Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Job 33:6]

Phylogenetic trees? Rather blades of grass! Blades representing each life form springing up abruptly at the same time, fully formed with no evolutionary history! "Anatomy may fluctuate over time, but the last remnants of a species usually look pretty much like the first representatives."
If the data infers that the sedimentary layers were laid down over millions of years then data is made up and the illustrations are meaningless! The evidence is that, except for igneous, they were laid down rapidly by running water sorting out sediments made up of their own unique and almost pure elements, and is why sediment layers look layered. So your illustrations of the layers are a record of a watery event that buried trillions of life forms not a fossil record of millions of years of evolution!

Other than the illustrations exactly where do they appear in the strata in that order? In fact fossils in sedimentary layers are overwhelmingly, 95%, comprised of marine life! The Grand Canyon said to expose one of the most complete sequences of rock anywhere, that can be traced right across North America, is said to have had marine environments creating many of the sedimentary rock layers where marine fossils are found throughout! The Claron Formation containing the Cenozoic Era at the top of the Grand Canyon, claimed to represent the last 66 million years, contain fossils of freshwater fish and an abundance of fossils of freshwater snails also plants and animals like bison all mixed together! Were animals like the bison slowly buried over hundreds or thousands of years?
The observable evidence of paleontology and genetics disproves the concept of phylogenetic trees! There is much evidence showing that living organisms appeared abruptly, fully formed at or about the same time with no evidence of ancestry!

Of course the fossils are there but your drawings show no evidence for Darwin's TOE! There is much evidence showing that living organisms appeared abruptly, fully formed at or about the same time!

You don't appear to understand the subject matter if you aren't aware of cladistics based phylogeny and faunal succession. Denial of cladistics isn't a sufficient response. Even if two animals hypothetically were not related, you could still construct phylogenetic trees based on comparative anatomy and morphology (ie two animals with fur such as a dog and cat would be cladistically more similar to eachother than to fish that don't have fur, and this too is observed in the fossil record where dogs and cats (or prehistoric wolves and sabertooth tigers for example) appear closer to one another than to fish in the fossil succession [based on timing of first appearance].) And it also is true that DNA of dogs and cats is more similar to eachother than either is to fish. So the fossil record=morphology=comparative anatomy=genetics.

This is what deniers of evolution have no response for.

Most people can understand this too. You don't have to have a PhD to understand that dogs and cats are more similar to eachother than they are to fish, and so it is the same in the fossil record where fish are present in the Cambrian, while dogs and cats appear closer together in the Cenozoic. And again, we don't even need to date the rocks they're in either, because it's true based on geologic superposition. Another concept that is so utterly grounded in reality that it cannot reasonably be denied.

So criticizing the existence of cladistics is really just an absurd response.

The rest of your post appears to be an attempt to avoid answering the question, mixed in with illogical denial. Also, there's nothing abnormal about finding land animal fossils near freshwater fossils in rocks derived from lacustrine environments (such as lakes or rivers where land animals and fish live side by side). Land animals and fish live together today (bears hunt fish for example), so it's no surprise that we find, in lacustrine rocks, land animals with fish. example: Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

Denial just isn't a sufficient response.

I guess I'll just say it again, if you have an actual response, I'll be here. But I can't take you seriously if you don't understand the subject matter or are simply derailing the topic.

 

[DaveISBA]

This is what deniers of evolution have no response for.

Most people can understand this too. You don't have to have a PhD to understand that dogs and cats are more similar to eachother than they are to fish, and so it is the same in the fossil record where fish are present in the Cambrian, while dogs and cats appear closer together in the Cenozoic. And again, we don't even need to date the rocks they're in either, because it's true based on geologic superposition. Another concept that is so utterly grounded in reality that it cannot reasonably be denied.

Yes I'm a denier of Darwin's TOE because there's no genetic or paleontological evidence it ever occurred!
Geologic superposition is the result of sedimentary layers that were formed not over millions of years but in a very short period of time in about 150 days by Noah's flood that can be demonstrated by any school child shaking a hand full of dirt in a jar of water and watching it separate into layers the heaviest materials layering first!
And cladistics is no more than a method of (hypothesizing) relationships among organisms!

