Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[EternalDragon]

Wrong. To a sane person I can explain evolution. At least half of your problem is that your explanation for the theory of evolution comes from lying creationist sites. You still refer to them even after you have been shown some of their open lies. They even openly admit that they will ignore the truth if necessary.

AiG, Creation.com, and other sites openly admit that they are not scientific. Most Christians can't see it, but that is exactly what they do. You can't do science that way.

I don't think that since I have joined here that I have ever cited AIG or Creation.com. I may have cited AIG one time but not sure.

 

[EternalDragon]

No. You didn't do any science to come to the conclusions that you have concerning the age of the earth, or the diversity and distribution of life on earth. At least admit that much.

Did you?

I will suggest that you can just use your five senses.

Science means knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that since I have joined here that I have ever cited AIG or Creation.com. I may have cited AIG one time but not sure.

You have used another related source that I have called you out on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionnews.0rg is not a valid source. The "Discovery Institute" runs that site. They are not honest either.

That is why I demand real peer reviewed science. It may still be in error, but it is not from a bunch that openly lie and distort.

 

[Loudmouth]

I typically ignore childish complaints of someone lying at face value.

No you don't. You take lies and try to present them as the truth. You have been doing that for a while now.

I am still curious about one question. If the platypus and the duck have a common designer then the structures that make up their bills should be the same according to your common designer claims, right?

 

[Split Rock]

Did you?

I will suggest that you can just use your five senses.

Science means knowledge.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. I didn't come up with the theory of evolution on my own, no. I have looked back over the data, and can apply the theory sucessfully to new data, however. You don't reject evolution or deep time because of the science. You reject them because of religious dogma.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We stand on the shoulders of giants. I didn't come up with the theory of evolution on my own, no. I have looked back over the data, and can apply the theory sucessfully to new data, however. You don't reject evolution or deep time because of the science. You reject them because of religious dogma.

Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind. There is nothing wrong with a correct interpretation of the Bible at all. The earth was created no-one knows how long ago. Has undergone several creation's and destruction's.

The fossil record is clear on this. In every epoch, only complete and fully formed fossils of creatures are found. They go extinct, and all new creatures never before seen suddenly arise, everywhere on the globe, fully formed and complete. It is evolutionists misinterpretation of it that led you to your present problems.

The Earth was not formless and void. It became desolate and waste and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet, some other catastrophe? Could of been, but clearly recorded in the Bible long before you ever dreamed such a thing. Just as evolutionists took the order of life from the Bible.

That you misinterpret what you then see, is not the Bible's fault, but yours. Just as you once incorrectly believed dinosaurs were reptiles. As we once thought the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. Of course, theories from both incorrect assumptions are still being used by so-called science to this very day.

So what can one expect from science that still uses theories based upon data shown to be totally wrong? Your cosmology and evolutionary theories are packed so full of Fairie Dust, you no longer have room for facts.

 

[OllieFranz]

Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind. There is nothing wrong with a correct interpretation of the Bible at all. The earth was created no-one knows how long ago. Has undergone several creation's and destruction's.

Exactly as the evolutionary model predicts

The fossil record is clear on this. In every epoch, only complete and fully formed fossils of creatures are found. They go extinct, and all new creatures never before seen suddenly arise, everywhere on the globe, fully formed and complete.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, but if you are saying that there are no chimerical hybrids like crocoducks, or hippogryphs, then again, that is exactly what the evolutionary model predicts.

The Earth was not formless and void. It became desolate and waste and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet, some other catastrophe? Could of been, but clearly recorded in the Bible long before you ever dreamed such a thing. Just as evolutionists took the order of life from the Bible.

The order taught by evolution is the order found in the fossil record. It does not follow the biblical account, except by coincidence, and in fact disagrees with Genesis at least as often as it agrees. Genesis 1 does not pretend to be nor claim to be scientifically accurate. Even 2Timothy 3:16 does not claim inerrancy, and only provides assurance of Scripture's efficacy in matters of righteousness, not in interpreting nature. Nature, as a word and as a concept, is unknown in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is only known in the Platonic sense of a thing's true essence or purer form. The sense of the physical world, of "All Creation" is only used metaphorically (and anthropomorphically --awoman in birth pangs, a witness at a legal proceeding).

