Tudór:

LOL. . . .i'm quite sure they'll blame the mythical devil for this loss. . .

alienYOUTH:

It doesnt make sense that these creationist guys r trying 2 "PROVE" creation. Faith is something u accept w/o question, not prove it.

Besides, anyone who thinks the world "evolved" after a big bang has some incredible imagination cos its easier to believe the universe was created, than reason d alternative.

If life evolved on earth, the same would have happened on Mercury or Pluto. Like i always say, aliens do not necessarily have to be anthropoid, they might as well breath nitrogen or thrive in extreme heat/fire; in fact d same way our kind of lifeform cannot thrive on Mercury because of d heat, a being on Mercury would find our environment hostile.

Even on earth, there r creatures that survive in d extreme depths of the sea where d pressure and absence of light would prove hostile for humans and most creatures. Even in volcanic areas of extreme heat, scientists have found thriving lifeforms. IF LIFE CAN EXIST IN SUCH SITUATIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE EVOLVED ON OTHER PLANETS OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM OR BEYOND!!!

The Airplane, Cellphone and Computer didnt evolve, they were created; much less more complex beings like Man and Beasts.

noetic16:

how is this a defeat to creationism?

1. The plaintiff makes an ambiguous case and calls "faith" as though it were "science". The judge logically throws out the case, based on the submissions of both sides. which is the rational thing to do here.

2. does this case rubbish the case for creationism? Absolutely not. The only problem here was the manner the in which the plaintiff presented its case. . .by stating facts and labelling them as science. it is a FACT that the earth was created, but to state this as a scientific notion, without making necessary scientific evidence inspired submissions is to declare faith.
So while the plaintiff's submission was "faith" inspired, there is a scientific case for creationism. what the judge has done is to assume that a dogma (creationism) without evidence was going to be taught as science. . .but what he did not consider was that another dogma called evolution was already being taught as science in schools.

3. There are scientific evidences and notions that support creationism. These are pretty obvious, the major difference lies in the acceptance or rejection of these evidences. The objective exploration of the science behind creationism presents plausible evidences for a created universe, while the objective exploration of the evolution case reveals holes and gaps that are scientifically, logically and intellectually inexplicable.

4. is evolution a science on its own?

KAG:
And of course, you already know that the theory of evolution is not a dogma.

KAG:

Also, no it is not a fact that the earth was created. Instead, it's a claim that the earth was created.

KAG:

Well, this will be as good a time as any for you to present - again, preferably in your own words - one or two of those "scientific evidences and notions that support creationism" for scrutiny. So far you've made utterances.

Jenwitemi:

Latest news update; The theory of evolution has long become a dogma. Many scientists have lost their jobs by just challenging the theory and pushed to the fringe of science. Yes, it has become a dogma even though it is nothing more than a theory.

If the earth was not created, how come it is in existence then? I don't get your point here. Whatever is in existence is created. Maybe you need to be more specific here. Are you talking about the very act of creation itself, or just a version of it, like the biblical creationism?

Biblical creationism can never be scientifically proven or substantiated because it is in the realm of mythology, a kind of mythological poetry. Nobody should even try doing it because it can't be done.

But creationism itself, on the other hand, can only be scientifically theorized and the theory of evolution is just one of those theories, and it remains exactly that, a theory. How the  universe came to be is still being researched at the moment. We still know very little. Folks(theists and atheists alike) should stop acting as if they have the answer.

KAG:
Like I stated earlier, it is an utterance to claim that the earth was created. The same applies to the statement "[w]hatever is in existence is created". It is my opinion that the natural processes that led to the formation of the earth was unguided, not needing the input of any gods.

Jenwitemi:

Is the process of evolution not an act of creation? You talk as if evolution does not bring about creation, as if the two are separate. Are they, really? Whether an act of creation was automated or guided, it is still an act of creation, thus it is creationism. You seem to attach the word "creationism" only to the mythological tale of creation, while i see it in it's overarching context. To me, the word "creationism" means the very act of creating itself. All the other theories out there, including the theory of evolution, are nothing more than suggestions of how this act of creation was carried out. That is all they are.

Your arguments with biblethumpers are just about the processes of creation and not the act of creation itself, which to me, is a sheer waste of time. Whether the universe came about through natural processes, or through some dude who waved a magic wand and went, "bippity boppity boo", it still does not remove the fact that all are just creation theories and nothing more.

OLAADEGBU:

Its all a matter of what spectacles you use in viewing the evidence you see around you.

alienYOUTH:

i'm gonna try my best to address the issue at hand and not the personalities involved, also, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but a little common sense ought to prevail beyond the crazed search for facts where the obvious glares us in the face.

To understand the movement of planetary body bodies, one has to understand the movement of particles of the atomic nature, likewise to understand Creation, u just have to look at the basic actions of man.

alienYOUTH:

To claim that our existence in this realm emanates from random occurrences in time, and not intelligent design, is a great insult.

