Jump to content


Photo

How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#81 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 10 August 2011 - 12:02 AM

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.


Do you moderate this forum? No? thought so. If you have a problem with how the forum is run you can PM me. Anymore complaints in open forum will get you banned for disrespecting mods and admins authority here.

#82 Levi

Levi

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 August 2011 - 12:12 AM

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.


The big problem that we come up against is the pr machine, it's huge! I don't know what the agenda is but I have a bad feeling in my gut that it has nothing to do with proving evolution anymore. Call me a conspiracy theory fruit loop, but I have to ask why is it like this?

I know I sound a bit fringe but I've seen good stuff on the net previously that is no longer there, Wikipedia seems to ALWAYS have an article with a convenient evolutionary explanation for every topic, never is there anything more than a mention always referencing them as 'creationist objections'.

I've heard many stories about non christian scientists and heads of departments just walking away because they can no longer do it.

Its turned into a 'creationist(Christian)-evolutionist(atheist)' debate. It's not science, it's a circus.

#83 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:21 PM

in part i do, as a mod on another christian forum. we had a H*mos*xual hack in several times and try to manipulate the staff against each other.

i was almost suckered into that as i was his friend on facebook. not all athiest do this but a lot of them are this agressive.

#84 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 10 August 2011 - 07:59 PM

Jesus said that His people would be hated. I have seen a lot of evidence of that. I have even harassed Christians, since the cult I was in "scathingly denounced all organized religions and generated among his followers a tone of unmitigated hostility towards Christian churches." I used to team up with atheists who were mocking Christian beliefs in order to "expose" them. I came here and to another YEC sight as a member of a cult and I was treated gently. What a contrast!

I am rambling now, I suppose, but I noticed that many Jehovah's Witness homeschoolers feel that any Christian curriculum is a part of Babylon the Great, so they avoid it at all costs, preferring materials written by atheists. I thought this was ridiculous and rebelled against the idea. I thought I would rather my kids be taught about God than to be taught by materials written by atheists.

#85 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 10 August 2011 - 08:01 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.

I have gotten along with Isabella very well in the past, but some of her "arguments" on this thread have really irritated me. Mock me, but don't mock my God!

#86 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 August 2011 - 08:13 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.


Czroo:
1- Can you provide examples of these "very strong arguments"?

2- Can you provide examples of Ikester "attacking" Isabella, or rather is it that Ikester is refuting Isabella's so-called "very strong arguments"...

#87 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 11 August 2011 - 03:54 AM

Jesus said that His people would be hated. I have seen a lot of evidence of that. I have even harassed Christians, since the cult I was in "scathingly denounced all organized religions and generated among his followers a tone of unmitigated hostility towards Christian churches." I used to team up with atheists who were mocking Christian beliefs in order to "expose" them. I came here and to another YEC sight as a member of a cult and I was treated gently. What a contrast!

I am rambling now, I suppose, but I noticed that many Jehovah's Witness homeschoolers feel that any Christian curriculum is a part of Babylon the Great, so they avoid it at all costs, preferring materials written by atheists. I thought this was ridiculous and rebelled against the idea. I thought I would rather my kids be taught about God than to be taught by materials written by atheists.

lol. so rather then be taught that God created the earth in six days and the basics of science and so forth, they choose evolution and the other stuff?

i am well a yecer in a sense because of the jws. most of what is said to me hear and elsewhere is nothing new in general. i was taught the canopy theory by the jw, the flood was global as well. etc.
interesting.

#88 Levi

Levi

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 August 2011 - 05:31 AM

Jesus said that His people would be hated. I have seen a lot of evidence of that. I have even harassed Christians, since the cult I was in "scathingly denounced all organized religions and generated among his followers a tone of unmitigated hostility towards Christian churches." I used to team up with atheists who were mocking Christian beliefs in order to "expose" them. I came here and to another YEC sight as a member of a cult and I was treated gently. What a contrast!

I am rambling now, I suppose, but I noticed that many Jehovah's Witness homeschoolers feel that any Christian curriculum is a part of Babylon the Great, so they avoid it at all costs, preferring materials written by atheists. I thought this was ridiculous and rebelled against the idea. I thought I would rather my kids be taught about God than to be taught by materials written by atheists.


According to a news report I heard two days ago there where 124 serious attacks on people based on religion in 21 Western countries last month, they where mainly against Christians and Muslims.


The fact that some one is collating numbers on this is quite a scary thought within itself.

#89 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 11 August 2011 - 06:25 PM

Hi Chris,
Let me know if I’ve missed anything from your post, it’s been a long day :P

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 ok with that. I find that debates about fossils as evidence tend to go around in circles, and I usually avoid them.

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.

I find it difficult to discuss “kinds” with creationists, because no one can ever give me a clear definition of what exactly a kind is. The best definition I’ve gotten so far has is that kind is more or less the same as the taxonomic group genus. Based on the examples you’ve given, it seems like you’re following this rule.

The so-called prehistoric badger is really not a badger at all. It says in the article that while it would have resembled a badger, its closest relative would have been Repenomamus robustus. According to taxonomic classification, not only was this prehistoric mammal of a different genus, it was of a different order (Trichonodonta).

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.

If you’re ok with believing that birds resembling Protoavis gave rise to hummingbirds, chickens, eagles, and penguins, then I really don’t see why you would have trouble accepting evolution.

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.

If kind=genus (feel free to provide me with a more accurate definition if you know of one), we’re really not seeing the same kinds at all in the lower layers. It could be the case that we haven’t found them yet, but given the proposed method of fossilization according to the flood theory suggests that animals were buried alive in their natural habitats all at the same time. Considering we’ve found so many dinosaur fossils and a few mammal fossils in the lower layers, it seems reasonable to expect that at least some of those mammals should look the mammals today. The density argument has never struck me as a particularly convincing one, because it has no scientific reasoning backing it up. There is no known reason that reptiles, regardless of how large or small they may be, would all have the same density and thus would settle into the same layers... of heavy sediment, nonetheless, which really doesn’t promote much floating around.

