Fossil discovery...

[Keith Farmer]

Paleontoligists are all giddy about the discovery of a fossil they believe is a link to bolster evolution. However, the evidence is so weak for macro-evolution even some of its leading proponents are stumped on the tough questions. Here is the fossil story and two stories that detail the evolution debate from a position of creationism and sound science...not cultish like faith speculation:

Fossil story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ingerevolution


Case against evolution part1:

http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/

Case against evolution part2:

http://www.icr.org/article/456/286/

It would behoove one to read the information presented in the link here if truth is sought regarding origin:

http://www.icr.org/evidence/



.

[Cody Covey]

no offense Keith but I'm sure you have better reactions from most on this board if you posted from a site that doesn't have an agenda.

[cotts135]

Paleontoligists are all giddy about the discovery of a fossil they believe is a link to bolster evolution. However, the evidence is so weak for macro-evolution even some of its leading proponents are stumped on the tough questions. Here is the fossil story and two stories that detail the evolution debate from a position of creationism and sound science...not cultish like faith speculation:

Fossil story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ingerevolution


Case against evolution part1:

http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/

Case against evolution part2:

http://www.icr.org/article/456/286/

It would behoove one to read the information presented in the link here if truth is sought regarding origin:

http://www.icr.org/evidence/



.

The basic problem I find with most Creationists arguments is not so much that they argue and present facts to support their point of view, it is they are critical of the science and techniques that say we as humans have evolved. For instance,they point to the fact that there is no evolutionary evidence connecting birds with dinosaurs. Well science is making discoveries every day and just because it hasn't been found does not mean it does not exist. The volume of provable data such as how old the earth is as solid as the ground you stand on today. Equally important thought is science has not found anything that would prove evolution has not occurred. Someday this might happen, but for today, evidence and fact strongly support evolution.

[Franco]

The basic problem I find with most Creationists arguments is not so much that they argue and present facts to support their point of view, it is they are critical of the science and techniques that say we as humans have evolved. For instance,they point to the fact that there is no evolutionary evidence connecting birds with dinosaurs. Well science is making discoveries every day and just because it hasn't been found does not mean it does not exist. The volume of provable data such as how old the earth is as solid as the ground you stand on today. Equally important thought is science has not something that would prove evolution has not occurred. Someday this might happen, but for today, evidence and fact strongly support evolution.

Yes, what most free minds beleive.

History International had a piece on last week where they believe the "missing link' was found in Germany. Give me Science over Superstition any day! Superstition has an agenda, science doesn't.

[Sabireley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio...s_and_exhibits

There is a creation museum in Kentucky with some interesting exhibits...

[Keith Farmer]

Obviously the responses are off the cuff and the evidence I gave in the links has not been reviewed.


Dr Morris goes to great lengths to establish trustworthy scientific data rather than the religiously held views of the evolutionists...their arguments simply do not hold water where as creation arguments are scientifically sound...read the information objectively then come back with a response!

For example (from this article http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/):

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, has said after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

To see how evolutionists slant research data in their favor read this article about the RNA Dr. Orgel mentions above:

http://www.icr.org/article/4759/

no offense Keith but I'm sure you have better reactions from most on this board if you posted from a site that doesn't have an agenda.

No offense taken by me...the offense of evolution is to the Creator. The agenda is what...that the truth be told? If so I back that agenda over evolutionary lies any day.

.

[kjrice]

Fossil found!

[subroc]

I believe in the possibility of the big bang.
I believe in the possibility of lots of little big bangs.
I believe in much of evolutionary theory. (Whether this is a big discovery or not, remains to be seen).
Darwin is one of a handful of the most important people in human history.
I believe in god.
I occasionally pray in my own way.
Belief in god and evolution are not in opposition.
I don’t believe in the church.

[Keith Farmer]

I believe in the possibility of the big bang.
I believe in the possibility of lots of little big bangs.
I believe in much of evolutionary theory. (Whether this is a big discovery or not, remains to be seen).
Darwin is one of a handful of the most important people in human history.
I believe in god.
I occasionally pray in my own way.
Belief in god and evolution are not in opposition.
I don’t believe in the church.

Sounds like Todd Sneider..."I believe in everything".

On what foundation are those beliefs based Subroc. In other words, what major evidence in each of those areas has convinced you to believe as you do?


.

[subroc]

Sounds like Todd Sneider..."I believe in everything".

On what foundation are those beliefs based Subroc. In other words, what major evidence in each of those areas has convinced you to believe as you do?


.

What’s a Todd Sneider? BTW, like I said, I don't believe in organized religion (church)
I don’t really have to explain my belief system to you at all.
I expect Darwin figured it out.
In the grand scheme of things I expect god guides all things.
Churches while responsible for much of the good in the world, they have far too much blood on their hands for me to ever follow an organized religion again. The stain of pedophile priests without sanction for so long and in many cases acceptance by catholic leadership is a crime without the possibility of redemption. Look at the perversion of Islam. I choose to believe in god in my own way. I believe in a deity just not anyone else’s interpretation of that. I have my own ideas of right and wrong, although I expect the basis for much of it is my catholic upbringing, but not longer adhere to it and choose to pray in my own way. I don’t care what anyone thinks and I respect their stricter adherence to a religion. Feel free to condemn me to hell fire.
BTW, I believe the big bang was originally discovered by catholic monsignor Georges Lemaître.