DRAC'S FORUM

Hahahahaha damn Colby.

It's more or less a non-issue here in Newfoundland, which by all accounts is a relatively religious area of Canada.

The question isn't WHICH you pick, its WHY you pick.

See The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

Evolutionist can't even agree on evolution anymore, it has MANY holes, and it in itself doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of a creator. Even if this theory filled with loop holes did happen to be the correct way we all got here, finite humans, confined to the laws of time think things supernatural would need to create with instant speed.

This is not so, if there is a God, he could of set in motion the rules of creation and allow it to happen. To him, the time it takes for the evolution of one species to the next, until his human was made would be equivalent to a second. He feels no relative time. He is at the beginning when he set the laws in motion, and he is at the end when it was made. To him, existence is one big perpetual moment. It is us that runs the merry go round.

Your finite mind cannot understand something infinite, and you since you can't fit him in your little box, you dismiss it. The truth is though, I don't believe in the evolution of species to species. There are no intermediate fossils that I've ever seen. I  believe in adaption within species. I think scientist discovered adaption and witnessed it, then saw similar things in species and tried to work backwards plugging the holes where they could...the problem is they could never find a theory that plugged all the holes.

Thats where Neo-Darwinism comes in.  Now everything that was "TRUE" and proven by the early evolutionists.....everything that they would condescendingly preach to laugh at the "idiot creationists" has been shown by other scientists to be ridiculously implausible.

I too would like to know what these supposed "holes in theory" are Colby?

I was raised in the Church(not molested  ), and ive had a hard time with my family when it comes to this topic.

I personally dont believe in creationism. Im more of an agnostic these days. Im not convinced there is, or isnt a supreme being. But i am convinced that undoubtedly man has evolved from Ape.

Actually humans are apes, which there are 5 of. Gorilla, Orang, Chimp, Gibbons, Humans. It's not theory, it's taxonomy

Please don't generalize me into a group of people and quote ridiculous arguments like "The sky is so beautiful there must have been a creator". That is riddled with fallacies, one being Hasty generalization, and two its a silly straw man to begin with because I never made such assertions.

First I must comment, I find it a little humorous for people to speak so confidently from a side that is not only universally ignorant about its own beginning, but admittedly lost and divided amongst each other within their own findings.

I like that you stated its what "Evolution SEEKS to explain". That is is correct, it is "SEEKING" to find the answers because it hasn't FOUND them yet.

"Evolution" is half truth and half bullshit. The scientists were on  to something but couldn't quit plug in all the holes so the theorized.  Variation  or micro-evolution is absolutely real.  ( Butterfly colors, length of bird beaks, length of legs, etc. are variation.  Each type and length of beak or leg  is already in the gene pool for that animal.  Creationists have never argued whether or not variation within species exist. So where is the bullshit? The evolutionists try to hid the fact that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. Ask any animal breeder or botanist.

Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.  And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.  But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures.  If you haven't started to smell the bull shit coming yet, I'm about to show it to you. Evolutionist say that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macro-evolution) really happen?  Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.  A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood.  They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.  We do not have these problems with bacteria.  A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. 

There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  There is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones15).  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria.

Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.   But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).  That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures.  It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.  Thus all  the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.  That is physically impossible. 

To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).  We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.  The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.  Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.  But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.  They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

This rare admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:  "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.  The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.  Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.  Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.  And John Michael Fischer, 2006-2010

I could go on but I think this enough to start a conversation at to let you start explaining some things.   

lol...thats your retort? Whoa, I gotta slow down..my head is spinning from all the facts    Look,  when you boys wrap up a prettier explanation, without any holes or lies and then manage to explain some of my personal experiences...I'll think about jumping ship...but then again.. I probably wont. I enjoy a world where God exists and I think even if it was proven he didn't exists...it would do the world good to pretend he did. 

But the truth is, you haven't proved anything. Evolution is absolutely bullshit and in time will be as silly as the idea that the world was flat.

^^

What bearing does scientific evidence hold if it doesn't actually explain things? The answer is nothing, your theory of evolution is just that....a theory. Its speculation..a holey one at that.

Honestly, creationism is a choice for me. I'm not here to convince you that I'm right with my choice..just that I don't believe yours is correct. It is something I CHOOSE to believe from personal experiences. I have had my doubts and swayed back n forth and truth be told..My life is better with a God in it. Creationism is the original theory, if you will, and I choose to believe this based on eye witness accounts and on the fact that a better and more complete theory has yet to shown to me.

I agree completely that my theory is based more on spiritual level and more on personal belief than in scientific evidence. Its hard to have empirical evidence on spiritual things. Its like trying to prove that thoughts are real, the only reason we agree they are real..is from the effects and the fact that we all have experienced them. I think thats why all Christians agree..we felt the effects of the unseen God...and we all have experienced him.