Jump to content


Photo

How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#61 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 August 2011 - 10:36 AM

I can agree with that. But it's impossible for you to prove to me that George Washington was the first president, either. You can show me all kinds of evidence that he could have been, but I can always raise doubts about whether the evidence is coincidence or conspiracy.


And you can question everything while you are at it and believe nothing. Your point is mute if you think extreme radical thinking has merit.

Again, see the George Washington analogy. And no biochemistry professor EVER told me "this is how life came to be". They merely presented various models that showed not only that abiogenesis was possible, but that there were multiple ways it could've happened.


What? Do you think every teacher-professor teaches the exact same way? Man you must be really naive.

Not correct. The chair of my biology department in undergrad, and one of the most influential women in my life, is an evangelical Christian. Devout. You might think that's impossible, but that's your opinion (and one that she would call "prideful bigotry").


So not people whom disagree with you are now bigots?

Anything my professor tells me, I can go to the lab and disprove him if I lack faith in him (and have a lot of extra time). I can also look in the bibliography of any one of my textbooks and then go find the original papers supporting the conclusions presented in the text. No forcing of views being made in science; merely the forceful request that people THINK before they complain.


It all depends on what you believe before they will even consider anything you do or say. Because if you believe in God or creation, nothing you say or do is even considered. The motto of the scientific world is that all creationists are liars who have nothing better to do then to make fake evidence. Sound about right? So your point is mute if you are naive enough to think that what applies to you also applies to everyone else.

If that's the case, then I'm very sorry. But fortunately for you, you're not in a country where books are banned or where the internet is censored. Many textbooks are available on Google Books for free (or at least some portions of them). You can also go to the public library or a local university. In the amount of time you've been posting in this thread, you could've read multiple chapters in a biochemistry textbook rather than reciting what you already believe. Go out and challenge your beliefs instead of remaining in stasis your whole life. A priest (who was also my calculus professor for several semesters) once told me that "Any religious faith that is not constantly being poked, prodded, and challenged is no faith at all. If I'm not out there challenging my faith, then I am left to wonder whether I'm just avoiding doing so because I'm afraid of what the results might be."


I find it ironic that you point that finger at me yet I can also point the same at you. There is a word for that.

Education is not something that stops when you enter the workforce. It just has to take a lower priority to putting bread on the table.


So now you have your own doctrine and religion? Because if I follow what you say, then that is what it becomes.

#62 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 07 August 2011 - 12:21 PM

Would you know about how many cells they have? Are there any transitional fossils between these sponges and single-celled organisms?

Sponge size varies greatly, anywhere from one millimetre in diameter to one metre (about 3 or 4 feet). I don’t know the exact number of cells in either of these cases. Sponges lack tissues, organs, and nervous systems. They do have differentiated cells though, and one of these cells, the choanocyte, closely resembles a unicellular organism called a choanoflagellate. Choanoflagellates are sometimes observed living in colonies, and it is likely that such a colony would have been the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms.

Alot of terrestrial creatures made it to the surface and weren't fossilized or were not fossilized for some other reason. That's why more than 90% of the fossils are marine organisms. How can you see every animal that is alive today in the fossil record, if you don't know all the animals that lived at the time they were covered in sediment? There may be many more species today than there were back then, but there still existed the same kinds of animals.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. If all the species we know today were created prior to the flood, it seems logical to me that we should find at least some of them fossilized in the lower layers. Yet there is not a single fossil of an extant mammal in the same layer as the dinosaurs. Why would it be the case not a single wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, bird, or mouse was buried in the same layer as the dinosaur fossils? And by the same logic, why is there not a single dinosaur fossil in the upper layers where we begin to see mammals which resemble the ones we know today? The same argument goes for marine dwelling animals. We don’t see modern shellfish buried with the trilobites, and we don’t see trilobites with the modern shellfish. And by modern I mean extant, ie. the same species as the animals alive today.

Based on the fossil record, it seems as though the pre-flood animals were entirely different than the present day animals. Does this mean speciation occurred by evolutionary mechanisms? Or did God create more species after the flood?

The point I was trying to get across is, do geologists find soil or erosion in between the rock layers and if not, why?

The soil is compressed into rock as the sediment piles up. If the soil was uneven to begin with due to erosion, then the layers will be uneven. We do see uneven layers. I’m not sure if this is what you were getting at though.



I heard this from John Mackay on Creation Today: Week 7/28/11. He said:

"... we went through Tennessee. Over there a few years ago I found some rocks with seashells and land plants all mixed together. Then I thought to myself, “Well, this is the Pennsylvanian rocks.” ... I thought, “Well, I have seen these rocks before,” and it was over in Wales many years ago. So, what we did was followed this rock layer all around planet earth. I got our guide in England to take me back to Wales to where we thought that quarry might be and I said, “That layer should be here somewhere,” and sure enough, halfway up there was the layer with shells and plants in.

So this layer actually covers more than 180 degrees of the earth’s surface so anybody who is looking for evidence, not only of the creation of the shells and the plants, but the evidence of God’s judgment at Noah’s flood, you can actually see it, folks. It is really out there and it is rock solid."

For more information, you can ask him yourself.

The rocks in Wales and Pennsylvania may have the same composition, but I don’t see how that’s evidence for a layer which continues all the way around the Earth and looks the same all the way across. And I’m not sure I understand how this type of layer would be consistent with the flood either. Looks like an interesting website though, I’ll have to spend more time reading it sometime.

Right, and these are found all over the earth. I guess my question would be, whats so different about the layers the polystrate fossils are found in with the layers they aren't found in. I understand there are many kinds of layers, but if you can see that the ones surrounding the polystrate fossils were rapidly deposited, isn't it atleast possible that the one's they aren't found in could have been deposited in the same way?

Certain conditions are needed for rapid sedimentation to occur, and I suspect the type of sediments can tell you a lot. For example, a polystrate fossil surrounded by volcanic layers was obviously the result of frequent volcanic activity. But there are other layers that could not develop quickly, such as types of stone which require pressure to form. I suspect that no polystrate fossils have been found in these layers. I also haven’t heard of a polystrate fossil spanning layers that dating techniques have estimated to be millions of years apart. I know you probably don’t accept dating techniques as accurate, but my point is that one of these fossils has yet to show any inconsistency with the old earth model.


I'm not sure about species, but an alligator skull was found with many centrosaurus fossils and had the exact same skull shape as modern alligators that we have today. It was found at Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada. I have a short video clip of this saved on my computer, but how would I upload it for you to see, if you are interested? I'm sure you can find an article online, because the clip is only like a minute or two long.

I’m actually from Alberta. I used to go hiking in Dinosaur Provincial Park as a kid. You don’t need to upload the video, I’m not doubting the credibility of the find. It would not surprise me at all that an animal resembling a modern alligator lived when the dinosaurs did. The evolutionary model puts alligators and dinosaurs in the same group, Archosauria. But I’m fairly certain however similar the skull may have looked, the animal was not an alligator... at least not any species of alligator alive today.

Right, some of them were swamp animals. I can't be sure of all of them. The flying dinosaurs just show up in the fossil record with flight and no fossilized ancestors. How come atleast one of they're ancestors weren't fossilized?

