Jump to content


Photo

How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#41 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 05 August 2011 - 12:52 AM

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.


Whoa whoa whoa. Let's be specific about what I'm talking about in the above post. I said "for laws to continue to work", not to be formed in the first place. Once a natural law is in place, whether it originated in a deity or not, it requires the action of a deity in order to suspend or alter it. Only a theist, therefore, can say that laws will not always work in the future as they have in the past and are currently. A deist and an atheist can both count on a natural law continuing to work in the way it has been.

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.

I can't speak about astronomical data, but abiogenesis is something I'd be happy to discuss. Which abiogenesis theories are you talking about and which natural laws are they breaking?

#42 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 05 August 2011 - 04:09 PM

Hi Chris,

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?

Evolution is about survival. There are some environments where complex multicellular animals have an advantage. But there are also environments where unicellular organisms like bacteria have an advantage, such as in a dark cave or deep in the soil. Put a complex animal or plant in an environment like this, and they won’t do very well at all. “Better” is relative to the environment you live in.

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?

Primitive sponge fossils are an example of a transitional, multicellular organism. We have sponge fossils.

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?

Fossilization is not a common event. And fossils are not a common discovery. If all the living animals were fossilized at once in a giant flood, I would expect to see fossils of nearly every animal that has ever lived. Yet considering the size of our planet and all the layers of rock we dig through, we really haven’t found all that many. You make it sound as though a flood is the only possible way fossilization can occur, but there are plenty of other known causes of fossilization, which could easily explain the fossils we’ve found. As for marine fossils on mountains, this would be because marine fossils were lifted up from lower ground when the mountains formed. While we’re on the subject, how does the flood theory explain the marine fossils high up in the mountains? Just last weekend I was hiking high up in the Rockies and we came to an entire cliff of fossilized coral.

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

I’m not here to promote the advantages of argon dating. I only brought it up to illustrate the problem with ikester’s claim that all matter should date the same, since all matter came from the same place.

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.

Good for Paul Davies. He may be an evolutionist, but I’m not obligated to agree with all of his opinions.

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.

And soft sediment can remain suspended in the water for awhile, but it will eventually settle to the bottom.

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?


I know very little about geology (I’m more of a biology person, and I do appreciate the links you’ve provided), so bear with me here. The layers that I’m familiar with are not at all uniform or neatly stacked, at least not over any large distance. Layers start deep below ground only to be forced upwards into mountains. They change altitude and thickness over the surface of the Earth. They are bent and shifted as a result of volcanic activity melting and reforming the rock. I have never thought of the layers as the smooth stacks you describe them as. And I’m not familiar with deposits stretching all the way around the Earth, maybe you could elaborate on that (I’m not doubting that your claim it true, but like I said I really don’t know much about this at all).


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.

According to Wikipedia (excuse the lack of a scholarly source), polystrate fossils form during times of rapid sedimentation. I can see how this would support the flood theory, but it doesn’t go against the old Earth view. There obviously have been examples of rapid sediment deposit in the past, but that’s not enough evidence for a worldwide flood in my opinion.


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).


Were any of the turtles, alligators, or the “many other creatures” found alongside the dinosaurs the same species as extant animals we see today?

And I’d be curious to know what makes you think dinosaurs were swamp animals. When I think of swamp animals, I tend to think of animals that are water adapted: short limbs, often with webbed feet for swimming. Like an alligator or a beaver. I realize there are some dinosaurs which fit this description, but there are others with long legs that would be better suited for running or long distance walking, an adaptation generally associated with large open spaces. There are also flying dinosaurs, and it seems logical that even if all the dinosaurs happen to live in low-altitude swamps, at least some of the flying ones would have flown away in time. It would also seem logical to me that there should be at least a few mammal fossils mixed in with the dinosaurs, or dinosaur fossils mixed in with the mammals.

- 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.

If the sediment deposits happened as rapidly as you claim they did, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of time to intelligently reason things out. The instinct to run away from something that might kill you is just as strong in a lizard as it is in a human.


- 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.

So the strata layers are organized in a series from most dense to least dense, and this is what we observe today?

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?

According to the Wikipedia article on Ica Stones, the farmer who discovered the stones later admitted they were fakes he made himself. I don’t believe everything Wikipedia tells me, but I’m having a lot of difficulty finding another source which confirms the authenticity of the stones. Perhaps you could provide me with a link if you know of one?

#43 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 05 August 2011 - 05:51 PM

Hi Chris,

Hello Isabella, its nice talking with you.

Evolution is about survival. There are some environments where complex multicellular animals have an advantage. But there are also environments where unicellular organisms like bacteria have an advantage, such as in a dark cave or deep in the soil. Put a complex animal or plant in an environment like this, and they won’t do very well at all. “Better” is relative to the environment you live in.


Okay, thank you.

Primitive sponge fossils are an example of a transitional, multicellular organism. We have sponge fossils.


Would you know about how many cells they have? Are there any transitional fossils between these sponges and single-celled organisms?

Fossilization is not a common event. And fossils are not a common discovery. If all the living animals were fossilized at once in a giant flood, I would expect to see fossils of nearly every animal that has ever lived. Yet considering the size of our planet and all the layers of rock we dig through, we really haven’t found all that many.

Alot of terrestrial creatures made it to the surface and weren't fossilized or were not fossilized for some other reason. That's why more than 90% of the fossils are marine organisms. How can you see every animal that is alive today in the fossil record, if you don't know all the animals that lived at the time they were covered in sediment? There may be many more species today than there were back then, but there still existed the same kinds of animals.

