Old Earth, New Creation? What Do You Think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

prophecy4

Active Member
Jul 24, 2006
128
9
Las Vegas, NV
✟303.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
Please give an example. If you mean how dating an artifact of human civilization gives a margin of error of +/- 4k years vs. dating the age of a fossil gives +/- 4 mill years, then you need to look at relative error. If so, I'm beginning to suspect you don't know about science.


Suspicion confirmed. Please let me know how evolution doesn't follow the scientific method. Be explicit. And if you reply, "It can't be observed" or "It can't be tested" then yes, you don't know science or evolution because we can both test and observe evolution.
ok, here goes. I'll start with the question on evolution. the reason it doesn't follow the scientific method is...

1. Curious observation - no problem there
2. Gather evidence - big problem there
3. Generate logical alternatives - no problem there
4. Evealuate evidence - can't do that if there is none
5.
 
Upvote 0

prophecy4

Active Member
Jul 24, 2006
128
9
Las Vegas, NV
✟303.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
Please give an example. If you mean how dating an artifact of human civilization gives a margin of error of +/- 4k years vs. dating the age of a fossil gives +/- 4 mill years, then you need to look at relative error. If so, I'm beginning to suspect you don't know about science.


Suspicion confirmed. Please let me know how evolution doesn't follow the scientific method. Be explicit. And if you reply, "It can't be observed" or "It can't be tested" then yes, you don't know science or evolution because we can both test and observe evolution.
ok, here goes. I'll start with the question on evolution. the reason it doesn't follow the scientific method is...

1. Curious observation - no problem there
2. Gather evidence - big problem there
3. Generate logical alternatives - no problem there
4. Evealuate evidence - can't do that if there is none
5. make and educated guess - lol i wouldn't say the guess was educated, but whatever

6. Challenge the hypothesis - still being done
7. Reach a conclusion - that's been done on both sides
8. Test and re-test - oops, big problem again...

please explane the the cambrian explosion?
or why doesn't it still happen today?
where are all the half monkey men?
please talk about evolution without using human characteristics... for example "evolution kept beneficial changes." how did it "know" those changes were beneficial?

please explain the human eye. it won't work if it's not all there at once.

please explain why we "evolved" into male and female when asexual reproduction is more efficient?

why do plants release oxygen and we release carbon dioxide?

why does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

why didn't the free oxygen in the atmosphere combine with the amino acids?

what did the first life form have to eat?
how did it know it needed to eat or reproduce for that matter?

there are way too many problems with evolution. and no it is NOT a fact.

facts can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

gravity is a fact, the moon is a fact...

evolution is more like wishful thinking. the more you learn about evolution, the less it makes sense.

i know that micro-evolution has been observed but what about macro evolution? this is obviously what the conversation is about.

and in the fruit fly experiment where they "evolved" them to have 4 wings, 2 of the wings were absolutely useless. that's a FACT.

since there were higher beings involved in that experiment that created ideal conditions, wouldn't that argue for the existence of God and not random chance?

please answer some of those questions. if you can't i'm pretty sure you don't understand science all that well.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
prophecy4 said:
ok, here goes. I'll start with the question on evolution. the reason it doesn't follow the scientific method is...

1. Curious observation - no problem there
2. Gather evidence - big problem there
3. Generate logical alternatives - no problem there
4. Evealuate evidence - can't do that if there is none
5. make and educated guess - lol i wouldn't say the guess was educated, but whatever

6. Challenge the hypothesis - still being done
7. Reach a conclusion - that's been done on both sides
8. Test and re-test - oops, big problem again...

please explane the the cambrian explosion?
or why doesn't it still happen today?
where are all the half monkey men?
please talk about evolution without using human characteristics... for example "evolution kept beneficial changes." how did it "know" those changes were beneficial?

please explain the human eye. it won't work if it's not all there at once.

please explain why we "evolved" into male and female when asexual reproduction is more efficient?

why do plants release oxygen and we release carbon dioxide?

why does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

why didn't the free oxygen in the atmosphere combine with the amino acids?

what did the first life form have to eat?
how did it know it needed to eat or reproduce for that matter?

there are way too many problems with evolution. and no it is NOT a fact.

facts can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

gravity is a fact, the moon is a fact...

evolution is more like wishful thinking. the more you learn about evolution, the less it makes sense.

i know that micro-evolution has been observed but what about macro evolution? this is obviously what the conversation is about.

and in the fruit fly experiment where they "evolved" them to have 4 wings, 2 of the wings were absolutely useless. that's a FACT.

since there were higher beings involved in that experiment that created ideal conditions, wouldn't that argue for the existence of God and not random chance?

please answer some of those questions. if you can't i'm pretty sure you don't understand science all that well.