Bringing this evolution thingy down to earth , its like claiming, according to the "Infinite monkey theorem", that "Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays". This statement even simplifies the situation because the Chimpanzee and Computer would need time to evolve in the first place. You honestly do not need proof to know the answer to that.

alienYOUTH:

My previous post advanced the thought that the Cellphone, Computer, and Airplane did not just evolve out of nothingness, they were deliberately fashioned out of the creativity and intelligence of man. These objects now further Evolved through time to what we have today, mind you not randomly, but still with the input of the Creators. This brings to the fore that Evolution is an offshoot of Creation.

Likewise on the grand and more complex scale, the world and all the complexities involved could not possibly have just "Happened" without intelligent input, it cant even continue to exist without sustained intelligence.

alienYOUTH:

The evolution theory, i believe, is a very lazy and selfish thought process attributing existence to chance; we all know there is no meaningful reaction without a deliberate action, Creationism/Intelligent design is more proactive and accommodating approach to life. The mere fact the creator hasn't come out to defend his position does not debunk His existence.

alienYOUTH:

The Evolutionist could just as well sit around while the next iphone evolves into their hands.

alaper:

Nobody is claiming that the knowledge of evolution is complete. We are learning every day. That is how the world progresses. New ideas are coming up every day, and they are subjected to the scrutiny of the scientific method. If they stand the scrutiny, they become accepted. Even then, they are being refined and polished every day! That is progress. Creationists want knowledge to remain fossillised to ideas of illiterate desert cattle rearers some 2000 years ago. It is interesting how creationists hold the genesis story as a sort of 'default' position, so that once they can find a small gap in the present knowledge of evolution, then the genesis story must be correct They scream blasphemy and threaten you with hellfire if you try to ask even the most basic clarification of the story they claim is infallable.

alienYOUTH:

i'm gonna try my best to address the issue at hand and not the personalities involved, also, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but a little common sense ought to prevail beyond the crazed search for facts where the obvious glares us in the face.

To understand the movement of planetary body bodies, one has to understand the movement of particles of the atomic nature, likewise to understand Creation, u just have to look at the basic actions of man.

To claim that our existence in this realm emanates from random occurrences in time, and not intelligent design, is a great insult.

Bringing this evolution thingy down to earth , its like claiming, according to the "Infinite monkey theorem", that "Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays". This statement even simplifies the situation because the Chimpanzee and Computer would need time to evolve in the first place. You honestly do not need proof to know the answer to that.

My previous post advanced the thought that the Cellphone, Computer, and Airplane did not just evolve out of nothingness, they were deliberately fashioned out of the creativity and intelligence of man. These objects now further Evolved through time to what we have today, mind you not randomly, but still with the input of the Creators. This brings to the fore that Evolution is an offshoot of Creation.

Likewise on the grand and more complex scale, the world and all the complexities involved could not possibly have just "Happened" without intelligent input, it cant even continue to exist without sustained intelligence.

The evolution theory, i believe, is a very lazy and selfish thought process

attributing existence to chance; we all know there is no meaningful reaction without a deliberate action,

Creationism/Intelligent design is more proactive and accommodating approach to life. The mere fact the creator hasn't come out to defend his position does not debunk His existence.

The Evolutionist could just as well sit around while the next iphone evolves into their hands.

OLAADEGBU:

Loss of Information

OLAADEGBU:

With your limited knowledge of evolution can you answer the following questions that has remained unanswered by the atheistic evolutionists?

We have heard your cock and bull stories of how the dinosaur evolved into a bird, can you tell us the gender of the first bird that evolved?  Was it male or female?  Let's say it was a male.  How did it produce offspring without a mate?  If a female evolved, why did it evolve with a different reproductive organ? Was it gay or an hermaphrodite?

  Did it evolve by chance, or did it evolve because it had the premonition that it was going to be needed by the male species?

  How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved?  Did the bird breathe?  Did it breathe before it developed lungs?  How did it do this?  Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them?  Did the bird have a mouth?  How did it eat before it had evolved a mouth?  Where did the mouth send the food before the stomach evolved?  How did the bird have energy if it did not eat because it didn't yet have a mouth?  How did the bird see what there was to eat before its eyes evolved?

KAG:

Define information. You know some dinosaurs had feathers too, right?

KAG:

Well that's just a blatant lie. Maybe it's time you took the "Way of the Master: are you a good person" test.

KAG:

Um, populations evolve, not individuals. Your questions in this section are moot because it relies on a misunderstanding of the evolution of species. Hey, I remember a question I asked you ages ago, that you didn't answer: what's the difference between dinosaurs and birds?

KAG:

While this question follows the same tack of misunderstanding evolution, I wanted to point out that the evolution of a new species wouldn't have been by chance. While mutations occur by chance, selection removes that element of chance. Thus, new species of dinosaur will have undergone natural or/and sexual selection.

KAG:

All dinosaurs had/have brains, breathe, eat/ate with mouths and had eyes. I don't think you thought your questions to baffle "evolutionists" all the way through. I get the impression you don't understand even the basics of the theory. What's your definition of biological evolution?

