6 Day Creation Is A Lie Because.....

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 06:59 PM Crusadar said this in Post #61

hey chickenman,

By the way what do you believe in since I saw nothing in your profile indicating your faith? If you believe the God of the Bible and a theistic evolutionist then I will continue to reply to your posts. If you are a die hard evolutionary atheist then I will ignore you - and if you are then you're in the wrong forum.

---------------------------------------------------------

"Let reasoning not guide your faith, but rather let faith guide your reasoning." - Unknown

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV] 

YOu should have seen the confusion on another site i go to.

Atheists were coming in posing as christians and saying the most ungodly things.
Atheists of course were eating it up, till they were exposed.

thats one of the reasons I try to find out who I am talking to.

i think honesty and openess would help a little.
Not that it matters concerning topics like evolution, but in other areas it does.

 

[OldBadfish]

Follower of Christ, AMEN!

Even in light of compelling theories, there isn't even close to enough information or evidence to sway my belief in a 6 day creation.

 

[Vladimir]

23rd March 2003 at 02:44 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #1


Other 6 day creationists, just give me an AMEN .....

AMEN!

 

[Crusadar]

  

  

 
  

  

  

 
This page intentionally left blank
  

  

  

  

  


 

 




  
--------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: This post represents the missing links in evolution.

 

[wblastyn]

Where is it documented that abiogenesis is even observed to take place in the last hundred years? It is the very foundation of evolution, without the first primative organism there is no evolution of any kind. I think you are fooling yourself here if you were to work with the evolutionary formula for life: matter + energy + time = life, (expirement using that formula for a while and then tell me how it turns out before you start making the bold claims that you are making). Even today with the advancement of science they are not even able to produce the simplest of life forms from non living matter. You need to research a little more before you make the assertion that abiogenesis is possible because it isn't.

Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution, God could have created the first single celled life forms by "magic" and allowed them to evolve (which is kind of what Augustine believed), although I don't believe God did it that way either, but you never know.  What I'm trying to say is, if abiogenesis was falsified it would not effect evolution.

If you look in the other forum scientists have been able to produce protocells in the lab, which fit the definition of life. See the post "Protocell Redux" by Lucaspa.

Why is abiogenesis impossible?

 

[Crusadar]

31st March 2003 at 08:08 PM notto said this in Post #60

Both theistic evolutionists and creationists accept that life came from non-life at some point. The disagreement is as to what form that life took.

Not quite, you forget the only difference between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution is that God is added into the equation.

Naturalistic Evolution: matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

Theistic Evolution: matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

Creationists believe in the creation of the "kinds" already in their basic forms with the ability to diversify and adapt to their enviroment.

Evolution does not depend on life from non-life. It depends on life being present and well, look around, the chances that life came to be on this planet are a sure bet.

That is not true, naturalistic evolution requires life to arise via abiogenesis - which has never occured nor will it ever. Assuming however that it is true that life came to be by itself - it goes against all the known laws of nature! Even a good biochemist will tell you that life is not merely basic substances mixed together. Life requires highly organized processes in order to sustain and reproduce itself.

Evolution deals with what happened after that. Science cannot at this point say where that life came from. From outer space, from God, from ocean vents.

I think your assumptions are based on regurgitating what others in the so called field of evolution are saying. It seems you have been evolutionized to the point of not recognizing that God is the only source of all life.

This does not change evolution. We can accept that God created the first molecules that became living and evolution would work just the same as if they came from non-life through a chemical reaction.

As I have said to wblastyn earlier - embrace evolution if you want but I stand on the word of God. His word is true not because I believe it is true, but it is truth that is why I believe it.   

The evidence used to support evolution or accept evolution is not dependent on where the first life came from.

Life cannot evolve if there is no life to begin with. How can something mutate if there is nothing to mutate.

---------------------------------------------------------

"Let reasoning not guide your faith, but rather let faith guide your reasoning." - Unknown

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV] 

 

[wblastyn]

Not quite, you forget the only difference between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution is that God is added into the equation.

