Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
usafjay1976

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

Recommended Posts

 

So, we are supposed to believe over the course of 400 million years, while the Coelecanth  (A FISH) and the Jellyfish (MEDUSAE) changed ZERO,

Other FISH, And MEDUSAE, Living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT Were Evolving into a MAN???

 

As far as I know the evolutionary line that produced humans never had a cnidarian.

 

It's really no great mystery why some fish are still fish and some fish eventually evolved into humans. Environment plays a key role, but if you don't have the mutations in your population then said population is obviously not going to go in that direction. Some fish had the mutations at the right environmental time that eventually lead them to become terrestrial, and the populations without those mutations when there is an environmental pressure/niche to become terrestrial wouldn't.

 

"As far as I know the evolutionary line that produced humans never had a cnidarian."

 

And as far as I know, Humans were created by God in one 24 hour day around 6000 years ago..AND ALL OF OUR 10 Interdependent VITAL organs were created AT THE SAME TIME.. And, Based on Empirical Scientific Evidence.. My explanation is the only one of the two that makes any sense SCIENTIFICALLY... I would be happy to elaborate it for you again if you like..

 

 

"It's really no great mystery why some fish are still fish and some fish eventually evolved into humans"

 

ACTUALLY

 

The TRUE "Great Mystery" is why anyone in their right mind would EVER believe that a Fish could EVER evolve into a Man to begin with!! :snapoutofit: 

 

That is LUNACY.. Pure and Simple.. :crazyguy: 

 

 

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

 

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: What you seem to fail to understand is that the pattern has not been established by a 100% complete search of all rock strata and then saying evolution predicts this pattern (it will be a vanishingly small percentage). The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc. is fulfilled every time we dig and search fresh deposits in cliffs and quarries and boreholes throughout the world. Creationists can search too, if the general pattern of emergence was wrong it would have been exposed by now.

 

That's the same red-herring fallacy as before. Repeating a fallacy won't make it a sound argument, Wibble, though this is what you usually seem to think.

 

Before Darwin they knew the patterns in rock. (dead things in rock aren't, "emergence",technically it's a pattern of dead things in rocks. In the very same way if a flood hit today there would be a pattern, it would be unlikely to find for example, Australian marsupials buried with grisly bears. It is logically very easily provable to create a pattern in rocks, not some impossible task only explainable by evolution)

 

So they knew the record and Darwin and all the evos since have then claimed that evolution happened, and they used the rocks as a chronology. 

 

So this proves two things;

 

1. The pattern of dead things in rock, doesn't belong to evolution, that is a claim about the pattern and what it means, but the true facts only show it means dead things were buried in rocks as the pattern isn't a prediction of evolution but rather they based evolution on the pattern they saw.

2. We don't need to break that pattern as creationists, as I explained, but as I shown on the diagram of the chart, it has been broken at times, with the finding of things thought not to exist hundreds of millions of years ago but have now been found. Now they will simply be regarded by evolutionists as, "ancient", which is the use of an epithet to gloss over the fact that previously they were not regarded as ancient. 

 

I gave the name of some, some of them being pushed back much further, such as pre-Cambrian pollen, diversified grass and mammals with dinosaurs, conducting vessels, conodonts. Stromatolites - 3.5 billion years. ( stasis would particularly not apply for environmental change over this period would be guaranteed, even involving the evolution of new predators and parasites over that massively long period that would force evolution.)

 

If evolutionary scientists don't see this as a breaking of the pattern of evolution, why do they now argue a much earlier evolution for some of these things? If they didn't break the pattern, they wouldn't argue for a different pattern, which is an example of reductio ad absurdum. (a way of deductively proving a matter).

 

Think about it...imagine if I say to you, "No I've never been to the scene of the crime in my life" and then they find my fingerprints and I now argue, "I used to go to that house for a cup of tea".

 

If they had not found my fingerprints then I wouldn't be arguing that would I?

 

In the same way, if evolution scientists are now arguing for the much, much earlier divergence of certain organisms they would only do that if the original pattern was being broken in some way. But to expect a mammal in the Cambrian would show a simplistic ignorance on the part of creationists or evolutionists because it's clear that in some rock types they label Cambrian or Carboniferous, you tend to find a certain ecology that was obviously buried where that ecology was present. Under creationism this presents no problem if you fully understand what an antediluvian world was like. Put all of the continents together, now subtract the weathering of the continents over 4 to 5 thousand years, now you have a super-continent, where a tsunami can hit one coast on the north and you won't know about it in the south until a lot, lot longer. If dinosaurs lived 4,000 miles away from humans, why on earth would you ever hope to find fossils of dinosaurs with man?

