Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Evolutists Persist?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2010 - 05:47 AM

Gilbo, if the universe is so finely tuned then how come about only 1.5% of the earth is actually inhabitable by humans?

View Post


Let's see now, I like the scientific discussion of the period called Eocene for no other reason than numerous componats compare perfectly to the pre-flood world. It's said that this time epoch has Earth at it's peak in a vegetative state. Animal life was at it's peak in abundance and diversity. From pole to pole the climate was fairly mild with slight variations through out. The humidity was a happy medium of around 60-65 % (low being 20 and high being 98%) and the winter temps at the poles never got below 14 celcius. Unfortunately the Eocene ended abruptly with a catastrophic extinction event which changed climate forever to the present as we know it. :rolleyes:

Today that habitable percentages is continuing to spiral downwards and this is due to the apparent evolutionary animal called humans. They apparently rejected a possitive evolutionary trait of morality, hence another more dominant evolutionary trait greed and selfishness pervades human society with science taking the lead in our habitable parts of our planet shrinking. :blink:



Midway - Message from the Garbage Gyres




"Our Stolen Future"


#62 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 05 May 2010 - 05:57 AM

In order for evolution to start, laws have to be broken.


Well, you don´t talk about evolution, but about science, but never mind...

1) Something has to come from nothing.

Who believes this? It´s not part of any cosmology. And even if it were, which law has to be broken to get this to happen? Don´t say the 1st law of TD, because this laws hasn´t necessarily to be broken. Cosmology would work as well if the netto energy is zero or nearly zero.
To quote some other mechanics of physics: Heisenberg uncertainity principle and virtual particles

2) Matter and energy have to be created from no source.

Thats nearly the same point as 1). Matter and energy are interchangeable. Why couldn´t the energy always have been there? or the universe has no netto energy therefore it hasn´t to be created.

3) Life has to come from lifelessness (abiogenesis).

Well, that´s logical, where else could it come from?

4) Laws have to first not exist so that a "god did it" situation will allow these laws to be broken. And the impossible to happen.

I don´t quite know what you are talking about. Why couldn´t the laws always been there and please don´t equivocate them with judicial laws. Nowhere in standard science does these laws have to be broken, quite the opposite, all that is found in physics, astronomy etc was found by applicating these laws.

5) Then these laws have to come into play at just the right moment so that chaos becomes order.

What chaos has to become order?

6) And these laws also come from nothing. And some how they know just how to work so that each can work together and not interfere with any other.

why do they have to come from nothing? what is it that is not interfering and what do you mean by this?

Yet no one can tell us where these laws came from.
At what point were they enforced.

yes, but do they have to come from somewhere? why?

Or how they knew how to work so that what we see can exist.


This doesn´t make any sense, since the laws are called laws because they "do" something so that what we see can exist.

#63 Guest_Delphiki_*

Guest_Delphiki_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2010 - 08:03 AM

In order for evolution to start, laws have to be broken.

1) Something has to come from nothing.


Wrong. The nature of existence has nothing to do with biological evolution.

2) Matter and energy have to be created from no source.


This is impossible, as known by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

3) Life has to come from lifelessness (abiogenesis).


If a chemical reaction occurs under certain conditions that allows that compound to replicate, is that life? What about viruses, are they living? Fact is, there's no absolute definition of life. Man kind has tried it before and has always found another form of life. What does happen, is the chemical reactions between organic compounds and amino acids have varying degrees of complexity, up to the point that they exist in all creatures of the planet.

Yet no one can tell us where these laws came from.
At what point were they enforced.
Or how they knew how to work so that what we see can exist.

View Post


It's simply observation. The laws of Newtonian physics are simply equations that allow us to easily predict the way things behave -- for example, to calculate acceleration, you would use Newton's 2nd law: http://en.wikipedia...._laws_of_motion

You're confusing scientific law (essentially calculation) with legislative law. If the laws of physics worked like legislative law, then they would be constantly broken, and people/things would be penalized and brought to justice for violating them. You don't see Mr. Jones suddenly decide he's going to break the law of gravity and float away to be chased by the physics police or god, do you?




THE BIG BANG:
It's not an explosion of stuff from nothing. This may be the thousandth time I've explained it, but only the first time here, so I'm hoping it will stick with some of you. Big Bang theory explains that since we know the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration, we know that everything had to start at a particular point. Scientists are still trying to figure out what "started" the big bang, even though this is extremely difficult since the big bang would not have happened on the same scale of space and time that we exist in.

The big bang was a rapid expansion of space and time. There was no "before" since time expended with it.

When you say you can't make something from nothing, you are correct.