Naturalistic Evolution: matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

Theistic Evolution: matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

Creationists believe in the creation of the "kinds" already in their basic forms with the ability to diversify and adapt to their enviroment.

Try: "matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods = an outworking of the creative activity of God."

From http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm

What is a "kind"?

That is not true, naturalistic evolution requires life to arise via abiogenesis - which has never occured nor will it ever. Assuming however that it is true that life came to be by itself - it goes against all the known laws of nature! Even a good biochemist will tell you that life is not merely basic substances mixed together. Life requires highly organized processes in order to sustain and reproduce itself.

No it doesn't, evolution simply requires that there is life, how it got here does not matter. Evolution explains biodiversity, not the origins of life.

Which is why molecules arranged themselves into sel-replicating molecules, into protocells, etc. Life didn't just "pop" into existance, it happened gradually.

As I have said to wblastyn earlier - embrace evolution if you want but I stand on the word of God. His word is true not because I believe it is true, but it is truth that is why I believe it.

Actually, you do believe it is true, you believe God exists, you believe He is truthful, therefore, you believe what God says is true.

Life cannot evolve if there is no life to begin with. How can something mutate if there is nothing to mutate.

Evolution deals with the fact that there is life, it says nothing about how it actually came here because it doesn't matter.

 

[wblastyn]

Even in light of compelling theories, there isn't even close to enough information or evidence to sway my belief in a 6 day creation.

We'll see about that.......

 

[Crusadar]

31st March 2003 at 05:26 PM wblastyn said this in Post #57

Genesis only says creation was "good" not perfect. Instead of telling God how He should have created, look at how He did create (evolution).

Perhaps, but if our God, the omnipotent God of the Bible is perfect in every aspect, would His creation be a reflection of His perfection? Ofcourse from reality we see the opposite a world torn by death and suffering. It was a beautiful world once, the beauty we see today is only a remnant of its former glory. In essence I am not telling God what He did, He has told me what He did in His book and am merely citing His own words. Remember God is not a God limited to our  naturalistic laws. He is a "supernatural" being and is capable of anything He pleases. I think what we as believers often have done is take our doubt of the existence of such an omnipotent being and have reduced the almighty God to a a mere ogre like god who enjoys seeing his creation suffer and die. Rather let your faith rationalize God to be who He really is, a God of infinite Love and Mercy.

Well there are the conflicting creation accounts, the figurative language, the evidence from creation against literal Genesis, etc. If you're looking for a direct "and God used evolution to create..." there is none, although it does say God formed life from the ocean, which could support abiogenesis. But I could show you scripture that says the earth is immovable and sits on pillars. The Bible is not a science book.

But note that these are all theories by fallible man, even a sinner such as myself realize that. We cannot accept things by men to be infallible, because after all man is a fallen god in his own sense. Man was made in the image of God, and therefore a child of God, not in the image of apes. Ofcourse it is not a science textbook, it was never meant to be. It is however God's revelation to man of who He is and what He had done, not how it was done. Look, if God told us everything would we be able to comprehend what He will say let alone be contained in only one volume? You must realize that His thoughts are not like our thoughts and His ways not ours.

Yes, but I don't understand why that couldn't have come about by evolution.

Your not seeing the whole picture here, even atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians in that if they destroy the foundation of a literal creation the rest of the Bible is also destroyed. Let me explain, naturallistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking. It is grounded on the philosophical assumption that all matter whether living or no living exists in a continum where the non living become the living and the living returns to the non living.

As Christians we know that design demands a designer. However in order to understand the reasoning of naturalistic evolution we must examine the philosophical reasoning behind evolution. Before evolutionist there were the materialists. Materialists such as the Greek philosophers Epicures, Socrates etc. believed that matter exists in a continuum. The belief is that there is a continuity in all nature, that is to say that there is a continual cycle without breaks from the inorganic to the organic. The reason for this belief is that they saw very little that pointed to an intelligent designer. This basic argument has been more or less revitalized in the modern ToE but only based on assumptions of that is seen as occuring in the natural world - primarily that of speciation.

