can tell a story. The fossil record is voluminous and apparently substantially complete. Yet no evolution is seen.
Speaking of this issue, Darwin wrote in an 1881 letter that "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Evolution—a theory of change without any evidence of change.
