Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:45 AM

I never said He should leave us with evidence of what He does. If He wants to remain hidden then so be it. I do find it strange that if His building of the universe is exactly as Genesis describes, that the evidence He leaves behind makes it look like the universe and earth are very old, and life evolved over a very long period of time. Why would he go to that kind of trouble? Why not have all the fossils be organism that are in existence today instead of organisms that are extinct with no modern organisms in the same geological stratum? Weren't there cows, horses and rabbits running around when the dinosaurs existed?


The evidence doesn't make it "look" like as if it has "evolved", keep in mind what Dawkins says...

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

If the evidence looks like its designed then that goes against what you are stating here... Its just that evolutionists tend to "forget" the parts that don't fit their worldview, (which is not a scientific thing to do, since science follows the evidence WHEREVER it leads). If it "looks" designed and has purposeful information and logic behind it then chances are it is designed..

#22 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:56 AM

I never said He should leave us with evidence of what He does. If He wants to remain hidden then so be it. I do find it strange that if His building of the universe is exactly as Genesis describes, that the evidence He leaves behind makes it look like the universe and earth are very old, and life evolved over a very long period of time. Why would he go to that kind of trouble? Why not have all the fossils be organism that are in existence today instead of organisms that are extinct with no modern organisms in the same geological stratum? Weren't there cows, horses and rabbits running around when the dinosaurs existed?


If I build a ten-story house in a week because I have the ability to do so, and explicitly told you that it took me a week to do so, am I "leaving evidence behind" simply because you don't believe me on the grounds of calculations you have made? How do calculations based on limited knowledge determine what is or isn't "evidence"? Such calculations are not based on the abilities of God, but on the assumptions of mankind.

For example, if God has the ability to create a human being as a complete working system, then who is to say that he cannot create the entire universe as a complete working system?

If God has the ability to create two separate objects in two different locations simultaneously, or to instantaneously create objects in motion, then why should that be a problem for creationists to defend?

Atheists try to dictate a scenario based on what they believe about how things develop, as opposed to instantaneous creation, as though development was the only possibly scientific option available, and then try to impose that scenario as evidence against creationism.

If God created an environment that does not agree with atheist scenarios then what "trouble" do you assume he went to?

#23 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:33 AM

Weren't there cows, horses and rabbits running around when the dinosaurs existed?


Cows, horses and rabbits were, and are, running around around when coelacanths were, and are, existing, and yet they don't seem to appear in the same layer.

What do we know today about the populations and habitats of those creatures at the time they were fossilized?

Since there are so many bold and confindent claims being made about what animals should, or shoudn't, be found fossilized together with other animals I have tried to find information providing statistics about such claims, but have not been able to find any.

If fossils are rare, which is an argument that evolutionists often use whenever confronted with the problem of missing links, then what assumptions can we make about whether or not rabbits should be found in the cambrian, a "period" that seems to reflect an environment that is quite hostile to rabbits (i.e. a marine environment)?

#24 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:05 AM

I never said He should leave us with evidence of what He does. If He wants to remain hidden then so be it. I do find it strange that if His building of the universe is exactly as Genesis describes, that the evidence He leaves behind makes it look like the universe and earth are very old, and life evolved over a very long period of time. Why would he go to that kind of trouble? Why not have all the fossils be organism that are in existence today instead of organisms that are extinct with no modern organisms in the same geological stratum? Weren't there cows, horses and rabbits running around when the dinosaurs existed?

