Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

So, there are similar designs present.

 

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

 

Posted Image

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

 

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

 

Posted Image

Thats the best I could do lol.

 

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

 

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

I can list them if you'd like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we still see geysers don't we?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Well we still see geysers don't we?

 

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

Exactly right, still some stuck down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24th November, 1859. Is that specific enough?

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Did you ever observe macro-evolution?

 

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

 

So age dating is not really as accurate as claimed.

 

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

 

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

Does a spirit have mass or weight?

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

post-44-0-83155100-1312511924_thumb.jpg

post-44-0-25173800-1312512010_thumb.jpg

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I start to get frustrated at some of this reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Then explain how laws happen naturally?

What the mechanism in which laws came into existence?

And how did they also get put together to work in balance and not total destruction?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 linksâ€ÂÂ, 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 stupidâ€ÂÂ. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 linksâ€ÂÂ, 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms