Places to Chat
Creation Vs. Evolution!
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Creation Vs. Evolution!
Creation Vs. Evolution! This is the new spot, people! Now as I was saying, why can no one explain the point that there are no intermediate links, at least not that we can find. And even if they are fossilized...how come there are no living ones?
submitted by Phoenix, age 12, The U.S.A.
(September 6, 2008 - 7:15 am)
(September 6, 2008 - 7:15 am)
Thank you! I'll come back, but only below this post.
(September 17, 2008 - 7:30 pm)
So, I'll repost my past comment that was our main conversation.
{Ok, here's some of what I have on a transitional animal between a
reptile and a bird. To begin, I will have to say, to borrow an old
phrase, that I beg to differ with the earlier agreement that Archaeopteryx is
a bird. Although on the surface it looks like a bird, it has several
features that modern birds do not possess, relating it closer to
reptiles than birds. Birds do not have jaws, with teeth. Birds have
bills and beaks. The skull attaches to the neck from the rear, not from
below, like modern birds, due to a different posture. A long tail.
Wrist joint bones, and feet bones free. (In modern birds they are
fused.) Hesperornisis an example of another transitional fossil, with half a jaw and half a beak.
Here are some related non-avian dinosaurs. They had feathers. Jinfengopteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus.
Oh, I actually do concede that Archaeopteryx can be called
a bird because it has feathers, and that is the only criteria for
defining a bird, but that's just naming. It is very different from
modern birds, and proves how they are related to reptiles.
Vestigial Organs: Here are a few. The leg and pelvic bones in
whales. The eyes of blind cave fish, and blind mole rats. The wings of
flightless birds. The human coccyx.
(September 10, 2008 - 9:46 pm)}
(September 18, 2008 - 2:14 pm)
What? I thought Evolution was supposed to go on an upward slant. Why have these things all lost use of the organs? With the exception of the whale and the coxcyx. Remember what I said about common design? It has been said that God is very economical. He reused the same design over and over again. As for the human coxyx, it is most certainly not a vestgial tail. It is the last (or next to last, I can't remember) segment of the spine. And ahem! They never talk about hespornoteryx and prototeryx or whatever you call them in your typical by the way. Synorthinosaurus had FUR, not feathers. And let me say something about feathers. Even though feathers might create a somewhat scaly look on a bird, they are nothing, nothing like scales. Feathers, A: are soft and bendy, but that's not the main difference. The main difference is B: that they are rows upon rows, of little microscopic hooks. Now how could anything like that have evolved??? From SCALES, nonetheless! They are extremely complex!
(September 18, 2008 - 9:24 pm)
I think I posted my latest opinion in the wrong c vs. o spot. As I was saying, one of the key arguments that you people against evolution have brought up is that it is only fair to teach creationism in schools because it is right to present both sides of the argument. Yeah, but if you're going to be "fair," then you have to teach the Native American story, the Mayan story, the Muslim story and the Roman story.
(October 12, 2008 - 6:09 pm)
I'm not saying that they have to teach them the Bible, they just shouldn't indoctrinate kids with Evolution without giving them all the facts, and giving Creationism a fair shot. After all, don't the Native American story, the Mayan story, the Muslim story, and the Roman story all have creation in them?
(October 17, 2008 - 7:40 pm)
Whoa! Emily, I'm so sorry I left you alone on this thread!! I completly forgot about it!!! I'm so sorry to leave you, one of the only people who believes in creation, on this site, alone!!!! Even though it's slowing down, I'll help you! (when I can get the page to load....) That is a very good point about the other religions. Only a small majority of all of the people in the world believe in evolution. (The problem is, we're stuck in the country with them...)
(October 20, 2008 - 7:54 pm)
I am Christian. I believe in the creation. I would like to point out that the Book of Mormon is about the ancestors of the Native Americans; the Lamanites.
"For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God and he is Christ," 2 Nephi 11:7 This is one of the reasons why I believe is the creation. I do think that the animals in the beginning were different then they are now. Sorry if I got a bit too theological (is that the right word?)
(November 4, 2008 - 12:38 pm)
It is the right word... say, we might need a new thread sometime soon.
(November 8, 2008 - 7:42 pm)
I left this thread because I was frustrated with both the format and the lack of progress that was preventing a recognizable discussion from developing. I will come back and post both here, and on the global warming thread, if anyone is interested in having a discussion.
Natalie, I'm confused as to how this passage directly relates to your ancestors. Maybe I've misread it. Also, if the animals in
the beginning were different then they are now, that would be evolution. It looks to me like you're an example of the happy medium that can exist with both God and science!
(November 10, 2008 - 7:38 pm)
Hey, I debate the kind of Evolution that says life came from nonlife and man from monkeys and that we are accidents. And stop calling Evolution science!!! It is not God vs. Science, it is Creation vs. Evolution! And most of the famous scientists were Christians.
(November 11, 2008 - 10:35 pm)
Life came from nonlife.
Yes. It was more gradual than that, but that's the general idea.
man from monkeys
No. I thought you would know better; it's a common ancestor.
we are accidents
Well, I could argue that:
1. It's only an accident if someone is there to make it happen; an atheist would say that it just happened, of its own accord.
2. I can believe as a Christian that evolution is the plan, and that to me is even more beautiful than a sudden creation.
And stop calling Evolution science!!!
But evolution is science. Creation is arguably not, involving a higher power and all.
It is not God vs. Science, it is Creation vs. Evolution!
But creation isn't scientific, so, ok, it's evolution/science vs. creation/less-science. It's admirable to try to use science to prove a point, but the problem is that you're approaching science from the wrong direction. Do you remember the scientific method? It uses other science as a foundation, but creation uses a nonscientific religious text.
And most of the famous scientists were Christians.
As am I! But not all Christians believe the literal word of the Bible. A good scientist is impartial.
(November 13, 2008 - 4:16 pm)
OK. Then we're where we need to be. I can approach creation scientifically. If what you actually want is scientific evidence, then here's some. Moon dust: What were those huge pads on the legs of the lunar lander for? NASA expected there to be many feet of dust collected on the moon. After all, after billions of years, there would be a lot of space dust, and they didn't want the craft to dissapear in a poof. But surprisingly, when they landed, they found there was only about half an inch of moon dust! Which is only about ten thousand years' worth of accumulation.
(November 16, 2008 - 7:17 pm)
Ok, so you're arguing that the Moon, and Earth are only 10,000 years old?
What were those huge pads on the legs of the lunar lander for?
This was the first time we had been to the moon, so we needed to be extra safe. The pads were to cushion the impact of the lander dropping out of the sky, possibly onto eroded soil that might be kicked up. Then the astronauts wouldn't be able to see! Bigger pads meant that they could land on top of rocks and things, and they would still be ok.
NASA expected there to be many feet of dust collected on the moon.
Actually, NASA knew that there would be very little dust before the landing, most scientists were in consensus about that. Three years before the Apollo 11 landed, Surveyor 1 landed on the Moon's surface with no problems,disproving any lingering doubts.
After all, after billions of years, there would be a lot of space dust, and they didn't want the craft to dissapear in a poof...Which is only about ten thousand years' worth of accumulation.
The original calculations were done in the 1950s by a geophysicist, Hans Pettersson, who used Nickel as his basis for the amount of material coming from space. Meteorites contain 2.5 nickel, and Petterson assumed that Earth originally had none, but this is not the case. A more recent study conducted found that 3,000 tons of material hit the moon annually, these findings are accepted by Answers In Genesis.
(November 18, 2008 - 4:25 pm)
I really think this thread should stop, because (at least to me) it's kinda boring and I think talking about this kinda stuff is the perfect way to separate people.
P.S. Paige, let's start a fun conversation somewhere else.
(November 18, 2008 - 8:50 pm)
This thread is about dead anyway. I guess I'll stop bothering everyone with my future career.
(November 20, 2008 - 9:34 pm)