There are some things about your comments that make me thing we can have some common ground. Let me start by saying for me I cant say the Genesis account doesnt make sense, but we need to make sense of the genesis account.and again, we need to understand what the bible says about the nature of God himself. In this particular case lets just take one attribute, that a thousand years would be to him like a day and a day like a thousand. Meaning God is timeless so cant interpret certain scriptures using human timelines.
I'll use this to say what I THINK of the genesis account, being a lover of science myself.
1. The fact that we see light from galaxies millions of light years away mean the universe IS THAT old. I believe God created natural laws and he allows them to operate.
-Does this contradict Genesis? Heavens NO! Genesis 1;1 says in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Heb 11 tells us the worlds were framed by the word of God. God said and it was. Now, how long it took from the moment he spoke to the time we see things as they are we were not told in the bible but I PERSONALLY can conclude that that was 14billion years-the approximate age of the universe based on observable data)
2. there are two accounts of creation that are easily confused. the first part is what i have described about where the universe was created to be what it is. the second account is that of 'fashioning' the earth. Gen 1:2 says the earth was void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. i.e it was covered with water and there was no land.
The first part I DO BELIEVE that the earth and all the universe was in a state of expansion for A VERY LONG TIME. That we cant dispute unless we want to disregard everything that is observable.
For me I can conclude from the bible that after everything was in order THEN God commenced phase two, which was the fashioning of the earth. I DO BELIEVE that that happened in 7 days as the bible says. I have no reason to believe that God CANT do that.
The rest of the staff about dinosaurs etc i cant say the bible doesn't make sense but with more study we can begin to make sense of what the bible say. this is NOT qualifying the bible, its just putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
In terms of dating of fossils etc i dont neccesarily subscribe to the millions of years scientists give us. I am NOT choosing to believe those science facts that support my account of the bible but the fact that even among the neutral scientific community there is a feeling that the dating technics are heavily flow.
I have a logical reason to believe that there are some things that changed that gave us the current state of things and for me the more i look at new scientific discoveries i realise how they can explain some bible accounts and how the bible can explain some scientific discoveries. To avoid too long a discourse i would say there is no reason to believe that science and the bible are contradictory, its the misuse of information that is a problem, on both sides at times.
The flood, and the fact that science has proved that the Oxygen content of the atmosphere has significantly dropped better help to explain the demise of the dinosaurs better than the asteroid theory cause it is known that dinos had lungs relatively small compared to their bodies. To me these things make sense, but when we get to pseudoscience then we disregard what we know and come up with crazy theories like the asteroid thingy. Lets talk my friend

#25 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

I am not arguing against a creator here, regardless of what I believe about the possibility of God. Your bringing it up is a non-sequitur. I hope you are not trying to devalue what I say by bringing up the possibility that I don't believe in your God. I will admit that I don't believe in any particular God but don't discount the possibilty that there is a God. I could accept that God caused the diversity of life here and used evolution to do it.

Your claim was that life has some sort of "God breathed" essence such that scientists cannot create life. However, they have built lifeforms from component parts (proteins, DNA strands...etc) see http://www.guardian....hetic-life-form. Would you say that the parts those scientists used were living or not? Did those parts contain the essence of life or were they just chemicals?

Let me quote from your link "Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form" This is genetic modification. For the genome to be reproduced they incoperated it into something that is already alive!at in a strict sense is not giving life in the sense i was talking about. Since they started freezing bodies at absolute zero they still cant reverse death. that is called a FACT! Any engineered genetic material still requires an LIVING organisms. why not put together those component (i.e borrowing from God) and mek the organism live on its own?

#26 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:35 PM

We have all sorts of stuff going on this thread and I'll apologize as my OP was rather broad.

Where is the irrefutable, empirical, scientific facts for evolution that prove evolution? I have not yet seen one. Where are the fossils that prove evolution? I saw examples of archaeopteryx and tiktaalikbut even evolutionists (not all) claim they are not necessarily transitional fossils. Should there not be an abundance of animals in their transitional stage fossilized? Enough proof to show 'Here is creature 'A' turning into 'B', and you can tell by it's 'X, Y, and Z'? I'm not sure how else to put this to make it more clear on what I'm looking for.

I just posted a thread called 'Order of the Universe in Perspective'. It's here: http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=5265

Is this irrefutable, empirical evidence? No, but it shows some amazing numbers to how complex the universe really is and if you contemplate them and truly ponder them, the honest skeptic should ask him or herself, "Is the universe really a product of chance or is there some kind of Intelligent Design behind it all?"

Biogenesis - Life comes from life. Observed. Tested. Repeated. Science. Right?

Abiogenesis - Life comes from nothing. Never observed. Perhaps tested? Never repeated. Evolutionary science. Right?



Edit: I had a bunch of code and odd numbers, letters post when I initially posted, editing to get rid of that mess. Not sure what happened.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:05 PM

I never said He should leave us with evidence of what He does. If He wants to remain hidden then so be it. I do find it strange that if His building of the universe is exactly as Genesis describes, that the evidence He leaves behind makes it look like the universe and earth are very old, and life evolved over a very long period of time. Why would he go to that kind of trouble? Why not have all the fossils be organism that are in existence today instead of organisms that are extinct with no modern organisms in the same geological stratum? Weren't there cows, horses and rabbits running around when the dinosaurs existed?


Life certainly doesn't look like as if it evolved.... Remember when Dawkins admitted that life has the "appearance" of design, but then he merely claims its not designed based on his own presupmption. Such a thing defies your claim that life "looks" evolved. Its the opposite, life looks designed however the evolutionist cannot accept such a thing so they "sweep it under the rug", just like with Dawkins sweeping statement that whilst life looks designed (somehow) its not.

So of course when you've already swept the appearance of design under the rug, you'd be left with a preconcieved bias towards evolution.

#28 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:05 PM

Cows, horses and rabbits were, and are, running around around when coelacanths were, and are, existing, and yet they don't seem to appear in the same layer.

What do we know today about the populations and habitats of those creatures at the time they were fossilized?

Since there are so many bold and confindent claims being made about what animals should, or shoudn't, be found fossilized together with other animals I have tried to find information providing statistics about such claims, but have not been able to find any.

If fossils are rare, which is an argument that evolutionists often use whenever confronted with the problem of missing links, then what assumptions can we make about whether or not rabbits should be found in the cambrian, a "period" that seems to reflect an environment that is quite hostile to rabbits (i.e. a marine environment)?

Do you think there would be more rabbits than any particular species of dinosaur or less, given the relative rates at which rabbits breed vs the rate at which larger animals breed?
I would conclude that there would be more. Add to that, the likelihood that their lifespan would likely be significantly shorter than a large dinosaur. So, you would have more rabbits living and more rabbits dying than you would any particular species of dinosaur. From my point of view it is very possible that if rabbits lived at the same time as dinosaurs that there would be at least one fossilized rabbit found by now. Do we have any fossilized rabbits in the same geologic layer as any dinosaur?

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:13 PM

Let me quote from your link "Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form" This is genetic modification. For the genome to be reproduced they incoperated it into something that is already alive!at in a strict sense is not giving life in the sense i was talking about. Since they started freezing bodies at absolute zero they still cant reverse death. that is called a FACT! Any engineered genetic material still requires an LIVING organisms. why not put together those component (i.e borrowing from God) and mek the organism live on its own?


I saw that too, and that was what I thought.. The title / introduction bit made a claim that this was a fully synthetic life form... Yet all it was was merely copying the established DNA code and reproducing it synthetically then (as you said) putting it within an established cell with its own DNA removed. This demonstrates the level of intellectual dishonesty people will go to these days. If they want to state a fully synthetic organism then here are some provisios

- Create own form of information carrying structure can't use DNA
- Create own information code within information carrying structure
- Create own structures that can read said information and utilise it, can't use proteins

There are many other points but these three are propably the hardest, once these are established then the claim of "synthetic life" can be used, till then its only bits and pieces.

#30 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:43 AM

Do you think there would be more rabbits than any particular species of dinosaur or less, given the relative rates at which rabbits breed vs the rate at which larger animals breed?
I would conclude that there would be more. Add to that, the likelihood that their lifespan would likely be significantly shorter than a large dinosaur. So, you would have more rabbits living and more rabbits dying than you would any particular species of dinosaur. From my point of view it is very possible that if rabbits lived at the same time as dinosaurs that there would be at least one fossilized rabbit found by now. Do we have any fossilized rabbits in the same geologic layer as any dinosaur?


Paleohyrax reprobae was found in the Cambrian. Does that count? Why? Why not?

But in any case, I think I hinted in my post that I'd rather find some actual statistics. Statistics based on the actual number of rabbit and dinosaur fossils found rather than an assumption based on what we observe about the breeding habits and population of rabbits today would be useful.

I would also like to know what unique qualities identify the "dinosaur layers" as opposed to the "rabbit layers", besides of course, the absence of rabbits.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#31 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:56 AM

Paleohyrax reprobae was found in the Cambrian. Does that count? Why? Why not?

But in any case, I think I hinted in my post that I'd rather find some actual statistics. Statistics based on the actual number of rabbit and dinosaur fossils found rather than an assumption based on what we observe about the breeding habits and population of rabbits today would be useful.

I would also like to know what unique qualities identify the "dinosaur layers" as opposed to the "rabbit layers", besides of course, the absence of rabbits.

