Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Education? I think most in here are educated enough to understand that 1. Carbon Dating is unreliable
2. There are so many gaps in darwins theory that are filled with opinions, guestimates and assumptions that even darwin doubted some of his own work (challenge me on this please)
3. Something cannot be created by nothing and when this does actually happen, please show me
4. Show me one creature that has given birth to a new species? You can breed different dogs and each litter will be different from the rest, but they are still dogs
5. DNA and the complexity of a single cell is proof enough that we are by design, not accident
6. If the first humans appeared 500,000 years ago from a common ape like ancestor, why haven't other ape's, chimps, monkeys etc evolved even in the slightest in that same period of time (let me guess, evolution takes BILLIONS of years, oh right i forgot)
7. If natural selection and the survival of the fittest theories are to be taken as accurate, answer me this, the animal that came to be a bird, did it's wings form in one go and did it fly immediatelty, or was it gradual?
Oh dear...where to start with this heap of ordure. You should read a few books rather than just listening to what your pastor or creationist websites tell you. Ho hum. You should also look up PRATT as your post is a classic example. Still... I'll play...
1. C14 dating is very accurate and becoming increasingly so as the technology improves. However, the half-life of C14 means that it is unsuitable for dating fossils, as they are too old. That's why other isotope dating methods are used, and whaddayouknow...the dates correlate.
2. Of course Darwin had doubts. He was proposing a radical new hypothesis, some of the mechanisms of which he didn't fully understand. However, science has moved on a bit in the last 150 years (yes...really!). These mechanisms are now well understood and supported by mountains of evidence. On a secondary point, what does what Darwin thought matter? Unlike you fundies who base your total belief on an argument from authority, scientists use something called evidence. What Darwin thought is actually irrelevant to the theory as it stands. Bear in mind that Darwin discovered evolution, he didn't invent it.
3. Look up abiogenesis. Scientists don't fully understand the process yet, but they will. In any event, evolution deals with the diversity of life on Earth, not with its origin. God may have created the first life, who knows, but evolution explains how it got to where it is now. To reverse your silly argument. If something can't be created from nothing, what did god create everything from? What was god created from?
4. This question shows your utter lack of even a basic understanding of the ToE. If a dog gave birth to a rabbit, this would actually disprove evolution. Tiny changes occur to the genome of a species through mutation with each generation. Those that are selected as a better fit to the environment build up in the species. If species are isolated (though not necessarily), then eventually these changes accumulate until the separate populations can no longer interbreed. This is speciation and it has been observed. Over the vastness of geological time, these changes have led to the diversity of life we see today.
5. Classic argument from ignorance. Every proposed instance of irreducible complexity has been refuted. Also, if we are the product of design, why did the designer do such a shoddy job? The only mechanism that fully explains vestigial organs and crappy designs like the human skeleton or the eye is the ToE. The squid eye is very similar to the human eye, except it isn't wired back to front and doesn't therefore, have a blind spot. If your god had that design available, why did we end up with the flawed version?
6. The ignorance grows. Can you give any citation that apes, monkeys etc. haven't changed in the last half million years? No? Thought not. Evolution is a continuum, moving at different rates in different species, though always moving. All primates (including us) have evolved in that period and continue to evolve. Genetics and DNA studies clearly show divergence points to common ancestors.
7. Gradual of course. Dawkins, in one of his books, gives a very clear explanation of how a wing can evolve over time. The funny thing is that we can observe actual living animals today with all the different stages of wing development. (Hint...think of things that glide.)
If you truly wish to learn anything, then talkorigins is a good place to start. Rather than making yourself look stupid by regurgitating PRATTS, do some research. At the most basic, at least learn what the theory you are criticising actually says.
Alternatively, if your faith is so weak that you fear the onset of information, look up Morton's Demon.
__________________
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
The highlighted text is the imaginary part.
Why is it "extremely likely"?
To go back to the genetic argument, and apply it to the analogy, if we looked at the sandcastles and found one of the kid's fingerprints all over them, then we could be fairly confident that he built them.
DNA comparisons between species are like these fingerprints. They not only tell us how closely we are related, but also give an indication of when the common ancestor existed.