In fact, we not only know that the 2nd law thermodynamics tells us it's impossible to create matter and energy from nothing, but we also know there is no such thing as nothing. Even if you successfully created a ball of nothing in a lab, for example, that is still something. It would be defined with dimensions... maybe a lack of mass and energy... what shape is your ball of "nothing"? Well, then it's clearly not "nothing".

There are several hypothesis, however, which attempt to explain where this big bang came from.

Creation, however, has A LOT of creating things out of nothing. God allegedly created the sky, the ocean, night and day (without the sun, mind you) all from nothing. The biblical god violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics... unless he created these things from extensions of himself. The bible says, however, "In the beginning there was nothing." it doesn't say "in the beginning there was nothing except for God". So when/where/how did God come to be? Even if God transcends time and space, how would there be "nothing" in the beginning. And since you can't technically have "nothing", it certainly can't be the void that was before "everything" because that too would be "something".

Sorry if I made anyone's head explode.

#64 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 May 2010 - 10:24 AM

THE BIG BANG:
It's not an explosion of stuff from nothing.

"How does anyone know this???"

This may be the thousandth time I've explained it, but only the first time here, so I'm hoping it will stick with some of you.

Can't wait.

Big Bang theory explains that since we know the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration, we know that everything had to start at a particular point.


You've just told us that the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration so how exactly does that give you the idea that the "Big Bang" happened? It doesn't. You take facts of an expanding universe and automatically throw in your assumption that it has something to do with a "Big Bang".

Scientists are still trying to figure out what "started" the big bang,


Did you catch what you just did here? Scientists are trying to still figure out what? How an assumption occured? You don't even know that it happened so now they're trying to figure out how something they don't even know happened, happened?

even though this is extremely difficult since the big bang would not have happened on the same scale of space and time that we exist in.


How in the world do you even know this??? You don't know that the "Big Bang" even happened so now we'll try and still figure out how what we don't know happened, happened and NOW it's extremely difficult since the thing we don't know happened would not have happened on the same scale of space and time that we exist in????

The big bang was a rapid expansion of space and time.  There was no "before" since time expended with it.


More assumptions. Now we know that it was a "rapid" expansion? We don't even know if the "Big Bang" happened. You're assuming that it did then laying extra layers of assumptions of how, when and how fast it happened.

When you say you can't make something from nothing, you are correct.

In fact, we not only know that the 2nd law thermodynamics tells us it's impossible to create matter and energy from nothing, but we also know there is no such thing as nothing.  Even if you successfully created a ball of nothing in a lab, for example, that is still something.


WHAT??? Why does that sound like a contradiction to me? "...we also KNOW there is NO such thing as "nothing" you tell us... However, if we "created a "ball"? of "nothing"..." it is still "something"?

It would be defined with dimensions... maybe a lack of mass and energy... what shape is your ball of "nothing"?  Well, then it's clearly not "nothing".
There are several hypothesis, however, which attempt to explain where this big bang came from.

???

Creation, however, has A LOT of creating things out of nothing.  God allegedly created the sky, the ocean, night and day (without the sun, mind you) all from nothing.


Not from nothing, from HIM! He's not a "nothing". He's the "something" that created it all.

The biblical god violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics... unless he created these things from extensions of himself.  The bible says, however, "In the beginning there was nothing."  it doesn't say "in the beginning there was nothing except for God".


It says, In the beginning "GOD" created... Also, why would it even need to say in the beginning there was nothing except for God? Since it should be obvious. But that is neither here or there, the fact is the Bible tells us that "God" created...


So when/where/how did God come to be?  Even if God transcends time and space, how would there be "nothing" in the beginning. And since you can't technically have "nothing", it certainly can't be the void that was before "everything" because that too would be "something".


There was no nothing, God existed before the "void". God is "something". He is the Creator.

Sorry if I made anyone's head explode.

Kind of, in a "Big Bang" sorta way. :D

#65 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 11:31 AM

THE BIG BANG:
It's not an explosion of stuff from nothing.

"How does anyone know this???"

This may be the thousandth time I've explained it, but only the first time here, so I'm hoping it will stick with some of you.

Can't wait.
You've just told us that the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration so how exactly does that give you the idea that the "Big Bang" happened? It doesn't. You take facts of an expanding universe and automatically throw in your assumption that it has something to do with a "Big Bang".
Did you catch what you just did here? Scientists are trying to still figure out what? How an assumption occured? You don't even know that it happened so now they're trying to figure out how something they don't even know happened, happened?
How in the world do you even know this??? You don't know that the "Big Bang" even happened so now we'll try and still figure out how what we don't know happened, happened and NOW it's extremely difficult since the thing we don't know happened would not have happened on the same scale of space and time that we exist in????
More assumptions. Now we know that it was a "rapid" expansion? We don't even know if the "Big Bang" happened. You're assuming that it did then laying extra layers of assumptions of how, when and how fast it happened.