Sorry to say, but you have no understanding of science. All you did was shoot out a whole lot of extremely bad ideas. Rather than giving out 100 bad points, why don't you pick one point to discuss why you are wrong.

I'll start with the most basic. Gravity is defined as the force of attraction between two masses. This is a fact because we can observe this force. There is also a theory of gravity to explain how this force works. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations. This is a fact since we can observe this. The theory of evolution explains how this happens. Both evolution and gravity are a theory and a fact.

Also, being a theory doesn't mean that it can't be proved to be a fact. Facts are observations. Theories explain the observations. That's why we still have Germ Theory and Atomic Theory.

So, starting from this point, ignoring all the other bad points you posted, do you understand/agree? If not, there's no point in discussion because you don't accept science and this is a scientific discussion.
 
Upvote 0

prophecy4

Active Member
Jul 24, 2006
128
9
Las Vegas, NV
✟303.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
Sorry to say, but you have no understanding of science. All you did was shoot out a whole lot of extremely bad ideas. Rather than giving out 100 bad points, why don't you pick one point to discuss why you are wrong.

I'll start with the most basic. Gravity is defined as the force of attraction between two masses. This is a fact because we can observe this force. There is also a theory of gravity to explain how this force works. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations. This is a fact since we can observe this. The theory of evolution explains how this happens. Both evolution and gravity are a theory and a fact.

Also, being a theory doesn't mean that it can't be proved to be a fact. Facts are observations. Theories explain the observations. That's why we still have Germ Theory and Atomic Theory.

So, starting from this point, ignoring all the other bad points you posted, do you understand/agree? If not, there's no point in discussion because you don't accept science and this is a scientific discussion.

again, i already stated that gravity is a fact, why are you beating a dead horse? no argument there.

why did you avoid all my questions?

the cambrian explosion is a bad idea? maybe for believers in evolution.

the fact that the human eye has to be completely present all at once is a bad idea? maybe for believers in evolution. try answering my questions instead of hurling insults.

the reason you are insulting me is to mask your ignorance of the subject. i know you can't answer those questions because no answer you could give would make sense.

i also stated that micro-evolution has been observed, but what about macro-evolution?

the problem with debating is that you always have one side that wants to just call names and never answer a question.

i may not be a scientist, but i did answer all of your questions with my honest OPINION and to the best of my scientific familiarity with the subject.

i would appreciate if you gave me the same respect and answer my questions to the best of yours.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
the fact that the human eye has to be completely present all at once is a bad idea?


it doesn't have to exist either fully functional as is or not at all.
there are lots of intermediate steps that have been preserved in other creatures.

here is a links list to get you started reading.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/evolution_of_the_eye.htm

i'd start with the zimmerman eyes_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
prophecy4 said:
please explane the the cambrian explosion?

Animals developed shells which fossilized better than soft bodies.


or why doesn't it still happen today?


Why should it? We already have lots of shelled marine animals.


where are all the half monkey men?

In the imagination of creationists. There never were any in the history of evolution.



please talk about evolution without using human characteristics... for example "evolution kept beneficial changes." how did it "know" those changes were beneficial?

Well you are really speaking of natural selection here. Natural selection doesn't "know" anything. It simply refers to the fact that better adapted organisms tend to leave more progeny than less adapted organisms. For this reason, some people prefer the term "differential reproductive success". It eliminates the tendency to think of "selection" in terms of human intelligence.

please explain the human eye. it won't work if it's not all there at once.

Fortunately, it doesn't need to be. The human eye did not have to be developed from scratch just for humans. Humans inherited an already evolved eye from their ancestors.

please explain why we "evolved" into male and female when asexual reproduction is more efficient?

Efficient at what? Sexual reproduction is more efficient at combining characteristics in novel variations. That also makes for more efficient evolution.

why do plants release oxygen and we release carbon dioxide?