__________________
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
1. That's why there's other elements to date things with! Huzzah!
2. Is that so?
3. Do you understand abiogenesis?
4. Do you understand speciation and how it applies to "macro" evolution?
5. Is that so?
6. They all split off from the same common ancestral line at one point or another. Everything is always evolving, though humans have done a fairly good job at stopping natural selection with technology.
7. It was gradual.
1. All techiniques of dating the past rely on assumptions and opinions
2. Yes
3. Yes and it is theory, a study and again based on assumptions and opinions.
4. Yes and again, show me one species giving rise to another species
5. Yes
6. LOOOOOOL "Technology has stopped us from evolving" as good as "God works in mysterious ways" weak answer from someone who understands nothing about their argument or bias.
7. Gradual ay! Did the insect slowly grow wings over time?
Is this what you are saying? So for 100,000 or a million years these creatures slowly grew wings (please show me evidence of this period of change in a winged creature) and only walked or hopped about? If so, your natural selection story is thrown out the window.
The reason why they (as you believe not i) started to grow wings, was to survive right? But if they didn't grow wings, the species would of died out, right? So how did they manage to survive for so long in a transitional period? If they could survive without these wings, their genes would not of needed to mutate in the first place right?
So which is it? They needed to survive, hence they grew wings to flee from danger, but they managed to somehow not die out whilst this bit of evolution was taking place. I see.
Since even evolutionists admit that they don't know who the common ancestor (s) is or are, then the common ancestor is as imaginary as each individual is capable of conjuring up. And since imaginary animals can't breed anything in reality, since they're figments of the human imagination, then it's been proven that humans couldn't have come from them.
Oh, I know that people hang on to myths long after they've been exposed as myths, but evolution has been disproven because it doesn't happen in the real world, nor has anyone in history passed along accounts of these imaginary animals that supposedly lived for millions of years which is much longer than "modern-day" humans have lived, and nothing about it is logical. So it can't be verified either biologically, historically, or logically. Thus it's been disproven all the way around. So my work is done here.
I agree with you brother......Anyone who believes in Evolution then visit the thread "Evolutions/Devolution exist only in Hybrid man." in this same section. Post your comments.
1. All techiniques of dating the past rely on assumptions and opinions
2. Yes
3. Yes and it is theory, a study and again based on assumptions and opinions.
4. Yes and again, show me one species giving rise to another species
5. Yes
6. LOOOOOOL "Technology has stopped us from evolving" as good as "God works in mysterious ways" weak answer from someone who understands nothing about their argument or bias.
7. Gradual ay! Did the insect slowly grow wings over time?
1 & 3. Far less assumptions that a literal reading of Genesis relies upon. The difference between evidence for an old earth/evolution and evidence for a young earth is that there is some. The "assumptions and opinions" you're talking about are actually calculations based in the scientific theories of chemistry.
4. You're one of those people who denies that transitional fossils exist aren't you? Read the Wikipedia article on speciation. That alone has plenty of contemporary examples, although I'm sure it won't fit your definition of "speciation." To which I point you to the Transitional Fossil article, which has plenty of documented fossils. Particularly in of the horse family.
6. That comment was a speculative side comment that doesn't even have anything to do with the current discussion. Perhaps you should direct your attention to the first sentence.
7. Second Law of Thermodynamics? Been refuted thousands of times (literally, a point refuted a thousand times). Closed system vs open system and all that.
Is this what you are saying? So for 100,000 or a million years these creatures slowly grew wings (please show me evidence of this period of change in a winged creature) and only walked or hopped about? If so, your natural selection story is thrown out the window.
The reason why they (as you believe not i) started to grow wings, was to survive right? But if they didn't grow wings, the species would of died out, right? So how did they manage to survive for so long in a transitional period? If they could survive without these wings, their genes would not of needed to mutate in the first place right?
So which is it? They needed to survive, hence they grew wings to flee from danger, but they managed to somehow not die out whilst this bit of evolution was taking place. I see.
Have you perhaps given thought to the idea that environmental changes do not necessitate an immediate need for wings?
__________________ Don't worry, I'm from the Church and I'm here to help!
There is no conspiracy. Come along. The helicopter's waiting.
Linear Mode