So criticizing the existence of cladistics is really just an absurd response.

Criticizing the existence of cladistics is really just an absurd response? I only do so because of a genetic study that apparently overturns cladistics as a hypothesis!
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
90 percent of animal life on earth, including humans, are roughly the same age?
Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings...sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds. They trawled “through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?”
"’This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,’" “Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?”

It is fascinating that these researchers never considered that their conclusions from their study fit the creation narrative, animals and humans were created by God at roughly the same time!

...there's nothing abnormal about finding land animal fossils near freshwater fossils in rocks derived from lacustrine environments (such as lakes or rivers where land animals and fish live side by side). Land animals and fish live together today (bears hunt fish for example), so it's no surprise that we find, in lacustrine rocks, land animals with fish.

lacustrine rocks? The Grand Canyon layers were formed in a sea and can be traced right across North America! Fossils there were not deposits in a lake or river but were deposited under an ocean of water! So how do you get flowering plants, animals such as bison to be deposited and buried together with marine organisms in a seabed?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes I'm a denier of Darwin's TOE because there's no genetic or paleontological evidence it ever occurred!
Geologic superposition is the result of sedimentary layers that were formed not over millions of years but in a very short period of time in about 150 days by Noah's flood that can be demonstrated by any school child shaking a hand full of dirt in a jar of water and watching it separate into layers the heaviest materials layering first!
And cladistics is no more than a method of (hypothesizing) relationships among organisms!

Criticizing the existence of cladistics is really just an absurd response? I only do so because of a genetic study that apparently overturns cladistics as a hypothesis!
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
90 percent of animal life on earth, including humans, are roughly the same age?
Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings...sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds. They trawled “through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?”
"’This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,’" “Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?”

It is fascinating that these researchers never considered that their conclusions from their study fit the creation narrative, animals and humans were created by God at roughly the same time!

lacustrine rocks? The Grand Canyon layers were formed in a sea and can be traced right across North America! Fossils there were not deposits in a lake or river but were deposited under an ocean of water! So how do you get flowering plants, animals such as bison to be deposited and buried together with marine organisms in a seabed?

When you're ready to address the question, I'll be here. Denial, and a lack of familiarity with the subject just isn't an adequate response.

And regarding your article:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

The article isn't saying that all animals appeared out of thin air at the same time. It's saying that modern day species have all evolved from pre-existing species within the past 200,000 years. There's a big difference. But good job being dishonest on that one.

"And cladistics is no more than a method of (hypothesizing) relationships among organisms!"

What is hypothetical about a cat and dog both having fur (among other things like mammary glands, warm blood, toes on their feet, two ears etc.) and therefore being more similar to eachother than to a fish?

Nothing.

And thus, a phylogenetic tree can be made based on this similarity, regardless of what the cause of this similarity is. Thus, cladistics has nothing to do with hypotheses, but rather is a system of organizing measurements of physical reality.



So back to the point at hand, just as a dog and cat are more similar to one another than they are to fish, so it is also true that each first appear in the fossil record closer to one another (late Cenozoic prehistoric wolves and sabertooths for example) than to the first appearance of fish (Cambrian).

You don't need a PhD to understand this. And denial just isn't an acceptable response.

But of course this goes much deeper. Dogs and cats also happen to have DNA that is more similar as well. And this phylogeny holds true for every animal both living and in fossil form everywhere on earth for all time in paleontology, morphology, comparative anatomy and genetics.

Whales have DNA more similar to a hippos than they do to a fish. And the first appearance of whales and hippos are closer in the fossil succession than either are to fish.

DNA of fish is more similar to salamanders and frogs than it is to mammals or birds of any species. And fish and amphibians appear in the fossil succession closer to one another than to any bird or any mammal.