When you say you can't make something from nothing, you are correct.
WHAT??? Why does that sound like a contradiction to me? "...we also KNOW there is NO such thing as "nothing" you tell us... However, if we "created a "ball"? of "nothing"..." it is still "something"?
???
Not from nothing, from HIM! He's not a "nothing". He's the "something" that created it all.
It says, In the beginning "GOD" created... Also, why would it even need to say in the beginning there was nothing except for God? Since it should be obvious. But that is neither here or there, the fact is the Bible tells us that "God" created...
There was no nothing, God existed before the "void". God is "something". He is the Creator.
Kind of, in a "Big Bang" sorta way. :D

View Post

Seth, for someone so adament about not using assumptions you definitely threw some in there. By the way, because something is not completely figured out does not invalidate the evidence.

#66 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 12:03 PM

THE BIG BANG:
It's not an explosion of stuff from nothing.

"How does anyone know this???"

This may be the thousandth time I've explained it, but only the first time here, so I'm hoping it will stick with some of you.

Can't wait.
You've just told us that the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration so how exactly does that give you the idea that the "Big Bang" happened? It doesn't. You take facts of an expanding universe and automatically throw in your assumption that it has something to do with a "Big Bang".
Did you catch what you just did here? Scientists are trying to still figure out what? How an assumption occured? You don't even know that it happened so now they're trying to figure out how something they don't even know happened, happened?


So you admit that the universe is expanding. you own religion tells a tale how everything was created, and yet you have an issue with there being a starting point for the universe as we know it?

If something is expanding then it had to be smaller during a previous time. This is logic, not an assumption.


How in the world do you even know this??? You don't know that the "Big Bang" even happened so now we'll try and still figure out how what we don't know happened, happened and NOW it's extremely difficult since the thing we don't know happened would not have happened on the same scale of space and time that we exist in????
More assumptions. Now we know that it was a "rapid" expansion? We don't even know if the "Big Bang" happened. You're assuming that it did then laying extra layers of assumptions of how, when and how fast it happened.


Your issue with this is you don't like the words Big Bang. You think it is a ridiculous idea that the universe had a beginning that might not had anything to do with your God.

If you will go back to Genesis you will see one thing interesting about it. It severely lacks any detail of how God did it.

When you say you can't make something from nothing, you are correct.
WHAT??? Why does that sound like a contradiction to me? "...we also KNOW there is NO such thing as "nothing" you tell us... However, if we "created a "ball"? of "nothing"..." it is still "something"?
???
Not from nothing, from HIM! He's not a "nothing". He's the "something" that created it all.
It says, In the beginning "GOD" created... Also, why would it even need to say in the beginning there was nothing except for God? Since it should be obvious. But that is neither here or there, the fact is the Bible tells us that "God" created...
There was no nothing, God existed before the "void". God is "something". He is the Creator.
Kind of, in a "Big Bang" sorta way. :D

View Post


I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but what was before God? Because if he is a something, which you just stated, then that means he had to come from something. Oh and don't forget, nothing comes from nothing as I've seen countless times. So what was before God?

#67 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 12:09 PM

I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but what was before God? Because if he is a something, which you just stated, then that means he had to come from something. Oh and don't forget, nothing comes from nothing as I've seen countless times. So what was before God?


God created time. Since without time nothing can have a beginning and an end, God did not have a beginning, and therefore no end. He just is.

#68 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 12:16 PM

God created time. Since without time nothing can have a beginning and an end, God did not have a beginning, and therefore no end. He just is.

View Post

Evidence please Cata. Claims such as these require equal evidence.

#69 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 12:51 PM

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Genesis 1:1).

#70 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 06 May 2010 - 12:53 PM

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Genesis 1:1).

View Post

The bible cannot be uses as evidence because it claims that God exists, that's called circular reasoning. Next piece of evidence please.

#71 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 May 2010 - 01:47 PM

Seth, for someone so adament about not using assumptions you definitely threw some in there.  By the way, because something is not completely figured out does not invalidate the evidence.

View Post


Who ever said we don't use assumptions? In fact, they're not assumptions it's called "Faith". The same thing evolutionists use when they espouse the ToE nonsense or fairytale.

#72 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 May 2010 - 01:54 PM

So you admit that the universe is expanding.  you own religion tells a tale how everything was created, and yet you have an issue with there being a starting point for the universe as we know it?


I never said I admit that it does. But if their is evidence that the universe is indeed expanding then why would anyone conclude it's because the "Big Bangaroo" "caused" it? That's what I am saying.

If something is expanding then it had to be smaller during a previous time.  This is logic, not an assumption.

Or it had a definite "Beginning" brought about by a Creator. This is just as logical, in fact it makes more sense than the other.

Your issue with this is you don't like the words Big Bang.  You think it is a ridiculous idea that the universe had a beginning that might not had anything to do with your God.


You can use whatever words you want, doesn't make any difference to me, it's still all nonsense. It's ridiculous because it simply is ridiculous. In fact I can't imagine too many other things more ridiculous than the idea that such complexities in life that we see came about via mindless, purposeless random acts. Sheer nonsense!

If you will go back to Genesis you will see one thing interesting about it.  It severely lacks any detail of how God did it.


Why does it matter so much "how" He did it? The fact is, He did.

I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but what was before God?  Because if he is a something, which you just stated, then that means he had to come from something.  Oh and don't forget, nothing comes from nothing as I've seen countless times.  So what was before God?


There was never a time He Never existed, so that "something" was always there.

#73 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 06 May 2010 - 02:08 PM

The bible cannot be uses as evidence because it claims that God exists, that's called circular reasoning.  Next piece of evidence please.

View Post


It's the same type of evidence evolutionists continue to use, "Faith"! If the universe is expanding then from my point of view as a Believer it's obvious that God is the one causing it or caused the expansion. However, if you are not a believer and claim to use "evidence" that we can "test" to "validate" with, then where is the evidence that it was the "Big Kablooee" that caused it??? If you have no evidence except your own "logic" or "assumptions" based on your already preconceived idea that God does not exist then how can you call that evidence? In other words how is your "logic" supposed to prove or show me that it indeed was the "Big B" that is the cause of said expansion? If you won't even accept my logic then why in the world should I even consider yours?

The truth is, I have considered it and have found it faulty.

#74 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 02:22 PM

The bible cannot be uses as evidence because it claims that God exists, that's called circular reasoning.  Next piece of evidence please.

View Post


So I answered Javabean, and you come in and ask for evidence(And try to derail the topic).

I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but what was before God? Because if he is a something, which you just stated, then that means he had to come from something. Oh and don't forget, nothing comes from nothing as I've seen countless times. So what was before God?

I answered that. Javabean asked that if God exists, would he need to be created. I answered him. I will not derail the topic into a debate on the existence of God. This topic is derailed enough already. I answered the question so we can move on, not derail the topic further.

#75 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 04:20 PM

I never said I admit that it does. But if their is evidence that the universe is indeed expanding then why would anyone conclude it's because the "Big Bangaroo" "caused" it? That's what I am saying.


Sorry my mistake. I assumed you took it as a fact that the universe is expanding because you said so in a response to Mr. Razerblades.

You've just told us that the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration so how exactly does that give you the idea that the "Big Bang" happened? It doesn't. You take facts of an expanding universe and automatically throw in your assumption that it has something to do with a "Big Bang".


see there?

Or it had a definite "Beginning" brought about by a Creator. This is just as logical, in fact it makes more sense than the other.


Which is one reason why I don't know why Creationists don't accept the Big Bang theory for how it happened.


You can use whatever words you want, doesn't make any difference to me, it's still all nonsense. It's ridiculous because it simply is ridiculous. In fact I can't imagine too many other things more ridiculous than the idea that such complexities in life that we see came about via mindless, purposeless random acts. Sheer nonsense!
Why does it matter so much "how" He did it? The fact is, He did.


Again it doesn't say how he did it, so this is a possible way for him to do so. the evidence supports an expanding universe. Logic tells us that if something is expanding then it had to be smaller at some point.

You can call it ridiculous all you like, but I haven't seen any theory on how it was done from your side of the debate.


There was never a time He Never existed, so that "something" was always there.

View Post


If you say so. I'm going to have to disagree, because a common Creationist argument is that if something exists it had to come from something. So I can't take the statement "There was never a time He never existed" as an actual answer to my query.

#76 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 04:22 PM

God created time. Since without time nothing can have a beginning and an end, God did not have a beginning, and therefore no end. He just is.

View Post


If you don't mind answering my question, but where does it say God created time?

#77 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 06 May 2010 - 05:57 PM

If you don't mind answering my question, but where does it say God created time?

View Post

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Genesis 1:1).

I believe heavens is referring to the universe, as there is more to the universe than the Earth.
Do you agree that time is part of the universe? Because if the universe is all that exists, the laws must have been as well.

When Creationists say that if something exists it must have a beginning, that is referring to something in the universe, and since God is not restricted to the laws of the universe, this necessity does not apply as well.

#78 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 08 May 2010 - 06:09 AM

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Genesis 1:1).

I believe heavens is referring to the universe, as there is more to the universe than the Earth.
Do you agree that time is part of the universe? Because if the universe is all that exists, the laws must have been as well.


Yeah works for me :D I don't know exactly where I wanted to go with that line of questioning anyways. I thought it was interesting I guess :lol:


When Creationists say that if something exists it must have a beginning, that is referring to something in the universe, and since God is not restricted to the laws of the universe, this necessity does not apply as well.

View Post


I can't argue with that logic actually. If a divine being existed then it could exist outside of the normal laws of the universe.

#79 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 04:54 AM

Hello I am new to this site. But I am not new to this debate.

From what I have seen in my few years of info gathering on this subject, (I am only 24 though..wink), is that for a "SCIENTIFIC" theory. Evolution has way too many holes and doubts and points of inference and not facts. I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...

Forgive me this is very simplified to keep this intro short.

1- Probablilty... (maths hates evolution)
2- Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)
3- Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)
4- Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)
5- Defies Bible and other Religious Texts ( Religion hates evolution)
6- Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

There are many points I haven't included, and I will go into these points in depth later.

Thoughts anyone?

View Post


Quite frankly I don't know why I'm responding to such a post, but I'm trying to hone my debating skills and am curious of your responses. I'm not trying to be offensive (bear with me), but your post is stunningly and completely wrong. If you want to argue against evolution, please educate yourself about it, thoroughly, just like I'm trying to do with creationism! Then maybe we can have an enjoyable debate.

Hmm.. how exactly can it be disproven?

And to your 'points'..

1. Probability only "hates" evolution if you don't consider natural selection and inherent genes. Once you have the right materials to start with and plenty of time, evolution is almost inevitable. (Note - evolution does not deal with how life started, only the progression from that point.)

2. Physics does not "hate" evolution. On a macro level, it can sometimes look so, but on a cellular level, every rule & law is being followed.

3. Evolution does not attempt to explain how life began. Only what happened after that point. Theories such as Abiogenesis do that job.

4. It is much more likely for a bad mutation to occur, I'll give you that. But since natural selection is in place, the 'good mutations' are very easily passed down to the progeny.

5. Ofcourse it does. Science is constantly updated and being researched. Why is the bible a reliable source? There is no evidence to suggest so. If there was, science would look at the bible very differently.

6. Evolution is overflowing with evidence. What do you mean by 'repeat experiments'? Are you talking about repeating the processes which took billions of years, or lab experiments? If lab experiments, yes they can very easily be repeated.

If God did indeed design life, then why are there vestigial organs? Why does the cerbrum (the most sophisticated part of the human brain) develop last? Why do whales have tiny remnants of leg bones buried deep in their bodies? During embryonal development, why do the embryo whales first grow legs, which later recede? Why do they have hair at one stage, but lose it later? In bird embryos, why do they partially start to develop fingers, which later recede and fuse to the handbones? Why do modern birds (who descended from toothed animals) not grow teeth, but still have the genes available to do so? (Scientists have been able to induce tooth formation in chickens by activating those genes once again.) Why do backbones, the common structure among all vertebrates, develop as one of the first structures in all vertebrate embryos?

There's just a few points indicative of evolution.

You don't seem to realize that science never attempts to preserve and protect its theories if evidence is looking to the contrary. Science adjusts the theory to fit the facts & if there is a realistic potential error spotted, they go right back to the drawing boards.

#80 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 May 2010 - 12:25 PM

If God did indeed design life, then why are there vestigial organs?


There aren't, just because we do not know the purpose does not mean there isn't one. And their purposes are constantly being discovered anyway.

Why does the cerbrum (the most sophisticated part of the human brain) develop last?


Because it develops last... why would this be an issue?

Why do whales have tiny remnants of leg bones buried deep in their bodies?


Those bones are necessary to hold the whale's reproductive organs. They are in no way vestigial.

During embryonal development, why do the embryo whales first grow legs, which later recede? Why do they have hair at one stage, but lose it later? In bird embryos, why do they partially start to develop fingers, which later recede and fuse to the handbones?


Please cite your source on this.


Why do modern birds (who descended from toothed animals) not grow teeth, but still have the genes available to do so? (Scientists have been able to induce tooth formation in chickens by activating those genes once again.)


Maybe they had teeth in the Creation but lost them later on?

Why do backbones, the common structure among all vertebrates, develop as one of the first structures in all vertebrate embryos?


Because the body is pretty much based around it...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users