Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

AW: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Teacher may lose job after teaching creationism

Expand Messages
  • Rolf Schuler
    Maybe Jeebs wants to read this article about macroevolution. Unfortunately, many creationists think, macroevolution means to turn a fish into a bird or so ---
    Message 1 of 66 , Apr 1, 2011
    Maybe Jeebs wants to read this article about macroevolution.
    Unfortunately, many creationists think, macroevolution means to turn a fish into a bird or so --- LOL.

    Rolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Von: jeebsthebutler <jeebsthebutler@...>
    An: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
    Gesendet: Freitag, den 1. April 2011, 6:10:58 Uhr
    Betreff: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Teacher may lose job after teaching creationism

     


    > > > > >
    > > > > > DINOHUNTER: well I know evolution is indeed a fact because I study it daily in my job. What is the overwhelming evidence for Creation? Now don't get me wrong I believe that God created the universe but as a scientist I don't see there being any scientific proof that shows it. Its a matter of our faith.
    > > > > >
    > > > > jeebs: Sorry Dino, but macro-evolution has never been observed, if that's what you mean by "evolution". Also, why do you think the scientific study called biomimicry even exists? And believing in God does require faith but it is certainly not a foolish faith. The creation testifies of the Almighty's awesome knowledge and power.
    > > > >
    > > > DINOHUNTER: Sorry Jeebs but macro is ALL OVER the fossil record.
    > > >
    > > jeebs: How so Dino? Besides the naturalists' imaginations, where can evidence of macro-evolution be found?
    > >
    > > Also, I noticed you dodged my previous question regarding biomimicry... will you indeed accuse Laurie of dodging questions, yet turn around and do the very thing you criticize?
    > >
    > DINOHUNTER: My not answering your question about biomimicry was not an attempt to dodge. I just don't see that biomimicry has anything to do with evolution. Unless there is some new area of biomimicry I am not familiar with. Perhaps you can explain how the two are connected? Also, as I said before evience for evolution can be found in the fossil record and MANY other places.
    >
    jeebs: My point is we learn substantially useful and interesting ideas from the Lord's creations, which He created. Naturalists ascribe these intricate systems and awesome creations to "Nature", which is apparently mindless, yet extremely more efficient then even our modern technological advancements.

    Here are some interesting and very useful inventions inspired by biologic organisms, which, according to secular literature, were created by a mindless, unguided process called natural selection...

    http://brainz.org/15-coolest-cases-biomimicry/

    jeebs: There is much evidence of micro-evolution(small changes) and we also find genetic barriers of how much change is naturally possible. The idea of macro-evolution ignores these observed barriers and invokes speculative processes that exceed these boundaries. Yet we observe that creatures and plants only reproduce "after their kind" just as God declared and ordained in the beginning.

  • SH
    ... Tin: Sure I did. But since you snipped the context showing your quote fraud didn t respond to the actual issue at than, it s lost now. But guess what
    Message 66 of 66 , Apr 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      > > LA> Leading evolutionist, Niles Eldredge sees things quite >differently from that and confesses that;
      >
      > Tin: Why do you post irrelevant out of context quotes ?
      >
      > LA> You have not shown any such thing at all, of course.


      Tin: Sure I did. But since you snipped the context showing your quote fraud didn't respond to the actual issue at than, it's lost now.


      But guess what Appleton I found the context ! The context was the actual specific fossil evidence of interlocking ecosystems which suppurts evolution and contradicts creationism. For example, the fact that we never find flowering plants, the dominant land plant of today, with Paleozoic reptiles.


      See for yourself Appleton;



      ----------
      Tin: No the fossil record doesn't show actual birthing events. It does show
      however a consistent record of change. We find a series of interlocking
      ecosytems, where the groups of life that lived together are very different.
      >
      > For example in the Paleozoic we have Paleozoic reptiles but no flowering
      plants. Paleozoic reptlies look very different than modern mammals, almost like
      they were from a different planet. In the Mesozoic we have dinosaurs but no
      modern mammals. In the Cenozoic we have modern mammals but no dinsaurs or
      paleozoic reptiles.
      >
      > Now if creationists were honest with the facts, they'd be devastated by the
      facts. So they have little choice but to use their standard reflexive denial.
      >
      >
      >
      > LA> Leading evolutionist, Niles Eldredge sees things quite >differently from
      that and confesses that;
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.