Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

And that guy came up with it *independently* of darwin! The fact that two scientists with their careers on the line came up with the same hypothesis with different supporting evidence just validates their ideas.

Great one. I have to tell you that we are divided on the herbivore issue.. the bible CLEARly states that their was no death before adam's sin. After that, there was death. And God sacrificed an animal, to give adam and eve clothes... he also spilt the blood of the animal as a covering for their sin. He showed us how to do the offerings...
That set asside, there was death, carnivoury before the flood. I have done indepth research on the origin scripture, and have always come to the same conclusion. So, we have a small problem. I say there was, another says there wasn't. lets say there was. (for arguement sake)..
The only way that this arguement can be understood is from a larger picture. God says that when he is done creating, everything is Good.. that does not include death. Then, after adam sins, god curses the world, and introduces death. The reason being that we are now seperated from him, and if we didn't die, we would forever be seperated from him. At this point, carnivory starts. So, there was a sudden point in time where yes, the lion all of sudden starts eating meat. I have not found any really good scientific studies done to show how large animals cna survive, and keep their mass up using only berries.. but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I would take a stab at maybe bears. when food gets scarce they eat shrubs, and berries..
(not sure scientifically if this holds water) don't be to harsh on me if the bear thing doesn't work!

I can't speak from an ameican pespective, but good grief.. just because two people come up with the idea that lower taxes is a bad idea(completley independantly of each other) does that prove anything.

:rolleyes:

I'm going to go ahead and use a "symbolic" biblical phrase here:

Don't cast your pearls before swine.

Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability.

No, you're right. It doesn't.

Actually, bears are classified as omnivourous. Lions are carnivourous. Go figure.

The fact that we are still discussing darwin's theory some 150 years later should lend some credit to it. The fact that it was independently thought of at approximately the same time should lend some credit to it. The fact that foolish or unsubstantiated scientific hypothesis (for, at the time, the idea of evolution was, rather than a theory, a hypothesis) usually are discredited within a very short time frame should lend some credit to it. The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without any basic modification of the theory... that should also lend some credit to it. The fact is, most scientifically educated people as well as ALL major accredited colleges in the US, never mind the rest of the WESTERN WORLD, accept evolution as a basic fact of life - well, that might lend some credit to it. I don't mean to be a prick, but I would like to hear some arguments against evolution that are actually intelligent. It seems to me as if this thread has continued on and on and on, with no real purpose. People who want to believe in creationism simply throw a rediculous argument against proven scientific theory, wait for an intelligent, reasoned answer... and then refuse to take that answer seriously. The bottom line is that people who at this point are still arguing against the ENORMOUS amount of evidence against them will not be satisfied with any amount of reason, established fact, or logical argument. So let us drop this thread... PLEASE!

Sam:

What definition do you use for evolution? (Since there are many definitions.)

And, using your definition, does it show, or has it been shown, "Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability"?

If you say it has been shown, please give specifics.

Sam Sampson writes:

Couldn't agree with you more Sam. It reaches a point where we should let creationists be. Aside from their irritating propensity to invoke verbal gymnastics to "mold" the data to fit in their biblical frame of reference, they pose no threat to legitimate science. The 70 odd peer-reviewed journals focusing on evolutionary processes related to biological adaptations will continue to be published monthly while they scream until they are blue in the face. They are irrelevant in the ongoing quest for understanding.

OK, well that would be the issue at hand. AKA Evolutionary theory.

For pete's sake! I was referring to the comment about independent verification. Stop taking my statements out of context!!! Look at a high school life science book for the definition of "the scientific method" and its applicible uses. :rolleyes:

THAT, sir, is NOT my responsibility. That is YOUR responsibility. You do not need me as your personal life science teacher, and I will not stoop to trying with my time to repeat for you the huge body of evidence that spans across multiple areas of study in support of the fundamental and universally accepted "theory" (fact) of evolution. If you won't take the scientific giants' word about the nature of life, why would you take mine?

The sad thing is that most of these folks cannot re-evaluate their own beliefs, which is ultimately why I am arguing against creationism. You were absolutely dead on about creationism being on its way out. Its just that you would like to help the die hards (having been one myself).