[Sir Gareth]

and yet none of you super smart evolutionist types can produce any concrete evidence to refute creation, or any concrete evidence to support common ancestory.

[MorningGlory]

Lusankya, on Oct 22 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

ChristopherCarlin, on Oct 22 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

MorningGlory, on Oct 22 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

ChristopherCarlin, on Oct 22 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

I have yet to see anyone here claim they're a scientist...

I said there are 'pseudo-scientists' here; I did not say anyone claimed to be a scientist. Please read what is actually written.

I did. You're making the claim that cause we're "scientists" we should have more evidence. None of us have said we are. So when we're mistaken or we don't have the answer, calm down.

Even a biologist wouldn't necessarily have the answer to every question. If you asked a question regarding the evolution of the osprey to an entomologist, then there's no shame in them not having specific answers. Biology is a big field, and one could devote their entire life to its study and still only be deeply versed in a small section of it.

Indeed, one of the fundamental axioms of scientific research is that our current knowledge is to some extent inaccuate, and is in the process of being refined. It is, after all, a field where someone will spend years feverently promoting their theory, then listen to someone else's lecture and at the end say, "Thank you, I have been wrong all these years." It's why it's hilarious when people try to argue that theory X is flawed because it changes. A field devoted to the expansion of human knowledge is fluid and changeable by its very nature, since any addition of knowledge changes it. You'd think this would be intuitive, but apparently it isn't.

I'm still waiting for the 'scientifically inclined' to post the definitive evidence for a common ancestor; the evidence they have repeatedly claimed exists.

[FresnoJoe]

ChristopherCarlin, on Oct 22 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

MorningGlory, on Oct 22 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

ChristopherCarlin, on Oct 22 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

I have yet to see anyone here claim they're a scientist...

I said there are 'pseudo-scientists' here; I did not say anyone claimed to be a scientist. Please read what is actually written.

I did. You're making the claim that cause we're "scientists" we should have more evidence. None of us have said we are. So when we're mistaken or we don't have the answer, calm down.

Yes!

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
1 Timothy 6:20-21

Yes There Are!

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:18-22

>>>>>()<<<<<

Calmly

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Prayerfully

They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.
Psalms 73:9

Posting The Truth

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
John 9:41

While There Is Still Breath

Now also when I am old and grayheaded, O God, forsake me not; until I have shewed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is to come.
Psalms 71:18

Knowing Jesus Is The Creator And The Redeemer Of Believer's

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 44:24

And The Humble Bless His Holy Name

This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope.
It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.
The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him.
Lamentations 3:21-25

So Be Blessed Dear One

Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Jeremiah 17:7

And Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 11:25-26

Or Not

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:35-36

Love, Joe

[Lusankya]

MorningGlory, on Oct 23 2009, 12:36 AM, said:

I'm still waiting for the 'scientifically inclined' to post the definitive evidence for a common ancestor; the evidence they have repeatedly claimed exists.

Did you even read my previous post where I asked for creationist explanations for the following phoenomena (all of which can be explained by common ancestry)?

Quote

And what alternate mechanism do you proposose to explain the fact that organisms are distributed so that not only are more similar species geographically close to each other, but they also without exception share more DNA in common with each other than with closer species than with more distant species? How does said theory explain why all vertebrates share the same eye structure, which is objectively inferior to that of squids (which have the far more sensible eye structure shared by all cephalapods)? How does it explain why similar species share the same defects (such as the common defect of all primates which makes them unable to synthesise their own Vitamin C, even though other animal families are able to do just that). How does your alternate mechanism explain the fact that flowering plants are found in fossil layers dating to the Cretaceous, but not in earlier layers?

Are you too scared to look for the answer these questions or something?

[ConScience]

Sir Gareth, on Oct 22 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

and yet none of you super smart evolutionist types can produce any concrete evidence to refute creation, or any concrete evidence to support common ancestory.

Am I allowed to tell you that you're wrong?
I'm surprised people let you get away with saying nonsense like that.

[MorningGlory]

Lusankya, on Oct 23 2009, 03:45 AM, said:

Did you even read my previous post where I asked for creationist explanations for the following phoenomena (all of which can be explained by common ancestry)?

Quote

And what alternate mechanism do you proposose to explain the fact that organisms are distributed so that not only are more similar species geographically close to each other, but they also without exception share more DNA in common with each other than with closer species than with more distant species?

Most species' DNA is similar. Shows a common Creator who was smart enough to make a template that could be used over and over again. You know about DNA being only four symbols, right?

Quote

How does said theory explain why all vertebrates share the same eye structure, which is objectively inferior to that of squids (which have the far more sensible eye structure shared by all cephalapods)?

As to why vertebrates share a common structure, see above. Who says the squid's eye structure is superior? A squid?

Quote

How does it explain why similar species share the same defects (such as the common defect of all primates which makes them unable to synthesise their own Vitamin C, even though other animal families are able to do just that).

Why do you assume that's a 'defect'? Being unable to synthesize Vitamin C hardly shows common ancestry.

Quote

How does your alternate mechanism explain the fact that flowering plants are found in fossil layers dating to the Cretaceous, but not in earlier layers?

Again, I don't know what 'alternate mechanism' you refer to. Obviously, weather patterns would account for the lack of flowering plants in layers below the Cretaceous period. That's just common sense.

Quote

Are you too scared to look for the answer these questions or something?

Scared? Of you? Of answering questions? Yeah, right. Actually, I got tied up with other stuff and forgot about your post (obviously, you did not.) Sorry.

[CSLewis]

"Most species' DNA is similar. Shows a common Creator who was smart enough to make a template that could be used over and over again. You know about DNA being only four symbols, right?"

wow. God needed a template? Much easier to believe God created the process of evolution-

98 percent of human DNA is made up of introns (nonsensical section of DNA) and only 2percent of DNA actually contains genetic instructions.

[ConScience]

Sir Gareth, on Oct 22 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

and yet none of you super smart evolutionist types can produce any concrete evidence to refute creation, or any concrete evidence to support common ancestory.

I am not a super-smart evolutionary type, at all (though I'm learning more, faster than ever before, thanks to encouragement by this board).

Here is a link (PLEASE mods, don't take this one down!)

http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

People have asked for evidence PLEASE READ the information, and let me know what you think.

[horizoneast]

ConScience, on Oct 23 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

Sir Gareth, on Oct 22 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

and yet none of you super smart evolutionist types can produce any concrete evidence to refute creation, or any concrete evidence to support common ancestory.

I am not a super-smart evolutionary type, at all (though I'm learning more, faster than ever before, thanks to encouragement by this board).

Here is a link (PLEASE mods, don't take this one down!)

People have asked for evidence PLEASE READ the information, and let me know what you think.

So Nick – let me guess – like Lurker and CS before you - you cannot support the Darwinian myth so you are going to link us to all the atheistic-leaning Darwinian sites your can Google. I thought as much – big talk no action. Next...

[MorningGlory]

CSLewis, on Oct 23 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

"Most species' DNA is similar. Shows a common Creator who was smart enough to make a template that could be used over and over again. You know about DNA being only four symbols, right?"

wow. God needed a template? Much easier to believe God created the process of evolution-

98 percent of human DNA is made up of introns (nonsensical section of DNA) and only 2percent of DNA actually contains genetic instructions.

God didn't NEED a template; in His infinite wisdom He laid down a template and showed great economy and foresight in doing so. And, of course, He did create evolution for survivability. Not to morph one species into another. If He desires a new species, He will create one. :thumbsup: