Jump to content


Photo

How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#21 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 03 August 2011 - 04:07 PM

Study the changes the immune system will allow before it attacks. a perfect example of this is a immune system disease that many people are familiar with. And that is arthritis. It's where the immune system attacks the cartilage in your joints. making them swell, inflame and damage. Is not the cartilage the same DNA as the rest of the Body? How much different would the cartilage have to be for the immune system to even notice? So the point is not the 98% of the DNA that the same, but the amount it takes in difference that the immune system will react to, that in the case of arthritis, cripples and damages.

If our immune system was not as sensitive as it is, we would all be sickly and our life expectancy would be half of what it is. Example: Our bodies fight and kill cancer cells everyday. Cancer is not that much different from noncancerous cells. So if the immune system is even slightly off to fight such a small change, we die. Understand? What this calculates to is not 5 or 10 steps between chimps and humans, but millions. Millions of missing links and a million times more time required to allow it to happen.

This is why you won't see sites on how evolution worked around the immune system. If you type in immune system and evolution, all you will find are sites trying to explain how the immune system evolved, not how evolution evolved working with the immune system.


Difference is a measurement of change, right? So since you don't seem to get it I will ask a question that more points to what I'm looking for. How much can change can there be before the immune system will react? All the change you desire, or is there a point to how much change can happen all at once?


You have some misunderstandings about how the immune system works. First of all, not all mutations will lead to the production of an entirely new protein. In many cases, the mutation will alter the distribution or amount of a pre-existing protein. For example, the keratin proteins can form hooves, scales, feathers, hair, horns, and claws. These are very different structures, but they use the same structural protein. Secondly, not all protein changes are going to trigger an immune response. The immune system responds to proteins called antigens, and these antigens are what doctors look for when they determine whether someone is a match for organ donation. If our body was that sensitive to foreign proteins, we would be allergic to nearly every food we ingested. Furthermore, human heart valves are commonly repaired with cow or pig tissue. The genetic difference between humans and cows is even greater than 2%, yet the immune system does not attack the foreign tissue. The immune system is not a security alarm which will suddenly go off after a certain threshold is reached; it’s very sensitive to certain changes, but not to others. And I will again stress the point that a heritable mutation must occur in the sperm or egg cells, which means it will be present in the individual from the moment of conception onwards. We’re not talking about spontaneous mutations occurring in the tissue of adults. I haven’t studied immune system development, but I suspect that an embryo has a much greater degree of immune flexibility than an adult. If the immune system was pre-programmed to “know” what foreign tissue looks like, there would be a big problem is the baby inherited mom’s antigens and dad’s immune system, unless mom and dad are genetically identical. Obviously that’s a huge over simplification of how inheritance works, but you see my point


How would such a ability evolve? If the the hormone was not there to secrete when the first evolving species appeared on the sin with their first pregnancy, the offspring dies species becomes extinct.
And about the different blood type. Same thing. If the protection between mother and child were not in place for the child to have a different blood type, they both can die. Species goes extinct.

Keep in mind that there would be stages in between laying eggs and placental mammals. Stages where immune suppression may not be essential to survival, but could be still highly advantageous in some cases. Evolution is about gradual change, not huge leaps.


Why even evolve the ability to have different blood types in the first place? What was it required to evolve this in order to survive? This is not even explainable by the evolution process because it does not fit "any" of the evolution mechanisms required for such a change to be warranted.

Your questions seem to be based on the misconception that evolution aims for pre-defined goals. My guess is blood types came about by random, harmless mutation. Neutral mutations, which neither help nor hinder survival, will often persist in the population at a relatively stable frequency. However, there are some theories out there about possible advantages to the various blood types, like resistance to certain diseases. If that’s the case, blood types could provide an evolutionary advantage.

Posted Image

Hmmm... I see a layer below trilobites, don’t you? It has very few fossils which is consistent with what I said about soft-bodied animals. The Cambrian layer is also a very large layer by the looks of it, and the picture doesn't indicate how high up in the layer animals like trilobites were found.

If science is going to refer to the fossil record as a "record", then it has to be somewhat accurate. If not then the holy grail of evolution is mere speculation. You cannot on one hand claim a record, and while on the other hand when the record does not support what you want it to, make excuses.

