26 Jan 15
"The Biblical creation/Fall/Flood migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species."
Refuting Evolution2, Jonathan Sarfati
One thing creationists and evolutionists have in common is that they both accept the fact of the formation of new species.
26 Jan 15
"Creationists would also agree with evolutionary biologists that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species."
Genetic Variability by Design, Chris Ashcraft, Journal of Creation 18(2) 2004
RJHinds, can you find one creationist, besides yourself who does not accept the formation of new species?
27 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadEvolutionists make up a lot of rubbish. 😏
You clearly lied when you claimed you had read it.
[b]No creationist that I am aware of believes Darwin's finches and their changes in beaks explained anything about the Origin of Species.
So you accept that Darwins finches are related? You have just contradicted yourself without realizing it.[/b]
28 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessI have the right word. It was evolutionists that made up the piltdown man fraud, not creationists.
I do believe you've confused the words. The word you're looking for is "creationists"; Creationists make up a lot of rubbish.
You're welcome. 😏
http://x-evolutionist.com/why-are-there-evolution-frauds-if-evolution-is-a-proven-fact/
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's true that the scientific community was fooled for 40 or so years, but it should be noted that the piltdown man became more of a problem for evolution than it helped. The only reason it was kept in the equation as long as it did was because of its supposed authenticity. It was only when it became obvious that it didn't fit in with the other fossils found that scientists decided to run tests, and discovered that the jawbone was only decades old, and artificially stained to appear older.
I have the right word. It was evolutionists that made up the piltdown man fraud, not creationists.
http://x-evolutionist.com/why-are-there-evolution-frauds-if-evolution-is-a-proven-fact/
Pointing to a fraudster amateur paleontologist as an example of "evolutionists" while ignoring that it was "evolutionists" of the professional scientific kind that finally exposed the fraud, is just a tad disingenuous, don't you think?
28 Jan 15
3 edits
Originally posted by C HessMy point was not who exposed the fraud, but that all (evolutionists and creationists) now accept it as one of the many frauds by evolutionists who were anxious to find evidence for their theory they wanted others to believe in. Don't forget that Darwin was described as an amateur naturalist.
It's true that the scientific community was fooled for 40 or so years, but it should be noted that the piltdown man became more of a problem for evolution than it helped. The only reason it was kept in the equation as long as it did was because of its supposed authenticity. It was only when it became obvious that it didn't fit in with the other fossils found ...[text shortened]... nal scientific kind that finally exposed the fraud, is just a tad disingenuous, don't you think?
http://friendsofdarwin.com/books/aydon-darwin/
Darwin was never a model student, but he did become a passionate amateur naturalist.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd my point is that you're pointing to a fraudster as an example of all "evolutionists", when the number of fraudsters are vanishingly small, and those who do commit fraud are always called out by the scientific community. With the technology we now have, this is more true today than it was a hundred years ago.
My point was not who exposed the fraud, but that all (evolutionists and creationists) now accept it as one of the many frauds by evolutionists who were anxious to find evidence for their theory they wanted others to believe in. Don't forget that Darwin was described as an amateur naturalist.
http://friendsofdarwin.com/books/aydon-darwin/
Darwin ...[text shortened]... he did become a passionate amateur naturalist.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html
But if you want to compare creationists and "evolutionists" in some mud-slinging game (as if it really matters), consider the creationist museum, where man and dinosaur are presented as though they lived together, when there's not a single shread of evidence that they did. Talk about wanting to believe. You can't even point to fake evidence. At least those who believed the piltdown man was genuine, had good reasons for believing it.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessI don't call this slinging mud since it is an established fact. But I agree that the scientist are learning more and this has made Darwin's idea of molecule to man evolution even more unbelievable. The simple cell that was supposed to be no more than a jelly like glob of matter has turned out to be more like a highly complex manufacturing city. No intermediate transitional fossils from one species or kind to another have been found as Darwin predicted.
And my point is that you're pointing to a fraudster as an example of all "evolutionists", when the number of fraudsters are vanishingly small, and those who do commit fraud are always called out by the scientific community. With the technology we now have, this is more true today than it was a hundred years ago.
But if you want to compare creationists and ...[text shortened]... ce. At least those who believed the piltdown man was genuine, had good reasons for believing it.
Many prominent former atheists and evolutionist have spoken out about their change in mind from believing evolution to now believing in creation by an intelligent being that could be the God of the Holy Bible after the discovery of DNA and the highly integrated complexity of life forms.
28 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by catstormThat would just be more evidence that Christianity is true because the emergence of false prophets and teachers was predicted by Christ Jesus and the apostles. 😏
If there are phony evangelists in the world, does it prove that Christianity is false?
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
(Matthew 24:24)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
(2 Peter 2:1-3)
28 Jan 15
Darwin did not write of 'molecules to man'. He discovered a mechanism to explain speciation, a fact accepted by everyone but you.
Transitional fossils are in museums all over the world.
See Answers in Genesis' list of 'Arguments Creationists should never use'
Creation 'Science' has changed vastly in the last 30 years. If it is the clear teaching of Genesis, then why does it change all the time?