Pterosaur evolution is definitely not my area of expertise. More than one type of pterosaur has been found though, and some are more primitive looking than others. Whether the primitive ones were ancestral to the later ones is impossible to know from fossils alone. Not having a clear “missing link” doesn’t bother me at all, given how unlikely fossilization is in the first place. It could have easily been the case that not a single flying dinosaur was ever fossilized, and we would never even know of their existence. We’re lucky to have any.

Back to the flood theory though, why would the flying dinos end up stuck in the lower layers with the large, land dwelling ones?


In one rock strata, researchers found several types of dinosaurs and were surprised to find frog, fish, turtle, small mammal and plant fossils as well. - New Scientist, February 24, 2001 p. 13

A large mammal fossil had a dinosaur fossil in its stomach. BioEd Online article

Human tracks and dinosaur tracks found together at Paluxy

Mammals and dinosaurs living together is one thing, but do we ever see extant mammals with these fossils? According to creationism (and please correct me if I’m wrong here), God created all life within the same week. While microevolution can occur between kinds, macroevolution is not accepted as a real process. A giant, dinosaur eating badger is definitely not an animal we have around today.

As for the dinosaur and human tracks: how do we know these tracks belong to a dinosaur?

The way this catastrophe was happening wasn't uniform all over the planet. Layers laid down here and some there. Some laid down, sat in the sun for a little, devolping a skin, capturing the footprints we find in them, and then being covered by another layer. The tides would have had an effect.

So the flood was a gradual process, with periods of heavy rain and water coming out of the ground followed by periods of sunshine? This is not a model I’m familiar with, and doesn’t seem consistent with the Biblical version I know.

The farmer said some of them were fake. There are thousands of these stones. Obviously some want to fake them to sell to gullible tourists. These stones were first reported in the 1500's by the Spanish. The man who said they were fake had to say they were fake because its illegal to sell Peruvian artifacts and he was on camera. He later admitted that he lied and was then arrested. Why would he be in jail for selling fake artifacts? If he faked them before the 1990's, how did he know to put the dermal spine along the back of the dinosaurs like some of the stones have? Here are more sources which confirm their authenticity: Ica stones show dinosaurs and humans coexisted, Dinosaurs and Man/Ica Stones.

He was put in jail because there are laws against selling archaeological discoveries in Peru. He then admitted they were fakes, and it says he was not punished. Dermal plates/spines were found much earlier than 1990, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that year from.

I have yet to see a non-creationist source documenting legitimate stones with dinosaur carvings. I would like to see at least one evolutionist or non-biased (neither creationist nor evolutionist) source, such as a news site or a archaeology journal. Journals often do publish articles with results that are unexpected or unexplained by the theory of evolution, so it’s not as though evolutionists would try to avoid the subject of these stones if there are in fact authentic ones out there.

#63 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 01:06 PM

And you can question everything while you are at it and believe nothing. Your point is mute if you think extreme radical thinking has merit.

I don't think that such radical mistrust of every other person has merit. That's why I used the analogy.

(and to save you embarrassment somewhere else: the word you're wanting is "moot", not "mute".)

What? Do you think every teacher-professor teaches the exact same way?

No, I do not think that. However, I've had biochemistry at three different institutions in two different states, with a total of four professors. It's obviously not the norm in the field to assert that a single abiogenesis theory is taught as historical fact.

So not people whom disagree with you are now bigots?

I have a feeling that if you pointed your finger at my professor, whom you've basically called a hypocrite, heretic, etc., then yes, I'd call you a bigot. Just because she interprets very minor portions of the Bible differently than you (and not any of the essential doctrines regarding salvation) doesn't mean that she's some sort of fake Christian, which you imply.

It all depends on what you believe before they will even consider anything you do or say. Because if you believe in God or creation, nothing you say or do is even considered.

Again, I do not understand where you get this idea, but carry on...

The motto of the scientific world is that all creationists are liars who have nothing better to do then to make fake evidence. Sound about right? So your point is mute if you are naive enough to think that what applies to you also applies to everyone else.

I'm going to ask you a direct question: How many majors-level college science courses have you taken? Lecture and lab count.
The things you say do not line up with any of my personal experiences at three different institutions, one of which was a Catholic one. I'm worried you're basing these accusations on assumptions or rumors, not actual experience.

I find it ironic that you point that finger at me yet I can also point the same at you. There is a word for that.

I'm here listening to you guys rant, aren't I? I've visited the Creation museum and have gone to Ham lectures, in addition to 12 years of formal science education in a school system that was anti-evolution.

When was the last time that you went to the Field Museum or AMNH or Smithsonian and LOOKED at all of the transitional fossils they have yet you claim don't exist? When was the last time you read a textbook or took a college-level science course that used evolution as a foundation concept? When was the last time you conceded anything to an evolutionist's argument? Because I've concede several major points over the past 3 years.

So now you have your own doctrine and religion? Because if I follow what you say, then that is what it becomes.

Nope, that's what I was taught by my grandparents and parents, who are all devout Baptists and 6-Day Creationists. They only seem to apply that philosophy to non-science subjects, unfortunately.

#64 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 07 August 2011 - 02:52 PM

Sponge size varies greatly, anywhere from one millimetre in diameter to one metre (about 3 or 4 feet). I don’t know the exact number of cells in either of these cases. Sponges lack tissues, organs, and nervous systems. They do have differentiated cells though, and one of these cells, the choanocyte, closely resembles a unicellular organism called a choanoflagellate. Choanoflagellates are sometimes observed living in colonies, and it is likely that such a colony would have been the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms.


Okay okay, lets drop the transition thing then, because you know I'm going to keep going until you don't have one and then your going to say it wasn't fossilized lol.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. If all the species we know today were created prior to the flood, it seems logical to me that we should find at least some of them fossilized in the lower layers.

Yet there is not a single fossil of an extant mammal in the same layer as the dinosaurs.

All the species we know today were not created prior to the flood. The different kinds of animals were created prior to the flood. Canines, felines, equines, humans, etc. Perhaps some of these did speciate into many different varieties before the flood, but it dosen't follow that they would have to be the same species as our extant species. They found a badger. This badger could have been different than the badgers we have today. There was only one kind of animal (that the badger belongs to) that got off of the ark. This one kind would have diversified into the species we have today.

Why would it be the case not a single wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, bird, or mouse was buried in the same layer as the dinosaur fossils?

And by the same logic, why is there not a single dinosaur fossil in the upper layers where we begin to see mammals which resemble the ones we know today?

Now do you mean extant species of birds or birds in general? Birds are found buried with dinosaurs. Protoavis, Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, and I believe some others. I wouldn't expect to find the same species of birds we have today in the fossil record because these diversified from the birds that got off of the ark.

Perhaps these creatures are buried with dinosaurs somewhere and we haven't discovered them yet. More than 90% of the fossils we find are marine organisms.

Or perhaps these creatures just happened to not be buried together.

Or perhaps the body density of reptiles had them settling out in the area where they did.

As long as we're seeing the same kinds, thats okay. I don't see why, in the flood scenario, there would have to be the same species we have today.

The same argument goes for marine dwelling animals. We don’t see modern shellfish buried with the trilobites, and we don’t see trilobites with the modern shellfish. And by modern I mean extant, ie. the same species as the animals alive today. Based on the fossil record, it seems as though the pre-flood animals were entirely different than the present day animals. Does this mean speciation occurred by evolutionary mechanisms? Or did God create more species after the flood?