As for marine fossils on mountains, this would be because marine fossils were lifted up from lower ground when the mountains formed. While we’re on the subject, how does the flood theory explain the marine fossils high up in the mountains? Just last weekend I was hiking high up in the Rockies and we came to an entire cliff of fossilized coral.

In the same way. The difference would be, how fast did this happen and when did it happen. The geologic activity of the water coming out of the ground would have had all kinds of effects. Earthquakes, plates moving, mountains forming, ocean basins sinking down.

They are bent and shifted as a result of volcanic activity melting and reforming the rock.

Okay, thank you.

I have never thought of the layers as the smooth stacks you describe them as.

The point I was trying to get across is, do geologists find soil or erosion in between the rock layers and if not, why?

And I’m not familiar with deposits stretching all the way around the Earth, maybe you could elaborate on that (I’m not doubting that your claim it true, but like I said I really don’t know much about this at all).

I heard this from John Mackay on Creation Today: Week 7/28/11. He said:

"... we went through Tennessee. Over there a few years ago I found some rocks with seashells and land plants all mixed together. Then I thought to myself, “Well, this is the Pennsylvanian rocks.” ... I thought, “Well, I have seen these rocks before,” and it was over in Wales many years ago. So, what we did was followed this rock layer all around planet earth. I got our guide in England to take me back to Wales to where we thought that quarry might be and I said, “That layer should be here somewhere,” and sure enough, halfway up there was the layer with shells and plants in.

So this layer actually covers more than 180 degrees of the earth’s surface so anybody who is looking for evidence, not only of the creation of the shells and the plants, but the evidence of God’s judgment at Noah’s flood, you can actually see it, folks. It is really out there and it is rock solid."


For more information, you can ask him yourself.

According to Wikipedia (excuse the lack of a scholarly source), polystrate fossils form during times of rapid sedimentation. I can see how this would support the flood theory, but it doesn’t go against the old Earth view. There obviously have been examples of rapid sediment deposit in the past, but that’s not enough evidence for a worldwide flood in my opinion.

Right, and these are found all over the earth. I guess my question would be, whats so different about the layers the polystrate fossils are found in with the layers they aren't found in. I understand there are many kinds of layers, but if you can see that the ones surrounding the polystrate fossils were rapidly deposited, isn't it atleast possible that the one's they aren't found in could have been deposited in the same way?

Were any of the turtles, alligators, or the “many other creatures” found alongside the dinosaurs the same species as extant animals we see today?

I'm not sure about species, but an alligator skull was found with many centrosaurus fossils and had the exact same skull shape as modern alligators that we have today. It was found at Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada. I have a short video clip of this saved on my computer, but how would I upload it for you to see, if you are interested? I'm sure you can find an article online, because the clip is only like a minute or two long.

And I’d be curious to know what makes you think dinosaurs were swamp animals. When I think of swamp animals, I tend to think of animals that are water adapted: short limbs, often with webbed feet for swimming. Like an alligator or a beaver. I realize there are some dinosaurs which fit this description, but there are others with long legs that would be better suited for running or long distance walking, an adaptation generally associated with large open spaces. There are also flying dinosaurs, and it seems logical that even if all the dinosaurs happen to live in low-altitude swamps, at least some of the flying ones would have flown away in time.

Right, some of them were swamp animals. I can't be sure of all of them. The flying dinosaurs just show up in the fossil record with flight and no fossilized ancestors. How come atleast one of they're ancestors weren't fossilized?

It would also seem logical to me that there should be at least a few mammal fossils mixed in with the dinosaurs, or dinosaur fossils mixed in with the mammals.

In one rock strata, researchers found several types of dinosaurs and were surprised to find frog, fish, turtle, small mammal and plant fossils as well. - New Scientist, February 24, 2001 p. 13

A large mammal fossil had a dinosaur fossil in its stomach. BioEd Online article

Human tracks and dinosaur tracks found together at Paluxy

If the sediment deposits happened as rapidly as you claim they did, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of time to intelligently reason things out. The instinct to run away from something that might kill you is just as strong in a lizard as it is in a human.


The way this catastrophe was happening wasn't uniform all over the planet. Layers laid down here and some there. Some laid down, sat in the sun for a little, devolping a skin, capturing the footprints we find in them, and then being covered by another layer. The tides would have had an effect.

So the strata layers are organized in a series from most dense to least dense, and this is what we observe today?


I meant the objects we find in the layers, but again, I am no expert on flood geology. For your serious questions, I'd visit those websites I listed, use their search function, or just email them. They will have more in-depth answers to your questions.

According to the Wikipedia article on Ica Stones, the farmer who discovered the stones later admitted they were fakes he made himself. I don’t believe everything Wikipedia tells me, but I’m having a lot of difficulty finding another source which confirms the authenticity of the stones. Perhaps you could provide me with a link if you know of one?

The farmer said some of them were fake. There are thousands of these stones. Obviously some want to fake them to sell to gullible tourists. These stones were first reported in the 1500's by the Spanish. The man who said they were fake had to say they were fake because its illegal to sell Peruvian artifacts and he was on camera. He later admitted that he lied and was then arrested. Why would he be in jail for selling fake artifacts? If he faked them before the 1990's, how did he know to put the dermal spine along the back of the dinosaurs like some of the stones have? Here are more sources which confirm their authenticity: Ica stones show dinosaurs and humans coexisted, Dinosaurs and Man/Ica Stones.

The second link has more details.

Thank you for responding to me. I hope we both get closer to the truth.

#44 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 05 August 2011 - 08:18 PM

Whoa whoa whoa. Let's be specific about what I'm talking about in the above post. I said "for laws to continue to work", not to be formed in the first place. Once a natural law is in place, whether it originated in a deity or not, it requires the action of a deity in order to suspend or alter it. Only a theist, therefore, can say that laws will not always work in the future as they have in the past and are currently. A deist and an atheist can both count on a natural law continuing to work in the way it has been.


You agree with everything staying the same only because it conforms to what you want to believe happened. Conformism is not science. Because you or anyone else cannot prove that the laws of physics stayed the same always, then you have to ponder other possibilities. The refusal to means you prefer conformism over possibility.


I can't speak about astronomical data, but abiogenesis is something I'd be happy to discuss. Which abiogenesis theories are you talking about and which natural laws are they breaking?


The ability to animate dead matter to life as to what is implied with abiogensis. Did life come from dead matter or not? Yes or no?

#45 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 05 August 2011 - 08:23 PM

You agree with everything staying the same only because it conforms to what you want to believe happened. Conformism is not science. Because you or anyone else cannot prove that the laws of physics stayed the same always, then you have to ponder other possibilities. The refusal to means you prefer conformism over possibility.


So if someone isn't agreeing with the pseudoscience you're peddling, then they're just a "conformist"?


The ability to animate dead matter to life as to what is implied with abiogensis. Did life come from dead matter or not? Yes or no?


"Animate dead matter to life"? What in the world does that mean? And what abiogenesis model alleges such a process?

And if you're asking whether primitive "life" (which 99% of laypeople wouldn't consider to be life) arose from standard, disorganized organic molecules, then yes. "Information" (a term creationists love) and complexity aren't the important part of abiogenesis; the important part is the development of structures upon which natural selection can begin to act (lipid droplets of varying size, self-replicating polymers, etc)

#46 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 06 August 2011 - 08:13 AM

So if someone isn't agreeing with the pseudoscience you're peddling, then they're just a "conformist"?


Your refusal to answer the question without an insult just shows how weak what you believe really is. So answer the question and we will see, or is it that facing other possibilities scares you so conformism is all you can muster?


"Animate dead matter to life"? What in the world does that mean? And what abiogenesis model alleges such a process?


The act stupid answer so you can dodge the question. Classic.

And if you're asking whether primitive "life" (which 99% of laypeople wouldn't consider to be life) arose from standard, disorganized organic molecules, then yes. "Information" (a term creationists love) and complexity aren't the important part of abiogenesis; the important part is the development of structures upon which natural selection can begin to act (lipid droplets of varying size, self-replicating polymers, etc)


Still refusing to answer the question? All you are doing here is building a straw-man which shows your inability to answer directly. And then comes more insults. Do insults prove evolution, or is it your way of dodging the questions again and again? All you did here is show your inability to answer a simple creationist question.

One more thing, categorizing people is a form of racism. Funny how evolution and evolutionists can never seem to get away from that. I hear it's embedded in evolution and therefore a evolutionist has no choice.

#47 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 06 August 2011 - 10:26 AM

I'm posting this in two parts so that I can use quotes.

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

In addition to genes that code for structural proteins like keratin, there are also genes which have a regulatory function. These genes would determine how much keratin is produced, where the keratin is produced, and what structures the keratin forms.

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

I’ve heard about people like that, and the point here is that allergies are not normal and can even result in death. They occur when the immune system reacts to a harmless protein it should not have reacted to. An immune system which functions properly should be able to detect pathogens like viruses, but should not react to every foreign protein it encounters like the ones found in peanuts or shellfish.

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.

Yes, but in some cases it does work which shows that not all foreign protein is going to trigger an immune response. And I will again stress the point that during development, the immune system is going to be more flexible than in an adult organism. Evolution is not about the sudden, spontaneous development of a new protein in an adult organism.

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.

I’m confused... what exactly did I leave out? Please tell me what information you feel was missing and I will try my best to provide it. I’m not deliberately avoiding anything.

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

I never even mentioned a number; I just said there would be stages. I don’t like the term “missing links”, and I didn’t use it in my post. I find it can be misleading, because it suggests discrete steps rather than gradual change.

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.

Survival is only a “goal” in the sense that if an animal does not survive to reproduce, it will not pass on its genes. Change occurs in that direction because the animals that cannot survive are a genetic dead end.

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’ve already said that the fossil record is not complete. We’re lucky to have fossils of anything at all, and it would be unreasonable to expect a fossil of everything that ever lived. I’m guessing trilobite fossils are common because trilobites themselves were common, and their hard skeletons would protect them from decay. We do have fossils before trilobites though, as well as different types of trilobite fossils ranging from more primitive to more complex.

Did you ever observe macro-evolution?

I haven’t mentioned macro evolution once in my post, and I don’t see how this question relates to the quote of mine you’re addressing. No, I’ve never observed macro evolution because macro evolution is not a visible, discrete event. I’ve observed micro evolution though, and I don’t know of any genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from leading to macro evolution given enough time. Do you know of one?

So age dating is not really as accurate as claimed.

I made no statement about the accuracy of dating techniques. My point was only that dating techniques do not trace matter back to its origin, but rather measure the time that has elapsed since the formation of a particular rock or bone.