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.

This ties into what I was asking ikester about a genetic barrier. If one kind can diversify into many other species, what would prevent the formation of a new kind? I’m not talking about anything dramatic, like a horse giving rise to a cat. But is it so unfathomable that two relatively similar kinds, such as dogs and hyenas, could have shared a common ancestor which gave rise to both? The ancestor would have been neither a dog nor a hyena, which is a key feature of evolution. Evolution is not about ducks turning into rabbits or frogs turning into whales. It’s about sharing ancestors that were unlike the animals we see today.

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.

I’ve seen pictures of layers piled evenly so I’m not denying that sometimes this does appear to be the case. But there are plenty of places where the layers are bent and uneven. You also refer to a layer being “exposed for millions of years” which probably wouldn’t be the case. With the exception of events like volcanic eruptions, sediment deposit is generally a slow process. Think of the gradual deposit of silt on the bottom of a river, or the slow build up of organic soil on a forest floor.

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.

It doesn’t seem consistent to me because the flood is described as a sudden catastrophic event will a great deal of erosion and sediment deposit. In other words: random and messy. So what are the chances that the same type of sediment would happen to bury the same type of biological organisms in Scotland as it did in Pennsylvania? It’s certainly not impossible, but it probably wouldn’t happen all that often either. According to the old Earth view, similar sediment layers are the result of similar gradual processes that are known to occur worldwide.

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?

There are also many examples where several different dating techniques produce almost the exact same result, which confirms that even if the techniques are not completely accurate they are quite precise. Most papers describe the use more than one technique, and if the results differ greatly it is concluded that the age is unknown. Yes, evolutionists still publish inconclusive results.

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?

Evolutionary stasis can have two causes: no selective pressure, or stabilizing selective pressure. The latter is more likely. Stabilizing selection occurs when the average traits in a population are favoured, and extremes tend to have a negative affect on survival. If crocodiles have always lived in a relatively stable environment to which they are already well-adapted, developing longer legs or better eyes may not be beneficial. You might argue that a trait like improved vision would always be beneficial, but keep in mind that there’s a trade off. Developing a trait that will make you faster, stronger, or smarter requires energy, and nutrients are usually limited.

From the pictures I’ve seen, prehistoric crocodiles looked similar to modern crocodiles but there are some major differences. So it wouldn’t be complete evolutionary stasis.

What exactly makes them "more primitive looking"?

In evolution, “primitive” means more like the ancestral species (there’s a common misconception that primitive= less complex, but this is not always the case). Rhamphorhynchoidea are considered more primitive because they had long tails and fingers adapted to climbing. Pterodactyloidea had shorter tails and longer wing bones.


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.

It’s hypothesized that tree-dwelling dinosaurs would first develop the ability to glide, then eventually to fly. If the first “wings” were no more than thin flaps of skin, they may not fossilize at all and the skeleton would appear to have had no flying adaptations. That’s just a guess though.

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

But in the layers with the dinosaurs, are there even mammals that belong to the same genus as the mammals we see 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 I mentioned already, it’s not in the same order. It’s not even classified as a rodent, let alone a member of the badger family. Perhaps the lack of mammal fossils does not negatively affect the flood theory (although I would argue otherwise), but it certainly does not support it. On the other hand, the lack of mammals does support evolution.

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.

Actually upon further reading, it seems that it’s the human tracks and not the dino tracks which have been questioned by evolutionists. And from what I can tell, no consensus has been reached. Creationists claim that they are without a doubt human, and evolutionists claim that they have features which suggest otherwise. When it comes right down to it, these footprints don't seem to be conclusive enough to support either argument.

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.

I’m sure there are real carved stones, but do they have pictures of dinosaurs?

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".

The spines on those pictures resemble stegosaurus plates in my opinion. They’re broad and triangular, not narrow and spiky. The triangular back plates have become a generic feature in non-professional dinosaur drawings, whether they were actually seen on that species or not. I’ve seen plenty of cartoon t-rex pictures where there’s a row of triangles along the spine. Even the original Godzilla movie (1954) features a giant lizard with plates on his back.

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.

Ok thanks, I’ll take a look if I have time this weekend.

#90 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 15 August 2011 - 05:37 PM

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

Genes do not possess intelligence or foresight. When I used the phrase “the genes determine”, I did not mean to imply any sort of personification. Temperature determines when water will freeze, and genes determine what proteins are produced. The latter example is biological, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intelligent or conscious process.

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

There are two types of diabetes, and I was referring to type II which is becoming extremely common as a result of diet and lifestyle. You brought up diabetes as an example of a disease that evolution should have “weeded out”, and my point was that it’s not determined by genes alone.

When it comes to diseases that are purely genetic in nature, the mutations keep popping up in the population which is why they never completely disappear. I know a man with haemophilia who has no family history of the disease. He was the first in his family to develop the mutation.

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.

I’m not denying that allergies can be very serious in some cases, but this is not what happens to the average person with pollen or animal allergies. Most allergies are irritating but ultimately harmless in the long run, unless an underlying medical problem like asthma is already present.

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.

I have no idea what the trilobite evolutionary tree looks like, and I have no problem admitting that.

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?

Ikester, I am honestly just confused about the problem you had with what I posted, because I can’t see anything wrong with it. I don’t think I’m “pitching a fit”. In fact, I’ve been very calm and civil and I am trying my best to address everything you’ve said. If I’ve missed anything, I can assure you it was not intentional. So rather than giving me “a taste of what I dished out”, perhaps you could tell me specifically where I went wrong so that I can attempt to fix my mistake.

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

If I know what the problem was in my post, I can avoid the same mistakes in the future. How am I supposed to learn from my mistakes if I don’t even know what they are?

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

If the photo is from a reliable source, the ape on the left is definitely not a chimpanzee because humans did not evolve from chimps. Google Images shows pictures from all over the web, not just sites that are consistent with evolution. Evolutionists do not believe that humans came from chimps.

Nice dodge.

It was not a dodge at all. You said, and I quote: “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?” As a reply, I provided an analogy. I gave you a very direct response: “I think it’s possible to talk about stages even in a case where there may not be discrete numerical steps.” I then went on to provide an analogy of a situation (the growth of a plant) in which stages exist, but there is not a set number of them. I even linked this analogy back to the topic of evolution: “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.”

In what way did I dodge your question?

LOL, a Dawkins supported.

There are many things Dawkins has said that I disagree with. I often find him too arrogant and he has made many disrespectful comments towards religious people which I think are uncalled for. But he is an excellent writer, and his books on evolution are written in a way that is clear and easy to understand. The Blind Watchmaker addresses the topic of how evolution can function without intelligence, and I think it is a worthwhile read.

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.

You use the word “correct” as if there is only one way to develop a working eye. Eyes develop because vision aids in survival, so any genes which facilitate vision will be selected for. Keep in mind two things:

1) There is more than one type of functional eye, and any eye will be better than no eye at all. You mention things like color vision, extraocular muscles, eye lashes, and eyelids. None of these things are necessary components for vision. An eye that can only differentiate between light and dark may be very primitive, but it would still improve the organism’s chance of survival.

2) The human eye did not develop independently of all other eyes, but rather evolved from more primitive eyes. In other words, we’re not starting from scratch. Evolution is not about going from nothing to complexity in a single step. The first eyes would be those that could only tell light from dark, followed by eyes that can focus and see color, and so on. These variations in complexity can be seen looking at animals today, from flatworms with basic eyespots to mammals with advanced vision. To suggest that every component of a complex human eye must have evolved at the same time goes against how evolution works.


Support only evolution?

In my opinion, the fossil record supports evolution much better than creation. Evolution predicts that extant mammals should not be found in the lower layers with dinosaurs, and this is what we observe.
If all the kinds were created at the same time, including dinosaurs, I would not predict the distribution of fossils we see today. I would predict that mammals (including humans) and dinosaurs should be mixed together to some extent. I would also expect to see some remnants of human civilization in the lower layers, such as tools, art, and building supplies. The fossil record can work with creationism by suggesting possible explanations for the distribution of fossils we observe, but I don’t think it supports creationism.


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.

I’m using the definition of macroevolution that can be found in most evolution textbooks and websites: any evolutionary change which occurs at or above the level of species. This includes speciation. Macroevolution is an evolutionist term, not a creationist one. By choosing to define it as something it is not (one kind changing into another) you are misrepresenting evolution and therefore using a strawman argument. As you posted earlier:

Strawman: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.



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

Because according to the Bible, Jesus physically grabs Peter’s hand when he begins to sink. There is no mention of Jesus being able to separate his spirit from his body... he is described as being fully human, which is why he was able to die on the cross.

#91 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 15 August 2011 - 05:43 PM

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.

I’m unwilling to admit it? I started my sentence with “No one knows where matter came from...”, which sounds like a pretty willing admission to me. It also sounds like a pretty direct answer, so I don’t appreciate you accusing me of dodging the question.

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.

Again, I did not dodge the question at all. You asked: “Can non-cell matter produce living cell matter?” and I replied, “Yes, I think it could” and went on to elaborate why. I never said (or implied) that life was easy to create. Abiogenesis would be a very improbable event because it would require such specific conditions. Considering how many planets are in the universe, I don’t see anything unreasonable about improbability.

Please explain to me how I dodged your question, and how I’m building a strawman.

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.

Like I said, I really don’t know much about black holes but I somehow doubt they break every single law of physics. Maybe you could give me an example of one, because I’d rather not start a whole new thread on black holes.

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

I don’t see how these would be selective pressures for a new DNA template. As long as the species lives long enough to reproduce and care for its offspring (if necessary), there is no selective pressure that would favour a longer lifespan. And the opportunity to live in space is not a realistic selective pressure either, since most species have adequate resources here on earth. As for the comet, evolution does not occur with future events in mind so I don’t know what you mean by this.

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.

According to that link, his sample size was too small, his measurements were inconsistent, and his results were inconclusive. Furthermore, he used an open scale which could easily be affected by changes in air pressure or temperature. It also wouldn’t take into account any gases leaving the body from the airways or by evaporation. Besides, why would it be expected that a soul has weight? Isn’t the whole point of a soul that it exists beyond the realm of matter?

And you never answered my question about what it would take to disprove creationism. I gave you a list, can you make one for me?

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.

Your exact words were “No it's not consistent with evolution because what it supposedly evolved from also survived.” And so I asked you, “What did it supposedly evolve from?” If you do not know what it evolved from, how can you possibly make a claim about survival and whether or not the octopus example is consistent with evolution?

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,

There’s groundwater if that’s what you’re referring to, but it’s not a layer of pure water surrounded by sediment. What difference does it make if water was buried in the flood anyways?

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.

I understand what a strawman argument is and I do not feel that I have used any in this discussion. If I have, please point it out to me. I also disagree with your constant accusations that I am dodging your questions when I am making an effort to address each one directly.

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

I’m not afraid to consider creationism, and I do consider it as I’m reading the posts here. Evolution is not a religion; I do not worship it, nor do I have any personal attachment to it. I believe in evolution because I feel that it is better supported by evidence and more logical. If evidence arose which conclusively disproved evolution, or proved creationism, I would have no trouble abandoning the theory.

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

I never implied the dinosaur bone was fake, and if I did please point out exactly how I did so. As I already said, I really don’t know enough about it.

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.

So because evolutionists have acted poorly before, you’re going to call me a liar when I say that I have limited time to post here in the evening? I can understand why you might ban an evolutionist faster than you would a creationist, but I hope you would only do so if there was a legitimate reason. I have made an effort to be polite and follow the forum rules ever since I signed up two years ago. If I do something that is out of line, I would appreciate it if you would tell me exactly where I went wrong so it doesn’t happen again. That being said, you have been accusing me of things which I do not feel are warranted, such as dodging your questions and misrepresenting creationism (strawman arguments). That makes me think you are either not reading my posts, or you are assuming my intentions are bad despite my efforts to be respectful.

#92 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 August 2011 - 03:09 AM

I’m not afraid to consider creationism, and I do consider it as I’m reading the posts here. Evolution is not a religion; I do not worship it, nor do I have any personal attachment to it. I believe in evolution because I feel that it is better supported by evidence and more logical. If evidence arose which conclusively disproved evolution, or proved creationism, I would have no trouble abandoning the theory.

Hi Isabella,
Can I just say one thing? Evolution is not a religion, but it is still a belief. Yes, it has supporting evidence, but as I was looking around the other day I ran into "Correlation does not imply causation..." on wiki. Look it up. Alot of times, the big evolution machine gets to going on some new find, like the homology of genes, and that's it. Then you hear about it for years, in textbooks, media, etc.

Recently, we had a poster come on here, who used "unipro" software to make an arguement for protein homology, and the case for common descent. I was very busy at the time, and did not have time to document what I was at first saying--which he pointed out. Finally, I did some research on orthologous proteins, which are proteins that have a high percent of homology in unrelated biota. Two things I found (forgive me, I'm hurrying, so I don't have the names of the everything)-- they've found that we have an 80% homology in our introns with sea anemones. This flies in the face of what is taught, and cotradicts the common descent hypothesis. It rather lends support for two things. That introns are not "junk" which is a growing revelation to the science community--totally expected by creationists--and that of design--that the reason for this 'coincidence' is that the genes are designed. Because they are NEEDED for the necessary function, they are there, and that is why there is common sequences.

The second thing I found (and again I would have to re-research this--sorry) is on "unipro." I looked up 100% homology, and found that there is a protein in our cytoplasm that is 100% with mice but not with primates. Why? This also flies in the face of what is taught. If evolution is true, then there should be a steady progression in the homology between mice, prmates, and humans.

You say evolution is logical. But here is something that shows why it's illogical to believe evolution. You have to cherry pick your correlations to build a case for it, and that is why I can't stand it (the belief, not the people who believe it). I think it the one of the greatest errors of mankind, and has caused many to depart from the faith.

#93 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 16 August 2011 - 03:18 AM

Genes do not possess intelligence or foresight. When I used the phrase “the genes determine”, I did not mean to imply any sort of personification. Temperature determines when water will freeze, and genes determine what proteins are produced. The latter example is biological, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intelligent or conscious process.



Genes are not intelligent? According to science they make people drink, live certain lifestyles etc... A gene that makes a person have a "tendency" to do something is a gene that becomes part of the thought process.

There are two types of diabetes, and I was referring to type II which is becoming extremely common as a result of diet and lifestyle. You brought up diabetes as an example of a disease that evolution should have “weeded out”, and my point was that it’s not determined by genes alone.


Agreed.

When it comes to diseases that are purely genetic in nature, the mutations keep popping up in the population which is why they never completely disappear. I know a man with haemophilia who has no family history of the disease. He was the first in his family to develop the mutation.


Then maybe evolution does not weed out such things as claimed.

I’m not denying that allergies can be very serious in some cases, but this is not what happens to the average person with pollen or animal allergies. Most allergies are irritating but ultimately harmless in the long run, unless an underlying medical problem like asthma is already present.


okay

I have no idea what the trilobite evolutionary tree looks like, and I have no problem admitting that.


That's because there is not one. There is not even a close relative. It's like it just poofed itself into that layer with all it's fully formed organs and systems.

Ikester, I am honestly just confused about the problem you had with what I posted, because I can’t see anything wrong with it. I don’t think I’m “pitching a fit”. In fact, I’ve been very calm and civil and I am trying my best to address everything you’ve said. If I’ve missed anything, I can assure you it was not intentional. So rather than giving me “a taste of what I dished out”, perhaps you could tell me specifically where I went wrong so that I can attempt to fix my mistake.



Referring back to the beginning of this thread. The first problem.

If I know what the problem was in my post, I can avoid the same mistakes in the future. How am I supposed to learn from my mistakes if I don’t even know what they are?


I realize that you are probably to busy to post any sooner. But I debate in several threads here and it's hard to remember what everyone says. And frankly I get tired of having to go back and read what was said, point it out, then have you say HUH? So if you don't know I doubt me going back is really going to make that much difference.

Now I realize that you are trying and I give you credit for that. But it has come to a point where it does not seem to matter anymore.

If the photo is from a reliable source, the ape on the left is definitely not a chimpanzee because humans did not evolve from chimps. Google Images shows pictures from all over the web, not just sites that are consistent with evolution. Evolutionists do not believe that humans came from chimps.


1) When I say ape evolutionists say chimp. When I say chimp, they say ape. The only reason I stick to chimp is because that is what the DNA comparison is always compared to, is it not?
2) Why use chimps in DNA comparison to imply that we did come from chimps if we did not?

And common ancestor does not work either because that's a board answer made up to cover a board spectrum answer where there is not one. Being unable to be specific means there is no answer. Common ancestor is not specific.

It was not a dodge at all. You said, and I quote: “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?” As a reply, I provided an analogy. I gave you a very direct response: “I think it’s possible to talk about stages even in a case where there may not be discrete numerical steps.” I then went on to provide an analogy of a situation (the growth of a plant) in which stages exist, but there is not a set number of them. I even linked this analogy back to the topic of evolution: “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.”
In what way did I dodge your question?


Then the pictures portray something that's not right so that someone can make the wrong conclusion. To also imply what really did not happen. Because if I say chimp, you say ape. If I say ape you say chimp. If I'm being to specific by naming species, or asking a specific question on the same subject, then you say common ancestor to make sure all bases are covered. Being able to make yourself "look" right does not mean that you are. And I'm not saying that you said all those things, I just know what is common in these types of debates.

There are many things Dawkins has said that I disagree with. I often find him too arrogant and he has made many disrespectful comments towards religious people which I think are uncalled for. But he is an excellent writer, and his books on evolution are written in a way that is clear and easy to understand. The Blind Watchmaker addresses the topic of how evolution can function without intelligence, and I think it is a worthwhile read.



Yet I have yet to see any atheist-evolutionist voice that disagreement and dedicate a webpage to that. It takes a creationist to point it out: http://yecheadquarters.org/

You use the word “correct” as if there is only one way to develop a working eye. Eyes develop because vision aids in survival, so any genes which facilitate vision will be selected for. Keep in mind two things:

1) There is more than one type of functional eye, and any eye will be better than no eye at all. You mention things like color vision, extraocular muscles, eye lashes, and eyelids. None of these things are necessary components for vision. An eye that can only differentiate between light and dark may be very primitive, but it would still improve the organism’s chance of survival.


An eye that becomes damaged because the needed things to protect it and keep it in working order do not exist, is an eye that is worthless.

2) The human eye did not develop independently of all other eyes, but rather evolved from more primitive eyes. In other words, we’re not starting from scratch. Evolution is not about going from nothing to complexity in a single step. The first eyes would be those that could only tell light from dark, followed by eyes that can focus and see color, and so on. These variations in complexity can be seen looking at animals today, from flatworms with basic eyespots to mammals with advanced vision. To suggest that every component of a complex human eye must have evolved at the same time goes against how evolution works.


That idea is made under the assumption that evolution is true. Making the evidence conform to the theory is not science.

In my opinion, the fossil record supports evolution much better than creation. Evolution predicts that extant mammals should not be found in the lower layers with dinosaurs, and this is what we observe.


LOL, you forget about living fossils. I hear there are almost 30 known living fossils. Some from the very bottom layer.

If all the kinds were created at the same time, including dinosaurs, I would not predict the distribution of fossils we see today. I would predict that mammals (including humans) and dinosaurs should be mixed together to some extent. I would also expect to see some remnants of human civilization in the lower layers, such as tools, art, and building supplies. The fossil record can work with creationism by suggesting possible explanations for the distribution of fossils we observe, but I don’t think it supports creationism.


Here's some good questions for you. How does time lay layers like we see? And why do the type of layers repeat in a certain order as if they were sorted? And why are the layers laid exactly the same way all around the world when not every part of the world is exactly the same (has the same material to lay layers)?

According to the Bible, the flood started under the oceans as the fountains of the deep broke up. What this means is that the sediments spewed up from that would first bury ocean living creature in their habitat area starting with bottom dwellers working upward. And that is what we see. If the fossil record solely supported evolution, the progression would not be in the order of the area of habitat of where life lived in the ocean. Then the rain started which which helped flood the land and the animals from land got buried last. And that is what we see.

Coal take millions of years to form, correct? So no human artifacts should be found in coal yet there is.
Posted Image

Doorknobs found in coal from a shipwreck.

Oil being made in less than a day: http://www.yecheadqu...g/shame.41.html

I’m using the definition of macroevolution that can be found in most evolution textbooks and websites: any evolutionary change which occurs at or above the level of species. This includes speciation. Macroevolution is an evolutionist term, not a creationist one. By choosing to define it as something it is not (one kind changing into another) you are misrepresenting evolution and therefore using a strawman argument.



Question: If speciation and macroevolution are the same thing, then why have 2 words for the same thing? Evolutionists have made it this way because they cannot give even one example of one kind turning into another. So to make it all sound like it's been proven, they fudge the definitions to make words that define evolution sound the same.

What is it called when a lizard turns into a bird? Is it speciation, or macro-evolution? It's not a strawman if you cannot define what one kind changing into another kind is called.

Because according to the Bible, Jesus physically grabs Peter’s hand when he begins to sink. There is no mention of Jesus being able to separate his spirit from his body... he is described as being fully human, which is why he was able to die on the cross.


Can you definitely say that a spirit cannot grab anything physical?

#94 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 16 August 2011 - 03:57 AM

I’m unwilling to admit it? I started my sentence with “No one knows where matter came from...”, which sounds like a pretty willing admission to me. It also sounds like a pretty direct answer, so I don’t appreciate you accusing me of dodging the question.



If you don't know where matter came from, then big bang falls apart and so does the time-line it supports.

Again, I did not dodge the question at all. You asked: “Can non-cell matter produce living cell matter?” and I replied, “Yes, I think it could” and went on to elaborate why. I never said (or implied) that life was easy to create. Abiogenesis would be a very improbable event because it would require such specific conditions. Considering how many planets are in the universe, I don’t see anything unreasonable about improbability.



The number of planets are not the only issue.
1) The size of the star that provides heat to the planet.
2) The distance from that star relative to it's size that would allow life (not to hot or cold). And the star has to be stable. It cannot be just any type star, it has to be like ours. A unstable star can strip the atmosphere off a planet with one bad solar flare.
3) Water.
4) A strong enough magnetic field to deflect the solar wind from the star so it does not strip away the atmosphere.
5) A ozone layer to keep out most of the harmful rays of the star.
6) The right barometric pressure and temperature so that water can exist in 3 phases (solid, liquid, gas). Example: Water on Mars would boil at 50 degrees F.
7) A tilt of the axis (which is caused by the moon's orbit position) to allow seasonal changes for plants.
8) A moon that's not to close or far away to regulate the tides and clean the river and streams.
9) A atmosphere that does not have to much CO2 which would cause a green house effect.
And I could go on for quite a while listing what is required. But the main thing, no matter how well suited a planet is for life. If there is no DNA source, life is not going to happen. You factor in all that is required and the number of planets is still not enough.

Please explain how I dodged your question and am building a strawman?


To what point? You think speciation and macroevolution is the same when it's not. So you'll just take 2 more words and say they are the same as well.

Like I said, I really don’t know much about black holes but I somehow doubt they break every single law of physics. Maybe you could give me an example of one, because I’d rather not start a whole new thread on black holes.


They claim black holes alter time.

I don’t see how these would be selective pressures for a new DNA template. As long as the species lives long enough to reproduce and care for its offspring (if necessary), there is no selective pressure that would favour a longer lifespan. And the opportunity to live in space is not a realistic selective pressure either, since most species have adequate resources here on earth. As for the comet, evolution does not occur with future events in mind so I don’t know what you mean by this.


I'm not speaking of a new DNA template, I'm speaking of a whole new template. Science is always finding flaws in out DNA, why did not evolution correct this by evolving a whole new template for life? And you will hear about the comet as it gets closer and the news makes it top priority for the ratings.

According to that link, his sample size was too small, his measurements were inconsistent, and his results were inconclusive. Furthermore, he used an open scale which could easily be affected by changes in air pressure or temperature. It also wouldn’t take into account any gases leaving the body from the airways or by evaporation. Besides, why would it be expected that a soul has weight? Isn’t the whole point of a soul that it exists beyond the realm of matter?


I guess you did not read it as well as you thought. But there is no use in debating it because it's clear you will only come to one conclusion regardless.

And you never answered my question about what it would take to disprove creationism. I gave you a list, can you make one for me?


Disprove the existence of God.

Your exact words were “No it's not consistent with evolution because what it supposedly evolved from also survived.” And so I asked you, “What did it supposedly evolve from?” If you do not know what it evolved from, how can you possibly make a claim about survival and whether or not the octopus example is consistent with evolution?

There’s groundwater if that’s what you’re referring to, but it’s not a layer of pure water surrounded by sediment. What difference does it make if water was buried in the flood anyways?


I understand what a strawman argument is and I do not feel that I have used any in this discussion. If I have, please point it out to me. I also disagree with your constant accusations that I am dodging your questions when I am making an effort to address each one directly.


I’m not afraid to consider creationism, and I do consider it as I’m reading the posts here. Evolution is not a religion; I do not worship it, nor do I have any personal attachment to it. I believe in evolution because I feel that it is better supported by evidence and more logical. If evidence arose which conclusively disproved evolution, or proved creationism, I would have no trouble abandoning the theory.


I never implied the dinosaur bone was fake, and if I did please point out exactly how I did so. As I already said, I really don’t know enough about it.


So because evolutionists have acted poorly before, you’re going to call me a liar when I say that I have limited time to post here in the evening? I can understand why you might ban an evolutionist faster than you would a creationist, but I hope you would only do so if there was a legitimate reason. I have made an effort to be polite and follow the forum rules ever since I signed up two years ago. If I do something that is out of line, I would appreciate it if you would tell me exactly where I went wrong so it doesn’t happen again. That being said, you have been accusing me of things which I do not feel are warranted, such as dodging your questions and misrepresenting creationism (strawman arguments). That makes me think you are either not reading my posts, or you are assuming my intentions are bad despite my efforts to be respectful.


It has become clear to me that you will disagree just to be disagreeable. So I bow out of this debate.

#95 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 21 August 2011 - 01:35 PM

Hi Isabella,
Can I just say one thing? Evolution is not a religion, but it is still a belief. Yes, it has supporting evidence, but as I was looking around the other day I ran into "Correlation does not imply causation..." on wiki. Look it up. Alot of times, the big evolution machine gets to going on some new find, like the homology of genes, and that's it. Then you hear about it for years, in textbooks, media, etc.

Recently, we had a poster come on here, who used "unipro" software to make an arguement for protein homology, and the case for common descent. I was very busy at the time, and did not have time to document what I was at first saying--which he pointed out. Finally, I did some research on orthologous proteins, which are proteins that have a high percent of homology in unrelated biota. Two things I found (forgive me, I'm hurrying, so I don't have the names of the everything)-- they've found that we have an 80% homology in our introns with sea anemones. This flies in the face of what is taught, and cotradicts the common descent hypothesis.

I fail to see how this contradicts evolution. We know that highly conserved sequences exist, so this isn’t a surprise.

It rather lends support for two things. That introns are not "junk" which is a growing revelation to the science community--totally expected by creationists--and that of design--that the reason for this 'coincidence' is that the genes are designed. Because they are NEEDED for the necessary function, they are there, and that is why there is common sequences.

Many mRNAs undergo alternate splicing, so the sequences which constitute introns may vary depending on the final product. The idea that introns may serve a purpose in some cases is not new, and again it does not contradict evolution in any way.

The second thing I found (and again I would have to re-research this--sorry) is on "unipro." I looked up 100% homology, and found that there is a protein in our cytoplasm that is 100% with mice but not with primates. Why? This also flies in the face of what is taught. If evolution is true, then there should be a steady progression in the homology between mice, prmates, and humans.

But there is a steady progression of homology overall. In terms of genetic similarity, humans are much closer to primates than they are to the other animals. It may not hold true for every single protein, but it does for the majority. Anomalous data is not necessarily falsifying—it may just necessitate further explanations.

You say evolution is logical. But here is something that shows why it's illogical to believe evolution. You have to cherry pick your correlations to build a case for it, and that is why I can't stand it (the belief, not the people who believe it). I think it the one of the greatest errors of mankind, and has caused many to depart from the faith.

Again, if the majority of data does fit the model I’d hardly say the correlations are being “cherry picked”. Imagine a scatter plot with an obvious positive correlation. If you drew a best fit line on the plot, not all the points would fall on the line. In fact, there may even be some outlying points which completely go against the trend. Does that mean we should completely ignore the correlation?

#96 Falconjudge

Falconjudge

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montana

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:59 AM

Debunking evolution is not really about finding evidence against it as it is using their own evidence against them. The reason is because it's not what they tell you, it's what they won't tell you. Basically what is hidden. Here are a few examples:

1) The percentage difference between chimps and humans. 2 percent or less sounds really close, right? But what is not being told is the actual number the percentage comes off of. Which by the way is 3 billion. You won't find that number printed anywhere in any school text book. This is because if people knew when being taught evolution the actual number, they would also figure out that not as close as it seems.

2) Evolution and the immune system. Evolutionists stay away from this subject like it's the plague. Why? The immune system, and how it works, debunks evolution all by itself. And what's even worse is an animal's immune system is much stronger than a human's so changes in animals will be fought harder. Just go and research what's involved in organ transplants, and the immune system, and find out. Even though the change is within the same species, the immune system will fight it unless immune system suppressants are taken for the person's whole remaining life. Which brings up the question: What suppressed the immune system during the changes of evolution?