Plants also release carbon dioxide when they respire. During daylight hours, this process is masked by the mechanism of photosynthesis which produces oxygen. But at night, plants do not emit oxygen, only carbon dioxide.

why does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

It doesn't.

why didn't the free oxygen in the atmosphere combine with the amino acids?

Chemistry is not my field, but given the quality of your other questions, I expect it is also a PRATT.

what did the first life form have to eat?

Sulphur maybe. There are a number of anaerobic life forms that get their energy from such sources. And, of course, there was a lot of organic matter lying around since there were no decay organisms yet to break it down.



how did it know it needed to eat or reproduce for that matter?

It didn't know. However those who failed to eat and reproduce became extinct. Those who did eat and reproduce passed the habit on to their offspring.


i know that micro-evolution has been observed but what about macro evolution? this is obviously what the conversation is about.

Macro-evolution has been observed too. Scientists ordinarily refer to it as speciation.

and in the fruit fly experiment where they "evolved" them to have 4 wings, 2 of the wings were absolutely useless. that's a FACT.

So what? It is still an example of variation due to mutation.


since there were higher beings involved in that experiment that created ideal conditions, wouldn't that argue for the existence of God and not random chance?

It doesn't argue for the existence of God, but it doesn't rule out the existence of God either. It does generally take human intelligence to replicate a natural process. But that doesn't mean it takes intelligence for nature to act naturally. OTOH Christians do believe it took creative power for God to bring nature into existence and establish natural processes like evolution.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
prophecy4 said:
again, i already stated that gravity is a fact, why are you beating a dead horse? no argument there.

why did you avoid all my questions?

the cambrian explosion is a bad idea? maybe for believers in evolution.

the fact that the human eye has to be completely present all at once is a bad idea? maybe for believers in evolution. try answering my questions instead of hurling insults.

the reason you are insulting me is to mask your ignorance of the subject. i know you can't answer those questions because no answer you could give would make sense.

i also stated that micro-evolution has been observed, but what about macro-evolution?

the problem with debating is that you always have one side that wants to just call names and never answer a question.

i may not be a scientist, but i did answer all of your questions with my honest OPINION and to the best of my scientific familiarity with the subject.

i would appreciate if you gave me the same respect and answer my questions to the best of yours.

The problem is all of your answers are scientifically flawed or wrong. I'm trying to lay down the groundworks to see what you'll accept/reject rather than waste my time going through all of them. The reason why I bring up gravity and evolution is because they are both facts and theories. Did you understand the point of why this is important? You seem to not understand that evolution and gravity are both facts and theories.

Now on why evolution is scientific, here's your observations, gather facts, form a theory, test a theory:

American Botonical Society said:
To make progress, to learn more about botanical organisms, hypotheses, the subcomponents of theories, are tested by attempting to falsify logically derived predictions. This is why scientists use and teach evolution; evolution offers testable explanations of observed biological phenomena. Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow. Phylogenetic hypotheses, patterns of ancestral relatedness, based on one set of data, for example, base sequences in DNA, are generated, and when the results make logical sense out of formerly disparate observations, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis increases. The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.


For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.


The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.

All of it followed the rules of the scientific method. This is one example of the thousands of experiments and tests in evolution. So could you explain why, using actual evidence, of why evolution is not scientific?
 
Upvote 0

prophecy4

Active Member
Jul 24, 2006
128
9
Las Vegas, NV
✟303.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
gluadys said:
Animals developed shells which fossilized better than soft bodies.





Why should it? We already have lots of shelled marine animals.




In the imagination of creationists. There never were any in the history of evolution.





Well you are really speaking of natural selection here. Natural selection doesn't "know" anything. It simply refers to the fact that better adapted organisms tend to leave more progeny than less adapted organisms. For this reason, some people prefer the term "differential reproductive success". It eliminates the tendency to think of "selection" in terms of human intelligence.



Fortunately, it doesn't need to be. The human eye did not have to be developed from scratch just for humans. Humans inherited an already evolved eye from their ancestors.



Efficient at what? Sexual reproduction is more efficient at combining characteristics in novel variations. That also makes for more efficient evolution.



Plants also release carbon dioxide when they respire. During daylight hours, this process is masked by the mechanism of photosynthesis which produces oxygen. But at night, plants do not emit oxygen, only carbon dioxide.



It doesn't.