Does a spirit have mass or weight?

Jesus was not a spirit, he was the fully human son of God according to the Bible. The story I am familiar with specifies that it was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, who walked on the water. If Jesus was nothing more than a spirit, he could not have been crucified and killed.

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.

I was not familiar with that version of the story, but again that breaks a law of physics. When air moves quickly, the air pressure becomes lower (Bernoulli’s principle). A fast-moving wind would have very low air pressure, and would actually act as a vacuum and suck the water together rather than forcing it apart.

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

The prevailing theory is that the big bang resulted from the rapid expansion of very dense matter and energy, not from matter being generated spontaneously out of thin air.

#48 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 06 August 2011 - 10:33 AM

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?

Water is composed of the atoms hydrogen and oxygen. Arrange the atoms however you’d like, you won’t end up with blood or wine. You would need to introduce new molecules for that to be possible.


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.

I’m not following what your point is here. Living things age and die because a cell can only divide so many times, largely due to the limitations of DNA replication. A dead cell cannot maintain homeostasis, and a cell that cannot maintain homeostasis cannot support a living organism.

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.

While I can’t prove that they were always the same, I also have no reason to assume they were ever different because we have never observed even the slightest fluctuation in a physical law. Furthermore, if you change one law you have to start changing all of them because they’re all interconnected. Creationists are often the ones to point out just how fine-tuned all of these physical constants must be to support life. Change those laws, and you change or remove life as we know it.

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.

The fossils of extant mammals buried in the same layer as dinosaur fossils. The fossils of dinosaurs buried in the same layer as extant mammals. The discovery of some sort of genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from resulting in speciation (macro evolution) over time. The discovery of a complex animal or plant with DNA that cannot undergo random mutation and has never been able to even in the presence of selective pressures. The spontaneous generation of a new species from nothing. The discovery of several new species which have absolutely no genetic or morphological relationship with any other species currently known, either fossil or extant. Empirical proof of the existence of a soul.

All of these things would disprove, or at the very least cast serious doubt, on the theory that all life evolved.

Now perhaps you could answer the same question: what findings would disprove creationism?

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.

As far as I know, every octopus does have the ability to change its skin color using specialized pigment cells which expand and contract. The mimic octopus just takes it a step further and changes its body shape as well. This is an example of camouflage, and it aids in survival by hiding the octopus from predators as well as allowing it to sneak up on prey. This is consistent with evolution, but if you want a step-by-step model of how this evolved I can’t provide that any more easily than I could provide a step-by-step model of how the embryonic development of an armadillo. A model could very well exist, but I don’t know it off the top of my head because I’ve never studied mollusc evolution in any great detail. To say that evolution is false just because I cannot provide you with this model would be like saying armadillos must not exist if I can’t tell you how they develop.


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?

Rocks and other sediment. Drop a bunch of rocks in a bucket of water and they will sink. You could use high pressure steam to keep them from sinking for awhile, but remove the steam and they will sink once again.

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?


You didn’t answer or comment on a single thing I said in that quote. I’m making an effort to address all your points to the best of my ability, but you’re responding to my post with one-liner questions like “Did you ever observe macro-evolution?” I’m here to have a discussion, but if it’s going to be a one-sided interrogation in which my questions are simply ignored then maybe I should just leave.

Now to answer your question: Layers can be formed by various mechanisms depending on the type of layer in question. An organic layer like oil or coal results from the build-up of organic matter over time, such as a coral reef or a forest. A layer of volcanic rock is the result of volcanic activity. A layer of sandstone is the result of sandy sediment being deposited. We see these mechanisms continuing to occur today, and we can simulate layer formation by creating conditions which are representative of natural events. As you said earlier, artificial petroleum products can be made given enough pressure and heat.

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?

I do not reject evidence unless I have a reason to believe it’s fake. In response to the dinosaur blood: soft tissue can persist indefinitely if it is kept in an airtight space with no decomposers. I saw a museum exhibit once on bog people, human bodies that were preserved almost perfectly due to the acidic, anaerobic swamp water they were found in. I have never heard a general rule that after x number of years, blood cells must decompose/fossilize even if they are in an environment where decomposition or fossilization is not possible. In response to the dinosaur tracks picture: can you provide me with a link so I can read more about where this was found, by whom, and how deep in the ground it was discovered?

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.

Because I said your argument was a poor one? I did not mean this as an insult, and I apologize if it came across that way. It was my understanding that evaluating and criticizing your opponent’s argument is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a debate. I did not use any ad hominem attacks against you. I did not insult your intelligence by saying, “That was a poor argument, you must be really stupid”. It’s apparent from your posts that you are very knowledge about the subjects we are discussing and I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person. That being said, even intelligent people can make an argument which doesn’t really hold up when examined carefully. I expect that you would have no problem pointing out a weak argument in an evolutionist’s post, so why the double standard?

I really don’t appreciate that you’re accusing me of being a liar considering you don’t know me personally at all. When I initially said I have time constraints which prevent me from spending hours on end researching and posting here, that was completely true. I have a full time job, and come September I will be a full time student once again. I try to spend my time off with friends and family, preferably outdoors. Sometimes it takes me a week to write a response on these forums, and sometime I have more free time than usual (like today and yesterday) and I can reply faster.

As for claiming I don’t know very much about certain topics, that’s true as well. I’m not very knowledgeable when it comes to geology and the fossil record. If I have the time, I can look up information online to educate myself, and usually I start with Wikipedia even though I know it’s not the best source out there.

#49 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 06 August 2011 - 01:49 PM

Still refusing to answer the question? All you are doing here is building a straw-man which shows your inability to answer directly. And then comes more insults. Do insults prove evolution, or is it your way of dodging the questions again and again? All you did here is show your inability to answer a simple creationist question.


Let's try this answer, then: "Organic molecules have been shown in the laboratory (and at the salad bar) to form lipid droplets, self-polymerizing chains of molecules capable of storing information, and amino acids spontaneously. Such building blocks are capable, both in the laboratory and in nature, of reproducing and competing against each other, thus lending themselves to natural selection. Thus, life could have been formed without a pre-existing organism."

No single abiogenesis theory has yet been accepted by the scientific community as a whole, but several frontrunners have established themselves over the past 3 or 4 decades (chief among them the "protein first" and "RNA first" schools of thought). They all could be correct, but we're not sure which one was most likely to have occurred. This is an area of ongoing research at many major institutions and there are several wonderful papers that have come out over the past two or three years.

If these models and research projects interest you, and if you're the type to take classes at local universities out of sheer interest (a la my dad who, for some sadistic reason, decided to take up French as a 60 yr old), then I would recommend a majors-level biochemistry course to whet your appetite. Typically, abiogenesis is covered in two or three lectures during a standard semester-long course.

One more thing, categorizing people is a form of racism. Funny how evolution and evolutionists can never seem to get away from that. I hear it's embedded in evolution and therefore a evolutionist has no choice.


I've also heard (aka experienced) that Christianity categorizes people. Does that make Christianity a form of bigotry? I don't think so; bigotry implies malice. Perhaps "misguided" is more accurate.

If you graduated from a public or privately-accredited high school and are still asking some of the questions that you are in this thread, then no, I do not consider you to be an inferior life form. Your questions in this thread, though, are astounding for anyone who's had high school chemistry or biology and understood those classes. Instead, I'm assuming that during high school you were either (1) a slacker who only paid enough attention to pass your science classes, or, more likely (2) a person capable of compartmentalizing your natural philosophy so that you could think and reason in a scientific way while in the classroom and then leave the classroom without taking your conclusions with you. Aka, you acted the same way I did for the first 14 years of my formal education before I realized I was being a hypocrite in "seeking God's truth" thru the Bible but then not paying attention to his creation's behaviour as evidenced in the science laboratories and classrooms.

#50 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 06 August 2011 - 03:44 PM

I'm posting this in two parts so that I can use quotes.


In addition to genes that code for structural proteins like keratin, there are also genes which have a regulatory function. These genes would determine how much keratin is produced, where the keratin is produced, and what structures the keratin forms.


The genes determine? You are now adding intelligence to this.

I’ve heard about people like that, and the point here is that allergies are not normal and can even result in death. They occur when the immune system reacts to a harmless protein it should not have reacted to. An immune system which functions properly should be able to detect pathogens like viruses, but should not react to every foreign protein it encounters like the ones found in peanuts or shellfish.


And with hos evolution is supposed to work, those problems should have been weeded out a long time ago through death. Just like diabetes should not exist because there was a time that there was no treatment.

Yes, but in some cases it does work which shows that not all foreign protein is going to trigger an immune response. And I will again stress the point that during development, the immune system is going to be more flexible than in an adult organism. Evolution is not about the sudden, spontaneous development of a new protein in an adult organism.



It is if you have trylobytes in the second layer with fully formed systems, organs, and some of the most complex eyes in the world.

I’m confused... what exactly did I leave out? Please tell me what information you feel was missing and I will try my best to provide it. I’m not deliberately avoiding anything.


That was answered in the previous posts above where I had to add in what you left out.

I never even mentioned a number; I just said there would be stages. I don’t like the term “missing links”, and I didn’t use it in my post. I find it can be misleading, because it suggests discrete steps rather than gradual change.



Evolutionist came up with the picture that illustrates steps for chimps becoming human. Creationist did not do this. And stages define or imply a number. If I tell you there are learning stages for you to go through to learn a certain type math. Should I not be able to tell you the number?

Survival is only a “goal” in the sense that if an animal does not survive to reproduce, it will not pass on its genes. Change occurs in that direction because the animals that cannot survive are a genetic dead end.


But what controls change? Example: How does a fish know how to exactly evolve a lung with all it's complexity to work like it does? Do genes have blueprints of the lungs and say: This is what we have to build in order to walk on land? That is where the creationist has a problem with evolution. Is how do the genes naturally know what needs to be done next. Survival does not determine how a organ must be designed or work. Example: The human eye has to be a specific size, a specific shape, and the lens has to be a specific shape to work with all this. And the fluid inside the eye has to be clear in order for the eye to work. That is only touching on the design of the eye in order to function. Not the complexity of how it works. Now how did the genes know all this was needed in order for the eye to work?

I’ve already said that the fossil record is not complete. We’re lucky to have fossils of anything at all, and it would be unreasonable to expect a fossil of everything that ever lived. I’m guessing trilobite fossils are common because trilobites themselves were common, and their hard skeletons would protect them from decay. We do have fossils before trilobites though, as well as different types of trilobite fossils ranging from more primitive to more complex.


Then the fossil record is not a record because like you say, it's not complete. So therefore it does not tell a complete story either. Which means it can support anything, not just evolution.