No, there was never any type of rabbit ancestor found in the cambrian. "Paleohyrax reprobae" is a joke.

http://www.talkingsq...et/archives/133

Even if you didn't reject it as obvious nonsense from the start there's a giveaway at the end.
"In a related story, the journal Nature will be renamed Realm from the next volume."

There's also a FAQ that states point blank the story is fake.
http://www.talkingsq...t/archives/1033
Q: fossilized rabbit
Yes, I made up a photoshop of a rabbit fossil among Cambrian trilobites.
Q: Wilfred Splenebyrst
Yes, I made that up too. You will not find any other references to the scientific papers of Dr Splenebyrst because he does not exist. The ridiculous name should have been a tip-off. Likewise the fact that he works at the London School of Ergonomics.

You can also just google and realize that there's no other source except the joke blog post and people reposting the joke blog post.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 November 2012 - 02:02 PM

The layers of fossils is the ONE thing I cannot find an answer for. Though like Uppsala I'm interested in the specifics, ie- population niches etc. Considering that the layers are "dated" via the fossils, if one already believes that rabbits didn't live in the same era as dinosaurs then the layers in which rabbits are found will be dated according to the preconcieved ideas.

Lets say some dinosaur fossils were found with some rabbit ones underneath, rather than accepting that evolution via fossil "evidence" is bunk, some other explanation would be made, in this case it could be claimed that water deposited the fossils on top of the rabbit containing layer from another area where dinosaur fossils were uncovered.

Therefore even if this situation were found to occur, its highly likely that it would be ignored anyway, (well that is what happens with all other contradictory evidence).

#33 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:00 PM

No, there was never any type of rabbit ancestor found in the cambrian. "Paleohyrax reprobae" is a joke.

http://www.talkingsq...et/archives/133

Even if you didn't reject it as obvious nonsense from the start there's a giveaway at the end.
"In a related story, the journal Nature will be renamed Realm from the next volume."

There's also a FAQ that states point blank the story is fake.
http://www.talkingsq...t/archives/1033
Q: fossilized rabbit
Yes, I made up a photoshop of a rabbit fossil among Cambrian trilobites.
Q: Wilfred Splenebyrst
Yes, I made that up too. You will not find any other references to the scientific papers of Dr Splenebyrst because he does not exist. The ridiculous name should have been a tip-off. Likewise the fact that he works at the London School of Ergonomics.

You can also just google and realize that there's no other source except the joke blog post and people reposting the joke blog post.


Fair enough, the Paleohyrax reprobae was obviously a set-up I guess, with the intention to frustrate. But I hope it doesn't overshadow my main point, which Gilbo so kindly pointed out. We sit here today making assumptions about the fossilization of animals that no longer exist. The absence of rabbit fossils in the Cambrian or Pre-cambrian is assumed by evolutionists to be due to the separation of time, rather than other factors. The fact that 95% of fossils are marine invertebrates perhaps indicates that fossilization is closely tied to environment rather than time.

With that in mind, and considering the rarity of fossils, how many dinosaures lived on land as opposed to those that predominately lived in water or in swamps and marshy areas that aren't typically inhabited by rabbits? How do we compare the ability of reptiles to flee from the kind of conditions that cause fossilization with the ability of rabbits to do the same?

I kind of get the feeling that the Cambrian rabbit argument is also a kind of "set-up" because it is easy to get the impression when first hearing that argument that we so obviously should be able to find rabbit fossils mixed up with dinosaur fossils. But hey, doesn't the fact that we have rabbits still living today where dinosaurs no longer exist indicate that rabbits had survival abilities that differ considerably from those of dinosaurs?

#34 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:12 PM

Ignore this.

#35 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

"I've read a lot on this forum and I find it full of great information. Yet I don't see any evidence for evolution."

I'm new here so I can't speak to what's posted here, but if you can't find any evidence in favor of evolution (one of the most widely accepted and highly tested theories in all of the physical sciences which is supported by avenues of evidence in at least half a dozen fields) honestly you're not looking hard enough. Or at all, more likely. I'm not trying to be rude but there it is.

"I have yet to see one fully formed transitional fossil."

I don't know what you mean by this, what is a "fully formed" transitional fossil?