I would hardly say the fossil record is the “holy grail” of evolution. I was convinced of evolution while studying biology, not fossils. It’s not that fossils are inaccurate, but as I already explained the process of fossilization is such a rare event that we’re not guaranteed to find fossils of every living thing that ever existed.

Right. Is not matter... matter whether in it's liquid form or not? How do you classify molten rock, non-matter? What is the makeup of the sun considered, non-matter?

Rocks and stars are both made up of matter. But when a rock is melted, it releases argon gas and the clock is re-set at zero. So my point is that with these dating methods, you’re not measuring the formation of the matter itself but the formation of the specific rock, bone, etc. To answer your original question, all matter does not date the same because we’re not measuring the formation of the actual atoms composing these compounds.

God is a lawmaker, He is not a lawbreaker. So in order to make a 6,000 year old creation work under the current laws of physics, He would have to create with age. Example: If you had the ability to create a small universe inside a room. And while you could do anything, you could not break the laws that you made your creation work under. How would you have to create?


According to the Bible, God doesn’t care much for the laws of physics:

Jesus walks on water, which breaks the laws of density, weight, and buoyancy.

God parts the Red Sea, breaking the laws of pressure and air density.

Jesus feeds a crowd by multiplying fish and loaves of bread, which breaks the physical law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Jesus turns water into wine, and God turns a river into blood. Again, matter is being created and the laws of chemistry and being broken.

God/Jesus raise people from the dead, breaking the laws governing human physiology.

Every miracle in the Bible breaks the laws of physics in some way or another. The explanation I’m used to hearing is that God, being omnipotent, does not have to follow these laws. So why would he have to follow them when creating the Earth?

And there you go. You just proved my point. Nothing can or will ever be inconsistent with evolution, right? Evolution is perfection, it has no flaws, and never will. In fact it's so perfect that it's never been wrong even from it's beginning. Right?

No, there are findings which would certainly disprove evolution. But your example was simply an argument from incredulity: you could not think of a way that the mimic octopus evolved, therefore evolution is false. Hopefully you can see why this argument is a logical fallacy.

How much sediment would be brought up during a world wide flood? Water itself would also get buried with the biomass. The sediments also created the layers.

How would water get buried under rock? It has a lower density; the rock would sink.


Question: If time created the layers alone, why is all animal life buried like there was a flood? The Bible says the flood started when the fountains of the deep broke up. Which means marine life gets buried first. And because all the water came up, the sediments were burying things right where the lived. Which means bottom water dwellers first, which is what we see. Then middle water dwellers second, then top dwellers and land animals. Which goes right along with a flood. Can you explain that?


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

If the sediments were burying things right where they lived, why do we have fossils above the oil? The oil represents a large amount of biomass that was covered by sediment during the flood, correct? Yet we find plenty of fossils, of both marine and land dwelling animals, above the oil. Marine fossils are not restricted to the lowest layers. Furthermore, we see similar types of animals buried in the same layers but absent from others. Look at the picture of fossil layers you posted in your last reply, and you’ll notice that dinosaurs are restricted to a specific region below mammals. This includes flying dinosaurs... which should have held out the longest if sediment suddenly buried all living things, right? Why is it that we find no mammals below a certain point, and no dinosaurs above a certain point?


Let's see you carve a rock and make it look exact since you imply to be the local rock carving expert. And by the way, you have to use the Inca carving tools, not modern tools. Let's see how close you can get. Let's see if you can do better. Or would that make you face the reality of your claim?
You see you did not even take into consideration the primitive tools they used to do this. you just figured they had dremel tools, pre-cut patterns to follow etc... Why else would you claim it could be done better then it has?
Also, how would they know how they looked as well?



That’s exactly my point. They had very basic carving tools, and the pictures they were able to make are only crude representations of the way something might actually look. Which is why it’s a fairly poor argument to say that an Inca drawing must have been inspired by a specific type of dinosaur skin, when in reality the crosshatch pattern could represent any type of reptilian scale. And a large reptile does not necessarily have to represent an extinct dinosaur. There are plenty of paintings and carvings all over the world which show imagined creatures that are based off real ones, and I’m not about to go digging for unicorn fossils anytime soon.

#22 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:12 PM

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?


24th November, 1859. Is that specific enough?

#23 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 03 August 2011 - 09:34 PM

Your questions seem to be based on the misconception that evolution aims for pre-defined goals.

I hear that alot, but you don't think going from a single cell to a human being or bird is an upward (or "better") direction?

Hmmm... I see a layer below trilobites, don’t you? It has very few fossils which is consistent with what I said about soft-bodied animals. The Cambrian layer is also a very large layer by the looks of it, and the picture doesn't indicate how high up in the layer animals like trilobites were found.

Would you know why we don't find any transitional forms in between single-celled organisms and trilobites or jellyfish, which have millions of cells? I know not every creature is going to be fossilized, but you'd expect to find atleast one, right?

I would hardly say the fossil record is the “holy grail” of evolution. I was convinced of evolution while studying biology, not fossils. It’s not that fossils are inaccurate, but as I already explained the process of fossilization is such a rare event that we’re not guaranteed to find fossils of every living thing that ever existed.

When things die, they're going to rot or decay from the sun and the elements, unless they get buried by sediments quick enough to be preserved in them. Is this how you think all the bones, including the graveyards of fossils, were fossilized? There may be some cases I'm not aware of, but you don't find very many animals being fossilized today, because they die and rot. During the flood, these creatures would all be buried and fossilized. Thats why we find fossils of fish eating other fish or fish giving birth. Why would we find these? Why would we find marine fossils buried on mountains?

Rocks and stars are both made up of matter. But when a rock is melted, it releases argon gas and the clock is re-set at zero. So my point is that with these dating methods, you’re not measuring the formation of the matter itself but the formation of the specific rock, bone, etc. To answer your original question, all matter does not date the same because we’re not measuring the formation of the actual atoms composing these compounds.


Have you heard about the instances where argon dating was innacurate? Why trust something that dosen't produce accurate results?

According to the Bible, God doesn’t care much for the laws of physics:

Jesus walks on water, which breaks the laws of density, weight, and buoyancy.

God parts the Red Sea, breaking the laws of pressure and air density.

Jesus feeds a crowd by multiplying fish and loaves of bread, which breaks the physical law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Jesus turns water into wine, and God turns a river into blood. Again, matter is being created and the laws of chemistry and being broken.

God/Jesus raise people from the dead, breaking the laws governing human physiology.

Every miracle in the Bible breaks the laws of physics in some way or another. The explanation I’m used to hearing is that God, being omnipotent, does not have to follow these laws. So why would he have to follow them when creating the Earth?

"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles." - Davies, Paul, The Edge of Infinity, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p161.

Paul Davies believes in the big bang and evolution, but can see how something appearing out of nothing is miraculous. Life forming out of chemicals is miraculous.

How would water get buried under rock? It has a lower density; the rock would sink.

I didn't really get what he meant about the water being buried under it. Perhaps some water did get stuck in some pockets of sediment, but you have to remember it wasn't rock then. They were soft sediments that later hardened into rock by time and the sun.

I see several problems with this theory. For this to happen as you’ve described, the sediment would need to be deposited in smooth layers, one after the other.

Laying down layers is easily done in a flood scenario. Please read this article: Rock language

If it took millions of years for each layer of rock to form, how come we find them smoothly stacked on top of each other? Shouldn't there be layers of soil built up in between? Shouldn't there be erosion marks in between the layers? Why do we have a bunch of bent layers on top of each other (I'd say because the sediment was still soft, bent, and later hardened)? If they took millions of years to stack up, they would have hardened one after the other, and couldn't have bent without cracking (which isn't found [the cracking]).

There are some layered deposits that stretch all around the earth. How and why?

A sudden eruption of water from the ground would not result in gradual sediment deposit, and animals would most likely be thrown all over the place rather than being killed instantly where they were standing. And since sediment erosion requires a massive amount of water in the first place, why would animals be buried with sediment before the water reached them?