I haven’t mentioned macro evolution once in my post, and I don’t see how this question relates to the quote of mine you’re addressing. No, I’ve never observed macro evolution because macro evolution is not a visible, discrete event. I’ve observed micro evolution though, and I don’t know of any genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from leading to macro evolution given enough time. Do you know of one?


Assuming it happens without visual confirmation means that the claim for macro-evolution is not empirical, neither is it anywhere close to it. Micro to infinity = Macro is just like a God did it answer. It requires you to never ever provide any proof or evidence. That's how a God did it answer works.

I made no statement about the accuracy of dating techniques. My point was only that dating techniques do not trace matter back to its origin, but rather measure the time that has elapsed since the formation of a particular rock or bone.


Then you make my point for me.

Jesus was not a spirit, he was the fully human son of God according to the Bible. The story I am familiar with specifies that it was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, who walked on the water. If Jesus was nothing more than a spirit, he could not have been crucified and killed.


Did His body contain a spirit or not?

I was not familiar with that version of the story, but again that breaks a law of physics. When air moves quickly, the air pressure becomes lower (Bernoulli’s principle). A fast-moving wind would have very low air pressure, and would actually act as a vacuum and suck the water together rather than forcing it apart.


A hurricane creates low pressure in the center, does it suck a ocean into itself? By your logic to disprove the parting of the Red Sea, it would have to. Because the vacuum you claim keep all together. Actually, you are really grasping here.

The prevailing theory is that the big bang resulted from the rapid expansion of very dense matter and energy, not from matter being generated spontaneously out of thin air.


Funny how you ignore that matter has a beginning. My conclusion is that you have no answer for that beginning so you try to make it sound nonviable with that statement. So I will ask it more directly: Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Do things just exist because they need to? And how would you prove that?

#51 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 06 August 2011 - 04:26 PM

Water is composed of the atoms hydrogen and oxygen. Arrange the atoms however you’d like, you won’t end up with blood or wine. You would need to introduce new molecules for that to be possible.


No. Heaven is another dimension so that all that would be required is for the wine or blood to appear from that dimension.

I’m not following what your point is here. Living things age and die because a cell can only divide so many times, largely due to the limitations of DNA replication. A dead cell cannot maintain homeostasis, and a cell that cannot maintain homeostasis cannot support a living organism.


And without realizing it, you just pointed out the main problem for abiogenesis and evolution. How can dead matter, that has zero living cells, produce those living cells so that life can exist. Can non-cell matter produce living cell matter?

While I can’t prove that they were always the same, I also have no reason to assume they were ever different because we have never observed even the slightest fluctuation in a physical law. Furthermore, if you change one law you have to start changing all of them because they’re all interconnected. Creationists are often the ones to point out just how fine-tuned all of these physical constants must be to support life. Change those laws, and you change or remove life as we know it.


Yet to make your theories work for black holes you will claim that the laws do not apply there, right? So while you will ponder this because it supports the conclusion you want, you will not ponder it in other way because it goes against that wanted conclusion. Bias and conformism is not science.

The fossils of extant mammals buried in the same layer as dinosaur fossils. The fossils of dinosaurs buried in the same layer as extant mammals. The discovery of some sort of genetic barrier which would prevent micro evolution from resulting in speciation (macro evolution) over time. The discovery of a complex animal or plant with DNA that cannot undergo random mutation and has never been able to even in the presence of selective pressures. The spontaneous generation of a new species from nothing. The discovery of several new species which have absolutely no genetic or morphological relationship with any other species currently known, either fossil or extant. Empirical proof of the existence of a soul.


Speciation is changes within a kind (micro evolution). Why? The birds that are often used as the example were still birds (same kind) when they changed. The reason all life is related is not because of a common ancestor, but because of a common template (RNA DNA). If macro evolution were true, not only should new kinds evolve, but new templates for life. But yet that is not what we see,

All of these things would disprove, or at the very least cast serious doubt, on the theory that all life evolved.


You make no list because you know that there is a possibility that I will meet your criteria. Which means that evolution under your logic is not falsifiable and never will be.

Now perhaps you could answer the same question: what findings would disprove creationism?



You first.

As far as I know, every octopus does have the ability to change its skin color using specialized pigment cells which expand and contract. The mimic octopus just takes it a step further and changes its body shape as well. This is an example of camouflage, and it aids in survival by hiding the octopus from predators as well as allowing it to sneak up on prey. This is consistent with evolution, but if you want a step-by-step model of how this evolved I can’t provide that any more easily than I could provide a step-by-step model of how the embryonic development of an armadillo. A model could very well exist, but I don’t know it off the top of my head because I’ve never studied mollusc evolution in any great detail. To say that evolution is false just because I cannot provide you with this model would be like saying armadillos must not exist if I can’t tell you how they develop.


No it's not consistent with evolution because what it supposedly evolved from also survived. So survival was not the issue here.

Rocks and other sediment. Drop a bunch of rocks in a bucket of water and they will sink. You could use high pressure steam to keep them from sinking for awhile, but remove the steam and they will sink once again.


Then we should have no water under the crust using your logic. So is all the water above the crust?

You didn’t answer or comment on a single thing I said in that quote. I’m making an effort to address all your points to the best of my ability, but you’re responding to my post with one-liner questions like “Did you ever observe macro-evolution?” I’m here to have a discussion, but if it’s going to be a one-sided interrogation in which my questions are simply ignored then maybe I should just leave.