"I've seen drawings, pictures, and some bones that claim to be transitional. Yet, I have not seen evidence of a fully formed transitional fossil. Can someone provide a link to some?"

I could give you a hundred pictures of fossils, I could even hand you one in person, but it wouldn't mean anything unless I explained what actually makes a fossil transitional and why that matters in evolutionary science.

The basic idea is this - countless species in the animal kingdom have a lot of very similar anatomical features and very similar segments of DNA. You and your dog for instance have basically the same skeleton, four limbs with five digits on the end of each, a spine, ribs, collar bones, shoulder blades, skull, same five senses, all the same organs etc. There are two explanations for this. One is that that's just the way the creator or aliens or whatever made life wanted them to be like. And hypothetically that could be true (I'm an atheist but I'm a skeptic so I have to admit the possibility). The problem though scientifically is that you can't test for that, because a creator or designer or whatever you want to call it could potentially make life similar or different or any which way it wanted, so there's no way to test the hypothesis - you can't in other words say "if the same designer made me and a dog then this must be in our DNA" or "if the same designer made me and a dog this can't be in our DNA". So although it may be possible and could even be true, it can't be tested and can't honestly be called science.

Which brings us to the evolutionary explanation. That you and your dog (and pretty much everything else) are distant cousins, and you have some traits in common and some DNA in common because you inherited it from a common ancestor a very long time ago. Fortunately this is testable because many things must be true if this is true, like there must be intermediate forms showing the appearance of these various traits in a logical chronological order (and there is, ie fins appear first, then fins with wrist and digit bones, then amphibious creatures with legs, then reptiles, then mammals and eventually canids and humans in that order). A really good way to test whether common ancestry holds water is that any time we find a modern species of say mammal or reptile that doesn't have a trait that is virtually universal among mammals and reptiles there are two possible explanations - 1) that all those species developed identical traits separately - this is pretty much impossible logically and mathematically, or 2) that that species that doesn't have that trait had it and lost it at some point in the past.

So if common ancestry is correct we can predict that we will find an earlier version of that species that has the missing trait. Which brings us to transitional fossils like archeopteryx. Why is this an important find for evolution science? Because darwin specifically predicted it's existence two years before it's discovery. See modern birds don't have separate digits in their wings, but according to common ancestry the wing must be a modified arm, there's no other way for it to have evolved. And virtually all mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs have separate digits at the end of their four limbs, usually five. So if the bird's wing evolved from an arm then there must be a prehistoric, extinct bird that had separate digits, or as darwin put it, a bifurcated wing. Two years later archeopteryx was discovered which has not only wings with separate digits in them, but the digits also have claws at the end.

But why stop there? Lots of other animals are missing common traits, so lets test evolution some more. Whales don't have hind limbs, where's the earlier version that has them? Ambulocetus. Horses have four limbs, but only have one digit on the end of each (their hooves are literally giant toenails and yes are made of the same stuff yours are because of common ancestry, a chemical called keratin which is also what your dog's claws are made of). So they must have had more digits in the past if evolution is true - turns out the further back we go in the fossil record the more digits the horse-like fossils have. But wait, there's more! Most snakes don't have legs at all, and the ones that do the legs are leftover and non-functional (why should that be?). But they do have legs in the fossil record.

The fact is you can keep going, just with this one anatomical example and the predictions hold up throughout the animal kingdom and the fossil record. And you can literally do this with every trait in every species in every lineage and play find the transitional form all day and new ones pop up all the time.

"However there appears to be 10s of 1000s of living fossils, if not more. Virtually unchanged animals, birds, reptiles, etc. over 'millions of years'. Why is this?"

Two reasons - one is that not nearly all changes are evident in the fossil record, these species' organs, immune systems etc could've changed dramatically and there'd be no evidence - another is that major anatomical changes are usually prompted by changes in the environment, the introduction of new predators or prey or dramatic changes in the weather - some environments have been more or less static, or species have been in successful niches where the proverb "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies biochemically as well as it does in society. But it is a fact that not one species alive today appears in the fossil record from 500 million years ago.

"The order of the universe cries out God's creation. The position of the sun, the moon, gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. Evolutionists explanation in a nut shell: "It just happened to get it right".