Some animals would be thrown all over the place and be broken up and some would be buried instantly, maintaining their body shape. There would be fossil graveyards and polystrate fossils (which you didn't answer me about) forming. It was chaotic then. There's a reason more than 90% of the fossils are marine organisms.

Water flows much faster than mud or rocks, and it seems logical that in a flood most animals would drown before being buried alive with sediment. Where did all the sediment come from anyways?

As the water is erupting out of the earth's crust, its moving with great speed and force, eroding the edges, making the hole its coming out of even wider, taking sediments with it as it buries the creatures. There may be many other ways the water was eroding massive amounts of sediment. Its obvious that there would have been alot of it if the world was covered by water.

If the sediments were burying things right where they lived, why do we have fossils above the oil? The oil represents a large amount of biomass that was covered by sediment during the flood, correct? Yet we find plenty of fossils, of both marine and land dwelling animals, above the oil. Marine fossils are not restricted to the lowest layers. Furthermore, we see similar types of animals buried in the same layers but absent from others. Look at the picture of fossil layers you posted in your last reply, and you’ll notice that dinosaurs are restricted to a specific region below mammals. This includes flying dinosaurs... which should have held out the longest if sediment suddenly buried all living things, right? Why is it that we find no mammals below a certain point, and no dinosaurs above a certain point?

I've heard of dinosaur footprints being found in coal deposits, but a person who believes in evolution, David M. Raup, said:

"One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their flood geology." - Raup, David M., "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p.289

So, first off, they are not in the detailed order that they are always said to be in. I'd agree that you probably find a general trend, but this is also explainable by a flood.
- Remember that more than 90% of the fossils are marine organisms.
- Sea creatures would be found at the bottom and birds would be found at the top because thats where they live and how they would tend to be buried. You'd find animals buried with the other animals they generally lived together with in their environment. You wouldn't find very many dogs buried with creatures that live in a swamp. How come we find alligators, turtles, and many other creatures alive today, buried with dinosaurs? You might say they remained in evolutionary stasis for millions of years, but I'd say because they were living in a similar environment and they were buried together. Dinosaurs were later hunted or some could still be alive on the equator where the environment can maintain them. For more information about dinosaurs living with people, just ask me or anyone, because there are so many lines of evidence for that (ex., Behemoth or bust, Dinosaurs and Man Research, T-Rex soft tissue and blood cells, Humans tracks and dinosaur tracks together at Paluxy, Dragons were dinosaurs).
- They could be sorted based on their intelligence and how well they can move upwards to escape the flood water and mud. Clams and other sea creatures can't do that so well.
- Objects would be sorted based on their density. When I go out to see my yard after a huge rain storm and it makes a miniature canyon, I see that all the rocks have gathered together in one layer, because of their density. The coal and oil would have all settled down to their particular area.

For more in-depth details, please ask someone with more understanding in flood geology. Have you tried emailing creation.com, answersingenesis.org, askjohnmackay.com, or drdino.com? I'm sure they have a great model for all of this, but please ask me too and I'd be glad to try and look this all up and answer any of your questions. As the quote I posted said, the fossils in the layers aren't as orderly as the science books and television make them out to be.

Would you please read a few of these articles about flood geology too: Geology Questions and Answers

That’s exactly my point. They had very basic carving tools, and the pictures they were able to make are only crude representations of the way something might actually look. Which is why it’s a fairly poor argument to say that an Inca drawing must have been inspired by a specific type of dinosaur skin, when in reality the crosshatch pattern could represent any type of reptilian scale. And a large reptile does not necessarily have to represent an extinct dinosaur. There are plenty of paintings and carvings all over the world which show imagined creatures that are based off real ones, and I’m not about to go digging for unicorn fossils anytime soon.

They look like dinosaurs though. They have triceratops, sauropods, theropods and many others. They also share similar designs with the Nazca Lines (like the monkey and hummingbird), which nobody has a problem with. Some of the oldest stones show pictures of dinosaurs with dermal frills along their back, which was only discovered to be true for dinosaurs in the 1990's. How did they know dinosaurs had dermal frills?

Please ask me any question you'd like. I want you to have reasonable, logical, and sound answers.

#24 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:25 PM

I hear that alot, but you don't think going from a single cell to a human being or bird is an upward (or "better") direction?