I wouldn't say entirely different. Maybe not the same species, but the same kinds of animals. If by "evolutionary mechanisms", you mean one kind of animal diversifying into many different species then yes, but one kind of animal would not have become another (ex. canine becoming a feline, equine becoming a bovine, australopithecine becoming a homo, etc.) God did not literally create more species after the flood.

The soil is compressed into rock as the sediment piles up. If the soil was uneven to begin with due to erosion, then the layers will be uneven. We do see uneven layers. I’m not sure if this is what you were getting at though.

The rocks in Wales and Pennsylvania may have the same composition, but I don’t see how that’s evidence for a layer which continues all the way around the Earth and looks the same all the way across.

I guess that answers the soil question. What I mean by erosion is, if a layer is exposed for millions of years, and it rained throughout that time, wouldn't the layer show erosion from the rain over millions of years? As far as I understand, you don't find erosion in between the layers, but a flat even surface.

Well, he did say:
"So, what we did was followed this rock layer all around planet earth. ... So this layer actually covers more than 180 degrees of the earth’s surface..."

I'd hope he didn't say that dogmatically and actually made sure this was the very same layer. We'd have to ask John Mackay lol.

And I’m not sure I understand how this type of layer would be consistent with the flood either.

A layer filled with shells and plants covering that much space seems consistent with the flood. Why dosen't it seem consistent with a flood to you? I can understand that this layer would work in your view also, but it also fits the flood scenario in my view.

Certain conditions are needed for rapid sedimentation to occur, and I suspect the type of sediments can tell you a lot. For example, a polystrate fossil surrounded by volcanic layers was obviously the result of frequent volcanic activity. But there are other layers that could not develop quickly, such as types of stone which require pressure to form. I suspect that no polystrate fossils have been found in these layers.

If only we could scan the entire earth, I'd get ya with them polystrates in the stone lol. Thank you for answering the question.

I also haven’t heard of a polystrate fossil spanning layers that dating techniques have estimated to be millions of years apart. I know you probably don’t accept dating techniques as accurate, but my point is that one of these fossils has yet to show any inconsistency with the old earth model.

I agree that polystrate fossils could be consistent with the old earth model, but you shouldn't trust the dating techniques either when there are loads of examples where they have been inconsistent. How would you know your getting the right date?

I’m actually from Alberta. I used to go hiking in Dinosaur Provincial Park as a kid. You don’t need to upload the video, I’m not doubting the credibility of the find.

lol Thats cool and weird, but thank you.

But I’m fairly certain however similar the skull may have looked, the animal was not an alligator... at least not any species of alligator alive today.

Its no big deal for me about the species. It was a member of the crocodilia kind though. How come it looked so similar though? Why didn't it grow feathers or undergo a drastic change? Just evolutionary stasis? Why exactly does this stasis happen?

More than one type of pterosaur has been found though, and some are more primitive looking than others.

What exactly makes them "more primitive looking"?

Whether the primitive ones were ancestral to the later ones is impossible to know from fossils alone. Not having a clear “missing link” doesn’t bother me at all, given how unlikely fossilization is in the first place. It could have easily been the case that not a single flying dinosaur was ever fossilized, and we would never even know of their existence. We’re lucky to have any.

Its just that, you never find a creature fossilized with half-a-wing or half-a-feather. Its just weird that they'd all be fossilized after they grew the ability to fly.

Back to the flood theory though, why would the flying dinos end up stuck in the lower layers with the large, land dwelling ones?


I'm not sure, but this seems to be the general area where most flying creatures are found. Perhaps they were in some kind of place where there were lots of trees. I have no idea, just guesses.

Mammals and dinosaurs living together is one thing, but do we ever see extant mammals with these fossils?

We should see the same kinds of mammals we have today. It dosen't have to be the same species.

According to creationism (and please correct me if I’m wrong here), God created all life within the same week. While microevolution can occur between kinds, macroevolution is not accepted as a real process.

A giant, dinosaur eating badger is definitely not an animal we have around today.

Correct and we do have badgers today though. Maybe not the same species as the one that was found, but that does not effect the flood model negatively.

As for the dinosaur and human tracks: how do we know these tracks belong to a dinosaur?

As far as I know, no evolutionary scientist disputes the fact that these are dinosaur footprints. What other creature could have made them? I mean, that was an interesting point you brought up, but I think they are dinosaurs. They cut out some of these footprints and set them up under dinosaur skeletons in museums.

So the flood was a gradual process, with periods of heavy rain and water coming out of the ground followed by periods of sunshine? This is not a model I’m familiar with, and doesn’t seem consistent with the Biblical version I know.

I can't speak on the uniformity of the rain and water coming out of the ground. I meant the way the sediment was being deposited. The sun should have still been there, except at night. Perhaps there were clouds, but I'd imagine that there would have been points that the clouds weren't blocking the sun.

He was put in jail because there are laws against selling archaeological discoveries in Peru. He then admitted they were fakes, and it says he was not punished.

Okay, thanks. I thought the order was, he says they're fake, dosen't get arrested, takes that back, and then gets arrested, and is there today, but I'm not positive about the whole story, so I'll take your word for it. Even still, there are thousands of these stones and the man said that only some were fake. The real ones can be recognized by patina in the grooves of the drawings. This patina puts the date at a minimum of 200 years old.

Dermal plates/spines were found much earlier than 1990, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that year from.

I have yet to see a non-creationist source documenting legitimate stones with dinosaur carvings. I would like to see at least one evolutionist or non-biased (neither creationist nor evolutionist) source, such as a news site or a archaeology journal. Journals often do publish articles with results that are unexpected or unexplained by the theory of evolution, so it’s not as though evolutionists would try to avoid the subject of these stones if there are in fact authentic ones out there.

I don't mean Stegosaur type spines.

"Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines were present . . . Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical." - Czerkas, Stephen. New Look For Sauropod Dinosaurs. (Geology: 12/1992, V. 20), p. 1068.

Sauropods on the Ica stones have this "median row of spines". Here are some pictures:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

I have not seen a non-creationist source documenting these stones. Charles Hapgood, who I believe is not a creationist, did a report on the dinosaur clay figurines found in Acambaro, Mexico. You should check that out.

#65 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 August 2011 - 03:14 PM

I don't think that such radical mistrust of every other person has merit. That's why I used the analogy.

(and to save you embarrassment somewhere else: the word you're wanting is "moot", not "mute".)


Thanks for you correction in what word to use. And no it does not embarrass me. Pride is one of the things that keeps a person from finding truth, I don't take pride word usage or spelling. I have no problem admitting it was one of my weaker subjects.

No, I do not think that. However, I've had biochemistry at three different institutions in two different states, with a total of four professors. It's obviously not the norm in the field to assert that a single abiogenesis theory is taught as historical fact.


If you ask one of the professors as to what theory explains where life came from. How would each professor answer? Do you think any of them would say God? Nope, so their fact would be abiogenesis and nothing else.

I have a feeling that if you pointed your finger at my professor, whom you've basically called a hypocrite, heretic, etc., then yes, I'd call you a bigot. Just because she interprets very minor portions of the Bible differently than you (and not any of the essential doctrines regarding salvation) doesn't mean that she's some sort of fake Christian, which you imply.


