- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution
- Thread starter Gene2memE
- Start date
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
so the fact that a chemist cant explain transition evidence should tell us something. perhaps it didnt happen. and I could go into all the geology that refutes evolution, but that would be off topic.
Upvote
0
You are the one avoiding the question gradyll, not me. Actually, your response is a confirmation that you really do understand the what I have shown, realize your flawed ideas, and for the first time in your life have been confronted with an absolute verification of the validity of evolution.
It is as simple as this:
* Non evolution - all fossils are found in all layers of geologic strata.
* verified evolution - only specific fossils are found in specific layers of strata and no where else.
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
actually I am not arguing either way rick. all I am saying is that there is an evidence for young geology as much as old. I have heard many arguments for old earth in my years some have easy answers many, not so easy. but there is always answers. granted you may not appreciate the weight of the answer. secondly did you, or did you not dodge my macro evolutionary questions? didn't you as a chemist, pass the buck off to loudmouth and others? why? especially if macro evolution is a no brainer?
more info on whether the geologic column proves evolution:
http://www.icr.org/article/does-geologic-column-prove-evolution/
darwins tree of life fails:
"In the lowest level of abundant multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian Period, fossils of each phylum has been found, including vertebrates! Many fossil organisms are found which have gone extinct, but no new body plans from the start."
above quote from above website.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
here is my simple response:
and here is more info on the cambrian explosion:
the mysterious Cambrian explosion:
obviously not complete but that the ALL major phyla showed up from no where, and have not gone away since.
its' a problem because of this:
"Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com
Darwin's Dilemma - YouTube
video get interesting about 17 minutes into it when it speaks of darwins doubts over the cambrian explosion:
"IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty...."
origin of species, Darwin
read context here:
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Absence of Intermediate Varieties at the Present Day. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics
again he doubts:
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. "
origin of species, darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics
BTW this is all argumentation from the TEACH THE CONTROVERSY series (legal in 9 states)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
don't worry, they can't even explain the cambrian. They are dead in their tracks.
Upvote
0
The question should be "What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution among scientists" because i think the stat is like 50% of Americans believe in evolution.
I believe it is because of what it taught in school and university. The thing about evolution is i have yet to see an example of one creature turn into another type of creature. Most creationists and other scientists agree on mendelian inheritance, natural selection and genetic variation but it is that one point that creationists disagree. For example todays science tells us we share 97-97.5% of the rat DNA (98.5% for chimps i believe with the same benchmark)leading most scientists to say that we must share a common ancestor with the rat. So how do we evolve from a rat like creature to a chimp like creature? Observation today hasnt shown us that this is possible. Creationists disagree that this is possible.
I believe it is because of what it taught in school and university. The thing about evolution is i have yet to see an example of one creature turn into another type of creature. Most creationists and other scientists agree on mendelian inheritance, natural selection and genetic variation but it is that one point that creationists disagree. For example todays science tells us we share 97-97.5% of the rat DNA (98.5% for chimps i believe with the same benchmark)leading most scientists to say that we must share a common ancestor with the rat. So how do we evolve from a rat like creature to a chimp like creature? Observation today hasnt shown us that this is possible. Creationists disagree that this is possible.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
There are a couple of problems with your post.
First evolution does not say that one kind of creature turns into another kind of creature. In fact if anything evolution says that kind produces kind.
Second there are several different ways to measure similarity between genomes. I have never seen a 97% figure for rat similarity. I have seen a 98% similarity for Chimpanzee. Of course since there are different methods of measuring similarities you want to make sure that you are using the same method both times. You clearly did not.
Also, if you doubt a theory it is always a very very good idea to provide links that support your claims. Again, you did not.
Upvote
0
i shouldnt have to post a link for that. It should be common knowledge by now. But here it is go nuts.
Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men - 30 May 2002 - New Scientist
Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men - 30 May 2002 - New Scientist
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
And yet that article does not support your original claim. It says there is a 97.5% similarity of our working DNA. There is a big difference between that and our DNA as a whole. 98% of our DNA is noncoding or nonworking. The article said nothing about that. Clearly the similarity is not 97.5% overall.
ETA: I told you in my previous post that it is not honest to compare different methods that measure similarity differently. And that is exactly what you did.
Upvote
0
That was the first sentence. Did new scientist lie? I wasnt the one that compared them. If you compare non coding or non working DNA of chimps we are at 70%.
Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, the scientists didn't lie, you were the one that was dishonest. Perhaps it was not on purpose. Once again, there are different ways to measure similarity. It is not honest to use different methods and you were the one that did not make sure that you were comparing apples to apples.
You also made the mistake of using a popular article instead of using the original. If you are in doubt always go to the peer reviewed article that the story, or stories were based upon.
Now I don't blame you for your first mistake. But when I pointed out what your mistake was you should have realized where you erred.
Upvote
0
What? Did you even read the quote i posted which was the first line from new scientist.
Can you explain to me the meaning of that sentence?
Can you explain to me the meaning of that sentence?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Yes, I should have been more thorough. The authors of the article misled you. But those were not the scientists that found the information. Journalists very often want to stir the pot, so to speak. That is why you should never take sensationalism too seriously. Again, always look at where the article got its information from. Two different methods of comparing similarities were used.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