That you misinterpret what you then see, is not the Bible's fault, but yours. Just as you once incorrectly believed dinosaurs were reptiles. As we once thought the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. Of course, theories from both incorrect assumptions are still being used by so-called science to this very day.

Yes, we sometimes oversimplify our assumptions and later have to correct them. I already addressed this when I spoke of Newtonian physics vs Relativity. But filling in the gaps with "I don't understand this, so it must be a miracle of God," as opposed to "We don't understand this bit, yet," only slows down the process and makes us complacent in our ignorance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Exactly as the evolutionary model predicts

I beg to differ.

http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/media/treeolif.jpg

It predicts the exact opposite, that simple life became more complex, not that it reproduces kind after kind after kind. That a basic primitive form of life became eveything we see today.

But now with the overwhelming fossil and DNA evidence disproving evolution, you suddenly want what, new forms of life to spring up magically?

The order taught by evolution is the order found in the fossil record. It does not follow the biblical account, except by coincidence, and in fact disagrees with Genesis at least as often as it agrees.

Coincidence yah, right, if you say so. Just like it was a coincident that a priest purposed the Big Bang? Disagrees where, in which order of life?

Genesis 1 does not pretend to be nor claim to be scientifically accurate.

Yet it is, as the Bible is known to be the most historically and scientifically accurate book known. It has even told you that His Power can be known by the things that are made. You have exploded the atomic bomb, showing the energy in all things, that binds the universe together. That same energy that makes human thought possible, that controls the atomic structure, so you have no excuse to ignore it, yet you do.

Even E tried to tell you it was the electrodynamics of moving bodies. But you ignore it in your cosmology, and you ignore it in your theories of life. Oh that's right, it may have started life on this planet, but then it just stopped doing anything.

Even 2Timothy 3:16 does not claim inerrancy, and only provides assurance of Scripture's efficacy in matters of righteousness, not in interpreting nature. Nature, as a word and as a concept, is unknown in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is only known in the Platonic sense of a thing's true essence or purer form. The sense of the physical world, of "All Creation" is only used metaphorically (and anthropomorphically --awoman in birth pangs, a witness at a legal proceeding).

Yet it declares that In beginning, God created the heaven's and the Earth. And the Earth became formless and waste, and darkness covered the surface of the deep. That God acted, and heat penetrated the darkness and light reached into the depths and evaporation occurred. And the waters above were separated from the waters below, and dry land appeared. Seeds were planted, but not grown, for there was no man to till the ground yet, and no rain had fallen. So the plants and fish of the sea, and birds of the air came first. then land animals, then man, then plants grew from the mist that came.

Scientifically you are just not able to tell when plants came on the scene. For everywhere you find plants, you find animal life. Everywhere you find sea life you find algae and sea growing plants, not needing water to start growth, as they are in water already.

But as far back as you go they are fully formed, their own distinct kind. Every family of every creature on this planet can not be traced back beyond its family class. All fossils are fully formed. There is no gradual evolution at all, even the fossil records backs creation and falsifies evolution.

Yes, we sometimes oversimplify our assumptions and later have to correct them. I already addressed this when I spoke of Newtonian physics vs Relativity. But filling in the gaps with "I don't understand this, so it must be a miracle of God," as opposed to "We don't understand this bit, yet," only slows down the process and makes us complacent in our ignorance.

So when are you going to correct the current absurdity and add the binding force of the atom to your cosmology so the two can be united? When are you going to stop searching for Fairie Dust and SUSY theories, when all your experiments have backed over and over the electrical model of the atom and falsified every other one?

When are you going to stop ignoring 99% of the universe and insist it behaves like the 1% of the universe, solids, liquids and gasses? If you stopped ignoring that 99% you wouldn't need to make believe in 96% Fairie Dust to get a theory that does not require one little bit of it to describe the solar system, that 1%, but requires Fairie Dust in multitudes to describe even remotely that other 99%?