3) The problems with the fossil record. The fossil record AKA Geological Column, has several problems. None of which evolutionists will address because the fossil record is the holy grail of the proof of evolution. But does it support evolution to the degree claimed? Nope. And here's why:

a) Evolution is about simple life evolving into more complex life, right? So if the fossil record solely supports evolution and nothing else. Then the fossil record should support this idea 100%, correct? But it does not. In the bottom most layer we should have only simple life. No fully formed organs or systems. But the trilobite and the nautilus both have complex organs and systems. So does complexity just poof itself onto the scene, or does it evolve? And since it has to evolve in the evolution process, where is the evidence of this for these lifeforms in the fossil record?

B) Living fossils also pose a problem for the fossil record. This is because the living fossil is found several layers down and alive today. Yet every living fossil has the same problem. There is no evidence of it surviving until today. Example: let's say one living fossil is found 7 layers down and alive today. Yet it is not found in any layer in between. Which means the record of it surviving until today, is missing in 6 layers of so called accurate record keeping of time. This would be fine if this were on one or two living fossils, but it applies to "every" living fossil found. And there are about 25-30 known, so that's 25-30 problems that cannot be explained away.

c) Age dating markers cross contaminate. If a layer dates 1 million years old. And you bury a bone that dates only 100 years old in that 1 million year aged layer. Over a period of time the dating markers will cross contaminate the bone and make it date the same age as the layer. So regardless of how long ago that animal lived, it will date according to what layer it's found in. Which does not prove how long ago it lived. This is because the layer determines this, not time.

4) Evolution has "always" bean about life adapting to it's surroundings. But what about life making it's surroundings adapt to it's needs in order to survive? Plankton have the ability to make clouds when the sun gets to hot for them to survive: http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

The problems with explaining this away to support evolution only are numerous:

a) How does such an ability evolve?
B) How does such a lower life-form evolve this ability when it's generally still simple in design?
c) How long does such a process take to evolve?
etc...

5) Then we have some animals abilities that are to complex to be explained by the evolution process. One as an example is the mimic octopus as shown in the video below.

Now in the next video they claim to have mapped how it evolved.

I could not get video to show here, so I left the link to it.

Remember I said earlier about how they won't tell you everything? What's missing here is the complexity of that step to be able to do this. Example:

a) The outer skin and tissue have to evolve to do this.
B) The nervous system has to evolve to support this.
c) The brain has to evolve to control this.

This is not like a person being dark skinned or lite skinned because of adapting to their surroundings. This is way way more complex than that. This is how they make evolution sound like it answers everything because they hide what cannot be answered hoping you won't go looking into it. And most don't. It's like what I pointed out earlier about only the percentage being used to prove we evolved from Chimps. Not giving the whole number of what the percentage came from is making evolution sound easy. Just like they are doing here. Easy so that it will be easy for you to believe it. And once you are convinced, you will defend it which is what keeps it alive and unfalsifiable.

6) It's takes a lot of time for evolution to work. Yet there is evidence that this amount of time never passed. Examples:

a) T-Rex blood and tissue found inside of bone. And there is a reason they won't go looking for more. Now if this supported evolution, every bone found would be examined. But it does not so this won't happen. To drill a small hole into several dinosaur bones and find blood and tissue, would make them have to face the reality that there is evidence for a young earth. But ignoring it and refusing to do more research keeps the current theory safe from any opposing views, and unfalsifiable.

B) Oil takes millions of years to form. Yet there are examples of oil and petroleum products being made in days, or in some cases, just hours.

c) Coal takes millions of years to form. Yet processes exist to make synthetic coal in less than a year.

d) Ica stones have drawings of dinosaurs and humans. The evolutionists think they have this debunked. problem is, the more recent finds of petrified dinosaur skin match the designs on the Ica stones proving they are not all fake as claimed.



And on and on I could go on young earth evidence.

7) Evolution is a scientific theory. Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory? Let's look at how one website tries to define this: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Here is what is not being put forth on that page. There is really no "exact" criteria that has to be met. According to how this is written, any half descent theory can be this. The reason they won't list it as 1,2,3 criteria etc... Is because it would make evolution have to meet an exact criteria that it cannot meet. If anyone can list it 1,2,3, etc... on what criteria has to be met. You can start another thread and we can test evolution to see if it actually meets that criteria. But let's be honest, no one can actually do this or it would have already be done.

And I could go on and on. but post is long enough.

One more thing, I already know some evolutionists will be tempted to use the Nobel Prize comment here. Which since they gave it to Gore makes it have no meaning to me and many have lost respect for it because of that. So the comment would be pointless.


This will be a long one. I haven't seen anyone in this thread reply to this, specifically, point-by-point, so I shall do so.

1 ) 2% of billions is still 2%. That's what a percentage IS. That's even better evidence, that our expectations would be met with such numbers! This point is both misleading and irrelevant, and dishonest.

2 ) The immune system doesn't fight genetics. Ask people with genetic disabilities like gigantism. Besides, evolution works mostly with regular generational changes building up over time, not just mutations. Whoever thought this question up is either, again, dishonest, or ignorant.

3 ) a ) That's not how evolution works. "Simple to complex" is a simplified way of stating it that the uneducated latch on to as literal. It's just organisms' generational changes to suit the environment. The question is dishonest, yet again.
b ) Easy. That's not how evolution works. If a creature is well-suited to life, it will survive. Not everything undergoes drastic change. That's how it works: it has no guidance, a body plan that works, won't provide as much need for change as time goes on. Plus, fossilization is rare and random, so maybe we just haven't found them in between yet.
c ) How does it get buried? This isn't soil, it's sedimentary rock! You'd need dynamite or chisels and pickaxes. Marks like those are easily identifiable. And if erosion digs it up, it usually isn't re-covered, and if it is, the new layer will be drastically younger. You think researchers won't check? That's a really lame objection, by any length of common sense.

