Crikey! The very picture you post shows a creature halfway between a dinosaur and a modern bird. Have you ever seen a live bird with teeth and claws at the ends of its arms/wings? While I'm sure the author was able to knock together a bunch of quotes from scientist out of context to say that there is no proof for evolution, politicians have been doing stuff like that for decades. That still doesn't match with the factual evidence that is out there. I will concede that evolution isn't 100% guarenteed but there's mountains more factual evidence behind to support it than Adam and Eve. Creationist may get some debating points for showing problems with evolution but until they can prove a logical alternative that explains the factual evidence evolution is the best thing we got for the origin of species. Which is a far better book I would recommend reading.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/ "He is the author of eighteen best selling books including: Armageddon, Heaven, Messiah, Apocalypse, Prince of Darkness, Final Warning, Signature of God, The Handwriting of God, Flee The Darkness, By Dawn’s Early Light, The Spear of Tyranny, The Mysterious Bible Codes, Jesus:The Great Debate, Surveillance Society, Journey Into Eternity and his latest book Triumphant Return. His lifetime of dedicated research on eschatology is reflected in the Marked Reference Prophecy Study Bible, the most comprehensive Prophecy Study Bible ever published. Grant’s prophetic novel By Dawn’s Early Light, written with co-author Angela Hunt, received the respected Christy Award for the Best Prophetic Fiction novel of 1999. This ministry emphasizes the glorious hope that Christ will soon redeem His Church and return with His resurrected saints to redeem the earth and establish His kingdom on earth forever. Grant’s ministry encourages a deeper study of the truths of prophecy as we approach Christ’s triumphant return as the King of Kings" Sounds like a typical carnival barker to me. Check out the "intelligence reports" - they're pretty funny. http://www.grantjeffrey.com/intfra.htm
Max, I notice that you have adopted that Hawking quote for your signature that somebody posted in another thread, the fuller context of which is the following (though not the full context) So I don't know if its as slam bang an endorsement of a creator as it was portrayed. From what I read of Hawking (I think I read a biography of his once as well as "A Brief History of Time") he was leaning towards the atheistic side. Here's a quote from BHOT See also the final chapter from BHOT, addressing Einstein's observation that the question was not whether or not God created the universe, but whether he/she had any choice: http://www.voidspace.org.uk/science/k.shtml
You're not understanding what's happening. Evolution is being taught as a fact. When in reality, its a theory. When people are taught, especially by teachers and instructors in school/college (world wide) that there have been discoveries made in science that prove evolution is real. When infact, it's really a bald face lie that the real world should know about. Thats what Creationist are trying to stop.
There have been discoveries made in science that tend to prove that evolution is real. Read any basic biology textbook to find out more about them. In reality, everything in science is a theory, gravity, relativity, evolution, whatever. Nothing in science has been proven in an absolute sense. For example, gravity has yet to be fully explained. However, that doesn't make gravity, more or less, a "fact". Until you can come up with a better theory, evolution has more than satisfied the standard to me to be taught as "fact". Btw, here is the sinister "fact" that is being taught in schools: What's the problem with that? THe fact that some fundamentalist christian/creationist guy writes a book calling it a "bald faced lie", relying on scripture and pseudo-science is not going to convince me or very many rational people otherwise. Do you really think when Darwin, Lewis Thomas, Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of the great evolutionary biologists/writers on the subject are out to lie and disprove god? They're not. It's totally bizarre how people like to assign them such a sinister design.
You know, if it was tenable I would probably have an attack cassowary for my apartment, those things are bad dudes.