The point I am making here is that the reasoning behind Darwin  was that he was out to remove the influence of anything and everything that was of the supernatural in science. He wanted all science to be concerned only with matter and nothing else. Yes, at first Darwin believed in a god of some sort, but after the death of his daughter, he removed all thoughts of a god because He could not accept a god who would allow pain, suffering, and death to exist - if that god was the omnipotent god that he claims he is.

That's abiogenesis, and it's not entirely random, molecules arrange themselves in specific patterns. How are speciation and evolution different?

Yes it isn't entirely random but it is inherantly a blind process which yields to no surprise - no life. That is from obeservations and repeated tests within the last half century or so. The few amino acids produced in experiments did not amount to any life.

But there is no magical barrier that stops a species from becoming something else.  The species could change so much that it could no longer mate with the original to produce fertile offspring, which is when it is labeled a new species I think.  We don't actually know what "kinds" are.

Yes, species can change, but that is not what is being disagreed on. It is how one kind can change into another kind. The so called shared genetic similarities claimed as proof of evolution holds little truth - all merely speculations. Could it not be that similarites are the result that there was only one designer who used a basic functional efficient design in the different kinds? Much like a car design, the basic unerlline structure remain consitently similar and yet look at the variety of differences. Can I prove that to your satisfaction? Perhaps not, but it makes logical sense. 

Mutations can add new genetic info, bacteria are becoming resistant to anti-biotics, that is new information added to their genome.

I'm not a geneticist so I  can't argue with you that it does or does not. But if you start with the premise that evolution is true then ofcourse it will show that it shows proof for evolution. However you need to also realize that there is no known process in nature where NEW genetic information is created due to enviromental adaptation. Could it not be that the loss of genetic information that allows the organism to synthesize enzymes which allow it to break down the antibiotic to make it harmful is missing. And therefore the ability not to break down the antibodies allows those that are not able to produce the enzymes to live on to reproduce while the others are killed off. This has been documented as happening to the H. pylori bacteria which is said to cause stomache ulcers.

---------------------------------------------------------

"Let reasoning not guide your faith, but rather let faith guide your reasoning." - Unknown

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV] 

 

[Crusadar]

1st April 2003 at 09:06 AM wblastyn said this in Post #65 
Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution, God could have created the first single celled life forms by "magic" and allowed them to evolve (which is kind of what Augustine believed), although I don't believe God did it that way either, but you never know.  What I'm trying to say is, if abiogenesis was falsified it would not effect evolution.

Your arguing from incredulity of scripture. Perhaps it won't be falsified, but I have said too often it isn't because of the amount of evidence but it is sin that keeps us from the Truth of God's word.

If you look in the other forum scientists have been able to produce protocells in the lab, which fit the definition of life. See the post "Protocell Redux" by Lucaspa.

Scientists = mortal intelligence  It wasn't a blind process as evolution claims it was was it? It humors me that scientists work so hard to produce life from existing life that they can make such a bold claim that life arose by chance when they themselves were intensely involved in the process. Now how much more can an ominscent God could have done compared to a mere mortal? Forgive them Lord for they know not what they say.

Why is abiogenesis impossible? 

First of all  biochemistry and probabilities tell us that it can't. But I am not a mathematician nor am I a biochemist, but I will do my best to provide an answer. Note: I am simply citing works written by fallible men so if you disagree it is not me you are disagreeing with.


Dr. Sidney Fox and Dr. Stanley Miller (evolutionists of course) were among the first scientists who attempted to prove abiogenesis. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen and passed through the mixture electricity to simulate lightning strikes. What did they managed to create? NO LIFE, but the process did combine the mixture to form amino acids which are the building blocks of life. Does this prove that life could eventually have arisen in some soup struck by lightning? NO The results actually weakened the case for life emerging by this method. The mixture of amino acids and other simple chemicals produced was not sufficient for producing life. WHY? Because all life that we know today consists of amino acids that are exclusively of the "left-handed" form.


