Evolution vs. Creation

Knightmare wrote:

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.
"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.
For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.
... Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientists_di...

Knightmare wrote:

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much....We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time”.[David M. Raup. Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago].
What the fossil record does show is that is rocks dated back some five hundred and seventy million years, there is the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla*, and they appeared fully formed “without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require”.[Phillip E. Johnson.‘Darwin on trial’]
*Phyla is actually the plural form of phylum, a Latin term designating a large category of biological classification. The largest category of classification is the Kingdom. We all know about the Animal and Plant Kingdoms. Well, Phylum is the next category below Kingdom. The Animal Kingdom consists of such well known phyla as the molluscs which contains clams, oysters, and snails. Another commonly known phylum is the annelids to which belong the earthworms. The largest of all phyla is the arthropods
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/human_fossils...

bohart wrote:

This debate really isn't about evolution and creation, it's atheism vs. religion. Now the proponents of religion know that they use faith in many aspects. However its the atheists who profess great faith in their cause yet refuse to recognize it as faith!The religious zeal in defending the atheist belief literally knows no bounds, as the Zeal of Christians and muslims often do.Atheists will cling to any theory that props up the evo tree no matter how foolish, nothing explodes and makes the universe, life springs forth from the soup puddle, dinosaurs change into chickens, Aliens delivered life here,!nothing will be rejected in atheisms defense.
This says it better than I ever could:
"Absolute atheism starts in an ACT OF FAITH in reverse gear and is a full blown religious commitment.Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism;it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away ,and it is itself a religious phenomenon"
Jacques Maritain
The Range of Reason.

Knightmare wrote:

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.
"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.
For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.
... Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientists_di...

Knightmare wrote:

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America’s space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.
"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the ‘Case for DESIGN’ as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.
For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.
... Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientists_di...

Knightmare wrote:

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much....We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time”.[David M. Raup. Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago].
What the fossil record does show is that is rocks dated back some five hundred and seventy million years, there is the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla*, and they appeared fully formed “without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require”.[Phillip E. Johnson.‘Darwin on trial’]
*Phyla is actually the plural form of phylum, a Latin term designating a large category of biological classification. The largest category of classification is the Kingdom. We all know about the Animal and Plant Kingdoms. Well, Phylum is the next category below Kingdom. The Animal Kingdom consists of such well known phyla as the molluscs which contains clams, oysters, and snails. Another commonly known phylum is the annelids to which belong the earthworms. The largest of all phyla is the arthropods
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/human_fossils...

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Thats good.

Knightmare wrote:

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much....We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time”.[David M. Raup. Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago].
What the fossil record does show is that is rocks dated back some five hundred and seventy million years, there is the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla*, and they appeared fully formed “without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require”.[Phillip E. Johnson.‘Darwin on trial’]
*Phyla is actually the plural form of phylum, a Latin term designating a large category of biological classification. The largest category of classification is the Kingdom. We all know about the Animal and Plant Kingdoms. Well, Phylum is the next category below Kingdom. The Animal Kingdom consists of such well known phyla as the molluscs which contains clams, oysters, and snails. Another commonly known phylum is the annelids to which belong the earthworms. The largest of all phyla is the arthropods
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/human_fossils...

Knightmare wrote:

“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much....We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time”.[David M. Raup. Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago].
What the fossil record does show is that is rocks dated back some five hundred and seventy million years, there is the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla*, and they appeared fully formed “without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require”.[Phillip E. Johnson.‘Darwin on trial’]
*Phyla is actually the plural form of phylum, a Latin term designating a large category of biological classification. The largest category of classification is the Kingdom. We all know about the Animal and Plant Kingdoms. Well, Phylum is the next category below Kingdom. The Animal Kingdom consists of such well known phyla as the molluscs which contains clams, oysters, and snails. Another commonly known phylum is the annelids to which belong the earthworms. The largest of all phyla is the arthropods
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/human_fossils...

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>people that speak outside their field often say silly things. i heard a bona fide rocket scientist from JPL say that someday we may actually find anti-matter, decades after we had already found it.(created it, actually)
the rocket scientist Werner should have stuck to his field.
if he had expressed his opinion on the best recipe for a spinach quiche, would you have taken that as gospel because of his scientific knowledge of rockets?

bohart wrote:

This debate really isn't about evolution and creation, it's atheism vs. religion. Now the proponents of religion know that they use faith in many aspects. However its the atheists who profess great faith in their cause yet refuse to recognize it as faith!The religious zeal in defending the atheist belief literally knows no bounds, as the Zeal of Christians and muslims often do.Atheists will cling to any theory that props up the evo tree no matter how foolish, nothing explodes and makes the universe, life springs forth from the soup puddle, dinosaurs change into chickens, Aliens delivered life here,!nothing will be rejected in atheisms defense.
This says it better than I ever could:
"Absolute atheism starts in an ACT OF FAITH in reverse gear and is a full blown religious commitment.Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism;it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away ,and it is itself a religious phenomenon"
Jacques Maritain
The Range of Reason.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
An answer I expected my dear Woodtick, when your faith is threatened.Well, he's outside his field, silly things are said,his opinion isn't credible on this subject right? When your religion can't answer, then you must resort to discrediting the person no matter what his credentials. How many times on this thread have people commented on the greatness of science, how we couldn't travel in space without knowing the intracacies of scientific laws , and such.Well he knows! and now according to you he's flawed.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
An answer I expected my dear Woodtick, when your faith is threatened.Well, he's outside his field, silly things are said,his opinion isn't credible on this subject right? When your religion can't answer, then you must resort to discrediting the person no matter what his credentials. How many times on this thread have people commented on the greatness of science, how we couldn't travel in space without knowing the intracacies of scientific laws , and such.Well he knows! and now according to you he's flawed.

bohart wrote:

This says it better than I ever could:
"...Absolute atheism starts in an ACT OF FAITH in reverse gear and is a full blown religious commitment.Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism;it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away ,and it is itself a religious phenomenon"
Jacques Maritain
The Range of Reason.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny that you ignored the other answers which show that the person you got your linguine from is outside his field. Oh wait, you read them, didn't you? You just could not counter them without exposing how much of a fool you are.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen woman,I know your entire sense of self is dependant upon hating God, and all male figures of authority ,I suspect.Go back to your he-woman man haters club and they'll validate your world views for you, I won't, I'm not inclined to your religion and it's doctrines.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
How?