That's not my explanation. Galaxies have stars that travel more or less around the center of the galaxy not by and kind of magical fine tuning, but by the black hole at the core of the galaxy ripping apart and consuming or flinging into the void between galaxies any stars that aren't in the right trajectory. Younger, less stable (and much more radioactive) galaxies are called quasar galaxies, look it up. If you set a forest on fire the fire will eventually burn itself out - that's not intelligent design that's just unsustainable chaos. I could go into similar depth explaining the positions of the sun, moon, gravity etc. Will if you like.

"We see design behind vehicles, churches, houses, etc., but when it comes to something as amazing and complex as our planet and life itself... it's... luck?"

It's a bit more complicated than "luck". Want to know why the earth is round? Because liquid follows the path of least resistence, which in zero gravity spontaneously forms a ball shape. The earth was formed by the impact of many planets and planetoids, asteroids and comets over a long period of time which produced enough heat to liquify rock and metal (the earth is still almost entirely liquid rock and metal today). This ball of rock and metal was spinning so it formed into a ball that is slightly fat at the equator.

Not nearly everything you chalk up to "god did it" is as mysterious as you make it seem. You have access to google and wikipedia, the answers to many of these questions are already known.

"Birds that can fly 1000s and 1000s of miles to migrate without landing, turtles that can navigate under the ocean, and the many other amazing creatures in this world of ours... just happen to have this ability? How do they know to use these abilities?"

Because at the same time their abilities were evolving their instincts were too. Do you understand the basics of natural selection by the way?

"What in this universe cries 'old earth', 'evolution', 'no design', 'no God'?"

The geological column contains not just a few billion years of fossil history, but also the history of the formation and erosion of mountain ranges (not a quick process), the entire oceans that have come and gone, the history of multiple mass extinction level meteor impacts (there's a crater in canada 100 kilometers across, a meteor that big would've released more heat and energy on impact than every nuke in the world, many times over - you think the indians were there when it hit?) It also contains the history of every ice age, massive river valleys that no river has gone through for thousands of years, the history of billions of years of volcanic activity etc. Everything about it screams old earth. Which is why you will have a hard time finding a young earth geologist even if you just ask christian geologists how old the earth is. As for no god, I can answer if you like but this is already too long.

"The Big Bang...How did 'something' (the rock/asteroid/whatever) come from nothing? How did this 'something' explode? What was the cause?"

No one claims to know how the universe began, the big bang doesn't attempt to explain it's existence, just wind the clock back a bit. The big bang (which was first proposed by a catholic priest) simply explains the expansion and cooling of the universe from an earlier state.

Neither the universe coming into existence on it's own or just always being there makes any sense to me. Nor does a god coming into existence on it's own or just always being there and then making a universe by some unknown means. I reject both as nonsense and admit I simply don't know how the universe began.

"I find it ironic that many atheists find creationists to be loony because we have our faith in God. Yet, in a way, atheists have MORE faith than us because of what they believe!"

No, atheists really don't.

"We can observe biogenesis daily. Life comes from life. Abiogenesis on the other hand... any examples?"

Abiogenesis is hypothetical at best, I doubt you'll find any atheist pushing the idea around as being more than that.

I don't need to have all of the answers to know that you don't have any more than I do.

"How do organs know what functions to perform? Does evolution explain that?"

They don't "know" anything. Evolution is not a conscious process. You sound like you aren't familiar with the basic mechanics of natural selection. I would explain it but this is already very long.

"Where is the observable, testable, repeatable evidence for evolution?"

Google "evolution experiment" and you will find lots of examples. Also google "observed instances of speciation" and "ring species". Evolution has been experimentally observed since the mid to late 1800s.

"I honestly hope that any evolutionist reading this ponders these things."

You can tell from my responses that I have. Will you ponder what I have said?

"I'll close by asking this... To the evolutionist, if there was one, just ONE thing that you disagree with concerning creation, what is it?"

It isn't an explanation for anything. We don't know what god is really supposed to be, or how he supposedly created anything. So "creation" is just positing that "god (???) exists by the mechanism of ??? and created the universe by ??? and made life by ???"

Why not just not bother with all that vaguery and just replace it with one question mark and treat the universe as what it is - a mystery we are trying to unravel.

#36 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:31 PM

"How did evolution create gravity"

I don't know where gravity comes from. Neither do you.

"and make it the perfect balance so we don't float away or be so strong that we are crushed?"