There is no known life that can use a combination of both "right-handed" and "left-handed" amino acids. Adding even one "right-handed" amino acid to a chain of "left-handed" amino acids can and will DESTROY the entire chain. When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, there is always a 50% mixture of the two forms. Only through highly advanced, intelligently controlled processes can these two forms be separated.


One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 1 in 10^67 against even a small protein forming – by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (many times longer than the assumed age of the earth). What do mathematicians generally agree about such odds? That, statistically speaking, any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a ZERO PROBABILITY of ever happening. Imagine that!

 

References:


Fox, Sidney W. editor, The Origin of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (New York: Academic Press, 1965).


Miller, Stanley L.  "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, No. 3046 (1953), pp. 528-529.


Wilder-Smith, Arthur E. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981).


Erbrich, Paul  "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80

---------------------------------------------------------

"Let reasoning not guide your faith, but rather let faith guide your reasoning." - Unknown

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV] 

 

[wblastyn]

Perhaps, but if our God, the omnipotent God of the Bible is perfect in every aspect, would His creation be a reflection of His perfection? Ofcourse from reality we see the opposite a world torn by death and suffering. It was a beautiful world once, the beauty we see today is only a remnant of its former glory. In essence I am not telling God what He did, He has told me what He did in His book and am merely citing His own words. Remember God is not a God limited to our naturalistic laws. He is a "supernatural" being and is capable of anything He pleases. I think what we as believers often have done is take our doubt of the existence of such an omnipotent being and have reduced the almighty God to a a mere ogre like god who enjoys seeing his creation suffer and die. Rather let your faith rationalize God to be who He really is, a God of infinite Love and Mercy.

If God zapped everything into existance in their full form then why do humans have the information for tails in their genome, bats have eyes, snakes have pelvises, etc? That seems like a pretty huge mistake, unless of course God used evolution, which expects there to be left overs from more primative species.

But note that these are all theories by fallible man, even a sinner such as myself realize that. We cannot accept things by men to be infallible, because after all man is a fallen god in his own sense. Man was made in the image of God, and therefore a child of God, not in the image of apes. Ofcourse it is not a science textbook, it was never meant to be. It is however God's revelation to man of who He is and what He had done, not how it was done. Look, if God told us everything would we be able to comprehend what He will say let alone be contained in only one volume? You must realize that His thoughts are not like our thoughts and His ways not ours.

So you believe God is a human since you think we are created in God's physical image? God is Spirit, therefore we are created in the image of God spiritually.

That is why I think Genesis is allegory, because the ancient Hebrews would not have understood evolution, they would not even have had a basic understanding of our modern science.

Your not seeing the whole picture here, even atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians in that if they destroy the foundation of a literal creation the rest of the Bible is also destroyed. Let me explain, naturallistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory, it is a whole way of thinking. It is grounded on the philosophical assumption that all matter whether living or no living exists in a continum where the non living become the living and the living returns to the non living.

What doctrine rests on God zapping everything into existance in 6 days? The way I see Genesis is that it tells us God created everything, man sinned and fell from God, man needs saviour, God promises to provide saviour. I see science as finding out HOW God created.

Evolution is a process of nature, it is no more a philosophy than gravity.

As Christians we know that design demands a designer. However in order to understand the reasoning of naturalistic evolution we must examine the philosophical reasoning behind evolution. Before evolutionist there were the materialists. Materialists such as the Greek philosophers Epicures, Socrates etc. believed that matter exists in a continuum. The belief is that there is a continuity in all nature, that is to say that there is a continual cycle without breaks from the inorganic to the organic. The reason for this belief is that they saw very little that pointed to an intelligent designer. This basic argument has been more or less revitalized in the modern ToE but only based on assumptions of that is seen as occuring in the natural world - primarily that of speciation.

Natural Selection is the designer, but God is the ultimate designer. Natural Selection is like a computer program made by God to do the work for Him, so He can take pleasure in watching His creation grow into something that can be in His image (spiritually).