The only 'direction' inherent in evolution is towards diversity. As ecological niches are created, evolution drives organisms to fill those niches, increasing the diversity of life. The resultant increase in complexity is a by-product of this increased diversity.

#25 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:43 PM

The only 'direction' inherent in evolution is towards diversity. As ecological niches are created, evolution drives organisms to fill those niches, increasing the diversity of life. The resultant increase in complexity is a by-product of this increased diversity.

So its based on the environment? There was only one particular kind of environment originally and it has changed so the creatures evolved into more complex organisms to fit that change?

#26 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 03 August 2011 - 11:08 PM

The only 'direction' inherent in evolution is towards diversity. As ecological niches are created, evolution drives organisms to fill those niches, increasing the diversity of life. The resultant increase in complexity is a by-product of this increased diversity.

When I saw this quoted I thought that a creationist had said it. There are many ideas such as this that creationists and evolutionists have in common.

#27 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2011 - 12:50 AM

They look like dinosaurs though. They have triceratops, sauropods, theropods and many others. They also share similar designs with the Nazca Lines (like the monkey and hummingbird), which nobody has a problem with.

Have you seen the dinosaurs on the stones? Because I can post pictures. They don't look like giant "modern" reptiles. The Nazca Lines are huge lines of pictures on the earth, that can only be seen by a plane, near the area where the Ica stones are found.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

So, there are similar designs present.

This picture is not good quality and I can't be positive it is a dinosaur, but it sure looks like one, and it is a Nazca line:

Posted Image
- Journey to Peru-Day Five by Eric H*vind

The head is to the upper right (which appears to have some things on its head), it has a reptilian looking snout, two arms, its legs, and long tail. This is just to show that the Nazca lines and Ica stones are consistent with each other. If you can't really see the basic outline, I can try and draw it out.

Posted Image
Thats the best I could do lol.

So, can't be positive its a dinosaur, but it looks like it and it goes along with the Ica stones and those people seeing dinosaurs.

Have you heard about the instances where argon dating was innacurate? Why trust something that dosen't produce accurate results?

I can list them if you'd like?

#28 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:09 AM

As the water is erupting out of the earth's crust, its moving with great speed and force, eroding the edges, making the hole its coming out of even wider, taking sediments with it as it buries the creatures. There may be many other ways the water was eroding massive amounts of sediment. Its obvious that there would have been alot of it if the world was covered by water.

I believe when God first made the earth, there was water underneath the crust, if your wondering what in the world I mean when I say it came erupting out of the crust (Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Psalm 24:1-2, 136:6). There may be more verses that support this, but one of the purposes I used to think this was for, is that perhaps the water kept the soil moist and able to grow plant life more easily without the need for human's to come by and water it all the time, but now I'm thinking the water may have been way to deep beneath the crust to make any impact like that. I still believe that there was water there though because of those verses and they may have served a purpose I'm just not aware of yet.

#29 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 04 August 2011 - 11:21 AM

Well we still see geysers don't we?

There is still a ton of water in the earth in that form and others.

#30 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:42 PM

I believe when God first made the earth, there was water underneath the crust, if your wondering what in the world I mean when I say it came erupting out of the crust (Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Psalm 24:1-2, 136:6). There may be more verses that support this, but one of the purposes I used to think this was for, is that perhaps the water kept the soil moist and able to grow plant life more easily without the need for human's to come by and water it all the time, but now I'm thinking the water may have been way to deep beneath the crust to make any impact like that. I still believe that there was water there though because of those verses and they may have served a purpose I'm just not aware of yet.

I'm going to take back what I said about those Psalm verses talking about a layer of water under the crust. They seem to be talking about present day, especially after I read them a few times. I sent an email to Creation Science Evangelism who I originally heard that idea from and I received an email back from Paul Taylor. He said:

I agree with you that the verses that you quoted do not refer to water directly underneath the crust. Such a reservoir of water would make the crust unstable, and, moreover, would have been mentioned in Genesis 1 & 2.