The same holds true for plants. Seeded plants and flowering plants appear closer to one another in the fossil record than they do to non vascular plants. And the DNA of seeded and flowering plants is more similar to one another than to non vascular plants.

You could even break it down further. Marsupial fossils appear closer to the fossil record to bears than they do to salamanders. And bear and marsupials have more similar DNA than either does to salamanders as well.

The synchronization of phylogenetic trees holds true for every plant and animal for all time. Pick any three animals and test it for yourself.



It's something that deniers of evolution simply have no explanation for.

 

[DaveISBA]

When you're ready to address the question, I'll be here. Denial, and a lack of familiarity with the subject just isn't an adequate response.

Stories | Sedimentary Rocks (earthscienceeducation.org)
"Running water sorts sediments by size and density. So when the particles are deposited, their sorting by size and shape is far from random. That's why some sediments look layered. The size and materials of a layer may be relatively uniform or may be gradational for example from large-size (coarse) material at the bottom of a layer to fine sediments at the top of a layer."

What is hypothetical about a cat and dog both having fur (among other things like mammary glands, warm blood, toes on their feet, two ears etc.) and therefore being more similar to eachother than to a fish?

Nothing.

You're asking the wrong person! I referenced a University of California article, (Journey into Phylogenitic Systematics) so our argument is with them!
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_05
(Journey into Phylogenitic Systematics):
"Cladistics is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms. Like other methods, it has its own set of assumptions, procedures, and limitations."
"While this model could conceivably occur, it is not currently known how often this has actually happened. The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups. This, however, is a general problem of reconstructing evolutionary history..."
That addresses your question! It's all just your imagination! The rest of your post is taken up with just more hypothesizing, assumptions and limitations, presenting no historical evidence for evolution!

Paleontological observations also back up the lack of evolutionary history!
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard was perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, (The Major Features of Evolution): p. 360
"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences."

 

[Job 33:6]

Stories | Sedimentary Rocks (earthscienceeducation.org)
"Running water sorts sediments by size and density. So when the particles are deposited, their sorting by size and shape is far from random. That's why some sediments look layered. The size and materials of a layer may be relatively uniform or may be gradational for example from large-size (coarse) material at the bottom of a layer to fine sediments at the top of a layer."

You're asking the wrong person! I referenced a University of California article, (Journey into Phylogenitic Systematics) so our argument is with them!
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_05
(Journey into Phylogenitic Systematics):
"Cladistics is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms. Like other methods, it has its own set of assumptions, procedures, and limitations."
"While this model could conceivably occur, it is not currently known how often this has actually happened. The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups. This, however, is a general problem of reconstructing evolutionary history..."
That addresses your question! It's all just your imagination! The rest of your post is taken up with just more hypothesizing, assumptions and limitations, presenting no historical evidence for evolution!

Paleontological observations also back up the lack of evolutionary history!
Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard was perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, (The Major Features of Evolution): p. 360
"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences."

We can use cladistics to make hypotheses. That's why it says "method of hypothesizing", meaning that you use it to essentially make predictions. This is correct, however there is nothing hypothetical about the phylogenies produced in cladistics. Example: there is nothing hypothetical about the simple fact that a dog and cat are more morphologically similar to one another than to fish.

So back to the point:

When you're ready to address the question, I'll be here. Denial, and a lack of familiarity with the subject just isn't an adequate response.

Denial of cladistics isn't a sufficient response. Even if two animals hypothetically were not related, you could still construct phylogenetic trees based on comparative anatomy and morphology (ie two animals with fur such as a dog and cat would be cladistically more similar to eachother than to fish that don't have fur, and this too is observed in the fossil record where dogs and cats (or prehistoric wolves and sabertooth tigers for example) appear closer to one another than to fish in the fossil succession [based on timing of first appearance].) And it also is true that DNA of dogs and cats is more similar to eachother than either is to fish. So the fossil record=morphology=comparative anatomy=genetics.

This is what deniers of evolution have no response for.

Most people can understand this too. You don't have to have a PhD to understand that dogs and cats are more similar to eachother than they are to fish, and so it is the same in the fossil record where fish are present in the Cambrian, while dogs and cats appear closer together in the Cenozoic. And again, we don't even need to date the rocks they're in either, because it's true based on geologic superposition. Another concept that is so utterly grounded in reality that it cannot reasonably be denied.

So criticizing the existence of cladistics or phylogenies is really just an absurd response.

The rest of your post appears to be an attempt to avoid answering the question, mixed in with illogical denial. Also, there's nothing abnormal about finding land animal fossils near freshwater fossils in rocks derived from lacustrine environments (such as lakes or rivers where land animals and fish live side by side). Land animals and fish live together today (bears hunt fish for example), so it's no surprise that we find, in lacustrine rocks, land animals with fish. example: Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

Denial just isn't a sufficient response.

I guess I'll just say it again, if you have an actual response, I'll be here. But I can't take you seriously if you don't understand the subject matter or are simply derailing the topic.

Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

 

[coffee4u]

Oh look more lies like Heckles forged embryo drawings. I am constantly amazed that anyone would make a 'proof' video with things that even their own buddies agreed were false years ago.
How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies | New Scientist

"All organisms pass through stages which are characteristic of their predeceases" What a tool.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh look more lies like Heckles forged embryo drawings. I am constantly amazed that anyone would make a 'proof' video with things that even their own buddies agreed were false years ago.
How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies | New Scientist

"All organisms pass through stages which are characteristic of their predeceases" What a tool.

The video doesn't have anything to do with heackles drawings. And of course the study of embryology exists and has phylogenies that also have nothing to do with his drawings just the same.

I think you gave this response several months ago or perhaps a year ago. Whenever you're actually ready to address the actual argument, I'll be here.

3:00 into the video, "this is a way that evolution can be tested, find a non-mammalian that has nipples during development".

What he's describing in the quote above are traits that exist in some embryos and not others, and thus can be organized into phylogenies. And none of this has anything to do with anyone's drawings.

 

[stevevw]

The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor,

Technically if evolution were true then we would have intially come from dust (original common ancestor was formed in the ground of the earth (dirt and waters).

and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.

Yeah that is a hard one to reconcile. It may not matter when but that it eventually happened. Maybe the evolving humanoids or Hominids gradually became more spiritually aware (spiritual awakening) so of thing.

This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born.

 

[rjs330]

Yeah the bible says 7 days, astronomy and geology say billions of years...you can preach your 7 days all you want...math does not lie...2+2 will all equal 4 no matter what the bible says...there is plenty in the bible that has been debunked. I do look at astronomy, archeology and geology. The thing is the speed of light debunks it all. When we see the andromeda galaxy...were seeing something from 2.537 million lightyears from us...it means it took over 2 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach. We have seen galaxies from over 13 billion light years away...that means it took 13 billion years to reach us...the earth and the universe are billions of years old...again I do not care what the bible says...2+2=4 its math

Would this be impossible for God to do?

 

[rjs330]

So what is your elaborate explanation then for how the fossil succession mirrors phylogenetic trees of genetics studies? (If not what I would consider the obvious answer of evolution).

Fossil succession does not show that we all came from a single one thing. All that it can produce is how creatures have adapted theough out time. Or creatures come and go, go extinct. It never shows one thing evolving into something it didn't start out to be.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossil succession does not show that we all came from a single one thing. All that it can produce is how creatures have adapted theough out time. Or creatures come and go, go extinct. It never shows one thing evolving into something it didn't start out to be.

When you're ready to answer the question, I'll be here. This looks like you just ignored the question.

 

[The Barbarian]

Would this be impossible for God to do?

God could have created everything last Tuesday, complete with faked evidence of age, and planted memories in our heads. However, God is truth, so we can dismiss that and other faked creation stories.

 

[The Barbarian]

The video doesn't have anything to do with heackles drawings.

It always upsets creationists when instead of using drawings, scientists just use pictures of embryos, showing evidence of evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

It always upsets creationists when instead of using drawings, scientists just use pictures of embryos, showing evidence of evolution.

Yea. It speaks volumes when you post a 10 minute video and instead of responding to the video they pick out literally a fraction of a second and use that fraction of a second to connect with some obscure off topic idea, and that's how they make their counter argument.

It's really just as bad as it appears.

 

[rjs330]

God could have created everything last Tuesday, complete with faked evidence of age, and planted memories in our heads. However, God is truth, so we can dismiss that and other faked creation stories.

God didn't "fake" age. That's an assumption on your part. God tells us he created the creatures on the earth teaming with life. And told them to be fruitful and multiply. So things were created with age. The sun had to be created with age in order to provide proper light and heat for the earth. Stars had to be created with age in order for the light to reach the earth. There is no "fakery" involved.

 

[rjs330]

It always upsets creationists when instead of using drawings, scientists just use pictures of embryos, showing evidence of evolution.

Evolution is undisputed. Everything living evolves. But everything living did not evolve from one single organism. To believe such take a extremely large dose of assumptions.

 

[rjs330]

When you're ready to address the question, I'll be here. Denial, and a lack of familiarity with the subject just isn't an adequate response.

And regarding your article:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

The article isn't saying that all animals appeared out of thin air at the same time. It's saying that modern day species have all evolved from pre-existing species within the past 200,000 years. There's a big difference. But good job being dishonest on that one.



What is hypothetical about a cat and dog both having fur (among other things like mammary glands, warm blood, toes on their feet, two ears etc.) and therefore being more similar to eachother than to a fish?

Nothing.

And thus, a phylogenetic tree can be made based on this similarity, regardless of what the cause of this similarity is. Thus, cladistics has nothing to do with hypotheses, but rather is a system of organizing measurements of physical reality.



So back to the point at hand, just as a dog and cat are more similar to one another than they are to fish, so it is also true that each first appear in the fossil record closer to one another (late Cenozoic prehistoric wolves and sabertooths for example) than to the first appearance of fish (Cambrian).

You don't need a PhD to understand this. And denial just isn't an acceptable response.

But of course this goes much deeper. Dogs and cats also happen to have DNA that is more similar as well. And this phylogeny holds true for every animal both living and in fossil form everywhere on earth for all time in paleontology, morphology, comparative anatomy and genetics.

Whales have DNA more similar to a hippos than they do to a fish. And the first appearance of whales and hippos are closer in the fossil succession than either are to fish.

DNA of fish is more similar to salamanders and frogs than it is to mammals or birds of any species. And fish and amphibians appear in the fossil succession closer to one another than to any bird or any mammal.

The same holds true for plants. Seeded plants and flowering plants appear closer to one another in the fossil record than they do to non vascular plants. And the DNA of seeded and flowering plants is more similar to one another than to non vascular plants.

You could even break it down further. Marsupial fossils appear closer to the fossil record to bears than they do to salamanders. And bear and marsupials have more similar DNA than either does to salamanders as well.

The synchronization of phylogenetic trees holds true for every plant and animal for all time. Pick any three animals and test it for yourself.



It's something that deniers of evolution simply have no explanation for.

Similarities do not equate to evolution from a single common ancestor. It is merely an assumption based upon belief.

 

[Job 33:6]

Similarities do not equate to evolution from a single common ancestor. It is merely an assumption based upon belief.

Like I said, when you're ready to address the topic of the video, feel free to let me know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is undisputed. Everything living evolves.

Nothing living evolves. Populations evolve. Individuals do not.

But everything living did not evolve from one single organism.

Genetic data, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, etc. all indicate a common ancestor.

To believe such take a extremely large dose of assumptions.

That's a testable assumption (and a very large dose, indeed). Let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

 

[rjs330]

Nothing living evolves. Populations evolve. Individuals do not.

Not true. If a population is going to evolve it starts with an individual. (If I am understanding your statement correctly). You don't see an entire population evolve all all once. It starts with individual creatures.