Chemistry is not my field, but given the quality of your other questions, I expect it is also a PRATT.



Sulphur maybe. There are a number of anaerobic life forms that get their energy from such sources. And, of course, there was a lot of organic matter lying around since there were no decay organisms yet to break it down.





It didn't know. However those who failed to eat and reproduce became extinct. Those who did eat and reproduce passed the habit on to their offspring.




Macro-evolution has been observed too. Scientists ordinarily refer to it as speciation.



So what? It is still an example of variation due to mutation.




It doesn't argue for the existence of God, but it doesn't rule out the existence of God either. It does generally take human intelligence to replicate a natural process. But that doesn't mean it takes intelligence for nature to act naturally. OTOH Christians do believe it took creative power for God to bring nature into existence and establish natural processes like evolution.

sure, shells fossilize better, but if they are more protective and efficient, why didn't everything develop a shell?

my question was why don't we still see hybrid animals walking around in millions of intermediary stages? to me, it just doesn't make sense that evolution was completely uniform and stopped all at the same time.

if things are constantly evolving, there should still be apes and people that aren't fully evolved.

again, the eyeball had to develop into working order, according to evolution. how did evolution know that we needed eyes? for that matter, how did it know to construct one?

i'm not too familiar with plants, so i'll take your word on it.

i have to disagree that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "everything goes from a state of order to disorder..."
explain how a big bang goes from gasses, or a cosmic egg, or whatever to what we see now.

how did non living matter start to live? why don't rocks and dirt, and steel, and other none living matter just up and start breathing one day?

where are the pictures of this macro-evolution? if scientist just released them, that would put an end to this whole debate... maybe...

as far as the fruit flies, the only thing it proved in my opinion is that you need a higher intelligence to manipulate DNA and conditions for evolution on the smallest scale to happen.

one final question. from what i know about evolution, it was supposed to improve us.

if we started as monkeys, why did we get out of the trees where it was probably safer?

why did we shed our fur when it kept us warm?

why did we become weaker?

why would we walk on the ground when monkeys are faster in trees?

all of these changes seem counter productive. again, that's just my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
S

Silent Bob

Guest
prophecy4 said:
where are all the half monkey men?

They flew away on the pegasi.

please talk about evolution without using human characteristics... for example "evolution kept beneficial changes." how did it "know" those changes were beneficial?

By the fact that a beneficial attribute will allow a population to be more successful in reproducing.

please explain the human eye. it won't work if it's not all there at once.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

please explain why we "evolved" into male and female when asexual reproduction is more efficient?

Sex allows our gene pool to become much richer than that of amoebas.

why do plants release oxygen and we release carbon dioxide?

Because if it was not that way we wouldn't be around now would we? Can you explain how water is always shaped to perfectly fit a pothole? Also, plants consume oxygen too and produce carbon dioxide, that is why it is not a good idea to sleep in a room with too many plants.

why does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Because you don't understand the 2ndLoT. By all means prove me wrong but this has been done to death.

how did it know it needed to eat or reproduce for that matter?

The "models" that didn't do both of those functions didn't last too long, the one that did both earned the title first form of life... the one that reproduced but did not eat became the first virus and a fight ensued during which the viruses started killing other organisms, the fight still rages on...

gravity is a fact, the moon is a fact...

Actually gravity is a theory we know very little about, and the moon... well there is the Copenhagen interpretation according to which the moon only exists when we are looking at it.

i know that micro-evolution has been observed but what about macro evolution? this is obviously what the conversation is about.

Macro-evolution as in speciation? It has been observed time and again.
FYI: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

and in the fruit fly experiment where they "evolved" them to have 4 wings, 2 of the wings were absolutely useless. that's a FACT.

This does not matter if the new population cannot interbreed with the original then you have a speciation event. Also could you provide more info on that? What experiment? Which study and how did they know that the second set attributed nothing?

since there were higher beings involved in that experiment that created ideal conditions, wouldn't that argue for the existence of God and not random chance?

Since this is the Christian only section you will not find many people who will disagree with the existence of God. That having been said this is a pretty weak argument.

please answer some of those questions.

These are some of the questions, some others I didn't know the answer and I didn't have this much time in my hands. The monkey and 2nd law questions particularly exhibit a lack of knowledge in matters of evolution and science and they have already been answered many times.