However, we know that the deeper interior of the Earth contains a lot of water. Volcanoes release a great deal of water vapor along with their magma and lava. In fact, this is what we think is being referred to by Genesis 7:11 - "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth". The pre-Flood crust was completely destroyed by this bursting forth of the fountains of the deep, and this was the major source of the Floodwater. This would also have brought sea water into direct contact with the magma. The resulting super-heated water would have shot up into the atmosphere at supersonic speeds, and fallen again. This is probably what is being referred to as the "windows of heaven".

So, the principle source of the Flood water would have been water in the mantel.


I should have read more before posting, sorry. I still can't agree with this water also being the water that fell from heaven also. That kind of seems like a cop out. When reading about the water falling from heaven, it seems like its describing the water actually coming from heaven.

Well we still see geysers don't we?

There is still a ton of water in the earth in that form and others.

Exactly right, still some stuck down there.

#31 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 04 August 2011 - 05:19 PM

24th November, 1859. Is that specific enough?


If you have the answer, post it. If not you have proven my point through you frustration of not being able to.

No real criteria for a theory to meet to become scientific. Just that evolutionists think that it should so it gets voted to be one.

#32 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2011 - 05:26 PM

If you have the answer, post it. If not you have proven my point through you frustration of not being able to.

No real criteria for a theory to meet to become scientific. Just that evolutionists think that it should so it gets voted to be one.

Is it really important to argue over whether or not its a theory or if it isn't? I just think that it would be better if we found out why people believe what they believe and if it lines up with scripture. I know jamo0001's reasons have to do with biology (and others) which I have no idea about, because I've hardly ever looked down a microscope, so I don't know anything about that "world". Looking at that Ben Stein movie that goes into a cell, it looks like the cell is another universe lol.

#33 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 04 August 2011 - 05:33 PM

The only 'direction' inherent in evolution is towards diversity. As ecological niches are created, evolution drives organisms to fill those niches, increasing the diversity of life. The resultant increase in complexity is a by-product of this increased diversity.


What drives a life-form to be able to change it's environment which is the opposite of adapting to an environment?

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200

Plankton have the ability to make clouds which is the reverse of evolution always claiming that life must adapt to it's surroundings or die. This little life-form did not agree and therefore buck the system. Also, this little life-form did not have to become complex with change in order to do it. It just did which means it was created with such an ability unless you would like to list the step by step evolution process for this ability?

Reverse adaptation stops evolution in it's tracks. Because why change to survive with your environment if you have the power to make environment change to to meet your needs? Sounds like a God given ability to me.

#34 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 04 August 2011 - 07:52 PM

You have some misunderstandings about how the immune system works. First of all, not all mutations will lead to the production of an entirely new protein. In many cases, the mutation will alter the distribution or amount of a pre-existing protein. For example, the keratin proteins can form hooves, scales, feathers, hair, horns, and claws. These are very different structures, but they use the same structural protein.


Why would these things form? Does a Keratin proteins say: Hey I need to form hooves, scales, feathers, hair, horns, and claws?

Secondly, not all protein changes are going to trigger an immune response. The immune system responds to proteins called antigens, and these antigens are what doctors look for when they determine whether someone is a match for organ donation. If our body was that sensitive to foreign proteins, we would be allergic to nearly every food we ingested.



I have met people who are just that. Allergic to almost everything.

Furthermore, human heart valves are commonly repaired with cow or pig tissue. The genetic difference between humans and cows is even greater than 2%, yet the immune system does not attack the foreign tissue. The immune system is not a security alarm which will suddenly go off after a certain threshold is reached; it’s very sensitive to certain changes, but not to others.



Not every person can do this as to the reason mechanical valves have to be used as well. And a person's immune system can later decide that the heart valve is foreign and attack it.

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


The point I see is that you leave out anything that may put what you post into question as you post it. I have to point out these things. Did you hope that maybe I did not know these things and therefore you would look totally right in what you say? Ignoring what goes against what you claim does not make it right by default. In fact I would consider leaving such information out a deception. Why? You know enough about things as you clearly show to also know the rest in which you neglect to include.

Keep in mind that there would be stages in between laying eggs and placental mammals. Stages where immune suppression may not be essential to survival, but could be still highly advantageous in some cases. Evolution is about gradual change, not huge leaps.


