Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[tripwire]

---

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

Sir Reg, I hope this helps.

As my old professor said... in mathematical value, H2O=Life not DUST=Life.

[tripwire]

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

Malic just threw your ida into the trash can.

Not really care if anyone trashes someone's views. My point about "humans" creation is/was not what creationists think that humans are made of dust. If you follow a derivative of your body's components, we humans are dependent on water not dust. We don't eat dust [unless if you are racing with someone, lol] or drink. However, there is no absolutely truth where humans came from. But nonetheless, our DNA shows there is enough evidence pointing why humans are made of water.

[NASYO]

Life's beginning is always been a mystery for me.
I don't really care where I came from.
All I know is that, somebody planted a seed.

[rcruman]

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

i think you should need to review your understanding about from dust to dust.

Man came from dust and will go back to dust.

it goes like this:

I'm from Lapu-Lapu and I will go to SM round trip then will go back to Lapu-Lapu, will it mean that all the road and places I've through is still LAPU-LAPU?

think of it.

Man came from dust and will go back to dust.
don't limit the word "dust" to the dust above your hard to reach APARADOR or CABINET.

all of us people when we die will go back to dust.

Peace!

[bluedes]

don't limit the word "dust" to the dust above your hard to reach APARADOR or CABINET.

all of us people when we die will go back to dust.

Peace!

an alternate explanation for this is using the word star dust..
mas-romantic paminawon.. because chemically speaking, we can trace everything on this planet (including us) from star dust..

so from star dust we came, and to star dust we shall be.. char!

[Malic]

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.

sayon ra jud sabton. atong binisay on ha.

kung ang iring mo evolve into iro dapat naa tay makita nga fossils or creature man lang nga buhi karon nga ang nawong ug lawas kombinasyon sa iring og iro. naa ba tay makita? ZERO.

kining gi post ni brownprose paborito pod ning ALIBI sa mga taga talkorigins ug mga deceptive nga mga evolutionists. kay ngano? gi lipat lipat man tawn ang mga kadaghanan ninyo.

ang kalibogan ani mao nga kung wala silay makita nga missing link, palaban dayon sila sa ilang ALIBI nga liko liko nga sayop kuno pagsabot sa mga creationists ang evolution? Apan kung naa silay makita nga fossils nga mura ug missing link...idayon og proclaim nga naa na silay nakitan nga missing link?

kung wala palaban sa ALIBI kung naay murag missig link nga within sa definition sa mga creationists dayon ug proclaim nga naa na kunoy missing link. Kita ninyo ang pagka deceptive ni ining ALIBI nila? makalilibog kaayo mga kaigso onan.

then kining gi post ni brownprose...wala gapakita ug ebidensya kun di poro lang ALIBI nga gikan sa baba sa mga bakakong evolutionists. mugna muga sa ilang utok. apan dioli maka pagawas ug klarong evidence.

[NASYO]

Man came from dust and will go back to dust.

I will tell you bro, man came from a dust like particles.
Would you like to believe it?

[Malic]

Since Brownprose mentioned about Answersingenesis let me quote what they have to say about transitional fossils.

There is quite a double standard concerning transitional fossils. On one hand, evolutionists, such as this professor(evolutionist), say that we should not expect to find them(fossils) because changes are small over such vast amounts of time. This is usually in response to creationists pointing out the dearth of such examples. However, the moment that a fossil is interpreted as being “transitional,” news stories proliferate around the world. Thus, what we shouldn’t expect to find is now the big science story of the day.

Essentially, this highlights the problem with fossils. They don’t have tags telling us what they are, and scientists are forced to interpret them based on the information they have. This can, in fact, lead to misidentification (e.g., the so-called Brontosaurus never really existed except in an amalgamation of fossils and in the minds of men). Evolutionary scientists, for all their claims about not expecting to find them, are ever aware of the hope for transitional fossils. Thus, they often claim that some new find (e.g., Tiktaalik) is transitional. They believe in evolution, and they apply their beliefs to whatever they dig up.

Many evolutionists downplay transitional fossils because there are precious few disputed examples to choose from. If they are to maintain the dignity of their worldview, they have no choice but to acknowledge the gaps and then promptly fill them with imagination. So, even though we do not find clear transitional fossils between kinds, which goes against Darwinian history, evolutionists still assume that macro-evolution must be true. Evolution is, after all, unfalsifiable to many.

Source answersingenesis.

naa diay ni nga site? hehe nice site for creatinoists. See the deceptive ALIBI from these people? kung walay transitional fossils ALIBI dayon nga sayop daw ang pagsabot sa mga creationists ang fossils but kung naa silay makitan...gamit dayun ug media para e broadcast nga naa na daw nakitan nga missing link.

tsk tsk...in other words even tho sige silag ingun nga wala inside their mind sige diay sila ug expect nga makakita unta sila para mohilom na ang mga creationists. 150 years of searching wala pa gihapoy nigawas, kung naa man gani its either a fraud or inaccurate ang pag test.

[rcruman]

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.

Gaps and Missing Link?
so these theory of GAPS and MISSING LINK solve or connect the evolution theory?
When you say Missing it implies that it was once there or existed but just happened it was lost.
How can they/you say that its a missing link when its not there in the first place?

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.

so meaning when the time evolutionist can't connect or relate the theory they will just substitute the data with "GAPS" and "Missing LINK" which is not there?
The BIG QUESTION, when a creature/living things evolved will the starter remains or vanish/evolve?

Peace!

[Malic]

Gaps and Missing Link?
so these theory of GAPS and MISSING LINK solve or connect the evolution theory?
When you say Missing it implies that it was once there or existed but just happened it was lost.
How can they/you say that its a missing link when its not there in the first place?




so meaning when the time evolutionist can't connect or relate the theory they will just substitute the data with "GAPS" and "Missing LINK" which is not there?
The BIG QUESTION, when a creature/living things evolved will the starter remains or vanish/evolve?

Peace!

correct rcruman! keep it up!

in other words...missing man ang missing link so ila sa e fill up with theories and imagination. Then with alibi pod and they are holding on to it until naa silay makita nga transitional fossils kuno.

Inig naa silay makita makalimot dayon sila sa ilang alibi. hehe nya kung maskapan na pod ang propaganda balik na pod sila sa ilang alibi.