Well, we have a lot of science literate people on this BBS, LT, and we have a lot of religious people also. Many times, we get along pretty well. Again, many very devout people believe that it is easy to reconcile evolution (sorry, but you can watch the theory happen in a petri dish in the lab*) with the existence of a God. No problem. Now, if you want to take a strict biblical creationist stance, then you will have to attack evolution in a big way. Or will you? You're going to basically throw your back out with all the effort, and for what purpose? If you believe the Bible in a very literal way, just ignore evolution. But, you know, you're not going to convince people who enjoy looking at evidence and making up their own minds. You're not going to convince people who want to enrich the lives of youth by teaching them to use their own minds. You just won't. Scientists aren't "evil." They are using their god-given brains in many glorious ways. If you're open minded about this, and if you really want to learn about the theory of evolution and all of its evidence, let us know. I don't really get the sense you want to learn about it though. (* gravity is also just a theory with tons of evidence. The fact that time moves in only one direction is just a theory with tons of evidence. The fact that all protons will be stable enough to continue to exist next year is only a scientific theory with tons of evidence. The fact that DNA carries genetic information is only a theory with tons of evidence. evolution has just as much evidence as these, especially micro, but also certainly macro)
Wow! It looks to me like that dude is using what could only be described as a Cassowary shield! I need to have one of those!
That is an artistic picture someone drew using their own imagination after taking a look at fossil findings of a BIRD and questioning it with a dinosaur.
I'm going to type the article it has on the Archaeopteryx fossil. The evolutionists desperately point to a fossil, discovered in Austria, known as "archaeopteryx" (meaning "ancient wing"). They bodly claim that this archaeopteryx fossil provides absolute proof of at least one missing link, or transitional form, between reptiles and birds. However, despite the fact that this fossil displays a set of unusual teeth, everything else about the fossil reveals that it is a true bird, complete with fully-developed wings, feathers, and warm blood. Although the presence of teeth is unusual, this in no wau proves that this fossil was partly a bird and partly a reptile or dinosaur, as the evolutionary textbooks now proudly declare. Some fossil birds display teeth and some reptiles have no teeth. God has produced some very strange creatures on this planet, including the duck-billed platypus, which has the bill of a bird and lays eggs but has the other characteristics of a mammal.
D.M.S Watson, an evolutionists, admitted: Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative-special creation- is clearly incredible. Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities... Many pf the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science. Another evolutionists, Dr. Urey said: We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. SamFisher: If Darwin was right, that what we have today was evolved by randon chance and mutations over billions of years ago, then it would disprove the words of Genesis: "In the begining, God created the heaven and the earth."
' How can you disprove something that hasn't ever been proven in the first place? This has to be the biggest sham on earth. Essentially, what you are saying is, the whole argument boils down to yes, you evolutionist guys are right, there are some really strange f-ed up animals out there (that makes no sense for God to have created), but God created them, so therefore evolution must be unlikely so creationism must be more likely. Is there any actual logic used in the book? Quoting well-respected scientists in the field questioning evolution? Please, they wouldn't be REAL scientists and the certainly wouldn't be able to stick to any theory if they weren't able to question its shortcomings and discuss the potential for another way? I feel exactly the way those guys do, and I am clearly on the side of evolution - because I feel like the alternative must be truly amazing, though, doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution.
I'm glad you brought up Dr. Harold Urey. I think if you asked him he'd probably call himself a biochemist rather than an evolutionist. Of course, he wouldn't actually say that as I believe he was active back in the 50's and is quite likely dead, so he ain't saying too much to anybody about anything. In any event, rather than taking what some nutty televangelist wrote in a book about Dr. Urey may or may not have said and claiming that it disproves evolution, (which it doesn't -- at all) I'd like to hear your take on Dr. Urey (and his colleague, Dr. Stanley Miller) and their famous 1953 experiment regarding the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and what it means to us today regarding the origin of life and evolutionary theory. This of course, presupposes that you have some background understanding of what evolution is, if so, please read on the previous page where I believe I put a decent definition up there. I'm actually even more glad you brought up Sir "DMS Watson", who I had not heard of until today. Watson, it turns out, was active in the 1920's, and is only famous among creationists looking for a good quote; needless to say evolutionary theory has advanced a bit since then, but in any event, the quote that you put up there was taken out of context and has been commmonly used by creationists for quite some time: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html
Students should also not be taught about gravity, relativity, and probability since they are all just "theories," right? Someone mentioned germs/bacteria and disease. if I remember correctly from something I have read, none of that has ever consistently been scientifically proven (that that they cause illness). Throw it out. Also, I read that it still cannot be scientifically proven why airplanes fly. Or, at least, scientists do not fully understand why.
