A series of questions for those against evolution

[Valkhorn]

I would like to pose a series of questions for those of you out there who feel that evolution is not the best explaination for how life appears as it does today. If you do agree with evolution, don't answer, just wait on the sidelines to see the responses

1. How old do you believe the Earth to be? If you believe it is 4.6 billion years old, please go on to question number 2. If you believe it is young, please explain evidence by submitting at least one cited, peer-reviewed piece evidence outside of the Bible, and skip the rest of the questions below.



2. If you believe the Earth is 4.6 billion years old -

a) Do you believe Earth's climate was constant during that time period

b) Do you believe the geography and topography (how the continents were arranged or shaped) were constant during that time period?
c) Do you feel that life was only on Earth for a very short period of time?

​

If you answered yes to a) or b) or c) above, I would like you to cite one piece of peer-reviewed evidence outside of the Bible to substantiate your claims.


Now, I would like you to consider the following question.

3. For question number three, just entertain this notion, do not give reasons why you do not feel the earth is that old, etc. Just consider a planet with a long age, a long change in climate and geography, and life existing on said planet over many changes in climate and geography. Would evolution take place, and would it be a viable explaination?

Thank you, the questions are now over.

What I am doing is figuring out if most of the reasons why people do not agree with evolution are based on whether or not they see the earth as ancient. My guess is that it would be very hard to disagree with evolution if you were given the evidence that the Earth is very old, and that life has been on this planet for a long time. Especially when you couple it with the obvious facts that climate and geography over 4.6 billion years has always changed.

If my guess is right, I'll probably start with part two of this question and answer session

 

[JohnR7]

What I am doing is figuring out if most of the reasons why people do not agree with evolution are based on whether or not they see the earth as ancient. My guess is that it would be very hard to disagree with evolution if you were given the evidence that the Earth is very old, and that life has been on this planet for a long time. Especially when you couple it with the obvious facts that climate and geography over 4.6 billion years has always changed.

I think your guess would be wrong. OEC has been around a long time. The evidence for an old earth is many, many times stronger than the evidence for the theory of evolution. Also the evidence for a old earth is a lot more obvious to someone that is not educated. For example the retrovirus evidence in the DNA may seem to be convincing to you. But to a lot of people, it is evidence they can not verify, and it give them the feeling that they are being duked.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I think your guess would be wrong. OEC has been around a long time. The evidence for an old earth is many, many times stronger than the evidence for the theory of evolution. Also the evidence for a old earth is a lot more obvious to someone that is not educated. For example the retrovirus evidence in the DNA may seem to be convincing to you. But to a lot of people, it is evidence they can not verify, and it give them the feeling that they are being duked.

Could you give links to some of this evidence?

 

[Valhalla]

Good post Valk, this should be interesting.

 

[Valkhorn]

Thanks, Valhalla... I was chewing over this concept so I thought I'd try to isolate and see if my hunch was right...

John,

I think your guess would be wrong. OEC has been around a long time. The evidence for an old earth is many, many times stronger than the evidence for the theory of evolution. Also the evidence for a old earth is a lot more obvious to someone that is not educated. For example the retrovirus evidence in the DNA may seem to be convincing to you. But to a lot of people, it is evidence they can not verify, and it give them the feeling that they are being duked.

Actually you're quite misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. I wasn't proving to you that indeed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. (Which it is but that's besides the point). I'm just trying to get you to think about it for a little bit to entertain the notion, and think about how climate and geography were not always constant througout Earth's history. Just entertain the notion, think through it hypothetically.

Now, let me ask you, John, how old is the Earth? And, what evidence for it do you have outside of the Bible? Remember to CITE different sources.

If you do not cite sources we cannot tell if what you say is true or not. So if you wan't people to believe you, substantiate your claims.

Also the evidence for a old earth is a lot more obvious to someone that is not educated.

Actually the opposite is true. It is often the lesser educated people who think that the Earth is young. Only when they attain an education do they often realize that the Earth is actually very old. Even if they were told the earth was old and they believe it, they will only know WHY it is the truth until after they learn about it.

 

[RVincent]

1. How old do you believe the Earth to be? If you believe it is 4.6 billion years old, please go on to question number 2. If you believe it is young, please explain evidence by submitting at least one cited, peer-reviewed piece evidence outside of the Bible, and skip the rest of the questions below.

That's me...billions of years.

2. If you believe the Earth is 4.6 billion years old -

a) Do you believe Earth's climate was constant during that time period

b) Do you believe the geography and topography (how the continents were arranged or shaped) were constant during that time period?

c) Do you feel that life was only on Earth for a very short period of time?

​

If you answered yes to a) or b) or c) above, I would like you to cite one piece of peer-reviewed evidence outside of the Bible to substantiate your claims.

A) Evidence would seem to indicate an equal climate all over.

Evidence: Mammoths have been found frozen in an area where it is too cold for buttercups to grow. Yet buttercup leaves (some say seeds only) were in their mouth (stomach). http://www.atlantisquest.com/Paleontology.html

Petrified trees in areas where they do not grow today:
http://www.cst.cmich.edu/users/dietr1rv/fossiliferous.htm
​

B) Evidence would seem to indicate that there were various upheavals.

Evidence: take any geological history class. Or here is one example: http://www.wales-hotel.co.uk/geology/
​

C) Not sure what you mean. Again, any geological history class should tell you that species have been wiped out, new ones come along, they get wiped out...etc.

3. For question number three, just entertain this notion, do not give reasons why you do not feel the earth is that old, etc. Just consider a planet with a long age, a long change in climate and geography, and life existing on said planet over many changes in climate and geography. Would evolution take place, and would it be a viable explaination?

If evolution were true, it would be an ongoing process.

Notice, that the animals in the "evolution charts" move from one form to the next, but there are no "in-betweens".

For example, the "evolution" of the horse:

In the above chart, did the Epihippus just give birth to the Mesohippus?

If not, where are the animals that developed from the Epihippus to the Mesohippus?

Shouldn't we see fossil evidence of an animal whose evolution has made it 90% Epihippus and only 10% Mesohippus?

And then 80% / 20%?

And then 70 % / 30%

Etc, until we reach 100% Mesohippus?

They are not there. They do not exist. Someone had a bad burrito for lunch...(me, actually )

 

[RVincent]

Here's something else for evolutionists to answer.

Most believe that modern humans did not exist until a couple of hundred thousand years ago. But look at this footprint (found in New Mexico, I belive it is on display at the state University):

Know how old it is?

FIFTY MILLION YEARS.

This is not the only footprint found in stone. At Dinosaur State Park, in Glenrose, Texas, there are actual "human-type" footprints that have been discovered, which walked across real dinosaur tracks. More "human-type" footprints have also been located along with dinosaur tracks at the Thayers Museum, at Dinosaur Flats in Canyon Lake, Texas. Dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, according to scientists.

We were made in the image of God and the angels (the Elohim). Their feet look just like ours, and they walked around, before the rebellion.

 

[Ondoher]

If evolution were true, it would be an ongoing process.

And it is.

Notice, that the animals in the "evolution charts" move from one form to the next, but there are no "in-betweens".

Yes, every time we find a transitional, it creates two more gaps.

For example, the "evolution" of the horse:

In the above chart, did the Epihippus just give birth to the Mesohippus?

If not, where are the animals that developed from the Epihippus to the Mesohippus?

Dead. Not everything that ever lived is fossilized. Not every thing that is fossilized survives. Not everything that is fossilized and survives is unearthed. Not everything that is fossilized, survives, and unearthed is found.

If evolution is not true, why do we have any transitional fossils? In fact, why do all fossils fit neatly into the tree of life?

By the way, i think this image is a more modern representation of horse phylogeny:

Shouldn't we see fossil evidence of an animal whose evolution has made it 90% Epihippus and only 10% Mesohippus?

And then 80% / 20%?

And then 70 % / 30%

Etc, until we reach 100% Mesohippus?

Only if we are lucky.

They are not there. They do not exist. Someone had a bad burrito for lunch...(me, actually )

They may be, we already know more about horse evolution than we used to. No reason to think we'll not learn more.

Try some pepto-bismol.

 

[RVincent]

Only if we are lucky.

Very, very lucky.

If evolution is not true, why do we have any transitional fossils?

Ah, so we have established that they are transitional, and not merely variations of similar animals...?

Try some pepto-bismol.

I like the berry flavored Rolaids myself...like candy...mmmmmm

 

[Valkhorn]

Wow, the old dino footprint next to a human footprint PRATT.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

The above link talks about the Burdick track, which was later found to be carved by man.

Now I cannot find any sources for that picture yet but on a closer inspection it seems to me that the footprint is NOT a fossil. The dinosaur 'footprint' is indeed a fossil of something. It could be something other than a dinosaur, but what you can see are either fossilized bones - which is not a footprint - or even a hollowed out footprint that was later filled with different sediment which gave it a different color.