How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine? Here's what you posted.

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's my answer in a video that shows how it works.

http://video.google....640131781244424

Now to answer your question: Layers can be formed by various mechanisms depending on the type of layer in question. An organic layer like oil or coal results from the build-up of organic matter over time, such as a coral reef or a forest. A layer of volcanic rock is the result of volcanic activity. A layer of sandstone is the result of sandy sediment being deposited. We see these mechanisms continuing to occur today, and we can simulate layer formation by creating conditions which are representative of natural events. As you said earlier, artificial petroleum products can be made given enough pressure and heat.


Yet layers exist all over the world which one can conclude a world wide event.

I do not reject evidence unless I have a reason to believe it’s fake. In response to the dinosaur blood: soft tissue can persist indefinitely if it is kept in an airtight space with no decomposers. I saw a museum exhibit once on bog people, human bodies that were preserved almost perfectly due to the acidic, anaerobic swamp water they were found in. I have never heard a general rule that after x number of years, blood cells must decompose/fossilize even if they are in an environment where decomposition or fossilization is not possible. In response to the dinosaur tracks picture: can you provide me with a link so I can read more about where this was found, by whom, and how deep in the ground it was discovered?


What is the difference between human preserved and dinosaur preserved? Several million years.

Not that it would make any difference because you will already deem them as fake:
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=596
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=551

Because I said your argument was a poor one? I did not mean this as an insult, and I apologize if it came across that way. It was my understanding that evaluating and criticizing your opponent’s argument is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in a debate. I did not use any ad hominem attacks against you. I did not insult your intelligence by saying, “That was a poor argument, you must be really stupid”. It’s apparent from your posts that you are very knowledge about the subjects we are discussing and I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person. That being said, even intelligent people can make an argument which doesn’t really hold up when examined carefully. I expect that you would have no problem pointing out a weak argument in an evolutionist’s post, so why the double standard?


I really don’t appreciate that you’re accusing me of being a liar considering you don’t know me personally at all. When I initially said I have time constraints which prevent me from spending hours on end researching and posting here, that was completely true. I have a full time job, and come September I will be a full time student once again. I try to spend my time off with friends and family, preferably outdoors. Sometimes it takes me a week to write a response on these forums, and sometime I have more free time than usual (like today and yesterday) and I can reply faster.

As for claiming I don’t know very much about certain topics, that’s true as well. I’m not very knowledgeable when it comes to geology and the fossil record. If I have the time, I can look up information online to educate myself, and usually I start with Wikipedia even though I know it’s not the best source out there.


You believe creation is a lie, right? You believe all creation evidence is fake. What does that make me in your eyes? I get it implied and called it outright everyday by evolutionists, and once it's implied to you, you have a problem? You should try walking in my shoes for a day.

#52 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 06 August 2011 - 05:18 PM

And without realizing it, you just pointed out the main problem for abiogenesis and evolution. How can dead matter, that has zero living cells, produce those living cells so that life can exist. Can non-cell matter produce living cell matter?


I'm honestly not trying to be belligerent when I say this, so don't take it the wrong way: read a book about biochemistry. Not one written by an ecologist, not one by a theologian, not one that's a summary in TIME magazine. Read a good account of biochemistry and the proposed mechanisms for the rise of life on earth, even if it's just the first chapter or two out of a college-level textbook.

#53 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 06 August 2011 - 05:58 PM

I'm honestly not trying to be belligerent when I say this, so don't take it the wrong way: read a book about biochemistry. Not one written by an ecologist, not one by a theologian, not one that's a summary in TIME magazine. Read a good account of biochemistry and the proposed mechanisms for the rise of life on earth, even if it's just the first chapter or two out of a college-level textbook.


Why? So I can become more confused because they beat around the bush about where life actually came from? If you know, and can prove it empirically, why not post it? Is it really that hard to do?

#54 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 06 August 2011 - 06:23 PM

Let's try this answer, then: "Organic molecules have been shown in the laboratory (and at the salad bar) to form lipid droplets, self-polymerizing chains of molecules capable of storing information, and amino acids spontaneously. Such building blocks are capable, both in the laboratory and in nature, of reproducing and competing against each other, thus lending themselves to natural selection. Thus, life could have been formed without a pre-existing organism."


Could have does not = that it empirically did.

No single abiogenesis theory has yet been accepted by the scientific community as a whole, but several frontrunners have established themselves over the past 3 or 4 decades (chief among them the "protein first" and "RNA first" schools of thought). They all could be correct, but we're not sure which one was most likely to have occurred. This is an area of ongoing research at many major institutions and there are several wonderful papers that have come out over the past two or three years.


The problem I have with this is that it's being taught as an implied fact. This is the way life came into being, though life this way has never been observed.

If these models and research projects interest you, and if you're the type to take classes at local universities out of sheer interest (a la my dad who, for some sadistic reason, decided to take up French as a 60 yr old), then I would recommend a majors-level biochemistry course to whet your appetite. Typically, abiogenesis is covered in two or three lectures during a standard semester-long course.


Classes that in order to pass one has to agree with evolution and deny God. No thanks.

I've also heard (aka experienced) that Christianity categorizes people. Does that make Christianity a form of bigotry? I don't think so; bigotry implies malice. Perhaps "misguided" is more accurate.


Immature Christians do this. Also, Do you not want categorization among Christians when you call yourselves atheists? I look at it this way. Everyone has the freewill to choose. So if they reject Christ, that's their choice. When people force views it starts looking like a cult. God does not want anyone in Heaven that was forced to be there.