Then there should be millions of missing links, not thousands.

Your questions seem to be based on the misconception that evolution aims for pre-defined goals. My guess is blood types came about by random, harmless mutation. Neutral mutations, which neither help nor hinder survival, will often persist in the population at a relatively stable frequency. However, there are some theories out there about possible advantages to the various blood types, like resistance to certain diseases. If that’s the case, blood types could provide an evolutionary advantage.


If the goal of survival is not there, then the change won't be in that direction. Try as you might to remove the glimmer of intelligence, it's always there.

Hmmm... I see a layer below trilobites, don’t you? It has very few fossils which is consistent with what I said about soft-bodied animals. The Cambrian layer is also a very large layer by the looks of it, and the picture doesn't indicate how high up in the layer animals like trilobites were found.


And from the layer can you make a evolution tree as to what evolved into a trilobite? With all the complete system the trilobite has, there should be several things in the layer below it showing fast evolution unto the next layer because evolution is about gradual changes. But that does not exist, now does it?

I would hardly say the fossil record is the “holy grail” of evolution. I was convinced of evolution while studying biology, not fossils. It’s not that fossils are inaccurate, but as I already explained the process of fossilization is such a rare event that we’re not guaranteed to find fossils of every living thing that ever existed.


Did you ever observe macro-evolution?

Rocks and stars are both made up of matter. But when a rock is melted, it releases argon gas and the clock is re-set at zero. So my point is that with these dating methods, you’re not measuring the formation of the matter itself but the formation of the specific rock, bone, etc. To answer your original question, all matter does not date the same because we’re not measuring the formation of the actual atoms composing these compounds.


So age dating is not really as accurate as claimed.

According to the Bible, God doesn’t care much for the laws of physics:

Jesus walks on water, which breaks the laws of density, weight, and buoyancy.


Does a spirit have mass or weight?

God parts the Red Sea, breaking the laws of pressure and air density.


Not if the land under the water is raised to be just below the surface, than a wind blows to part the water to that point.

Jesus feeds a crowd by multiplying fish and loaves of bread, which breaks the physical law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.


To apply that law unto yourselves as wellwould also mean the Big Bang could not have happened.

Jesus turns water into wine, and God turns a river into blood. Again, matter is being created and the laws of chemistry and being broken.



Changing the structures of molecules breaks no laws. Do not these things already exist? Is not also these things made up of water as well? Does not water have wine in it? Does not blood require water as well?

God/Jesus raise people from the dead, breaking the laws governing human physiology.


If dead matter could be brought back to life only naturally, then doctors could keep us alive indefinitely. But that does not happen now does it? Which means there is a life-force (a soul) which determines whether the dead matter is alive or not. If not, then science would have animated dead matter to life already. So where is the example that would conclude all life forms from dead matter? Miller did not do it because amino acids are dead.

Every miracle in the Bible breaks the laws of physics in some way or another. The explanation I’m used to hearing is that God, being omnipotent, does not have to follow these laws. So why would he have to follow them when creating the Earth?


How do you know that the laws of physics were not different during creation? After all, the Bible does state that sin changed everything, right? So what were the laws like before sin?

Can you prove that the laws of physics "always" remained the same? Nope, and neither can anyone else.

No, there are findings which would certainly disprove evolution. But your example was simply an argument from incredulity: you could not think of a way that the mimic octopus evolved, therefore evolution is false. Hopefully you can see why this argument is a logical fallacy.


Make a list of the findings that would disprove evolution? There is not one because anything that does not conform to evolution is "always" rejected. Why? Because what points against evolution most always points to a Creator. And the supernatural is not allowed in science.

It's not a logical fallacy when evolutionists cannot explain it either. You would have to explain why this change was required for survival. Now if every octopus had this ability, you would have an argument. But they are not, so you don't. So changing this to a logical fallacy is just a cop out for your inability of an explanation.

How would water get buried under rock? It has a lower density; the rock would sink.


With the sediments also comes up lava. Steam would build up pushing upwards the rock. Water would rush in. Also, the rock is not perfectly formed to fit together with no gaps. What else would go in there?

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


Here is a good question for you. But what mechanism were the layers laid down and can you empirically prove it?