Sure GR does a good job at describing that 1% of solids, liquids and gasses in close confines, I don't argue against that at all. It just falls flat on its face when applied to the rest of the universe, and magical Fairie Dust need be applied.

 

[lasthero]

Yet it is, as the Bible is known to be the most historically and scientifically accurate book known

Who determined that? You? Who sat around, read EVERY BOOK IN EXISTENCE, and determined the Bible was the most accurate one? When was that decision made?

 

[USincognito]

I did not at all bring it up as a blow against evolution. If you look back someone gave an example of something that would disprove evolution. I produced an possible candidate for an example.

That "someone" would be me and I listed a number of examples from anatomy, molecular structures and genetics. You, ironically, listed a living example of what we look for in transitional beings.

What you posted about it would have it not fit in with a nest hierarchy.

How so? Where are the swapped modules?

This is true with other creatures as well.

Examples? You were wrong about the platypus? Have you got any others?

 

[USincognito]

Yet the nested hierarchy was originally based upon the belief that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. It is now believed they were warm-blooded mammals, but you still use the same nested hierarchy that you did when you thought they were reptiles.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Dinosaurs fit into the nested hierarchy as reptiles (although reptile is bit of obselete taxon) and mammals split from basal amniotes long before dinosaurs evolved.
Synapsid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What nested hierarchy? The one based on the incorrect assumption dinosaurs were reptiles? You have never changed the hierarchy previous to the dinosaurs, or after them, one based upon incorrect data.

They never stopped being reptiles.
Untitled 1

Birds are dinosaurs.

Based on traits common with mammals (e.g. endothermy), it was long thought that birds were more closely related to mammals than to other vertebrates. When looking at various skull and hip characteristics, however, birds share more traits with certain lineages of dinosaurs. When evidence arose that some dinosaurs had beak-like traits and feathers, it became clear that these bird traits were all homologous with dinosaurs and that the clade of living birds was, in fact, within the clade of dinosaurs.​

This cladogram shows how non-avian dinosaurs and birds are related to other reptiles and basal amniotes.

 

[USincognito]

Why would a bird ever have arms?

According to evolutionary theory, it wouldn't. That was the point.

Birds are one kind, not evolved from something else.

Sorry, but "kind" is a meaningless word without a definition that is useful scientifically and birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

Finding a bird with arms would disprove creation, and prove evolution. Not the other way around as you want to twist it.

Why would it disprove (the word you're looking for is falsify by the way) Creationism (creation is a supurnatural claim and cannot be falsified)? A Creator could create anything anyway that creator wanted - including birds with wings and arms. Such a discovery is impossible within evolutionary theory and thus would falsify it.

Unless you can explain to me how it would provide evidence for evolution.

Same with shrimp and backbones, they never had them, because they have always been shrimp. Not shrimp that evolved from something else into shrimp.

Uhhhhh... How about you tell me how a bird would evolve arms and wings and then we'll get back to the rest of my list?

 

[USincognito]

So that leaves out man, apes, whales, dolphin, lion, cat, dog, as none of them lay eggs on land.

You need to read more closely.

(four-limbed animals with backbones or spinal columns) that have an egg equipped with an amnios, an adaptation to lay eggs on land rather than in water as anamniotes do.​

- All of those listed are four limbed animals or have molecular or genetic vestiges for growing for liimbs
- All of them have backbones or spinal columns.
- All of the produce eggs that have amnios.
Amnios (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The amnios is a pouch in which an embryo develops. It is a defining characteristic of amniotes.[1] The amnios is adjacent to the epidermis, formed by the ectoderm of the fetus, and is extremely elastic.[2]

In elephants, "The amnios is continued from the base of the umbilical cord upon the allantois, which is of considerable size, and is so interposed between the chorion and amnios, as to prevent any part of the amnios attaining the inner surface of the placenta. The amnios consists of two layers:one is the granular layer, continued upon the inner or foetal surface of the allantois, and thence upon the umbilical cord; the other is the smooth outer layer, continued upon the outer or chorional surface of the allantois, and thence upon the inner surface of the chorion."[3]:348​

- An egg with an amnios is an adaption to lay eggs on land, even if the particular amniotes in question do no lay their eggs, but gestate inside the mother before viviparous birth.

