Kevin Dorner

"Sperm" and "ova." Single-cells. They make people. Hey, they make lots of living things.

That "wasn't Darwin a creationist at the end" is so old and tired and false (and proves nothing) that even <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">Answers In Genesis says that it's a bad argument to use.</a>

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Mageth

This topic will NEVER be proven, evolution is too incomplete for it to be a 100% truth.

Evolution is already accepted as "fact", or as close to fact as you can get, by most scientists.

I believe in the end even Darwin realized that it just couldn't be proven thoroughly.

No. He realized there were serious questions to be answered, but I don't believe he claimed they couldn't be answered.

Wasn't Darwin a believer in creation in the end?

An urban legend, that. And even if true, it would have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of Darwinian evolution.

NO ONE will ever win this debate, supposed transitional fossils could be just as easily extinct fossils.

Duh. Fossils of transitional species are, AFAIK, exclusively of extinct species.

And I, like many others, consider the "debate" to be already won. It's down to convincing the losers that they've lost.

Fossils are completely valid, even if the earth is only 15,000 years old or less, there just isn't enough proof, it is just a theory, an unproven theory.

So you're proposing compressing all of Evolution indicated by the fossil record (over 3 billion years of it) down into 15000 years or less? Each generation or two would have to be a new species. Far more incredible than what science claims.

Sheesh.

Does anyone really believe we were one celled organisms? This so extremely unlikely that it makes creation look WAY more plausable.

Well, I stared out as a fertilized ovum. I would assume you did too.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

WinAce

GTX: We can always use another YEC. Hang around, check out ALL the data (not just a single piece of it such as the fossil record) and then try to explain even some of it in the absence of evolution without saying 'God made it that way, just don't ask how or why'. I'll bet 50 bucks you won't be able to.

Badfish

But why is it old and false?

As brilliant as Darwin was, did he not conclude his and others research just didn't answer the questions?

What do you mean the answers in Genesis?

Genesis is very clear Adam was made in a day, man was made in Gods image, the following lineage is a good indication that God did not intend or imply evolution.

To this day there is just too much missing info to conclude evolution a reality.

These debates will rage for years, because the proofs aren't there, there are good arguments for and against.

But I suppose this missing info is what fuels forums and discussions

No one can prove ANYTHING, I'm sorry but that is a 100% truth

Hallucigenia

If you are asking "Does anyone really believe that we, as a species, were once one-celled organisms?" then the answer is "No." No one really believes that, nor has anyone ever actually put forth that position.

If you reduce evolutionary theories down to a single, false caricature, then I'm sure any number of theories can sound more plausible.

Try not arguing against strawmen. Just to be different, as a creationist.

Badfish

I will hang around, I love science and love the research, I am into astronomy and just love science, I will read. Thanks

Badfish

Thanks for the link, I understand, maybe I was just trying to show where I stand.

You guys have to admit there is COMPELLING evidence and theories for both evolution and creation, we can agree on that right?

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: GTX ]</p>

Mageth

For evolution, yes. For creation, no. Creation amounts to wishful thinking.

Mageth

No one can prove ANYTHING, I'm sorry but that is a 100% truth.

I get so tired of hearing this. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Do you recognize the contradiction in your assertion?

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Coragyps

I sure don't have to admit that! I have yet to see one shred of evidence for "creation". That's not to say that a creator couldn't have made all we see to LOOK like it is very old, and like life, including us, evolved, but said creator sure took pains to hide his tracks.