The point I am making here is that the reasoning behind Darwin was that he was out to remove the influence of anything and everything that was of the supernatural in science. He wanted all science to be concerned only with matter and nothing else. Yes, at first Darwin believed in a god of some sort, but after the death of his daughter, he removed all thoughts of a god because He could not accept a god who would allow pain, suffering, and death to exist - if that god was the omnipotent god that he claims he is.

Supernatural is not allowed in science because it cannot be tested, observed or falsified.

Yes it isn't entirely random but it is inherantly a blind process which yields to no surprise - no life. That is from obeservations and repeated tests within the last half century or so. The few amino acids produced in experiments did not amount to any life.

Go search for "Protocells Redux" in the other science forum, it has evidence for protocells being created in the lab, which fit the definition of life.

Yes, species can change, but that is not what is being disagreed on. It is how one kind can change into another kind. The so called shared genetic similarities claimed as proof of evolution holds little truth - all merely speculations. Could it not be that similarites are the result that there was only one designer who used a basic functional efficient design in the different kinds? Much like a car design, the basic unerlline structure remain consitently similar and yet look at the variety of differences. Can I prove that to your satisfaction? Perhaps not, but it makes logical sense.

What is a kind? What is there to stop something becoming another "kind"?

I'm not a geneticist so I can't argue with you that it does or does not. But if you start with the premise that evolution is true then ofcourse it will show that it shows proof for evolution. However you need to also realize that there is no known process in nature where NEW genetic information is created due to enviromental adaptation. Could it not be that the loss of genetic information that allows the organism to synthesize enzymes which allow it to break down the antibiotic to make it harmful is missing. And therefore the ability not to break down the antibodies allows those that are not able to produce the enzymes to live on to reproduce while the others are killed off. This has been documented as happening to the H. pylori bacteria which is said to cause stomache ulcers.

"The gene was created from duplicated—and hence dispensable—copies of the genes for annexin X (AnnX) and the cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain (Cdic). Three large deletions led to the fusion of the duplicated genes, whereupon a series of smaller deletions and nucleotide substitutions fashioned a new amino end of
the Sdic polypeptide and created motifs characteristic of known axonemal dynein intermediate chains. The regulatory region of Sdic,including a spermatocyte-specific promoter element, also evolved from AnnX and Cdic sequences"
(Chromosomal Effects of Rapid Gene Evolution in Drosophila melanogaster, Dmitry Nurminsky, Daniel De Aguiar,Carlos D. Bustamante, Daniel L. Hartl, SCIENCE VOL 291 5 JANUARY 2001)

Original: I like God.
Copy mutation: I like God. I like God.

Inversion mutation: I like God. I like Dog.

Deletion mutation: I like Dog.

The above exampe is from http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000087.html

It shows info can be added to the genome.

 

[wblastyn]

Here's the post on protocells: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/39548.html

I don't know enouh about it, so I won't be debating anything too scientific with you.

 

[troodon]

1st April 2003 at 06:36 AM Crusadar said this in Post #64

  

  

 
  

  

  

 
This page intentionally left blank
  

  

  

  

  


 

 




  
--------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: This post represents the missing links in evolution.

Oh baby, here we go. (Note: much information gathered from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates&nbsp

Probably the best known series of fossil transitions is that between dinosaurs and birds. This series, best illustrated with archaeopteryx, shows splendidly a transition between small, predatory dinosaurs and primitive birds. Maniraptors (a group of dinosaurs which includes avimimids, dromeosaurs, and troodontids) show a tremendous amount of similarity with dinosaurs. Some of these animals had feathers, a wishbone, hands virtually identical to those of archaeopteryx, and very avian shoulder girdles. The similarities between maniraptors and early birds are so glaring that, from what I've heard, some of the leading evolutionary opponants to dino-bird evolution are beginning to say that maniraptors just aren't dinosaurs.