 

Think about it - fossilisation could only occur when the flood hit, as the retreating waters wouldn't kill and bury things, so wherever you find fossilisation it is going to be that you find certain ecological zones represented.

 

To say this is unlikely or wrong to expect in a pre-flood world, is ABSURD. We know 100% that it would be astronomically improbable to find a mixing of all organisms. To say it is coincidence that mainly marine organisms are found in the Cambrian would be a STUPID argument, even for a creationist, because it would only show that they have never understood what the world would have been like before the continents were separated, under the scenario the bible paints.

 

So then, at least understand the hypothetics of a flood, even if you don't agree it happened. I have understood the hypothetics of evolution even though I don't think it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: What you seem to fail to understand is that the pattern has not been established by a 100% complete search of all rock strata and then saying evolution predicts this pattern (it will be a vanishingly small percentage). The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc. is fulfilled every time we dig and search fresh deposits in cliffs and quarries and boreholes throughout the world. Creationists can search too, if the general pattern of emergence was wrong it would have been exposed by now.

 

That's the same red-herring fallacy as before. Repeating a fallacy won't make it a sound argument, Wibble, though this is what you usually seem to think.

 

 But to expect a mammal in the Cambrian would show a simplistic ignorance on the part of creationists or evolutionists because it's clear that in some rock types they label Cambrian or Carboniferous, you tend to find a certain ecology that was obviously buried where that ecology was present.

 

So in these luxuriant forests that went on to produce the coal bearing strata of the Carboniferous, there were no birds or mammals  in this ecosystem in the antediluvian world ?

 

 

 

you have a super-continent, where a tsunami can hit one coast on the north and you won't know about it in the south until a lot, lot longer. If dinosaurs lived 4,000 miles away from humans, why on earth would you ever hope to find fossils of dinosaurs with man?

 

And to test that hypothesis you could check the geographical distribution of dinosaur and human fossils. A quick search will reveal to you that there is no separation in this way consistent with your scenario. I just checked for Tanzania (chosen because of the many early hominin fossils found there) and there is a list of 12 different dinosaur species that have been discovered in the country (but obviously stratigraphically separate). In England many dinosaurs have been found, and yet we have Neolithic sites with stone tools etc.

 

So your ecological separation idea clearly doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: So in these luxuriant forests that went on to produce the coal bearing strata of the Carboniferous, there were no birds or mammals  in this ecosystem in the antediluvian world ?

 

Not necessarily. Birds can fly away, IIRC, avocets have been found at 65 mya meaning a 'diverged' water bird existed. Remember, we believe the fossils are the result of a flood, not the eco-system as such, but those buried that were in that zone.

 

Of course you simply omit the examples that are found in Carboniferous, and only ever mention the ones that aren't yet found. Didn't I explain that to you with the fruit example? Whatever fruit I don't have in my lunch box you will complain about, and IGNORE the fruit that is there.

 

For example there are many of today's plant species in the carboniferous, in this link if you scroll down you can see pictures of them next to their living counterparts. The problem is they are the same species which means those plants were already fully diverged, fully evolved. How silly that you expect evolution to be pushed back and expect plants to evolve quickly yet say that it's fine for them to remain unchanged for 400 million years.....LOL!!!

 

https://evidencesofcreation.wordpress.com/tag/carboniferous-age-fossils-360-286-million-years/

 

It's hard in our world to imagine creatures that were separate then, that are today like bacon and eggs. That is very much part of the problem because mentally it's almost impossible to imagine an antediluvian world compared todays but you must understand that today's world is basically a desert by comparison.

 

If we assume the antediluvian world was as the bible described (which only makes sense since such a world comes from the bible) then we start out with one main land mass and one ocean, that land mass was unfathomably large. Even on the greatest continent in today's world, that would still be exceedingly small. When we consider that the environment would be fairly uniform (unlike now) then hypothetically this might remove a need for migration and so forth. 

 

Yes, I think it very, very difficult to, "know" conditions of what was basically a foreign world to today's. But effectively on such a massive earth it is not an unreasonable possibility that there was ecological zones. If that continent was vast which is was, and the kind/species ratio different to todays (which it MUST have been since there were MORE kinds in the fossils which are now extinct, and less time to diverge between Adam and the flood) then it is highly likely that the pre-flood world was a truly different world that has only just, "fallen" so to speak, given the longevity of some of the human beings at that time, with claims of great age.

