+ Reply to Thread
Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 199
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2
    Reviews
    0
    I am a devout Christian who knows for a fact that there is a wealth of information pertaining to the authenticity and reliability of the Christian Bible. I refer you to Creation Ministries which provides a vast array of material in regards to the science/religion debate.

    The ‘question evolution campaign’ highlights and answers those elusive (albeit yet so very simple questions) that those who support evolution fail to sufficiently answer. Examples of such evident evolutionary problems include the lack of transitional forms (in the millions) and why living fossils remain unchanged over 'proposed' millions of years.

    The problems relating to the evolutionary theory are, unfortunately for those who espouse evolution, do not stop at those two examples. I refer you to the fraud jaw (Piltdown man) and the deception of embryonic recapitulation (and what a deception that was!).

    Here is a bit of the article produced by creation ministries:

    “Fraud rediscovered
    It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.
    by Russell Grigg

    Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in the womb.

    The idea has not only been presented to generations of biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years to persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being.

    This idea (called embryonic recapitulation) was vigorously expounded by Ernst Haeckel from the late 1860s to promote Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany, even though Haeckel did not have evidence to support his views.”

    You can find the rest of the article here; http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered

    For those who really want a great book regarding the evolution/creation discussion, I HIGHLY recommend ‘Tornado in a Junkyard’ by James Perloff. He deals with the discussion in a comprehensive manner whilst systematically dismantling every main evolutionary arguement.

    An interesting fact is that James used to be a stout atheist and a believer in evolution. He is now a deep believer in Jesus, God and the Bible. His book is a must read for those who do not want to be led down the evolutionary primrose path. You do have to ask the question why many eminent atheists refuse to debate with creationists (many who are top scientists)…..

    Blessings,

    Mother of a toddler who loves the Wiggles.
    Last edited by Christian Mummy; 25-04-2012 at 21:59.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Christian Mummy For This Useful Post:

    rocker  (25-04-2012)

  3. #182
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    yep - because all Atheists are 'frauds' and 'abortionists'




    There are plenty of transitional forms, both in the fossil record and alive today - all you need to do is open your eyes and look

    ..but by all means - 'Christian Mummy' - welcome to Bubhub...and what an amazing first post that was.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FiveInTheBed For This Useful Post:

    Ana Gram  (25-04-2012),Busy-Bee  (26-04-2012),Gandalf  (26-04-2012),mixinitup  (02-05-2012),Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  5. #183
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    ..oh and the whole 'tornado in a junkyard making a 747' thing has been addressed many times... simply the people who use it in an argument don't understand how Evolution works.

    Just like the 'watch maker' argument has been taken care of - by actual observation of the natural world.


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to FiveInTheBed For This Useful Post:

    Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  7. #184
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Just reading the reviews of this book. Long bows seems to be drawn often. Chapter four is reviewed thus: 'Chapter 4 ends by asking why extinction rates today are so high, and modern evolution is unknown.'

    Um, humans play a massive hand in extinction rates and modern evolution IS known and seen.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ana Gram For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (26-04-2012),delirium  (26-04-2012),FiveInTheBed  (26-04-2012),Gandalf  (26-04-2012),Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  9. #185
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    143
    Reviews
    0
    Christian Mummy, the fossil record abounds with transitional fossils. Type 'tiktaalik' into a search engine for just one example.

    Piltdown Man is completely irrelevant to the modern evolutionary synthesis. It is worth pointing out, of course, that it was evolutionary biologists who discovered that it was a hoax.

    And as for embryo recapitulation, I'm no embryologist, but from what I can gather, a long discredited theory from a single scientist also has no bearing on evolutionary theory. And just reading up about it on Wikipedia I find it very hard to understand why anyone would get hung up on it. Btw, it's also worth pointing out another statement from the same Wikipedia page:

    "Darwin's view, that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology"

    If you are really interested in these issues, can I suggest you try the following books, all of which will shed some more light on them:

    Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
    Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
    The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

    [edit: typos]
    Last edited by Northerly; 26-04-2012 at 06:31.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Northerly For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (26-04-2012),FiveInTheBed  (26-04-2012),Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Focusing on the gaps in the fossil record is like saying the answer to this word puzzle...


    'EVOL_T_ON'

    spells CREATION.






    sorry - I couldn't help myself, those Creation websites make me go ....

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FiveInTheBed For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (26-04-2012),Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  13. #187
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    The part about 'you can't turn a dog into a horse' is where I stopped reading the review at it is clear the blurb does not live up to it's hype of 'systematically dismantling every main evolutionary argument'.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ana Gram For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (26-04-2012),delirium  (26-04-2012),FiveInTheBed  (26-04-2012),Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  15. #188
    Witwicky's Avatar
    Witwicky is offline A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,630
    Thanks
    4,446
    Thanked
    3,495
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Mummy View Post
    You do have to ask the question why many eminent atheists refuse to debate with creationists (many who are top scientists...
    Some of the most world renowned atheists refuse to engage in debates because they deem creationism to be a pseudoscience and furthermore, creationists have been known to distort theories to suit their own agenda.

    In the wise words of Richard Dawkins, following an invitation for public debate:

    "I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science".










    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




    (...and sometimes it's like butting your head against a brick wall...)

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Witwicky For This Useful Post:

    Busy-Bee  (26-04-2012),delirium  (26-04-2012),FiveInTheBed  (26-04-2012)

  17. #189
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    If you ever have a spare hour in which you would like to have a laugh/toture yourself [whatever light you prefer to view it in!]... have a look on youtube for Dawkins 'chatting' with Creationist Wendy Wright.
    (it has 7 parts)

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to FiveInTheBed For This Useful Post:

    Witwicky  (26-04-2012)

  19. #190
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    143
    Reviews
    0
    Witwicky, your response called to mind the post I read at the following link:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...equests_to.php

    And I remember Dawkins also using the following response to creationists requesting a 'debate', which he may have attributed to someone else: "that would look very good on your CV, not so good on mine."


 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 17:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Swim AustraliaSwim Australia are the leading learn-to-swim experts, and national swim school authority. With over 600 Registered Swim ...
REVIEWS
"Pigeon teats rule!"
by Alex
Pigeon PP Wide Neck reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›