 

[USincognito]

I am still trying to figure out where they get mammals from reptiles, since it is now believed dinosaurs were not cold-blooded reptiles, but mammals. Yet birds are not mammals nor reptiles, but aves. Which tells me it is likely half the foregoing creatures they labeled as reptile, are more than likely a mistake, just as calling dinosaurs reptiles was.

That's what got them in a pickle, believing dinosaurs were once reptile, which made them class birds as non-mammal or reptile, since they were not cold-blooded. Then they realized they messed the entire dinosaur evolutionary tree up since they are actually mammals, not reptiles, but use the same evolutionary tree they did when they thought wrongly they were reptiles.

So in all likelihood, the ones they are claiming are reptile that the dinosaur came from, are in reality mammals as well. Which means they no longer have any evidence any mammal evolved from a reptile, because in reality they have no clue as to what was once reptile and what was once mammal. They are simply guessing, like they guessed with the dinosaur, and incorrectly at that.

Everyone in this room is now dumber - YouTube

 

[USincognito]

Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind.

What "kind" are these?:

snail
clam
octopus

lilac
apple tree
saguaro cactus

bakers yeast
white truffle
athlete's foot

 

[Split Rock]

Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind. There is nothing wrong with a correct interpretation of the Bible at all. The earth was created no-one knows how long ago. Has undergone several creation's and destruction's.

1. Kind after kind is a meaningless statement. You cannot define what a kind is.
2. Where is the evidence that earth has undergone "several creation's and destruction's?" Why is it that most of your creationist compatriots don't agree with you on this?

The fossil record is clear on this. In every epoch, only complete and fully formed fossils of creatures are found. They go extinct, and all new creatures never before seen suddenly arise, everywhere on the globe, fully formed and complete. It is evolutionists misinterpretation of it that led you to your present problems.

Strawman. Of course only "complete and fully formed" creatures are found in the fossil record. They represent sucessful living species. Evolution does not predict the existance of any partially formed creatures. You are also wrong when you claim "new" creatures pop up everywhere inthe record. Three-toed horses preceeded two-toed horses, just as whales with legs preceeded whales with no legs. The record shows us what evolution predicts... descent with modification.

The Earth was not formless and void. It became desolate and waste and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet, some other catastrophe? Could of been, but clearly recorded in the Bible long before you ever dreamed such a thing. Just as evolutionists took the order of life from the Bible.

How is it "clearly recorded" when even you cannot tell us what it was?

That you misinterpret what you then see, is not the Bible's fault, but yours. Just as you once incorrectly believed dinosaurs were reptiles. As we once thought the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. Of course, theories from both incorrect assumptions are still being used by so-called science to this very day.

Dinosaurs are still considered reptiles. When did your bible tell us anything about galaxies?

So what can one expect from science that still uses theories based upon data shown to be totally wrong? Your cosmology and evolutionary theories are packed so full of Fairie Dust, you no longer have room for facts.

Data are not wrong. Hypotheses and theories can be wrong. You, however, shouldn't be talking about data, when you never use any.

 

[EternalDragon]

Uhhhhh... How about you tell me how a bird would evolve arms and wings and then we'll get back to the rest of my list?

Animals don't evolve arms and wings. They are designed that way and give birth to young designed the same way. Over and over until today.

 

[Loudmouth]

Animals don't evolve arms and wings. They are designed that way and give birth to young designed the same way. Over and over until today.

Evidence please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1
You, however, shouldn't be talking about data, when you never use any.

Yet I use your own data and then you ignore it, why is that?

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

Why do you discard electrical forces in space when they are clearly everywhere? How much data by your own scientists do you need?

http://www.spacewx.com/Docs/TP2361.pdf


But, but, its electrically neutral in space. Yah right.