Like I said, the hands of early birds are much closer to those of predatory dinosaurs. Here's a comparison:

A is Ornitholestes, a Jurassic theropod dinosaur; B is Archaeopteryx; C is Sinornis, a primitive bird from the Early Cretaceous; D is the wing of a modern chicken.

The second transition I'll show is between reptiles and mammals. According to Talkorigins, embryological studies show that homologeous bones in mammalian and reptilian fetuses eventually diverge to form ear bones in mammals and the lower jaw in reptiles. This can be seen in the fossil record rather well (I was actually quite amazed how well). Talk a look at this diagram:

This shows much more specifically how these bones changed in form and function. Quite coincidental how they are all in the right order in accordance with the 'evolutionist timeline', eh?

By the way, if anyone wants the keys to these diagrams I'm posting I'll be happy to post them right alongside, for now I'll only describe them so that you get the idea as to what they show.

The next sequence on my list (because it's next on talkorigin's list) is that between apes and humans.  I very nice picture can be seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
This picture shows quite well how the lines between the chimp skull (upper-left hand corner) and the human skull (lower-right hand).

(Note: I feel like pointing out here that the genetic differences between two animals normally described as being in the same kind, are often greater than the differences between humans and chimps. Check this thread out http://www.christianforums.com/threads/40852.html&nbsp

Last on this list is the evolution of marine mammals from land dwelling ones. Firstly, whales are often found with vestigial hip bones which I have never heard of a function for. The rest of the stuff on whale origins is a whole lot of text that some people would probably rather not read (note: just because you don't read it doesn't mean you refuted it) but I'll post a link to it: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Personally, I grow tired of people claiming that transitional fossils are "missing". The conditions that must exist for animals to not only be fossilized but also survive for X million years are so rare that I should thank God more often that he has gifted us with so many examples to show you guys. Oye, that's enough for now. I hope you enjoy my list, feel free to ask any questions; I'll do my best to answer them.

Edit: for some reason, I couldn't post nearly as many pictures as I wanted but I did what ones I could.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Well, I am very sure if I spent a few minutes searching, I can find at least 100 pages of information either debunking everything you may have shown in this post or showing how it fits into a Young earth.

This isnt meant sarcastically, but just to imply that it doesnt have to only prove evolution theory

 

[troodon]

Can I have some links please so I can address the issues? There are so many rediculous creationist sites that I need some sort of direction

 

[Follower of Christ]

1st April 2003 at 11:44 PM troodon said this in Post #75

Can I have some links please so I can address the issues? There are so many rediculous creationist sites that I need some sort of direction

As I said, ''IF'' I spent a few minutes searching.........I did not.

But I would think AIG might have already dealt with anything listed.
They cover a great many evolution issues and those that they dont may be linked to some other site.

I would generally just do a google search on something you presented if I didnt already understand it.

I am a creationist, but I will agree with you that there are very many creationist sites that do not do well with anything they present.

 

[troodon]

AiG? Alrighty. I decided to deal with the reptile-mammal connection because, I feel, it's the best one that talkorigins doesn't deal with marvelously. I could only find one AiG article that dealt with early mammals:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_mammal.asp
It deals largely (and almost convincingly in its jargon) with the "inconsistancies" in reptile to mammal evolution.

One of the article's big beefs with the timeline proposed by current evolutionary understanding is the geographical distribution of the fossils. The reason this is not at all a problem is, according to modern theory, all the continents were combined into only one or two major continents at the time (Pangea and Laurasia and Gondwana). It affect evolutionary theory if all the specimens are now found on different continents because, at the time, they were on the same continent. The article's assertion that all anatomical features must be taken into account is of course correct and they made it seem as though this was not agreed upon by evolutionists (just look at any book discussing prosauropods' place in dinosaurian evolution to see this in action ). The little graphic, recreated here,