As to the human print, it indeed is a print. However, you do not see any bones there. For the lower fossil, a foot or hand was left in the sediment, so the bones became fossilized. If it was a print, sediment would have formed into the print, and would have given it the same colorization as the fossil below it.

In the above 'print', you see no bones, which meant that the foot was once there and is subsequently removed.

I'm no expert in fossils, but it looks like a fake to me. Since there is no discoloration in the print, and it is not a fossil, it is most likely a hoax.

 

[RVincent]

PRATT.

A Point Refused a Thousand Times. Nobody has refuted anything.

I'm no expert in fossils, but it looks like a fake to me. Since there is no discoloration in the print, and it is not a fossil, it is most likely a hoax.

Or just a bad picture. Of course, you could go to the University of New Mexico and ask some experts...

 

[HRE]

Shouldn't we see fossil evidence of an animal whose evolution has made it 90% Epihippus and only 10% Mesohippus?

And then 80% / 20%?

And then 70 % / 30%

Etc, until we reach 100% Mesohippus?

Let's pretend we do find a species 50% between Epihippus and Mesohippus, and one 60%/40%. Next, I guarantee that you (or someone else) would demand a full range of intermidiates between those two. And so forth ad infinitum.

 

[RVincent]

Let's pretend we do find a species 50% between Epihippus and Mesohippus, and one 60%/40%. Next, I guarantee that you (or someone else) would demand a full range of intermidiates between those two. And so forth ad infinitum.

And why not?

Don't some atheists demand every single ounce of proof from Christianity for their beliefs?

Don't they accuse us of using "cop-outs", and then do the same themselves?

 

[Event Horizon]

Here's something else for evolutionists to answer.

Even AIG knows this one is a fraud.-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

 

[Ondoher]

And why not?

Don't some atheists demand every single ounce of proof from Christianity for their beliefs?

Don't they accuse us of using "cop-outs", and then do the same themselves?

No. Evolution is a science, as such it makes predictions about what we can expect to find. Evolution does not predict we will find the fossilized remains of everything that has ever lived. What it does predict is that the fossils we do find will fit within the family tree of living things, and that we should find fossils that fall near the base of these branches.

And we do. I have yet to hear an alternate testable hypothesis to explain this data.

 

[RVincent]

And we do. I have yet to hear an alternate testable hypothesis to explain this data.

What data? I hope that by now you realize that I am not a young earth creationist.

I'm with you as far as the age of the earth goes. I am still inclined to consider evolution a theory, however.

 

[Valkhorn]

Actually, RVincent, why don't you post that footprint thing in another thread and see what others have to say about it?

Now back to what you posted:

You said that you feel the earth is billions of years old, and that the climate and geography have changed many many times, right?

Then how come evolution is not a possibility? Wouldn't life adapt and change according to how the world and environment changed around them? Why would life just remain stagnant while some 'god' keeps 'creating' lifeforms that don't even work and die out eventually because they cannot adapt and god just cannot see the curveballs coming on Earth in regards to climatical and geographical shifts?

You do realize that three billion years would equate to many times that in the number of generations for over 95% of lifeforms on this planet, right? You do realize that most life has generations in terms of fractions of a year?

And with all of that evidence, and the fact that organisms from one generation to the next are slightly different genetically you can't possibly see how evolution is a viable theory?

I'm speechless.

 

[RVincent]

Even AIG knows this one is a fraud.-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

I couldn't find the link to the footprint there. Can you directly link to it?

 

[RVincent]

And with all of that evidence, and the fact that organisms from one generation to the next are slightly different genetically you can't possibly see how evolution is a viable theory?

I'm speechless.

You may have missed my post above, "I am still inclined to consider evolution a theory, however."

Also, in the interest of maintaining a docile discussion, I hope that nobody here think that if they believe in evolution, that I'm saying they will "go to hell". I have no authority to make that judgment, and quite frankly, it cannot be documented.

 

[A4C]

What is meant by "peer reviewed"?
Which of the following are acceptable:
A) ToE reveiwing ToE
B) TE reviewing TE
C) YEC reviewing YEC
D) ToE reviewing TE
E) ToE reviewing YEC
F) TE reviewing ToE
G) TE reviewing YEC
H) YEC reviewing ToE
I) YEC reviwing TE
J) ToE or TE or YEC reviewing something else
K) something else reviwing ToE , TE, or YEC
L) all of the above
That would make it easier to answer the OP