 

 

 

Wibble: And to test that hypothesis you could check the geographical distribution of dinosaur and human fossils. A quick search will reveal to you that there is no separation in this way consistent with your scenario. I just checked for Tanzania (chosen because of the many early hominin fossils found there) and there is a list of 12 different dinosaur species that have been discovered in the country (but obviously stratigraphically separate).

 

We obviously believe that such examples of "hominin fossils" are post-flood otherwise we would argue they are part of the flood strata, and then stratigraphic separation doesn't matter for creation. (as I explained for the umpteenth time in a previous post).

 

This is yet another example of the mistake of MIXING an evolutionary past with a biblical one.

 

I think IndyDave, to be fair to him, gave many rigorous examples to you of evidence of humanity in the rocks, you are disingenuous to pretend none of those things he shown you exist, under the carpet it goes because Wibble, the all-powerful atheist, can dismiss it totalum because he wants to and we are simply to assume because the Wibble god says Dave was wrong, that none of those examples he gave are true despite the cogency of Dave's arguments. :rolleyes:

 

At the very least you should have came away from those debates thinking like this; "well, I don't agree but you can certainly make a case that evidence of humanity has been found", but no, don't expect any humility from Wibble, he is all-knowing after all and because he says "evolution is a fact" we must ignore all evidence that doesn't fit with it. :rolleyes:

 

This concludes my participation in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: So in these luxuriant forests that went on to produce the coal bearing strata of the Carboniferous, there were no birds or mammals  in this ecosystem in the antediluvian world ?

 

Not necessarily. Birds can fly away, IIRC, avocets have been found at 65 mya meaning a 'diverged' water bird existed. Remember, we believe the fossils are the result of a flood, not the eco-system as such, but those buried that were in that zone.

 

Now you've changed your story, in your previous post you said it would be an ecology preserved by the flood. Ok birds manage to fly away from the cataclysmic tsunami somehow, all taking a course to ensure they only get buried in Jurassic or Cretaceous strata (the latter for any groups existing today), not Permian or Triassic. Right, sounds plausible (not). What's the excuse for the mammals then ?

 

Of course you simply omit the examples that are found in Carboniferous, and only ever mention the ones that aren't yet found. Didn't I explain that to you with the fruit example? Whatever fruit I don't have in my lunch box you will complain about, and IGNORE the fruit that is there.

 

For example there are many of today's plant species in the carboniferous, in this link if you scroll down you can see pictures of them next to their living counterparts. The problem is they are the same species which means those plants were already fully diverged, fully evolved. How silly that you expect evolution to be pushed back and expect plants to evolve quickly yet say that it's fine for them to remain unchanged for 400 million years.....LOL!!!

 

Yeah things like ferns, horsetails and gymnosperms, these groups appear during the Carboniferous, what's the problem ? Your problem is the complete absence of angiosperms until the Cretaceous (they may have first evolved in the Jurassic). Did they out run the tsunami as well ?

 

 

It's hard in our world to imagine creatures that were separate then, that are today like bacon and eggs. That is very much part of the problem because mentally it's almost impossible to imagine an antediluvian world compared todays but you must understand that today's world is basically a desert by comparison.

To the contrary, if all landmass was bound together as Pangaea then it is more likely that that world would be a desert in comparison because rain bearing weather systems would lose their moisture as they penetrated inland.

 

 

If we assume the antediluvian world was as the bible described (which only makes sense since such a world comes from the bible) then we start out with one main land mass and one ocean, that land mass was unfathomably large. Even on the greatest continent in today's world, that would still be exceedingly small. When we consider that the environment would be fairly uniform (unlike now) then hypothetically this might remove a need for migration and so forth. 

 

Again to the contrary, if the environment was uniform there would be a fewer barriers to dispersal and mixing of populations and therefore distinct isolated ecosystems would be less likely.

 

Wibble: And to test that hypothesis you could check the geographical distribution of dinosaur and human fossils. A quick search will reveal to you that there is no separation in this way consistent with your scenario. I just checked for Tanzania (chosen because of the many early hominin fossils found there) and there is a list of 12 different dinosaur species that have been discovered in the country (but obviously stratigraphically separate).

 

Mike: We obviously believe that such examples of "hominin fossils" are post-flood otherwise we would argue they are part of the flood strata, and then stratigraphic separation doesn't matter for creation. (as I explained for the umpteenth time in a previous post).