We creationist are now all bigots because we disagree. My, what ever happened to freethinking with the right to disagree? Guess that is only for you to do because you maybe consider yourself above everyone whom does not think as you do?

And what parts of the Bible does she interpret? Let me guess, any part that does not conform with evolution or any other theory, right? So basically she's a TE.

Again, I do not understand where you get this idea, but carry on...
I'm going to ask you a direct question: How many majors-level college science courses have you taken? Lecture and lab count.


I'm happy to say Zero!

The things you say do not line up with any of my personal experiences at three different institutions, one of which was a Catholic one. I'm worried you're basing these accusations on assumptions or rumors, not actual experience.


If not make a list of the creation evidence that is accepted? You cannot because all evidence is deemed by evolutionists as frauds.

I'm here listening to you guys rant, aren't I? I've visited the Creation museum and have gone to Ham lectures, in addition to 12 years of formal science education in a school system that was anti-evolution.


Then you have made your choice, correct? Then what would be the purpose of coming here unless you are looking to change people's minds (evangelize) for evolution?

When was the last time that you went to the Field Museum or AMNH or Smithsonian and LOOKED at all of the transitional fossils they have yet you claim don't exist? When was the last time you read a textbook or took a college-level science course that used evolution as a foundation concept? When was the last time you conceded anything to an evolutionist's argument? Because I've concede several major points over the past 3 years.


All my education was in public schools. We were not rich enough to put me through private school. I do not understand why you atheists seem to think that being a Christian has to forced down you throat. I choose it of my own freewill. My father was an agnostic, my mother Christian. but she never forced it onto us kids. So you cannot put that label upon me. It does not fit.

Nope, that's what I was taught by my grandparents and parents, who are all devout Baptists and 6-Day Creationists. They only seem to apply that philosophy to non-science subjects, unfortunately.


So would you apply all that you have said on this forum about YEC to your grandparents? You brought it up so don't get mad.

#66 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 03:46 PM

If you ask one of the professors as to what theory explains where life came from. How would each professor answer? Do you think any of them would say God? Nope, so their fact would be abiogenesis and nothing else.

We did ask my undergraduate biochemistry professor. He listed several different theories of how abiogenesis occurred, but emphasized that none of them was intended to be a historical fact. They merely illustrate that abiogenesis is possible and, in many cases, inevitable.

We creationist are now all bigots because we disagree. My, what ever happened to freethinking with the right to disagree? Guess that is only for you to do because you maybe consider yourself above everyone whom does not think as you do?

No, creationists are not bigots. Creationists who say that a devout evangelical who understands and accepts evolution is some sort of a theological fraud, though, are bigots. Who is anyone to be a judge of another's salvation status? Isn't that between them and God?

And what parts of the Bible does she interpret? Let me guess, any part that does not conform with evolution or any other theory, right? So basically she's a TE.

I would assume that she's a TE. She certainly accepts evolution, but she's also a devout Christian. That sounds like a typical TE to me, but who knows.

I'm happy to say Zero!

This makes me sad, but college-level science education is not a part of everyone's life path, I suppose.

If not make a list of the creation evidence that is accepted? You cannot because all evidence is deemed by evolutionists as frauds.

It's not my job to find evidence that can only be explained by a creationist model. I'm not involved in evolutionary or creationist research efforts.

Then you have made your choice, correct? Then what would be the purpose of coming here unless you are looking to change people's minds (evangelize) for evolution?

I'm not here to evangelize anyone in anything. I'm here to educate those who were given the same fraudulent education that I was during high school. And yes, it is fraudulent. Eduction does not have to mean evangelism.

All my education was in public schools. We were not rich enough to put me through private school. I do not understand why you atheists seem to think that being a Christian has to forced down you throat. I choose it of my own freewill. My father was an agnostic, my mother Christian. but she never forced it onto us kids. So you cannot put that label upon me. It does not fit.

What label? I don't follow you.

So would you apply all that you have said on this forum about YEC to your grandparents? You brought it up so don't get mad.

Are they ignorant in biological science? Probably, but not everyone should be expected to know a ton about every field of science. However, being allowed to lack an education in an area does not mean it's acceptable to prevent others from gaining that same education (which I have a feeling they are trying to do via political donations and the ballot box, but that's none of my business)

#67 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 August 2011 - 04:49 PM

We did ask my undergraduate biochemistry professor. He listed several different theories of how abiogenesis occurred, but emphasized that none of them was intended to be a historical fact. They merely illustrate that abiogenesis is possible and, in many cases, inevitable.


But still no life from dead matter.

No, creationists are not bigots. Creationists who say that a devout evangelical who understands and accepts evolution is some sort of a theological fraud, though, are bigots. Who is anyone to be a judge of another's salvation status? Isn't that between them and God?


Then that makes you one as well for the opposite reason. And yes it's between them and God. But if you wait that long then it's to late to correct, right? So telling someone they are wrong using scripture is for concern, not the I;m right you are wrong deal. Then it's up to the person to search it out. If they refuse then it's a sin if they are wrong.

But let's look at it from another angle. If you friend is right then everyone all the way back to Jesus is wrong. Which means very few will go to Heaven. To claim a recent interpretation of God's word is correct is to also null and void everything before it. If your friend is the only one that ever found truth in God's word, then we all go to Hell. So which is it?

I would assume that she's a TE. She certainly accepts evolution, but she's also a devout Christian. That sounds like a typical TE to me, but who knows.


TE destroys God's word and here's why:
1) The first sin is denied and in turn the reason Christ died. This is because the creation of Adam and Eve is denied.
2) The soul is denied because when in the evolution process did man receive a soul that could be saved? And how could evolution explain a soul.

This makes me sad, but college-level science education is not a part of everyone's life path, I suppose.


Why should it be? To get indoctrinated about evolution? No thanks.

It's not my job to find evidence that can only be explained by a creationist model. I'm not involved in evolutionary or creationist research efforts.


And that's why you will always believe only one side. And you make efforts because you are here defending that one side.

I'm not here to evangelize anyone in anything. I'm here to educate those who were given the same fraudulent education that I was during high school. And yes, it is fraudulent. Eduction does not have to mean evangelism.


Depends on what you deem as fraudulent.

What label? I don't follow you.


The label that say that the only way a Christian becomes a Christian is if they had it taught to them since childhood. I get labelled with that at least 3 times a week.

Are they ignorant in biological science? Probably, but not everyone should be expected to know a ton about every field of science. However, being allowed to lack an education in an area does not mean it's acceptable to prevent others from gaining that same education (which I have a feeling they are trying to do via political donations and the ballot box, but that's none of my business)


Each person is good at something. I can talk circles around most about Petroleum and Synthetic lubricant, along with oil and air filtration.

#68 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 August 2011 - 10:49 PM

I see several problems with this theory. For this to happen as you’ve described, the sediment would need to be deposited in smooth layers, one after the other. A sudden eruption of water from the ground would not result in gradual sediment deposit, and animals would most likely be thrown all over the place rather than being killed instantly where they were standing. And since sediment erosion requires a massive amount of water in the first place, why would animals be buried with sediment before the water reached them? Water flows much faster than mud or rocks, and it seems logical that in a flood most animals would drown before being buried alive with sediment. Where did all the sediment come from anyways?

There are many fossils that are attributed to flooding... in fact, nearly all of them are, and there are modern fossils formed from flooding as well. Animals were buried while in the middle of eating, birthing, running, etc. because of landslides... either underwater landslides (which we also have documented modern occurences of) or not. The flood had many events occurring in the same and different time periods and lasted for a year. Much of the sediment and erosion occurred after the flooding had stopped, during the run-off stage.

okay, in purple

Survival is only a “goal” in the sense that if an animal does not survive to reproduce, it will not pass on its genes. Change occurs in that direction because the animals that cannot survive are a genetic dead end.

This is called natural selection, and creationists do not have a problem with it. It does indeed occur, no matter what one's worldview is.
I’ve already said that the fossil record is not complete. We’re lucky to have fossils of anything at all, and it would be unreasonable to expect a fossil of everything that ever lived.Actually, nearly every family of animals is represented in the same layers as dinosaur fossils. Every small mammal you can think of is represented there. For some reason, though, museums don't display most of them. I’m guessing trilobite fossils are common because trilobites themselves were common, and their hard skeletons would protect them from decay. We do have fossils before trilobites though, as well as different types of trilobite fossils ranging from more primitive to more complex. Because trilobites lived on the ocean floor of course.


I haven’t mentioned macro evolution once in my post, and I don’t see how this question relates to the quote of mine you’re addressing. No, I’ve never observed macro evolution because macro evolution is not a visible, discrete event. I’ve observed micro evolution though, and I don’t know of any genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from leading to macro evolution given enough time. Do you know of one?

Yes, as a matter of fact. You assume that a micro-evolution event increases complexity in a creature, but the vast majority of substantiated micro-evolution events do the opposite.

Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms6 (e.g. protozoa) have given rise to pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.

Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection). However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage—e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.

As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind.



#69 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 August 2011 - 10:56 PM

Hi Isabella. I have information on this somewhere in my library, so I will see if I can find it. :)

And I’m not familiar with deposits stretching all the way around the Earth, maybe you could elaborate on that (I’m not doubting that your claim it true, but like I said I really don’t know much about this at all).

Were any of the turtles, alligators, or the “many other creatures” found alongside the dinosaurs the same species as extant animals we see today?


Back to the flood theory though, why would the flying dinos end up stuck in the lower layers with the large, land dwelling ones?

Mammals and dinosaurs living together is one thing, but do we ever see extant mammals with these fossils? According to creationism (and please correct me if I’m wrong here), God created all life within the same week. While microevolution can occur between kinds, macroevolution is not accepted as a real process. A giant, dinosaur eating badger is definitely not an animal we have around today.

So the flood was a gradual process, with periods of heavy rain and water coming out of the ground followed by periods of sunshine? This is not a model I’m familiar with, and doesn’t seem consistent with the Biblical version I know.



#70 Czroo

Czroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Orlando

Posted 08 August 2011 - 07:13 AM

Isabella has some good points

#71 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 08 August 2011 - 07:52 AM

Isabella has some good points

The problem is that of the points I quoted, none of them are true. The evidence states otherwise and yet it is ignored.

#72 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 08 August 2011 - 04:47 PM

The genes determine? You are now adding intelligence to this.

“Determine” does not always imply intelligence. The temperature determines when water will freeze. Does that mean the temperature is intelligent?

Genes and regulatory sequences determine what proteins are produced, how much, and where.

And with hos evolution is supposed to work, those problems should have been weeded out a long time ago through death. Just like diabetes should not exist because there was a time that there was no treatment.

Evolution does not “weed out” every problem, especially when the root of the problem is not entirely genetic. Diabetes is becoming more common because of the higher levels of obesity seen today, largely the result of our diets.

In the case of allergies, they are typically not fatal or even dangerous. The few individuals who do suffer severe anaphylactic reactions are greatly outnumbered by those of us who get a runny nose in the spring or sneeze when there’s a cat in the room. This will allow the genes to maintain a fairly steady level in the population. And like all genetic diseases, new mutations can always arise in a person with no family history of the condition.

It is if you have trylobytes in the second layer with fully formed systems, organs, and some of the most complex eyes in the world.

Still, the mutation would have to occur in the sperm or eggs. I’ve said this about a dozen times now: a mutation in the somatic cells of a fully developed organism will not be passed on to offspring and therefore cannot lead to evolutionary change. If you disagree with this statement, could you please explain why?

That was answered in the previous posts above where I had to add in what you left out.

You claimed I was being deceptive by leaving out information in the following quote of mine:

And I will again stress the point that a heritable mutation must occur in the sperm or egg cells, which means it will be present in the individual from the moment of conception onwards. We’re not talking about spontaneous mutations occurring in the tissue of adults. I haven’t studied immune system development, but I suspect that an embryo has a much greater degree of immune flexibility than an adult. If the immune system was pre-programmed to “know” what foreign tissue looks like, there would be a big problem is the baby inherited mom’s antigens and dad’s immune system, unless mom and dad are genetically identical. Obviously that’s a huge over simplification of how inheritance works, but you see my point.


Please tell me what I left out, or link me to the post where you’ve added it in. I can’t seem to find it, and I see nothing deceptive about the above quote.

Evolutionist came up with the picture that illustrates steps for chimps becoming human. Creationist did not do this. And stages define or imply a number. If I tell you there are learning stages for you to go through to learn a certain type math. Should I not be able to tell you the number?

Chimps did not become humans, and any picture depicting this is either extremely outdated or very misinformed. Back to what we were talking about, I think it’s possible to talk about stages even in a case where there may not be discrete numerical steps.

For example, think of planting a seed. How many steps does it take for a seed to grow into a flower? It would be nearly impossible to come up with a numerical value for this process because it’s continuous, not discrete. Yet we can still talk about the stages of flower growth, such as germination and seedling. In the same way, evolution is a continuous process and it’s hard to define a set number of steps to get from point A to point B.

But what controls change? Example: How does a fish know how to exactly evolve a lung with all it's complexity to work like it does? Do genes have blueprints of the lungs and say: This is what we have to build in order to walk on land? That is where the creationist has a problem with evolution. Is how do the genes naturally know what needs to be done next. Survival does not determine how a organ must be designed or work. Example: The human eye has to be a specific size, a specific shape, and the lens has to be a specific shape to work with all this. And the fluid inside the eye has to be clear in order for the eye to work. That is only touching on the design of the eye in order to function. Not the complexity of how it works. Now how did the genes know all this was needed in order for the eye to work?

An eye which functions only partially is better than no eye at all. A primitive lung with limited surface area for gas exchange is better than no lung at all. You make it sound as though there’s only one possible design for a functional eye, and humans have it. Considering plenty of other animals have eyes which are very different from our own, this is clearly not the case. Evolution does not plan in advance as you seem to imply. In the case of the fish, lungs do not evolve because the genes “know” the fish will need to go on land. But a fish with a random mutation that allows it to survive a little bit longer in anoxic water will survive better than a fish which relies solely on its gills. Therefore, this mutation will likely be passed on to future generations. I would highly recommend reading The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. It deals with this exact topic, but in much greater depth than I could possible get into in a single post.

Then the fossil record is not a record because like you say, it's not complete. So therefore it does not tell a complete story either. Which means it can support anything, not just evolution.

There’s a difference between “prove” and “support”. I agree that the fossil record is incomplete and therefore cannot be used to prove evolution, but it can still support evolution.

Assuming it happens without visual confirmation means that the claim for macro-evolution is not empirical, neither is it anywhere close to it. Micro to infinity = Macro is just like a God did it answer. It requires you to never ever provide any proof or evidence. That's how a God did it answer works.

No one said anything about infinity. Macro is simply micro to the point of speciation. In other words, the point at which two species are no longer capable of interbreeding.

Did His body contain a spirit or not?

Yes, but it also contained flesh and bones which have weight.

#73 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 08 August 2011 - 04:48 PM

A hurricane creates low pressure in the center, does it suck a ocean into itself? By your logic to disprove the parting of the Red Sea, it would have to. Because the vacuum you claim keep all together. Actually, you are really grasping here.

Are you trying to argue against Bernoulli’s principle? It’s a pretty well-known rule that when a fluid is moving quickly, the pressure is lower. If this weren’t the case, airplanes wouldn’t be able to fly and your vacuum cleaner wouldn’t pick up dirt. I suspect that a hurricane does create a low pressure region, and although it’s probably not strong enough to suck up much ocean water I’ve seen footage of hurricanes and tornadoes lifting things up in the air.

Funny how you ignore that matter has a beginning. My conclusion is that you have no answer for that beginning so you try to make it sound nonviable with that statement. So I will ask it more directly: Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Do things just exist because they need to? And how would you prove that?

No one knows where matter came from, but that doesn’t mean by default it must have been created by God. No one knows were God came from either, and an intelligent creator is a whole lot more complex than some atoms.

And without realizing it, you just pointed out the main problem for abiogenesis and evolution. How can dead matter, that has zero living cells, produce those living cells so that life can exist. Can non-cell matter produce living cell matter?

Yes, I think it could. Dead matter contains all the elements needed for living matter; the distinction is only in how they’re arranged. In some cases, dead matter can even reproduce and behave very much like living cells, for example a virus.

Yet to make your theories work for black holes you will claim that the laws do not apply there, right? So while you will ponder this because it supports the conclusion you want, you will not ponder it in other way because it goes against that wanted conclusion. Bias and conformism is not science.

I don’t know much about black holes. Can you be more specific about what laws do not apply?

Speciation is changes within a kind (micro evolution). Why? The birds that are often used as the example were still birds (same kind) when they changed. The reason all life is related is not because of a common ancestor, but because of a common template (RNA DNA). If macro evolution were true, not only should new kinds evolve, but new templates for life. But yet that is not what we see,

Wait... I always thought macroevolution meant speciation and onwards. That’s what the definition is when you look it up online, and that’s what I’ve always been taught. If speciation is considered acceptable by creationist standards, then macroevolution must be acceptable as well if we’re using the evolutionist definition of the word (and since it’s an evolutionist word, we should be). What does macroevolution mean to you, if it doesn’t include speciation?

And I don’t see why new genetic templates would have any reason to evolve. DNA and RNA seem to be working pretty well, what selective pressure is there that would favour a new one?

You make no list because you know that there is a possibility that I will meet your criteria. Which means that evolution under your logic is not falsifiable and never will be.

I made a list. You completely ignored it and gave me an unrelated reply dealing with macroevolution, which I addressed above. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read my posts before accusing me of not answering your questions. Here is the list I made:

The fossils of extant mammals buried in the same layer as dinosaur fossils. The fossils of dinosaurs buried in the same layer as extant mammals. The discovery of some sort of genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from resulting in speciation (macro evolution) over time. The discovery of a complex animal or plant with DNA that cannot undergo random mutation and has never been able to even in the presence of selective pressures. The spontaneous generation of a new species from nothing. The discovery of several new species which have absolutely no genetic or morphological relationship with any other species currently known, either fossil or extant. Empirical proof of the existence of a soul.

Perhaps now you could provide your answer to the same question?

No it's not consistent with evolution because what it supposedly evolved from also survived. So survival was not the issue here.

What did it supposedly evolve from?

Then we should have no water under the crust using your logic. So is all the water above the crust?

We have water under the crust in the form of underground lakes and rivers. These are found in caverns, and are not buried by soft sediment but rather surrounded by solid rock.

How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?

You never posted that video the first time. And a “taste of my own medicine”? Really? Ever since you deleted my initial posts, I have made an effort to address everything you’ve asked me and I think I’ve been doing a pretty good job. If you’re going to purposely ignore my answers to teach me some sort of lesson in debate etiquette, tell me now because I’m not interested in continuing this discussion if that’s the case.

Yet layers exist all over the world which one can conclude a world wide event.

When something exists all over the world, it does not necessarily point to a worldwide event. It could just as easily suggest that the same processes are occurring all over the world, like the accumulation of organic matter and volcanic activity.

What is the difference between human preserved and dinosaur preserved? Several million years.

Not that it would make any difference because you will already deem them as fake:
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=596
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=551

And as I said, I’ve never heard of a strict rule where fossilization must occur after x number of years. I never claimed the preserved dino tissue was fake; I don’t know enough about it to make that claim.

You believe creation is a lie, right? You believe all creation evidence is fake. What does that make me in your eyes? I get it implied and called it outright everyday by evolutionists, and once it's implied to you, you have a problem? You should try walking in my shoes for a day.

A liar is someone who knows the truth and purposely keeps it from you. Creationism is the truth to you, and you believe it 100%. I would never call you, or any other creationist, a liar. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been called this is the past, and I can see why you might retaliate by calling an evolutionist a liar... But you didn’t call me a liar for believing in evolution. You accused me of lying about my personal life, and how much time I can devote to this forum. You accused me of lying in my initial post, which you deleted, because I claimed that I was in a hurry. I was in a hurry that day. I didn’t have time to research your points on geology, so I addressed only the biology topics. It was a bad debate tactic on my part, and I apologized. Yet you went on to insist that I was not in a hurry at all, and I only said that to be deceptive and make myself look smarter. I try to be respectful to everyone on this forum, but sometimes I feel like the respect is one-sided. Feel free to criticize by beliefs on evolution, but if you want to start analyzing my personal life that’s crossing a line.

#74 Czroo

Czroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Orlando

Posted 08 August 2011 - 08:49 PM

Ikester7579 seems to be attacking Isabella, I don't know why. She has very strong arguments. "How does it feel to get a taste of your medicine" is uncalled for.

#75 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

Isabella: "No one knows where matter came from, but that doesn’t mean by default it must have been created by God. No one knows were God came from either, and an intelligent creator is a whole lot more complex than some atoms."

Yes, very true. God is more complex than matter...in fact He is inifinte and matter is not. But the question you must ask for yourself is this: What is the origin of matter to begin with if God did not create it? If it was not created by an eternal Being with all power then from whence was it derived? As far as God's origin is concerned, if one won't accept His revelation of Himself in scripture and His eternal essence then what do you do? What can you conclude? Answer; guess...eeny, meeny, miny, moe...

I am an ex-evolutionist. A graduate of Northwest Classen, Indiana State. I have a B.S. in secondary education and had science training in four fields: general geology, general biology, astronomy, and philosophy of science. I rejected evolution on the basis of the lack of evidence as to its occurrence in the physical world.

#76 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:38 AM

Ikester: " Do genes have blueprints of the lungs and say: This is what we have to build in order to walk on land? That is where the creationist has a problem with evolution. Is how do the genes naturally know what needs to be done next. Survival does not determine how a organ must be designed or work."

A very excellent point. The same goes for other things on the genotype level of operation. How does the helicase 'KNOW' :blink: where the start/stop codons are in each production of a new protein? And good grief(!) how did nature produce the original helicase protein in the first place since it takes proteins to make proteins?

The Darwinians will never answer that one...not honestly nor sufficiently. They can't and they know it. That's just one they have to sweep under the carpet and leave 'well-enough-alone'.

#77 Levi

Levi

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Auckland

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:34 PM

Evolution is extremely easy to debunk! It's the people that want to believe in it that's the problem. There is no evidence of this fairy tale, the majority of people in the western world don't have the faintest idea about any of the concepts or philosophical ramifications of the claims, they just eat it up because it suits their needs and satisfies the conscience.

Hey if we're all animals, whats the harm in behaving like one? No accountability no responsibility. Evolution is not a theory, its an excuse!

#78 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:43 PM

Evolution is extremely easy to debunk! It's the people that want to believe in it that's the problem. There is no evidence of this fairy tale, the majority of people in the western world don't have the faintest idea about any of the concepts or philosophical ramifications of the claims, they just eat it up because it suits their needs and satisfies the conscience.

Hey if we're all animals, whats the harm in behaving like one? No accountability no responsibility. Evolution is not a theory, its an excuse!


Right, Levi.

The best 'evidence' I have seen in 45 yrs of research on the subject is the so called evolution of the whale and the horse. That's about it. But even if those two highly contested claims were to be considered 'evidence' then what about virtually all of the stages of evolution of all the other living organisms that show no logical development at all?

For instance:

Posted Image

We find fossils of bats and we find fossils of rats. BUT........no bat/rats. Expand that problem to virtually every other living organism and you get just an idea of the problem the Darwinians have.

#79 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 August 2011 - 10:32 PM

“Determine” does not always imply intelligence. The temperature determines when water will freeze. Does that mean the temperature is intelligent?

Genes and regulatory sequences determine what proteins are produced, how much, and where.


This would make sense except you are comparing biological determination to non-biological determination.

Evolution does not “weed out” every problem, especially when the root of the problem is not entirely genetic. Diabetes is becoming more common because of the higher levels of obesity seen today, largely the result of our diets.



That's one cause. But I also know it's genetic. Skinny people get it also, I know a few. Bad comparison again.

In the case of allergies, they are typically not fatal or even dangerous. The few individuals who do suffer severe anaphylactic reactions are greatly outnumbered by those of us who get a runny nose in the spring or sneeze when there’s a cat in the room. This will allow the genes to maintain a fairly steady level in the population. And like all genetic diseases, new mutations can always arise in a person with no family history of the condition.


Allergies that interfere with the respiratory of an individual, and is not treated most often leaves to asthma, problems with pneumonia etc... If the asthma is left untreated it can lead to death. And scar tissue left behind from constant coughing can make the lungs inflexible decreasing their ability to intake air, or the transfer of oxygen and CO2 to and from the blood. And I could go on and on with the problems associated.

Still, the mutation would have to occur in the sperm or eggs. I’ve said this about a dozen times now: a mutation in the somatic cells of a fully developed organism will not be passed on to offspring and therefore cannot lead to evolutionary change. If you disagree with this statement, could you please explain why?


All you have to do is provide a evolutionary tree of where the trilobite came from and how it evolved all it's complex systems and organs. Or we can keep going around and around. If you cannot, just admit it and it's over.

You claimed I was being deceptive by leaving out information in the following quote of mine:

And I will again stress the point that a heritable mutation must occur in the sperm or egg cells, which means it will be present in the individual from the moment of conception onwards. We’re not talking about spontaneous mutations occurring in the tissue of adults. I haven’t studied immune system development, but I suspect that an embryo has a much greater degree of immune flexibility than an adult. If the immune system was pre-programmed to “know” what foreign tissue looks like, there would be a big problem is the baby inherited mom’s antigens and dad’s immune system, unless mom and dad are genetically identical. Obviously that’s a huge over simplification of how inheritance works, but you see my point.


You just did not leave out one quote did you? You left out about half of what I said, big difference. But unlike you I won't pitch a fit about it for the next 5-10 posts making every excuse I can. Or maybe I should give you a taste of what you dished out and not address your quote?

Please tell me what I left out, or link me to the post where you’ve added it in. I can’t seem to find it, and I see nothing deceptive about the above quote.



If you cannot see it, what good would posting it again do except give you a chance to say the same thing again?

Chimps did not become humans, and any picture depicting this is either extremely outdated or very misinformed. Back to what we were talking about, I think it’s possible to talk about stages even in a case where there may not be discrete numerical steps.



How many examples do you need?
http://images.search...eb&fr=chrf-ytbm
http://www.google.co...iw=1173&bih=506
http://www.bing.com/...ution&FORM=Z7FD

For example, think of planting a seed. How many steps does it take for a seed to grow into a flower? It would be nearly impossible to come up with a numerical value for this process because it’s continuous, not discrete. Yet we can still talk about the stages of flower growth, such as germination and seedling. In the same way, evolution is a continuous process and it’s hard to define a set number of steps to get from point A to point B.


Nice dodge.

An eye which functions only partially is better than no eye at all. A primitive lung with limited surface area for gas exchange is better than no lung at all. You make it sound as though there’s only one possible design for a functional eye, and humans have it. Considering plenty of other animals have eyes which are very different from our own, this is clearly not the case. Evolution does not plan in advance as you seem to imply. In the case of the fish, lungs do not evolve because the genes “know” the fish will need to go on land. But a fish with a random mutation that allows it to survive a little bit longer in anoxic water will survive better than a fish which relies solely on its gills. Therefore, this mutation will likely be passed on to future generations. I would highly recommend reading The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. It deals with this exact topic, but in much greater depth than I could possible get into in a single post.


LOL, a Dawkins supported. Let me put it to you a different way. What was it that determined that we needed to see, how we should see, and how our brain should process site, and where the eye should be located and how many we should have, how it should focus, if we should see colors, how it would handle light and darkness, that it needs to have clear fluid, that it needs to maintain a certain pressure to keep it's shape, that it needs a eye lid, that a certain amount of moisture is needed, That muscles are need to direct vision without turning the head, that both eyes would turn in sync, to grow eye lashes and eye brows to help with glare, to put blood vessels in front of the retina to help filter out UV damaging rays? Did the mutating genes have blueprints of how an eye should be built in order to work properly? It would seem so to get all this stuff correct. I suggest you study books on how the eye works.

There’s a difference between “prove” and “support”. I agree that the fossil record is incomplete and therefore cannot be used to prove evolution, but it can still support evolution.


Support only evolution?

No one said anything about infinity. Macro is simply micro to the point of speciation. In other words, the point at which two species are no longer capable of interbreeding.


I suggest you study the difference between speciation and macro evolution. Macro evolution is one kind changing into another (lizard becomes a bird). Speciation is where the same kind (such as a bird) changes to the point they can no longer interbreed, but is still a bird. Just a different one. As long as you think it's the same we can go at this forever.

Yes, but it also contained flesh and bones which have weight.


How do you know that the body was with the spirit when He walked on the water?

#80 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:54 PM

Are you trying to argue against Bernoulli’s principle? It’s a pretty well-known rule that when a fluid is moving quickly, the pressure is lower. If this weren’t the case, airplanes wouldn’t be able to fly and your vacuum cleaner wouldn’t pick up dirt. I suspect that a hurricane does create a low pressure region, and although it’s probably not strong enough to suck up much ocean water I’ve seen footage of hurricanes and tornadoes lifting things up in the air.


I guess they have some type of magical force that does away with gravity since whatever I say is going to be wrong.

No one knows where matter came from, but that doesn’t mean by default it must have been created by God. No one knows were God came from either, and an intelligent creator is a whole lot more complex than some atoms.



That's a nice dodge for a question you cannot answer. Reversing the burden of proof does not get you off the hook. It only shows that you don't know and are unwilling to admit that.

Yes, I think it could. Dead matter contains all the elements needed for living matter; the distinction is only in how they’re arranged. In some cases, dead matter can even reproduce and behave very much like living cells, for example a virus.


Nice dodge again. If life were as easy as you try to imply here, abiogenesis would be observable. All you are doing here is building a strawman.

I don’t know much about black holes. Can you be more specific about what laws do not apply?


Everything. That's what atheists say when they want to throw a theory out there that will not work under the current laws of physics. Go ask one of them, or start a thread and get them to make a list. But don't ask for empirically evidence of their claims, they cannot provide them.

Wait... I always thought macroevolution meant speciation and onwards. That’s what the definition is when you look it up online, and that’s what I’ve always been taught. If speciation is considered acceptable by creationist standards, then macroevolution must be acceptable as well if we’re using the evolutionist definition of the word (and since it’s an evolutionist word, we should be). What does macroevolution mean to you, if it doesn’t include speciation?


I explained that a few posts above this.

And I don’t see why new genetic templates would have any reason to evolve. DNA and RNA seem to be working pretty well, what selective pressure is there that would favour a new one?



Limitations on lifespan, cannot live in space etc... If that comet coming does what they expect we will probably become extinct.

I made a list. You completely ignored it and gave me an unrelated reply dealing with macroevolution, which I addressed above. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read my posts before accusing me of not answering your questions. Here is the list I made:

The fossils of extant mammals buried in the same layer as dinosaur fossils. The fossils of dinosaurs buried in the same layer as extant mammals. The discovery of some sort of genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from resulting in speciation (macro evolution) over time. The discovery of a complex animal or plant with DNA that cannot undergo random mutation and has never been able to even in the presence of selective pressures. The spontaneous generation of a new species from nothing. The discovery of several new species which have absolutely no genetic or morphological relationship with any other species currently known, either fossil or extant. Empirical proof of the existence of a soul.
Perhaps now you could provide your answer to the same question?


A doctor tested to see if the soul had weight that could be measured upon death: http://www.snopes.co.../soulweight.asp

The reason no one wants to continue his work is because it's creepy doing this with people who are dying, and many were disturbed by the experiments. But the evidence is there. The soul did have weight.

What did it supposedly evolve from?


Your assumption is based that I believe some what in evolution and would answer your question. I don't so I don't have an answer for you.

We have water under the crust in the form of underground lakes and rivers. These are found in caverns, and are not buried by soft sediment but rather surrounded by solid rock.


So what you are trying to claim here is that water is stored no where on this planet in "any" type of sediment but only around solid rock? I think you need to study that before you commit to it. I would leave links but that does not seem to make any difference,

You never posted that video the first time. And a “taste of my own medicine”? Really? Ever since you deleted my initial posts, I have made an effort to address everything you’ve asked me and I think I’ve been doing a pretty good job. If you’re going to purposely ignore my answers to teach me some sort of lesson in debate etiquette, tell me now because I’m not interested in continuing this discussion if that’s the case.


You went from skipping answering posts you could not address, to putting up strawmam arguments to cover for the same problem. Not really much difference.

When something exists all over the world, it does not necessarily point to a worldwide event. It could just as easily suggest that the same processes are occurring all over the world, like the accumulation of organic matter and volcanic activity.



Be honest, the reason you will not ponder any other alternative is because those alternatives do not point to evolution. Conformism is not science.

And as I said, I’ve never heard of a strict rule where fossilization must occur after x number of years. I never claimed the preserved dino tissue was fake; I don’t know enough about it to make that claim.


You can indirectly imply it and it still gets the same message across.

A liar is someone who knows the truth and purposely keeps it from you. Creationism is the truth to you, and you believe it 100%. I would never call you, or any other creationist, a liar. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been called this is the past, and I can see why you might retaliate by calling an evolutionist a liar... But you didn’t call me a liar for believing in evolution. You accused me of lying about my personal life, and how much time I can devote to this forum. You accused me of lying in my initial post, which you deleted, because I claimed that I was in a hurry. I was in a hurry that day. I didn’t have time to research your points on geology, so I addressed only the biology topics. It was a bad debate tactic on my part, and I apologized. Yet you went on to insist that I was not in a hurry at all, and I only said that to be deceptive and make myself look smarter. I try to be respectful to everyone on this forum, but sometimes I feel like the respect is one-sided. Feel free to criticize by beliefs on evolution, but if you want to start analyzing my personal life that’s crossing a line.


I get called one everyday, not just in the past. This is not the only place I discuss creation and evolution. Places where people are free to say what they want, being called a liar is the least of the things they say. Things I would have to really really hate someone to say. And even then I would be hesitant.

I thing you have to understand about forums and how they are run. Evolution forums will favor evolution and the creationist will get treated not with the same measure as the evolutionists. The treatment here will also be a little tilted. At least we are honest enough to say that. No evolutionist-atheist forum will because they claim total non-censorship. Which I find a laugh after some of the stuff I have had happen on those same forums.

The reason I get banned on every evolutionist forum and quit debating on them. Is because I usually out debate someone who has a bunch pride and takes everything evolution very personal. Once this person gets mad, they unload a load of hate that would make your hair curl. Guess who gets banned for their actions? I do.

Also, we don;t read everything everyone posts. Way to much time involved. So if you think someone gets out of line, click the report button. We don't reveal who said what about who it only causes more problems. But if they are out of line we take care of it. If you don't think we ban Christians here, we banned one a few months back. I have also banned a couple for jumping on evolutionists here with hatred unbecoming of a Christian. We warn once, then they do it again, they are gone.

Here's the reason for the difference in why we ban one more quickly than another.

1) Christians usually straighten up once we lay the rules out of what won't be tolerated if they want to continue their membership. More than 95% of the time they conform and quit acting the fool. Some require several warnings.
2) Atheist-evolutionist usually straighten up less than 1% of the time. 99.9% of the time they will say: Yes we will quit. And as soon as they get in, do it again. Or basically say they won't listen and a few names and cuss words usually follow.

Now, would such a difference in how 2 groups act warrant different treatment between the two? Of course. So when you get treated unfairly here or on another forum like this, it's your like minded friends who believe as you do but also believe that behaving badly for their cause has merit. And because of that you will get stereotyped. When I join a evolutionist forum, I already expect to get such treatment. I don't let it bother me because it comes with the territory. I get banned without a fight because it's expected. And I don't try to rejoin (hack back in) to get revenge as about 50% of the evolutionists have tried or done here. And there is stuff that happens here even worse than that. and I could go on and on with things you don't see. You have no idea what we creationist have to put up with to even have a say on any matter, you'd probably be shocked, or maybe not.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users