haha gotta love it……

GaijinBob said:

“purplepeep said:
They only look for things that will fit their particular paradigm.”

But as humans, isn’t that what we all do?

Yeah, Bob, I think I mentioned it is a common human thing to do.

Piltdown Man is a prime example of where, even if they weren’t the creators of the fraudulent “missing link”, evolutionists wanted it so much to be true that any needed scientific objectivity went out the window.

The good Lord said “Seek and ye shall find.” It wasn’t just a message of hope, it was also a dire warning!

I suppose you could say it was the draft version of “be careful what you wish for”!

I only wish to point out that the evolutionists indict themselves: They claim that as scientists, they are above that sort of thing. But you’re right, that is exactly what they do.

They only look for things that will fit their particular paradigm.

But as humans, isn’t that what we all do? Whatever you want to believe, you will find evidence for (and ignore the evidence against). The good Lord said “Seek and ye shall find.” It wasn’t just a message of hope, it was also a dire warning!

I’ll address only one point, which correlates to a previous comment of mine: you state that there may be a fossil record for certain things which merely awaits discovery.

The error in this logic is that evolutionists assume the record exists. Creationists, and even non-religious anthropologists that are not smitten by evolution do not make this assumption. If this assumption is not taken, and the fossil record is examined without prejudice, there is no real reson to assume evolution occurred as described.

Let me point out one possible reason evolution survives as a theory:

The Leaky family of archeologists/anthropologists discovered a single footprint in a dig in Kenya and made a speculation as to the first origins of Homo Sapiens-Sapiens (that’s us) as being approximately 100,000 years old. This speculation was widely accepted, despite really very little evidence to support their claim.

Today, University dept. chairs and Natural History museum curators are the product of a couple of generations of devout belief in evolution based on the Leaky finds. They believe it because their own professors taught it. They did not dare question this as students, or they would not have been awarded their PhD’s. Now, if they are questioned by students or job applicants, tough luck for the student or job applicant. They will never get their degree and/or never work in anthropology. Since such a specialized discipline means they cannot go to work anywhere they wish, they toe the line and continue to perpetuate the theory of evolution.

lgm said:
You cannot hope to know enough about a field of science from reading a newspaper article to have an informed debate with an actual specialist.

Sorry, but I’m content just talking to those who had been conned into becoming submissive faithful to the absurdities of Darwinist demands. Given facts they can certainly reach their own conclusion(s).

I agree that scientists who have faith in Darwinism become furious that even the most basic of common sense and logical scientific critique is applied to the Sacred Cow. This is nothing new;
Galileo surely found that out when he questioned the prevailing “science” of his day. You’re offering the very same defense as did the scientific establishment against Galileo in an attempt to stop any pesky, difficult question that threatened their positions of importance. Let ‘em sweat – then and now.

If Darwinists can’t stand the heat of scientific scrutiny, they really should sell shoes or something even less demanding instead.

For another thing, they argue, a lot. All the issues raised here — what species is Lucy, how did evolution form cell membranes, … — they have been chewed over like cud. None of the objections raised here are new to evolution doubters, and all have answers in “the literature” (the body of professional scientific publication).

Third, the fact that you can’t know everything about a subject doesn’t mean that you can’t know anything about it. There is fossil evidence for innumerable evolutionary transitions — this kind of rodent evolves from that kind which evolves from another kind, etc. There are some transitions for which we do not yet have a record. That doesn’t mean that no transitions occur.

SHoward said:
My favorite example is the Ceolocanth (? spelling). It was an ‘index fossil’ at one time, meaning all found were at least 60 to 70 million years old. Then someone caught one in the Indian Ocean. Scientists went there and found quite a few.

What is most interesting is the analysis: before we could observe them in nature, evolutionists mis-interpreted their behavior and biology. They were supposed to live in very shallow water, and their fleshy fins were “about to evolve into legs.”

Well, if they hadn’t been interrupted they w0ould have sprouted legs any day, doncha know.

I think the problem evolutionists have is a fairly common one: they find what they look for. They only look for things that will fit their particular paradigm. This almost always has disastrous and unscientific results. To wit, one of their “missing links”,
Piltdown Man.

For 50 years Piltdown was offered up as proof of evolution. A whole generation of people lived and died believing in that lastest of the evolutionist’s ill- fated line of “missing links”.

Creationists look at the exact same evidence that evolutionists do, they just don’t presume that evolution must have occurred.

Evolution is readily debunked, but I think we need to remember that fact does not validate ID or Creationism. My criticism of evolution theory is from the common sense, logic and scientific viewpoints.

ID, Creation or other alternative may be alternative working explanations, but I’m done when the evolution theory is exposed as a highly improbable, if not impossible, explanation.

But if you want an interesting read re:Creationist thought, here’s a nice piece by a Jewish writer:
Confessions Of A Creationist

snippet:
“I always thought creationists were Bible-belt fundamentalists. Denying evolution would put me on their side, and jeopardize my self-image as an East coast Jewish intellectual”

Evolution has become as much religion as global warming. The proponents call it accepted science and move on. The trouble is with things like Lucy: how does one really know that she’s not just an ape?

My favorite example is the Ceolocanth (? spelling). It was an ‘index fossil’ at one time, meaning all found were at least 60 to 70 million years old. Then someone caught one in the Indian Ocean. Scientists went there and found quite a few.

What is most interesting is the analysis: before we could observe them in nature, evolutionists mis-interpreted their behavior and biology. They were supposed to live in very shallow water, and their fleshy fins were “about to evolve into legs.”

Turns out they live in 1200 to 1500 feet of water, spend much of thier time vertical looking for food, and in 60 million years have yet to step out of the blue.

Creationists look at the exact same evidence that evolutionists do, they just don’t presume that evolution must have occurred.

SHoward said:
Somebody sure has had their caffeine this morning.

Yeah, caffiene helps!

But on that last one, I always have some fun when someone intimates that a lab experiment illustrates “evolution”.

I have them go over the complex process involved. Then I ask in one form or another “So it didn’t happen by itself?”.

The answer, obviously, is “No”.

Then I tell the person what it did prove – it’s a great “gotcha moment” when they realize they have, in fact, made a very concrete argument for “Intelligent Design”. They’re left absolutely speechless – what can they say?