BTW nothing good ever comes out from machine gunning one line questions and answers back and forth. Maybe you should take time with each question separately IF you are willing to get better answers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,266
940
34
Ohio
✟77,093.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
one final question. from what i know about evolution, it was supposed to improve us.

You would be wrong.

i have to disagree that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "everything goes from a state of order to disorder..."
explain how a big bang goes from gasses, or a cosmic egg, or whatever to what we see now.

:sigh:

2nd law said:
The entropy of a closed system not at equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.


This has nothing to do with biology. It has to do with thermodynamics. It is about the passage of energy in closed systems.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
if things are constantly evolving, there should still be apes and people that aren't fully evolved.


populations evolve not individuals.
individuals live and die and if they are luck reproduce children a lot like themselves yet different.

evolution is not leading anywhere. nothing is higher, better, fully, partly, evolved. populations evolve to fit their environmental niche over time. (actually population reflect an adaption to the environment as it was, but that is a slight difference)
 
Upvote 0

prophecy4

Active Member
Jul 24, 2006
128
9
Las Vegas, NV
✟303.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
The problem is all of your answers are scientifically flawed or wrong. I'm trying to lay down the groundworks to see what you'll accept/reject rather than waste my time going through all of them. The reason why I bring up gravity and evolution is because they are both facts and theories. Did you understand the point of why this is important? You seem to not understand that evolution and gravity are both facts and theories.

Now on why evolution is scientific, here's your observations, gather facts, form a theory, test a theory:



All of it followed the rules of the scientific method. This is one example of the thousands of experiments and tests in evolution. So could you explain why, using actual evidence, of why evolution is not scientific?

i'll give you an example. where are the skeletons? please tell me. oh, and i'm waiting for you to start naming all the "men" discovered in the chain of evolution.

please do so i can pull out my national geographic with adam and eve on the cover that points out every scientific evolutionary hoax.

where is the evidence? no skeletons... just ideas, and here are some quotes for you....

"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? 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." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.


<FONT face=Arial>&#8220;&#8230;I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science&#8230;.It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.&#8221;
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,266
940
34
Ohio
✟77,093.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
prophecy4 said:
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? 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. - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.



<FONT face=Arial><EM>I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science&#8230;.It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws & holes as sound parts.&#8221;
Take a look at the date on that book, and then take a look at the date on your calendar. See the difference?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

Silent Bob

Guest
prophecy4 said:
it's not letting me post my entire answer, but that is the quote i wanted you to read.

"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? 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." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

And it continues:

"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." - Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
prophecy4 said:
i'll give you an example. where are the skeletons? please tell me. oh, and i'm waiting for you to start naming all the "men" discovered in the chain of evolution.

please do so i can pull out my national geographic with adam and eve on the cover that points out every scientific evolutionary hoax.

where is the evidence? no skeletons... just ideas, and here are some quotes for you....

"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? 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." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.


<FONT face=Arial>“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.”


You seem to change the subject very quickly.

Did you not read my post at all because you certainly didn't respond to it. You said gravity and the Moon are facts. Well, so is evolution. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, tell me why we can not observe allele frequencies changing in a gene pool over time.

Did you read my post on how the botonical society followed the scientific method in testing the theory of evolution when it comes to plants? If they did not follow the scientific method, please point out where. Bring in humans all of a sudden when we haven't resolve the first of your errors will only cause you to continue to throw in more and more mistakes until we all get exhausted from correcting all of them and just end up ignoring you, at which point, you'll probably call, "Mission Accomplished!".
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
prophecy4 said:
sure, shells fossilize better, but if they are more protective and efficient, why didn't everything develop a shell?

Because the necessary mutations did not occur in those species. Or if they did, they were not selected for preservation.

my question was why don't we still see hybrid animals walking around in millions of intermediary stages?

For the most part evolution does not require hybrids to occur at all. So why would you expect to see them?

to me, it just doesn't make sense that evolution was completely uniform and stopped all at the same time.

That's fine since it is not completely uniform and has never stopped.

if things are constantly evolving, there should still be apes and people that aren't fully evolved.


Since there is no goal for evolution to meet the concept of "fully evolved" is nonsense. You have to have something in mind to measure evolution against to say it is "fully" evolved and there is no such standard.



again, the eyeball had to develop into working order, according to evolution. how did evolution know that we needed eyes?