 

Well at least admit it fits the evolutionary view better if we only find hominin fossils in the uppermost strata (together with a modern plant and animal assemblage) but never find any in strata where dinosaurs are found. Creationists try and have their cake and eat it on this. On one hand they claim geographical separation to explain the anomaly but will then claim carvings at Angkhor Wat or Peruvian stones prove humans and dinos co existed. Also the behemoth and leviathan mention in Job.

 

I think IndyDave, to be fair to him, gave many rigorous examples to you of evidence of humanity in the rocks, you are disingenuous to pretend none of those things he shown you exist, under the carpet it goes because Wibble, the all-powerful atheist, can dismiss it totalum because he wants to and we are simply to assume because the Wibble god says Dave was wrong, that none of those examples he gave are true despite the cogency of Dave's arguments. :rolleyes:

If you think supposed human tracks that look so obviously carved and unfossilised bones found in unconsolidated sand in a formation of a type known to have been mined for azurite,(with this "Malachite Man' find not even taken seriously by the major creationist organizations) then you have very different standards as to what qualifies as "rigorous" evidence than me.

 

 

This concludes my participation in this thread.

Yes I know the cognitive dissonance in trying to defend the flood must be overwhelming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre-P. Grasse: "Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis ... [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it .... The error in their method is obvious."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: So in these luxuriant forests that went on to produce the coal bearing strata of the Carboniferous, there were no birds or mammals  in this ecosystem in the antediluvian world ?

 

 Not necessarily. Birds can fly away, IIRC, avocets have been found at 65 mya meaning a 'diverged' water bird existed. Remember, we believe the fossils are the result of a flood, not the eco-system as such, but those buried that were in that zone.

Now you've changed your story, in your previous post you said it would be an ecology preserved by the flood. Ok birds manage to fly away from the cataclysmic tsunami somehow, all taking a course to ensure they only get buried in Jurassic or Cretaceous strata (the latter for any groups existing today), not Permian or Triassic. Right, sounds plausible (not). What's the excuse for the mammals then ?

 

Of course you simply omit the examples that are found in Carboniferous, and only ever mention the ones that aren't yet found. Didn't I explain that to you with the fruit example? Whatever fruit I don't have in my lunch box you will complain about, and IGNORE the fruit that is there.

 For example there are many of today's plant species in the carboniferous, in this link if you scroll down you can see pictures of them next to their living counterparts. The problem is they are the same species which means those plants were already fully diverged, fully evolved. How silly that you expect evolution to be pushed back and expect plants to evolve quickly yet say that it's fine for them to remain unchanged for 400 million years.....LOL!!!

 

 

Yeah things like ferns, horsetails and gymnosperms, these groups appear during the Carboniferous, what's the problem ? Your problem is the complete absence of angiosperms until the Cretaceous (they may have first evolved in the Jurassic). Did they out run the tsunami as well ?

 

 

It's hard in our world to imagine creatures that were separate then, that are today like bacon and eggs. That is very much part of the problem because mentally it's almost impossible to imagine an antediluvian world compared todays but you must understand that today's world is basically a desert by comparison.

 

To the contrary, if all landmass was bound together as Pangaea then it is more likely that that world would be a desert in comparison because rain bearing weather systems would lose their moisture as they penetrated inland.

 

If we assume the antediluvian world was as the bible described (which only makes sense since such a world comes from the bible) then we start out with one main land mass and one ocean, that land mass was unfathomably large. Even on the greatest continent in today's world, that would still be exceedingly small. When we consider that the environment would be fairly uniform (unlike now) then hypothetically this might remove a need for migration and so forth. 

 

 

Again to the contrary, if the environment was uniform there would be a fewer barriers to dispersal and mixing of populations and therefore distinct isolated ecosystems would be less likely.

 

Wibble: And to test that hypothesis you could check the geographical distribution of dinosaur and human fossils. A quick search will reveal to you that there is no separation in this way consistent with your scenario. I just checked for Tanzania (chosen because of the many early hominin fossils found there) and there is a list of 12 different dinosaur species that have been discovered in the country (but obviously stratigraphically separate).

 

 

Mike: We obviously believe that such examples of "hominin fossils" are post-flood otherwise we would argue they are part of the flood strata, and then stratigraphic separation doesn't matter for creation. (as I explained for the umpteenth time in a previous post).

