Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[SkyWriting]

Your excessive sensitivity betrays you.

Most people have noticed I'm not a creation scientist.
Or they can discover it with the forums search function.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why would any chemical want to self replicate?

It has no desires. It follows the laws of chemistry.

That would go against entropy and the trend toward disorganization.

So does the formation of a snowflake, but it doesn't violate the law of entropy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Researchers have discovered the fossil of a fish with finger-like digits in its fin that lived 380 million years ago, according to a new study. And they believe it bridges the evolutionary gap between marine and land vertebrates as one of the oldest examples of a skeletal pattern resembling a hand.

I believe in Jesus. He bridges a big gap as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh..."THEM" again.

Why are you so sensitive to this? Why not try to learn why creationists are wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would any chemical want to self replicate?

That would go against entropy and the trend toward disorganization.

No need for a "want". You should simply ask "why". The answer may be the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Life raises the general rate of entropy. It lowers energy available for work.

Your version of entropy is oversimplified and incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe in Jesus. He bridges a big gap as well.

Many Christians accept evolution. One does not have to believe the Adam and Eve story to be a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most people have noticed I'm not a creation scientist.
Or they can with the forums search function.

Still you are overly sensitive when it comes to this topic. It is not that hard to learn the basics. Why not start there?

 

[SkyWriting]

It has no desires. It follows the laws of chemistry.



So does the formation of a snowflake, but it doesn't violate the law of entropy.

Because it dissipates and gives up heat, drops in energy, crystallizes and becomes brittle and useless. It also gives up movement and adaptability, both features of life. So it strikes out as a model for the start of life.
Dendritic Growth

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it dissipates and gives up heat, drops in energy, crystallizes

Correct, and you should have stopped there.

and becomes brittle and useless. This increases entropy. It also gives up movement and adaptability, both features of life.

Snow is far from useless. And being "brittle" has little to do with entropy. It is best to concentrate on the concept of energy available for work. When it forms a crystal it lowers the energy available for work.

 

[Shemjaza]

According to the so-called fact of evolution, it must have evolved otherwise did it just come spontaneously from nothing?

No, it most certainly did not come from evolution. Evolution is the description of how life develops from generation to generation. Life from non-life is a different field with different factors.

Most likely is that life cam from chemistry, but we don't know exactly how. Even modern life can be broken down into chemical reactions, without some clear "life force" or divine pneuma in evidence.

The thing about the evolution debate is that is doesn't matter how life began, evolution stands as the explanation for the diversity of life. Even if the first life was created by an unrepeatable miracle; evidence still shows that life we see today and in the fossil record evolved.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because it dissipates and gives up heat, drops in energy, crystallizes and becomes brittle and useless. This increases entropy.

Incorrect. Crystals are a high form of order. The snowflake is the opposite of disorder, which is entropy. Thermodynamics is a subtle science, and requires serious study, much as evolution does.

So it strikes out as the start of life.

Nobody asserted that snowflakes were the start of life. However, the laws of thermodynamics allow for local order to form. Every snowflake is evidence of it. Thermodynamics presents no difficulties for the theory of evolution. This is a misunderstanding on the part of anti-evolutionists.

 

[Aussie Pete]

This is just factually incorrect, and I'm pretty sure I've given you examples to the contrary in prior discussions. Heck, I even recently posted how evolution is used in understanding the origins of the current coronavirus.

However, it seems all creationists have left these days is just denialism.

Oh well. Ce la vie.

Evolutionist Lynn Margulis (1938–2011), a famous University of Massachusetts biology professor and the
former wife of Carl Sagan, describes a conversation she had with Richard Lewontin, a leading evolutionary biologist:
“Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, about 6 years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, ‘You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.’ This just appalled me. So I said, ‘Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work? He looked around and said,‘It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it, I won’t get my grant money.’ So he’s an honest man,
and that’s an honest answer.”

I could go on and on and on. I've never yet met an evolutionist who can even begin to imagine that there are logical and plausible reasons to reject evolution. There are.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Evolution is both. It's a fact that evolution occurs in populations of biological organisms. The theory is the explanation for how it occurs.

Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific detectives, working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.
G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”
S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”
G: “Try me.”
S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”
G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”
S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”
G: “So how do you do it?”
S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some typos. It should get easier as time goes by.”
G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”
S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”
G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”
S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
S: “No. It all just evolved.”
G: “What? You just told me —?”
S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

 

[Strathos]

Many Christians accept evolution. One does not have to believe the Adam and Eve story to be a Christian.

Many creationists seem to think that evolution means that the universe and everything in it came from nothing, and that God doesn't exist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When you have no viable argument, then attack an imaginary enemy
to try an make them look weaker than you.

So why are you doing that then?

Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist

Sam who?

 

[Speedwell]

Many creationists seem to think that evolution means that the universe and everything in it came from nothing, and that God doesn't exist.

And many creationists adopt that position as a rhetorical strategy, even knowing that it isn't true.

 

[SkyWriting]

Still you are overly sensitive when it comes to this topic. It is not that hard to learn the basics. Why not start there?

I used to be an active YE Creationist. Been there done that.

 

[SkyWriting]

I know enough to know that evolution is a con. For start, evolutionists found way too many flaws in the theory- including Darwin. So some genius decided to change the ground rules. So "adaptation" which was taught as scientific fact when I went to school, became "evolution". Garbage. Adaptation happens in very short time frames. Evolution supposedly takes billions of years. Adaptation is within species.

Evolution depends on life being present. No life, no evolution. You don't find rocks evolving. Now God has told humanity how life came about. He created it. Evolution is mankind's attempt to shove God out of the picture. There is nothing new about this. Just the methods have changed. Evolved if you like. Every argument in favour of evolution has been argued against by people just as educated and intelligent as evolutionists. The scientific community is bullied, bribed and blackmailed into silence. So relatively few will put their hand up and say that they reject evolution. But there are enough. I rarely see anyone argue the facts that anti evolutionists raise. It is usually an attack on the doubter. His credentials, intelligence, and sometimes his character. If the individual happens to be a believer, that is instant dismissal.

If evolution is so beyond doubt, what is there to fear? And who cares? It is of zero benefit to mankind. There are genetic researchers who utterly reject evolution doing just as valuable work as evolutionists.

They only reject the "randomness" argument. If you consider God is smart enough to make plans, then evolution works far better as a model.

Since nothing is random, it makes far more sense that mistakes are so rare.

 

[Aussie Pete]

They only reject the "randomness" argument. If you consider God is smart enough to make plans, then evolution works far better as a model.

Since nothing is random, it makes far more sense that mistakes are so rare.

I prefer to keep things simple. As Einstein said, as simple as possible but no simpler. God says that He created. That's good enough for me.

 

[Aussie Pete]

So why are you doing that then?



Sam who?

Sam who is afraid to give his last name because it would end his career.