that they use to try and display the supposed absurdity of of analytical cladistics is in itself absurd because this thing isn't even a cladogram. It's an oversimplified, missleading graphic meant to make readers think that evolution involves this sort of caddy-wampus decision about ancestory. Lastly, the article, although it says it understands that cladograms don't represent direct ancestor-descendant relationships, doesn't seem to show this in its conclusions.
In regards to the real meat of the article, the author used what he called a "mammalness index". This index, which I have only ideas as to what it's based on (I assume individual anatomical characteristics), to me, seems to defeat it's own purpose. The 3 charts used as evidence for the author, show a clear trend from therapsids to cynodonts to early-mammals.  The author is correct in that the exact cladograms that can be created directly from these separate charts will differ slightly, they are certainly within acceptable perameters (especially since the article does not mention the specimens that their sources used to obtain their lists of characteristics). So, frankly, I think the article did more to defeat its own purpose provided you look at the whole picture (which the article advised) and not zoom in on single species to species developement which, coincidentally, evolution does not expect from the fossil record.

If you have any questions about my responce, would like me to go into more depth on any point, or have another article/site you would like me to address feel free to ask

 

[Crusadar]

wblastyn: If God zapped everything into existance in their full form then why do humans have the information for tails in their genome, bats have eyes, snakes have pelvises, etc? That seems like a pretty huge mistake, unless of course God used evolution, which expects there to be left overs from more primative species.

By left over, you mean vestigial organs right? I think that has been addressed and discarded years ago. The snake pelvis, "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:" Gen 3:14 [KJV] Don’t know of any genome for tails in humans, assuming there are then God must have been apelike, because He did create man in his own image.  Bats have eyes, imagine that, so do dolphins, and sperm whales.

So you believe God is a human since you think we are created in God's physical image? God is Spirit, therefore we are created in the image of God spiritually.  

 Human likeness but not mortal. Clarify “spiritual” image.

That is why I think Genesis is allegory, because the ancient Hebrews would not have understood evolution, they would not even have had a basic understanding of our modern science.

I think your not getting the message, if the creation was allegory – was the virgin birth of Christ also allegory, or the miracles that Christ performed or His death and resurrection? The Jews would not have cared about evolution because they knew God for who He is and in what He said to them as being the Truth.

What doctrine rests on God zapping everything into existance in 6 days? The way I see Genesis is that it tells us God created everything, man sinned and fell from God, man needs saviour, God promises to provide saviour. I see science as finding out HOW God created.

I think God could of done it in mere fractions of a second if He wanted to - we are talking about the almighty God of the Bible here right? He created in six days and rested on the seventh, gee where did the seven day week come from I wonder? I see science as simply the study of God's creation.

Evolution is a process of nature, it is no more a philosophy than gravity.

Not its not, it is "junk science" as someone called it in another thread. It explains little if anything about what is actually observed. And benefits little of the other real sciences. Who really uses evolution to engineer a plane, build a rocket, synthesize new polymers, or new drugs for that matter?

Natural Selection is the designer, but God is the ultimate designer. Natural Selection is like a computer program made by God to do the work for Him, so He can take pleasure in watching His creation grow into something that can be in His image (spiritually).

Natural selection is has little to do with designing anything, because new genes are not added in any known kind of animal today only existing ones are reshuffled.

Supernatural is not allowed in science because it cannot be tested, observed or falsified.

So why then believe in the supernatural if it can't be tested, observed or falsified?

Go search for "Protocells Redux" in the other science forum, it has evidence for protocells being created in the lab, which fit the definition of life.

It's probably something I haven't seen before.

What is a kind? What is there to stop something becoming another "kind"?

The bible tells us that God created everything to reproduce after their “kind”. I am only speculating - just like evolutionists – that there may have been only a male and female of each kind created with the maximum amount of genetic material in order to populate the earth as God commanded.  That is why when dogs breed they produce their own kind and cats – cats. The laws of nature God has put in place prevents this. If evolution is an ongoing process where a kind can eventually become another kind shouldn’t it be occurring still - like a reptile with feathers or a bird with scales?