4 )... What? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Of course, creatures are part of the environment! Are you saying that other organisms' actions are not included in the environmental factors? Why would you assume that? Besides, with the plankton, the clouds are just side effects of their natural habits that ended up staying around because they are beneficial.
a ) See above.
b ) ... No life form can be considered "lower" than any other. They exist, or they don't, that's it. See above.
c ) That's hard to measure, since non-diatom microscopic organisms rarely leave fossils.

5 ) Nothing is "too complex" to have evolved. We see simpler forms of color changing in squids and chameleons, used for communication, and just as a lucky reaction to environmental factors ( chameleons often color change do to temperature and the like, not to hide ). Primitive forms of features are still beneficial.
a ) True. And apparently, it has.
b ) The nervous system is pretty in tune with the rest of the body. It all would have happened subtly at the same time.
c ) See above. Why on earth would you list these separately...? The brain is part of the nervous system.

6 ) Hoo boy.
a )... Wow. Paleontologists actually love these developments, and study them with utmost thoroughness. The reason some don't like to crack the bones is that they view them as valuable museum specimens rather than scientific finds. Just because something is well-preserved, doesn't mean it's not old.
b ) Oh? What, exactly? And you said 'products', not the original substance itself. There was much dishonesty in this list, but that kind of misleading language is both unethical, and ineffective on people who actually read the post. Please avoid such obvious wordplay-type dishonesty in the future.
c ) See above. I note you say 'synthetic'. A great finding for oil executives, not much for naturalists. Naturalists study how it forms under ordinary circumstances.
d ) ... Seriously, you're saying that something that has already been completely verified as a hoax is valid because the decorative markings on the drawings look vaguely like skin patterns on dinosaur skin. Pebble markings found commonly on modern-day lizards, to be exact. I think you're getting desperate; it's the only explanation.

7 ) Scientific theories are made by looking at facts and thinking of a system that would explain them. Evolution fits the evidence. You're imposing the order of your own belief ( theory [Bible being literally true] coming first, then having believers scrounge around for something that vaguely seems to indicate that it's true ) onto science. That's not how it works. Facts come first, then a theory is formed to explain them. Get it straight.

Woo! Done. That was a horribly misleading, ill-researched post.

#97 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 07 September 2011 - 01:18 PM

" Nothing is 'too complex' to have evolved."

Then let's see it. Show us visible evidence that an organism has transformed into a genetically different (non-species, non-family) organism. I have been in this conflict for 45 yrs and waited to see if Darwinians can demonstrate such a change...but...they always start with moths and end up with moths. They always start with drosophilas and end up with drosophila's, no matter how many thousand generations and time they take to do their experiments, stasis within the family is the result. But you're welcome to demonstrate such a thing if you think you can.

#98 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 07 September 2011 - 05:55 PM

Falconjudge
Moths? Thousands of generations? What? Are you aware of the time evolution takes? Oh, sure, you can ask for the moon. But you're trying to ask for the moon to crash to the earth! Macro evolution is a process that isn't visible in 1-3000 years! Beyond that, don't bother lying and saying you've been "waiting" for evidence. They've found more than they need! You just refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit with how you think the world should be. You ask for a kick, then move the goalpost to the other side of the field after the goal has been scored and say it doesn't count, just to lie and say, "Ha, our team won!"


I am an ex-evolutionist. I didn't move any goalposts. I merely asked a question, my finger pointing critic. Why don't you be patient enough to find out where I stand before launching your personal attacks?

You want one? Here's http://www.talkorigi...features/whales


An admission that you don't have a single observation with empirical proof that one organism actually changed into another one.

Baloney. Where is the physical evidence of a genetic link between whales and land animals? You didn't give that and neither did talk/origins. Don't try to escape this, skeptic. Darwinians are constantly harping about the closeness of man (46 chromosomes) and ape (48 chromosomes). So where is the genetic connection between this:

Posted Image
Balaena mysticetus

Whales = 42/44 chromosomes...and ambulocetus ?? chromosomes. Not only so but you need to be able to tell us what genes were involved in making those changes and how it was done. If it is so simple to observe things on the micro level then why not on the macro level?

Posted Image

Furthermore, have you even considered the vast difference in size of the organisms evos claim have 'evolved' over time? The picture here represents the difference in size between an adult ambulocetus and a typical adult pakicetus. Are you kidding me?

Posted Image

I want to see the genetic connection in detail or else you will have no better argument than a comparion between dogs (cannines) and thylacines (marsupials), or between lice (18 chromosomes) and aphids (36 chromosomes). Mere anatomical similarities is not enough to establish evolutionary change. When are you going to learn that, evo person?

Very well documented case. But then, you'll say "But that's not evidence! That's just (insert hilariously lame justification to dismiss uncomfortable facts)!" And that's what I mean. That's all the creationist movement ever does, in my experience, and its explanations simply do not hold water. Ever.


You aren't telling the truth. If that were true then neither myself nor any other convert from evolution would have been persuaded to reject evolution in the first place.

Also, http://dinosaurs.abo...ikouichthys.htm > http://dinosaurs.abo.../arandaspis.htm > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkenia > http://www.nature.co...re07855_F3.html

Sorry, btw, research was done on google, as I have to be out of here in literally 15 minutes. Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeothyris > http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dimetrodon > http://en.wikipedia....i/Procynosuchus > http://en.wikipedia....iki/Thrinaxodon > http://en.wikipedia....ki/Morganucodon > http://en.wikipedia....iki/Yanoconodon

Or Wikipedia, as it were.


You are NOT giving empirical substantiation that those creatures evolved! Do you know what 'empirical' means? I gave you a few organisms above that are very close in an observable anatomical comparison but they are not related, either by classification nor by genetics. So how do you think you can establish proof of a connection unless (1) the pieces all fit together (they don't!) and (2) they have a verifiable genetic connection? You can't.

Look, take time to see Adam Nagy's refutation of
your position at
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2364

Be sure and scroll his stuff to get it all.

And do some real thinking for a change and not blindly accept usual hum-drum tortured logic that you get from the talk/origins, P.Z.Meyers mind-control gang.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users