Jump to content


Photo

How Many Anomalies Needed...


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 January 2010 - 12:52 PM

I've been reading through my old posts and having a fun time looking over my thoughts from the last year and a half or so. I'm deciding to take some of them, on occasion, and start new threads with my ramblings to see where further discussion may (or may not :) ) go...

This is from Butterfly Evolution...

This really is an exciting time to live in. My faith and desire to learn were completely revolutionized when I realized how completely God’s creative grandeur and infallible Word lined up so neatly.

I know we get accused of being lazy when we say God-did-it but it’s no different than comparing a guy who spends his life pulling his hair out trying to duplicate a magnificent computer program by bashing on a keyboard randomly to prove it can be done, verses being the guy who simply researches the information available on the programmer, going to his/her office, and asking insightful questions regarding thoughts for deciding to make the program as they did and exploring the usefulness and functionality of the program.

The second person is going to make more useful progress than the one who is set on proving that things happen the way they don’t.

I personally receive great joy sharing the little known but very potent creation perspective that demolishes Darwin’s false pretensions. I know on a forum like this it is hard to tell if people are really thinking about the exchange and the truth, or if they are just calculating their next maneuver.

However, in my daily life talking with friends and family, I find it very rewarding to discuss what we’ve been taught through public education about the ToE and whether it holds up to scrutiny and then turning around and sharing how the Bible continues to stand up untouched and infallible against honest scrutiny and inquiry.

Knowing that I don’t have to do mental contortions to look at butterflies through the lens of evolution and simply allowing God to be the Author of creation, as He is, takes the pressure off of me and allows me to let Him tell the correct story of how things work by His Word and in His world.

Some Christians may have a lazy approach to truth or a God-of-the-Gaps mentality but I think those people haven’t come face to face with His truth in a substantial enough way. The more I study His world and His Word the more I enjoy rolling my sleeves up and looking for those answers of truth with honesty and humility.

How many stumbling blocks like the butterfly are needed before an evolutionist realizes that the naturalist’s presumptions are a facade?

View Post



#2 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 January 2010 - 01:14 PM

Not sure if one could quantify how many hypothetical anomalies would be necessary to overturn a belief any more than one can define the minimum grains of sand that would constitute a pile. Scientific beliefs should aspire to observation, objectivity, falsifiability, experimental rigour and rational induction. A lot of creationists have approached falsifiability as a way of undermining evolution's scientific credentials.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:57 PM

It is comical watching them define falsifiability for their theory such as finding a rabbit in the cambrian,as if rabbits lived 2,500 ft. in the ocean.lol

Or claiming that no theory is subject to empirical testing except mathematics.You will always hear the term "evolution does'nt say that",but at the same time they will only give vauge generalities so it can explain anything.

As a rule,you should be very cautious by any story that attempts to explain things instead of testing them.Creation science is able to test things in the present (flume experiments,anomalous radio carbon dates and how increased volcaniac activity would affect the age,genetic mutations that are actualy adaptations and not random,etc.)



Steve Fuller - "Even if most scientists nowadays call themselves atheists, atheism as a positive doctrine has done precious little for science."




Enjoy.

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:55 AM

I hope people don't mind that I'm reposting some of my old responses in different threads. This fits in this thread as well and as new eyes read some of my old posts maybe some new dialogues can form.

Enjoy:

So why do whales have lungs and not gills?

View Post

To make your theory look like a fairytale. I think odd organisms, are the evolutionist’s problem not the creationist’s, like:

Whales
Butterflies
Venus Flytraps
Bombardier Beetles
and the list goes on and on and on... really it’s every organism on the planet and the planet itself and the Universe itself!

...are there to show God's glory and the plain willingly ignorant nature of people trying to reject God on intellectual grounds. There hasn't been a bend in the road of technology throughout mankind that Gods work wasn't staring the researchers in the face.

Shpongle, I hope you see soon that it isn't the evidence that's the problem. It's your philosophy that's vain and blinding.

View Post



#5 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:06 AM

It is comical watching them define falsifiability for their theory such as finding a rabbit in the cambrian,as if rabbits lived 2,500 ft. in the ocean.lol


View Post


Find a cow with a T. rex then, neither of those are aquatic.
Thanks

#6 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:24 PM

Find a cow with a T. rex then, neither of those are aquatic.
Thanks

View Post


(I just cut and pasted a post I created a while ago from another thread)

Finding a rabbit from the Cambrian strata is saying that finding fossils out of sync would disproved evolution. Fossils have been characterized for over a 150 million years. So the question is somewhat ad hoc believing that we pretty much know what we are going to find. The question is disingenuous on many levels:

1. We have found many credible fossils out of phase: For example

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic

Live birth below Jurrassic

second link

Posted Image

Evolution predicts that no flowering plant will ever be found below the Cretaceous

Posted Image
Protoavis is probably the most controversial of the fossil birds.

Protoavis is probably the most controversial of the fossil birds. Chatterjee (1991) believes it to be a Triassic bird, older than Archaeopteryx. Only fragments have been found, but its discoverer considers it to have many features associated with flight, for example a keel-like sternum indicating that it would have been a better flyer than Archaeopteryx. Its skull was lightly built and pneumatised, with a temporal region similar to modern birds. It also had a relatively large brain with an avian brain architecture similar to modern birds with neurosensory specialisations associated with balance, coordination, flight, agility and high metabolic activity. Claw morphology suggests that Protoavis could climb trees, yet the development of a supracoracoideus (the principal muscles that lift the wing) pulley indicates that it was able to fly.

2. The question is even being debated by atheist now. I clear cut test would not be debated this late in the game.
richard dawkins web site
3. Many fossils are found out of phase and are called hoaxes. In other words, if does not support evolution it is not really evidence. Because there is no evidence that can go outside the established rules of how evolution must work. To do is just a fluke and therefore should "always" be ignored. You can not fail a test were the rules are that failure is not allowed. So a rabbit found in Cambrian it would be called a hoax.

4. Another trick is to put fossils in we don’t know what to do with into a category called transitional. They have no clue what it transitioned from or what it transitioned into other than it makes the resume look better.

To sum it up, we find out of phase fossil all the time that Darwinian evolution does not predict out of phase fossils when they appear. Rather they evolutionary theory changes ad hoc to adapt to the evidence. If find a poodle from the Permian strata, evolution theory would just change the time line and move on. This after the fact accountability makes evolution impossible to disprove.

#7 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2010 - 01:35 AM

It is comical watching them define falsifiability for their theory such as finding a rabbit in the cambrian,as if rabbits lived 2,500 ft. in the ocean.lol


View Post


That actuallly originated as a joke. A deuterostomic vertebrate would be a great place to start though.

If you want to go along that line, a primate in the jurassic would work fine, but all that really does is force a change in understood history.

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 January 2010 - 03:58 AM

Find a cow with a T. rex then, neither of those are aquatic.


Find a cow with a gorilla and both of those are herbivores.Sorry,but ecology seperates many organisms from sharing the same habitat not evolution.



Thanks.

#9 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:44 AM

Find a cow with a T. rex then, neither of those are aquatic.


Find a cow with a gorilla and both of those are herbivores.Sorry,but ecology seperates many organisms from sharing the same habitat not evolution.
Thanks.

View Post



You are also talking about a separation of time between when these 2 creatures lived. Cows are modern day things that have only existed since mankind has domesticated large herbivores (Auroch), and breed them smaller.

Or you could find ancient texts that perfectly describe the gnashing teeth of velociraptors or T-Rexs. That would cause issues for Evolution.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:12 AM

Or you could find ancient texts that perfectly describe the gnashing teeth of velociraptors or T-Rexs.  That would cause issues for Evolution.

View Post

Will a description of a large sauropod dinosaur suffice?

#11 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 January 2010 - 08:12 AM

You are also talking about a separation of time between when these 2 creatures lived.  Cows are modern day things that have only existed since mankind has domesticated large herbivores (Auroch), and breed them smaller.

Or you could find ancient texts that perfectly describe the gnashing teeth of velociraptors or T-Rexs.  That would cause issues for Evolution.

View Post


Hi Javabean,

The word dinosaur (as you'd know) did not exit until the 1840s. Descriptions however are in many cultures throughout the world and they were often referred to as "dragons":

I suggest checking out this link as an example (Scroll down to "dragon legends" if you're in a hurry and just want a few ancient descriptions):

http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2704

I believe that ancient artifacts depicting such creatures have also been shown on this forum by Ikester a few times also. I found this video which I thought was pretty good, but excuse the loss of clarity with some of it:

BtDbXN0RILE&hl=en_US&fs=1

Here too is a link that contains pictures and information of ancient artifacts that appear to depict creatures that resemble dinosaurs/dragons. This will help if you weren't able to view them on the video as clearly.

http://www.genesispa...ent/ancient.htm

#12 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 14 January 2010 - 08:56 PM

Great find.
I'm guessing no more evolutionists are going to post in this topic from now on.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#13 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 17 January 2010 - 09:57 PM

Sorry for the double post, but my prediction remains true so far. Does any evolutionist have an answer to the last two posts?

#14 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 18 January 2010 - 03:08 AM

A dog giving birth to a cat will falsify evolution.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 January 2010 - 03:37 AM

A dog giving birth to a cat will falsify evolution.

View Post

The most salient aspects of evolution have been turned on their head by honest investigation, and good old science, but you think you can save the day with a ridiculous 'litmus test'? :(

Oh, and this thread is not about asking what would falsify evolution, but rather how many of the ever present anomalies, that continue to mount against the most foundational principles evolution, do we need to shake the faithful?

#16 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:10 AM

Oh, and this thread is not about asking what would falsify evolution, but rather how many of the ever present anomalies, that continue to mount against the most foundational principles evolution, do we need to shake the faithful?

View Post


Adam the number of anomalies, whether they really are or not, is irrelevant. Evolutionary theory explains more of the data than anything else regarding biological diversity.

Perhaps the question you should be asking is whether a better theory will ever be developed.

#17 M T RIVERS

M T RIVERS

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mineral Wells, WV

Posted 18 January 2010 - 06:12 AM

  Evolutionary theory explains more of the data than anything else regarding biological diversity.

evolution can not account for the increase in genetic information from simple to complex life forms without wild arbitrary speculation.

#18 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 18 January 2010 - 07:06 AM

evolution can not account for the increase in genetic information from simple to complex life forms without wild arbitrary speculation.

View Post

And you are certain of this why? Any citations to the literature???

#19 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2010 - 08:48 AM

Sorry for the double post, but my prediction remains true so far. Does any evolutionist have an answer to the last two posts?

View Post


Crocodiles, lizards, tortoises, snakes, predatory mammals, nightmares and the imagination all might influence art that happens to resemble modern representation of dinosaurs. If a dino was discovered to have lived until very recently it would be a major surprise for paleontology but would no more invalidate evolution than the 'rediscovery' of the ceoleocanth (or however you spell it).

#20 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:10 AM

evolution can not account for the increase in genetic information from simple to complex life forms without wild arbitrary speculation.

View Post


Well since I've never gotten a definite answer from a creationist about what information is and how its quantified I really can't reply to this.

And yes, I've read Fred's page about information.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users