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere

In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record.  If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms.  Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred!  Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true.  What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts.  A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science.  The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?

I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms.  If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined?  how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?  When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)?  When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included?  When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup ", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information?  Evolutionists are masters of speculation.  Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8. What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other?  We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution.  A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain?  Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system?  The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from?  Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma?  At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach?  After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach?  Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from?  What about its kidney and bladder?  The animal better not eat anything prior to this.  How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.

Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.  This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details.  My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species?  Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.

Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from?  Did it have a beginning?  Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy.  And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from?  Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so.  He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible".  This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural.  Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with.  This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion.  That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant.  What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".

Robert H. Congelliere

OLAADEGBU:

Information is UDI ask your apostle to give you his explanation. If you believe that dinosaurs had feathers that means you believe pigs have wings to fly.

OLAADEGBU:

Show me where you answered the question or forever remain silent. But I am impressed that you took your time to check out the good person test.

All these diversionary tactics would not work, answer the question I asked and stop beating about the bush. What question did you ask me that I did not answer? If you've forgotten let me direct you to the thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=304357.0

Here you go again, answer the question I asked if your evolution is not by chance then what is it? Mutations are just like you make photo copies, would the copies be as good as the originals, would it be better or worse? The genetic mutations can either cause loss of information or gain of new information but all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information. If a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn't get blown out to the sea and killed. Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was helpful to the beetle. What your fairytale teaches you is that the goo-you-via-the-zoo evolution over million of years by natural causes, and that single-celled life form gave rise to more advanced life forms. In other words, what you want us to believe is that over millions and billions of years, increases in information caused by mutation and natural selection developed all the life forms we have today.

OLAADEGBU:

For single celled organisms like an amoeba to evolve into something like a dinosaur, new information would need to develop over time that would code for ears, legs, eyes, and so on. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. This increase of new information would need to continue in order for the kidneys, lungs, heart, brain and so on to develop. If you are sincere you will realise that theses cells don't contain information for working heart, lungs or eyes and the DNA added would be useless and would only be more of an obstacle than a help. There has to be billions of information-gaining mutations for evolution to be true but the fact is that we don't observe this in nature as your apostle admitted, what we see is organisms losing information. How you say it then adds up to a gain is what you have to explain to us.

OLAADEGBU:

I believe that I just answered you question even though you didn't answer mine and I have a few others to ask you.

OLAADEGBU:

This is another set of questions that evolutionists have not answered, lets see whether they would be up to the challenge.

OLAADEGBU:

Information is UDI ask your apostle to give you his explanation.  If  you believe that dinosaurs had feathers that means you believe pigs have wings to fly.

Show me where you answered the question or forever remain silent.  But I am impressed that you took your time to check out the good person test.

All these diversionary tactics would not work, answer the question I asked and stop beating about the bush.

 What question did you ask me that I did not answer?  If you've forgotten let me direct you to the thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=304357.0

While this question follows the same tack of misunderstanding evolution, I wanted to point out that the evolution of a new species wouldn't have been by chance. While mutations occur by chance, selection removes that element of chance. Thus, new species of dinosaur will have undergone natural or/and sexual selection.

Here you go again, answer the question I asked if your evolution is not by chance then what is it?

Mutations are just like you make photo copies, would the copies be as good as the originals, would it be better or worse?

The genetic mutations can either cause loss of information or gain of new information but all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information.

If a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesn't get blown out to the sea and killed.  Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was helpful to the beetle. What your fairytale teaches you is that the goo-you-via-the-zoo evolution over million of years by natural causes, and that single-celled life form gave rise to more advanced life forms.  In other words, what you want us to believe is that over millions and billions of years, increases in information caused by mutation and natural selection developed all the life forms we have today.

For single celled organisms like an amoeba to evolve into something like a dinosaur, new information would need to develop over time that would code for ears, legs, eyes, and so on.  If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information.  This increase of new information would need to continue in order for the kidneys, lungs, heart, brain and so on to develop.

If you are sincere you will realise that theses cells don't contain information for working heart, lungs or eyes and the DNA added would be useless and would only be more of an obstacle than a help.

There has to be billions of information-gaining mutations for evolution to be true but the fact is that we don't observe this in nature as your apostle admitted, what we see is organisms losing information.

How you say it then adds up to a gain is what you have to explain to us.  

I believe that I just answered you question even though you didn't answer mine and I have a few others to ask you.

OLAADEGBU:

This is another set of questions that evolutionists have not answered, lets see whether they would be up to the challenge.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

KAG:

Colour me surprised: OLAADEGBU, a poster clueless about science copy/pastes a bottom barrel of inanity from someone just as ignorant as he is of the subject being discussed. Okay, on this occasion I'll limit my responses to only those questions that deal with theory of evolution.

thehomer:

What is the relationship between dinosaurs having feathers and pigs having wings to fly? It seems you do not follow current scientific stories. This was even on the BBC.

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8. What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

OLAADEGBU:

Who said pigs don't fly? Current scientific stories indeed.