If you graduated from a public or privately-accredited high school and are still asking some of the questions that you are in this thread, then no, I do not consider you to be an inferior life form. Your questions in this thread, though, are astounding for anyone who's had high school chemistry or biology and understood those classes. Instead, I'm assuming that during high school you were either (1) a slacker who only paid enough attention to pass your science classes, or, more likely (2) a person capable of compartmentalizing your natural philosophy so that you could think and reason in a scientific way while in the classroom and then leave the classroom without taking your conclusions with you. Aka, you acted the same way I did for the first 14 years of my formal education before I realized I was being a hypocrite in "seeking God's truth" thru the Bible but then not paying attention to his creation's behaviour as evidenced in the science laboratories and classrooms.


Did you read the post of what I had to go through while I went to school? Let's just say that I was more focused on fearing for my life then studies. Everyone feared for their life where I went. Even the teachers.

#55 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 August 2011 - 01:09 AM

Could have does not = that it empirically did.

I can agree with that. But it's impossible for you to prove to me that George Washington was the first president, either. You can show me all kinds of evidence that he could have been, but I can always raise doubts about whether the evidence is coincidence or conspiracy.

The problem I have with this is that it's being taught as an implied fact. This is the way life came into being, though life this way has never been observed.

Again, see the George Washington analogy. And no biochemistry professor EVER told me "this is how life came to be". They merely presented various models that showed not only that abiogenesis was possible, but that there were multiple ways it could've happened.

Classes that in order to pass one has to agree with evolution and deny God. No thanks.

Not correct. The chair of my biology department in undergrad, and one of the most influential women in my life, is an evangelical Christian. Devout. You might think that's impossible, but that's your opinion (and one that she would call "prideful bigotry").

Immature Christians do this. Also, Do you not want categorization among Christians when you call yourselves atheists? I look at it this way. Everyone has the freewill to choose. So if they reject Christ, that's their choice. When people force views it starts looking like a cult. God does not want anyone in Heaven that was forced to be there.

Anything my professor tells me, I can go to the lab and disprove him if I lack faith in him (and have a lot of extra time). I can also look in the bibliography of any one of my textbooks and then go find the original papers supporting the conclusions presented in the text. No forcing of views being made in science; merely the forceful request that people THINK before they complain.

Did you read the post of what I had to go through while I went to school? Let's just say that I was more focused on fearing for my life then studies. Everyone feared for their life where I went. Even the teachers.

If that's the case, then I'm very sorry. But fortunately for you, you're not in a country where books are banned or where the internet is censored. Many textbooks are available on Google Books for free (or at least some portions of them). You can also go to the public library or a local university. In the amount of time you've been posting in this thread, you could've read multiple chapters in a biochemistry textbook rather than reciting what you already believe. Go out and challenge your beliefs instead of remaining in stasis your whole life. A priest (who was also my calculus professor for several semesters) once told me that "Any religious faith that is not constantly being poked, prodded, and challenged is no faith at all. If I'm not out there challenging my faith, then I am left to wonder whether I'm just avoiding doing so because I'm afraid of what the results might be."

Education is not something that stops when you enter the workforce. It just has to take a lower priority to putting bread on the table.

#56 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 07 August 2011 - 05:52 AM

In response to the dinosaur tracks picture: can you provide me with a link so I can read more about where this was found, by whom, and how deep in the ground it was discovered?


ikester7579 already provided you with some links, but I just thought I'd throw another one out there.
Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy/CreationWiki.org

#57 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 August 2011 - 06:08 AM

ikester7579 already provided you with some links, but I just thought I'd throw another one out there.
Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy/CreationWiki.org


I thought the family of the landowner/discoverer later admitted that the human footprints were a hoax?

#58 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 07 August 2011 - 06:18 AM

I thought the family of the landowner/discoverer later admitted that the human footprints were a hoax?

I don't doubt someone could have come along and faked a few tracks, but there are human tracks scattered throughout the area and some trails stretch a long ways. I don't think someone sat there day and night carving track after track after track. Did you view the pictures in the link to see the many different places the tracks are found and to see if they looked carved?

Taylor Trail:
"By following the trail back under the river bank, seven more very human like tracks were exposed. The process involved removing tons of limestone overburden, effectively eliminating the possibility that the tracks were carved." Bible.ca/Taylor Trail

Posted Image

#59 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 August 2011 - 08:02 AM

Posted ImageChanzui, on 03 August 2011 - 11:25 PM, said:

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.


Except for the part about increase in complexity, which implies increase in information. I would be curious if Chanzui can provide any genomic evidence of diversity equating to complexity or increased information. I can provide overwhelming evidence that diversity is either shifting of information (eg. Darwin's finches) or (if NeoDarwinian, random mutation) less complexity/information (eg. sickle cell anemia, mosquitoes resistant to DDT, blind bats, etc).

Fred

#60 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 07 August 2011 - 08:19 AM

I can provide overwhelming evidence that diversity is either shifting of information (eg. Darwin's finches) or (if NeoDarwinian, random mutation) less complexity/information (eg. sickle cell anemia, mosquitoes resistant to DDT, blind bats, etc).

Fred


You forgot to add "or the addition of genetic data via unequal crossing-over, retroviral genomic sequence insertion, AT-repeat errors, trinucleotide repeat errors, and transposon-mediated base insertions".




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)