If the sediments were burying things right where they lived, why do we have fossils above the oil? The oil represents a large amount of biomass that was covered by sediment during the flood, correct? Yet we find plenty of fossils, of both marine and land dwelling animals, above the oil. Marine fossils are not restricted to the lowest layers. Furthermore, we see similar types of animals buried in the same layers but absent from others. Look at the picture of fossil layers you posted in your last reply, and you’ll notice that dinosaurs are restricted to a specific region below mammals. This includes flying dinosaurs... which should have held out the longest if sediment suddenly buried all living things, right? Why is it that we find no mammals below a certain point, and no dinosaurs above a certain point?


And there is also evidence that does not support your idea.

Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   0 downloads
Attached File  Slide205blood.jpg   35.5KB   0 downloads

Have you ever thought that the evidence you actually reject is the evidence that actually shows things were actually mixed up in some places? But then again if you reject them because they do not conform, then why would you ever ponder such things?

That’s exactly my point. They had very basic carving tools, and the pictures they were able to make are only crude representations of the way something might actually look. Which is why it’s a fairly poor argument to say that an Inca drawing must have been inspired by a specific type of dinosaur skin, when in reality the crosshatch pattern could represent any type of reptilian scale. And a large reptile does not necessarily have to represent an extinct dinosaur. There are plenty of paintings and carvings all over the world which show imagined creatures that are based off real ones, and I’m not about to go digging for unicorn fossils anytime soon.


And now comes the insults. Is your argument so weak that you now have to insult me to make yourself feel better? For someone who earlier claimed they did not know much and did not have the time, suddenly you became smart and have all the time in the world? Ironic how that always works out that way. Guess I was right.

#35 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 04 August 2011 - 08:01 PM

God obviously broke the laws at creation. Why should we be surprised that God can and will break physical laws in order to carry out His will? Ridiculous. He makes the laws for specific purposes.

I start to get frustrated at some of this reasoning.

#36 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:29 PM

God obviously broke the laws at creation. Why should we be surprised that God can and will break physical laws in order to carry out His will? Ridiculous. He makes the laws for specific purposes.


Are you being sarcastic in this post? Or are you in agreement with these statements?

#37 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 04 August 2011 - 08:37 PM

Are you being sarcastic in this post? Or are you in agreement with these statements?

I thought I was clear. I disagree with the statement that God doesn't care for the laws of physics. It does nothing to cast doubt on creation or support evolution. It is a ridiculous argument.

#38 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:07 PM

I thought I was clear. I disagree with the statement that God doesn't care for the laws of physics. It does nothing to cast doubt on creation or support evolution. It is a ridiculous argument.


Yes, but isn't it equally ridiculous to say that someone needs to believe in a God in order to think that the laws of nature will continue to work the way they have been? The naturalist has even fewer (aka, 0) examples of the laws of nature being suspended than the Biblical literalist does (dozens)

#39 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 04 August 2011 - 11:10 PM

Yes, but isn't it equally ridiculous to say that someone needs to believe in a God in order to think that the laws of nature will continue to work the way they have been? The naturalist has even fewer (aka, 0) examples of the laws of nature being suspended than the Biblical literalist does (dozens)


Then explain how laws happen naturally?
What the mechanism in which laws came into existence?
And how did they also get put together to work in balance and not total destruction?

When a experiment is done that has known results. Certain guidelines have to be followed in order to get those results. Why? The laws of physics require the experimenter to do this. The whole universe works because of these same laws. Now, think of the laws as the guidelines, and the universe as the experiment. Now look at the results. Somewhere in there intelligence is involved. But if I am wrong, I'm all ears to you to give answers to the other question posed here.

#40 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 04 August 2011 - 11:16 PM

Yes, but isn't it equally ridiculous to say that someone needs to believe in a God in order to think that the laws of nature will continue to work the way they have been? The naturalist has even fewer (aka, 0) examples of the laws of nature being suspended than the Biblical literalist does (dozens)

If the naturalist were correct as to the origin of the planets, they should all spin in the same direction, to say the least... If the naturalist is correct as to the origin of life... well we know abiogenesis breaks natural laws.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users