It didn't. You keep trying to put the evolutionary process in the wrong order. As best I can figure out you think it works like this:

species perceives future need->species changes to meet that need.

But that is not the way it works. Here is the proper order.

A mutation occurs which generates a variation in a species' characteristics->as a consequence the members of the species which inherit the variation have more surviving progeny than those without the new variation.

So evolution did not "know" we needed eyes. A mutation occurred in one of our far distant ancestors which caused a chemical change in some cells that made them photosensitive. Members of the species with this variation were able to survive and reproduce more frequently than those without. Over several generations, the variation became more common, and eventually universal in the species.

Additional mutations selected over the generations added new features and improvements to the primitive eye-spot until the eye we are familiar with in humans emerged.

i have to disagree that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. "everything goes from a state of order to disorder..."


Ah, so you don't actually know what the 2LOT is. That explains why it puzzles you.


explain how a big bang goes from gasses, or a cosmic egg, or whatever to what we see now.

C'mon, you want to be spoonfed the whole history of the universe in a forum post? Head to the library and start reading.

how did non living matter start to live?

That is the question scientists in the field of abiogenesis are researching. Stick around and they may find the answer in your lifetime.

why don't rocks and dirt, and steel, and other none living matter just up and start breathing one day?

Because the conditions in which life first arose no longer exist on earth today.

where are the pictures of this macro-evolution? if scientist just released them, that would put an end to this whole debate... maybe...

A lot of macro-evolution would not show up in pictures. For example, a major change in the physiology of digestion which permitted a change in diet from fruit to bread.

Better to go to the scientific studies on speciation. I can give you a list of 50 (out of thousands) to research.

as far as the fruit flies, the only thing it proved in my opinion is that you need a higher intelligence to manipulate DNA and conditions for evolution on the smallest scale to happen.

No, the intelligence is need to replicate the conditions in nature in which evolution occurs. No manipulation of DNA is required.

Also some experiments are done in natural conditions. So no manipulation of the conditions is needed either. No human manipulated the climate changes that led to evolution in the Galapagos finches in the last 20 years.

one final question. from what i know about evolution, it was supposed to improve us.

No, evolution has nothing to do with improvment. It is just a survival mechanism. Fit into your environment better and your progeny are more likely to survive. At least until the environmental conditions change.

if we started as monkeys, why did we get out of the trees where it was probably safer?

Possibly trees were becoming rarer as jungles gave way to savannahs.

why did we shed our fur when it kept us warm?

Possibly because we needed a cooling mechanism such as sweat to release excess heat after heavy exertion, like chasing down game, or escaping predators. Or, some theorize, that for a while our ancestors were aquatic and lost their body hair as an adaptation to spending many hours in the water. I don't give much creedance to the latter hypothesis, but it has been seriously proposed.

why did we become weaker?

Possibly because we began using technology and didn't need greater strength to compete.

why would we walk on the ground when monkeys are faster in trees?

all of these changes seem counter productive. again, that's just my opinion.

That is why science does not rely on opinion but seeks out the facts. A lot of science is counter-intuitive. It's different from what we expected.
 
Upvote 0

prophecy4

Active Member
Jul 24, 2006
128
9
Las Vegas, NV
✟303.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
You seem to change the subject very quickly.

Did you not read my post at all because you certainly didn't respond to it. You said gravity and the Moon are facts. Well, so is evolution. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, tell me why we can not observe allele frequencies changing in a gene pool over time.

Did you read my post on how the botonical society followed the scientific method in testing the theory of evolution when it comes to plants? If they did not follow the scientific method, please point out where. Bring in humans all of a sudden when we haven't resolve the first of your errors will only cause you to continue to throw in more and more mistakes until we all get exhausted from correcting all of them and just end up ignoring you, at which point, you'll probably call, "Mission Accomplished!".

if i recall, i started out talking about humans and animals. read the original post. it is you that changed the subject.

in case it's not clear to everyone, i'm talking about macro-evolution. evolution involving large multicelled organisms that we know as animals and people. that's what i want explained to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
why don't rocks and dirt, and steel, and other none living matter just up and start breathing one day?


because any precursors formed would be immediately eaten by the life that exists. abiogenesis seems to require an environment where "things don't rot", somewhere that doesn't exist on earth now..
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.