What do you mean "perfect balance"? Gravity varies extremely depending on where you are in the universe - on some planets you would be crushed to death on others you'd float away. And by the way life is more or less unaffected by gravity, which is why we don't instantly die when we go into outer space. Your feet are being pulled on by gravity stronger than your head is right now (assuming you're not reading this upside down). The idea that there's some precise amount of gravity that won't kill us just isn't accurate. Go to the top of a mountain and you weigh less. And there is "life" that thrives at the bottom of the ocean under a thousand times the atmospheric pressure we're under. The earth isn't "fine tuned" to life, individual species are "fine-tuned" to the environment.

"Also, how do evolutionists explain instinct and/or adaption? They are such simple words for something that is so amazingly complex, it truly boggles the mind."

You are literally saying "I have absolutely no idea what evolution even is". Do you actually want to know the answer to this question or are you just trying to evangelize?

"Evolution does indeed exclude God."

In no way. Darwin believed in a god, as do most people in the US who accept evolution.

"Atheists believe in evolution, evolution excludes God. Granted, theistic evolutionists believe in God but that’s not for appropriate for this topic."

I don't see why not. And atheists tend to accept evolution not because it's atheistic but because they have no reason not to. Atheists also accept that the earth is round more often than christians (some fundamentalists argue it's flat and unmoving). That doesn't make the idea that the earth is round atheistic.

I see no reason to think a god couldn't create life that evolves as easily as creating life that doesn't. If anything it would be more impressive and "intelligently designed".

#37 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

If I build a ten-story house in a week because I have the ability to do so, and explicitly told you that it took me a week to do so, am I "leaving evidence behind" simply because you don't believe me on the grounds of calculations you have made? How do calculations based on limited knowledge determine what is or isn't "evidence"? Such calculations are not based on the abilities of God, but on the assumptions of mankind.

For example, if God has the ability to create a human being as a complete working system, then who is to say that he cannot create the entire universe as a complete working system?

If God has the ability to create two separate objects in two different locations simultaneously, or to instantaneously create objects in motion, then why should that be a problem for creationists to defend?

Atheists try to dictate a scenario based on what they believe about how things develop, as opposed to instantaneous creation, as though development was the only possibly scientific option available, and then try to impose that scenario as evidence against creationism.

If God created an environment that does not agree with atheist scenarios then what "trouble" do you assume he went to?

Science is not an invention of atheists, nor is old earth geology, biology, genetics etc something that has primarily atheistic support. These are ideas broadly accepted based on many years of inquiry across the ideological spectrum.

#38 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:41 PM

Fair enough, the Paleohyrax reprobae was obviously a set-up I guess, with the intention to frustrate. But I hope it doesn't overshadow my main point, which Gilbo so kindly pointed out. We sit here today making assumptions about the fossilization of animals that no longer exist. The absence of rabbit fossils in the Cambrian or Pre-cambrian is assumed by evolutionists to be due to the separation of time, rather than other factors. The fact that 95% of fossils are marine invertebrates perhaps indicates that fossilization is closely tied to environment rather than time.

With that in mind, and considering the rarity of fossils, how many dinosaures lived on land as opposed to those that predominately lived in water or in swamps and marshy areas that aren't typically inhabited by rabbits? How do we compare the ability of reptiles to flee from the kind of conditions that cause fossilization with the ability of rabbits to do the same?

I kind of get the feeling that the Cambrian rabbit argument is also a kind of "set-up" because it is easy to get the impression when first hearing that argument that we so obviously should be able to find rabbit fossils mixed up with dinosaur fossils. But hey, doesn't the fact that we have rabbits still living today where dinosaurs no longer exist indicate that rabbits had survival abilities that differ considerably from those of dinosaurs?

You're confusing extinction with death. I don't care how good rabbits are at not going extinct, they still die and leave fossils. Like these:

http://news.national...us-rex-largest/

#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:43 PM

1. Science is not an invention of atheists,


2. These are ideas broadly accepted based on many years of inquiry across the ideological spectrum.


1. No it was an invention of Creationists Posted Image Under the logic that in order to learn more about God, one must study his creation.

2. Inquiry is probably too strong a word Posted Image

#40 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:34 PM

I don't care how good rabbits are at not going extinct, they still die and leave fossils.


Where did I say that rabbits don't leave fossils?

Please re-read my posts and get back to me with something better than that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users