 

 

Well at least admit it fits the evolutionary view better if we only find hominin fossils in the uppermost strata (together with a modern plant and animal assemblage) but never find any in strata where dinosaurs are found. Creationists try and have their cake and eat it on this. On one hand they claim geographical separation to explain the anomaly but will then claim carvings at Angkhor Wat or Peruvian stones prove humans and dinos co existed. Also the behemoth and leviathan mention in Job.

 

I think IndyDave, to be fair to him, gave many rigorous examples to you of evidence of humanity in the rocks, you are disingenuous to pretend none of those things he shown you exist, under the carpet it goes because Wibble, the all-powerful atheist, can dismiss it totalum because he wants to and we are simply to assume because the Wibble god says Dave was wrong, that none of those examples he gave are true despite the cogency of Dave's arguments. :rolleyes:

 

If you think supposed human tracks that look so obviously carved and unfossilised bones found in unconsolidated sand in a formation of a type known to have been mined for azurite,(with this "Malachite Man' find not even taken seriously by the major creationist organizations) then you have very different standards as to what qualifies as "rigorous" evidence than me.

 

 

This concludes my participation in this thread.

 

Yes I know the cognitive dissonance in trying to defend the flood must be overwhelming

 

Not to quibble with wibble..

 

BUT

 

 

The only reason we DO HAVE all these fossils all over the planet is BECAUSE OF the flood..

 

How do you think fossils are formed? The willful ignorance of accidentalists is alarming.. You remind me of people who go go around claiming that "Islam is a religion of peace" over and over again as if repeating things makes them true (a la Goebbels)

 

 

BTW. Whats a "hominin fossil"? Is that where they dig up bones of extinct apes and try to pretend that they are on their way to Man?

LOL

 

You should read Lubenov's book "Bones of Contention"

You will LAUGH at the phrase "hominin fossil" if you do.

The whole idea is so ridiculous that it is embarrassing..

Read the book with an open an honest mind and then get

back to me on "hominin fossils".. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason we DO HAVE all these fossils all over the planet is BECAUSE OF the flood..

 

How do you think fossils are formed? The willful ignorance of accidentalists is alarming..

Why does it require a global flood to provide fossils ? How could that be the only possible reason ? It is you who is ignorant if you think that especially as the sedimentary record does not make sense if you assert a single flood event.

 

 

BTW. Whats a "hominin fossil"? Is that where they dig up bones of extinct apes and try to pretend that they are on their way to Man?

LOL

 

You should read Lubenov's book "Bones of Contention"

You will LAUGH at the phrase "hominin fossil" if you do.

The whole idea is so ridiculous that it is embarrassing..

Read the book with an open an honest mind and then get

back to me on "hominin fossils".. LOL

Not read it but would prefer something more up to date than a book from 1992. There's been a lot of new discoveries since then.

 

Why is not reasonable to observe a mix of ape and human like features in a fossil from strata dated to a few million years ago and then infer that the specimen is a transitional between apes and humans ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only reason we DO HAVE all these fossils all over the planet is BECAUSE OF the flood..

How do you think fossils are formed? The willful ignorance of accidentalists is alarming..

 

Why does it require a global flood to provide fossils ? How could that be the only possible reason ? It is you who is ignorant if you think that especially as the sedimentary record does not make sense if you assert a single flood event.

 

BTW. Whats a "hominin fossil"? Is that where they dig up bones of extinct apes and try to pretend that they are on their way to Man?

LOL

You should read Lubenov's book "Bones of Contention"

You will LAUGH at the phrase "hominin fossil" if you do.

The whole idea is so ridiculous that it is embarrassing..

Read the book with an open an honest mind and then get

back to me on "hominin fossils".. LOL

 

Not read it but would prefer something more up to date than a book from 1992. There's been a lot of new discoveries since then.

Why is not reasonable to observe a mix of ape and human like features in a fossil from strata dated to a few million years ago and then infer that the specimen is a transitional between apes and humans ?

 

"Not read it but would prefer something more up to date than a book from 1992."

 

Chronology snobbery does not become you!

 

Or perhaps you prefer something from 1859 like "Origin of the species"

 

or "The descent of Man" LOL

 

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

 

GOOD QUESTION CHUCKY, GOOD QUESTION..

 

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT CHUCKY..

 

- Charles Darwin

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it require a global flood to provide fossils ? How could that be the only possible reason ? It is you who is ignorant if you think that especially as the sedimentary record does not make sense if you assert a single flood event.

I can't see why a local, "everyday" flood could not produce a fossil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms