Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[Raikage1]

---

I am not convince by these arguments

[brownprose]

It's a mistaken notion by creationists that transitional fossils are not conclusive of evolution. There are of course "gaps" (as commonly or expectedly argued by creationists) or popularly "missing links" (which is downright inaccurate and confusing) between transitional fossils and science naturally admits that since it is next to impossible to find all fossils of every animal in transition from one specie to the other. However, these so-called "gaps" do not indicate lack of coherence to dismiss altogether the idea of evolution. Transitional fossils only exemplify snapshots of the evolutionary process but it's worth noting that there are well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time to conclude the evolution of these recorded organisms - cladistics provides us a model to understand these dated morphological divergence.

A common claim made by major creationist groups such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research is that there are no transitional fossils. Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favourite lie" of creationists. Source: Evolution: What missing link? - life - 27 February 2008 - New Scientist

To know more about transitional fossils on and evolution of whales suggest you visit National Geographics website: Evolution of Whales @ nationalgeographic.com --> in this excerpt you will note that the ancestors of what we commonly know as whales used to be dry-dwelling animals. It took millions of years for whales to evolve from walking land animals into the water-dwelling creatures of today.

[diehard96]

Along the rigors of science and facts, evolution undoubtedly stands the measure of verity of conclusion. Creationist science miserably fails because no matter how much it feigns to have passed the rigors of scientific measure, the very foundation for which it stands (bible) is weak and unscientific to begin with.

very good point.

[botslob]

It's a mistaken notion by creationists that transitional fossils are not conclusive of evolution. There are of course "gaps" (as commonly or expectedly argued by creationists) or popularly "missing links" (which is downright inaccurate and confusing) between transitional fossils and science naturally admits that since it is next to impossible to find all fossils of every animal in transition from one specie to the other. However, these so-called "gaps" do not indicate lack of coherence to dismiss altogether the idea of evolution. Transitional fossils only exemplify snapshots of the evolutionary process but it's worth noting that there are well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time to conclude the evolution of these recorded organisms - cladistics provides us a model to understand these dated morphological divergence.

A common claim made by major creationist groups such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research is that there are no transitional fossils. Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favourite lie" of creationists. Source: Evolution: What missing link? - life - 27 February 2008 - New Scientist

To know more about transitional fossils on and evolution of whales suggest you visit National Geographics website: Evolution of Whales @ nationalgeographic.com --> in this excerpt you will note that the ancestors of what we commonly know as whales used to be dry-dwelling animals. It took millions of years for whales to evolve from walking land animals into the water-dwelling creatures of today.

di man ko sweto ani browny i like the way you explain. ug ngano kaha di gyud sila kasabot no? tsk tsk...

[tripwire]

Ever wonder why humans are 70% water not 70% dust?

[regnauld]

Ever wonder why humans are 70% water not 70% dust?

I even read in one science article that our bodies are composed of 90% water.

[tripwire]

I even read in one science article that our bodies are composed of 90% water.

Even better!

I just want to hear creationists answer this question because by "popular beliefs" that we are made of dust.

[regnauld]

Even better!

I just want to hear creationists answer this question because by "popular beliefs" that we are made of dust.

tripwire gwapa, can you please share to us your answer why its 70-90% water? Hope you won't mind!

[handsoff241]

Ever wonder why humans are 70% water not 70% dust?

Ok.. so what is your "main" point with that.

Malic just threw your ida into the trash can.

[bluedes]

Ok.. so what is your "main" point with that.

Malic just threw your ida into the trash can.

maglinabayay na diay ta ani ug fossils sa trash can?!