Darwin up'n says it's different, and all the "higher" animals evolved from the "lower" animals.
Define what you mean by "higher" and "lower." To my knowledge, evolutionary theory says no such thing. You are perhaps referring to the ladder idea of evolution which (wrongly) states that evolution has a goal, i.e. to produce "higher" species such as humans. Most scientists believe that humans appeared through purely random processes, though there are other ideas out there that scientists have posited (not creationism).
You define it. You define what Darwin meant. It the archaic form of
your religion - not mine!
Who has the burden of proof? Evolutionists, that's who. And after all this time they have nothing but speculations piled upon circular reasoning.
We have geological evidence, the fossil record, and genetics for a start. Dismissing all of this as non-existent or lies is an example of cognitive dissonance (see my earlier post). It's there and you've got to work out a way to address it. Is there a particular aspect from one of these disciplines that you question?
The "geological evidence" and "fossil record" you refer to are explained by the "theory". Therefore, they do not constitute evidence that it is true. Please review circular reasoning.
Genetics demolished evolutionism. Things were so bad that the Soviet Union banned genetics. As you've indicated you're unfamiliar with the history of your religion, I won't burden you with the deceitful ploys that allowed the religion to survive. Not just yet. This would stray too far off-topic to suit me. I had been thinking of starting a thread on some of these things, and now there seems to be a call for it. I'm undecided: 2 threads or one to cover the X-club & related conspiracies and the genetics story & issues. Probably 2.
When you're finished laughing maybe you can answer this: how else do you explain the phyletic gradualism (the small changes in time) of horse evolution? Click the link to horse evolution that I posted earlier. You will see that there are many transitional fossils, each of which shows small differences from the preceding one -- and in the order in which they are found in situ. Is this just a weird coincidence? Did God create one horse ancestor, only to wipe it out and create another slightly different one? And do it again and again? The logical conclusion, where this is repeated across different species all over the globe, is evolution. I repeat, how else do you explain the evidence?
First off, it was an evolutionist way back in the 40's or something that showed how flawed that horse story was. It's ancient history (which is why you don't know it - sorry I keep forgetting).
Secondly, you tell me how fossils can be evidence for a theory explaining fossils. Or alternatively, show me a premise I can't prove if I'm allowed to employ circular reasoning, since you appear to think it's valid.
I'm disappointed. I thought you were pointing me toward some actual evidence to back up your statements, but this is just an explanation of begging the question, or circular reasoning. I have explained a number of times that there is strong evidence pointing toward evolution as an explanation. It is only you who assumes that I have a preconceived need to believe in evolution and will try to find anything to back it up whether it's true or not. I can't speak for the sort of reasoning that's going on in your head or anyone else's but that isn't what's going on in mine. If I see good evidence for a theory then I will accept its likelihood until better evidence comes along. This is what any good scientist does.
I provided it so we can maybe begin to make some progress. So long as you advocate or employ circular reasoning, well, we'll just run around in circles.
So I will ask again: where is your evidence that creationism explains what we see better than evolution?
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
I'm not even going to start since it looks off-topic, but fossils aren't always found in the same order.
This is true. Sometimes the strata are disturbed by natural and human-made processes. But when fossils are found
in situ, they are always sorted in the same order. There are various ways that geologists can tell when and how strata have been disturbed. [/quote]
And the #1 way? They're "out of order". There's plenty of documented cases where fossils were reassigned or dates were rejected with no other justification. That's all it takes to classify something as an "intrusive burial", you know. They'll look around for more indications, but if they find none it's no big deal.
Is this a lie? How can it be? They already
know the proper dates and levels for these things. They're every bit as convinced as you are before they start looking. And if they're not, they're unfit for the job, by your criteria.
I'm waiting for you to start backing up your statements with evidence. Creationists seem to spend most of their time trying to invalidate evolution. I've been asking for months here and no one has yet been able to explain why creationists say that there is more evidence for their version of events than there is for evolution.
Creationists need do nothing whatsoever to "invalidate evolution". We try to demonstrate that it always has been invalid. I suppose I should either start a new thread or survey what's out there. There's plenty of evidence, but if you've already determined anyone presenting such evidence is telling lies, what's the point?
Mind you've indicated this with 2 lines of reasoning at least! You say anyone disagreeing with evolutionists is calling them liars, and since the majority is right they have to be wrong. You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