"The gene was created from duplicated—and hence dispensable—copies of the genes for annexin X (AnnX) and the cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain (Cdic). Three large deletions led to the fusion of the duplicated genes, whereupon a series of smaller deletions and nucleotide substitutions fashioned a new amino end of the Sdic polypeptide and created motifs characteristic of known axonemal dynein intermediate chains. The regulatory region of Sdic,including a spermatocyte-specific promoter element, also evolved from AnnX and Cdic sequences"
(Chromosomal Effects of Rapid Gene Evolution in Drosophila melanogaster, Dmitry Nurminsky, Daniel De Aguiar,Carlos D. Bustamante, Daniel L. Hartl, SCIENCE VOL 291 5 JANUARY 2001)

The above exampe is from http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000087.html

It shows info can be added to the genome.

No, it shows you can cut and paste. I can cite research that says other wise, but I won't get reduced to simply regurgitating information from fallible men, you need to explain to me in your own words how it occurs so that I and others can understand.

I think I know more about evolution then I want to know. From my own experiments abiogenesis does not work - you simply need to do your own experiments instead of relying on biased research that use technical jargon most lay person could careless about. I think we can simply throw information back and forth until the cows come home and won't get anywhere.



---------------------------------------------------------

"Let reasoning not guide your faith, but rather let faith guide your reasoning." - Unknown

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV] 

 

[Crusadar]

troodon: Oh baby, here we go. (Note: much information gathered from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates&nbsp

What makes you think we are going anywhere? Ah! talkorigins - just alot of talk if you ask me (and not very origin-al either).

Like I said, the hands of early birds are much closer to those of predatory dinosaurs. Here's a comparison:

Like who said? (earthly credentials would suffice)

(img)missing link seems to be missing(/img)

A is Ornitholestes, a Jurassic theropod dinosaur; B is Archaeopteryx; C is Sinornis, a primitive bird from the Early Cretaceous; D is the wing of a modern chicken.

Refer to above image.

The second transition I'll show is between reptiles and mammals. According to Talkorigins, embryological studies show that homologeous bones in mammalian and reptilian fetuses eventually diverge to form ear bones in mammals and the lower jaw in reptiles. This can be seen in the fossil record rather well (I was actually quite amazed how well). Talk a look at this diagram:

Do like wise as with the above. 

Are these free drawing lessons? Because that person who drew these pictures really need some?

(img) sorry another missing link (/img)

This shows much more specifically how these bones changed in form and function. Quite coincidental how they are all in the right order in accordance with the 'evolutionist timeline', eh?

Yeah very coincidental, makes no sense at all does it, unless have you ever thought - God made each one like that.

By the way, if anyone wants the keys to these diagrams I'm posting I'll be happy to post them right alongside, for now I'll only describe them so that you get the idea as to what they show.

Won't be anything I haven't seen before.

The next sequence on my list (because it's next on talkorigin's list) is that between apes and humans.  I very nice picture can be seen here:

Wow imagine that! A photograph right? So tell me are there any half humans/ half apes that I can get a photograph of?

(Note: I feel like pointing out here that the genetic differences between two animals normally described as being in the same kind, are often greater than the differences between humans and chimps. Check this thread out

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/40852.html&nbsp

Did that was linked to more missing links that are still missing.

Personally, I grow tired of people claiming that transitional fossils are "missing". The conditions that must exist for animals to not only be fossilized but also survive for X million years are so rare that I should thank God more often that he has gifted us with so many examples to show you guys. Oye, that's enough for now. I hope you enjoy my list, feel free to ask any questions; I'll do my best to answer them.

And so it appears you too have been duped by the lie of evolution. I will pray for you troodon that you will see the truth of God as I have. For I too was a theistic evolutionist until the HS shown me that God is a God of infinite love and not a cruel creator as we have reduced Him to be.

You and I arrived on earth only recently. Civilizations, language and life as we see it already existed.  What we know is taught to us by others - table manners, history, origins, and hope.  Each person’s life touches another, learning, teaching, inspiring and passing on  what knowledge we may have acquired until we return to the dust from which God made us - leaving all earthly things. Slowly, inevitably things will get dusty and forgotten or rewritten or lost - The word of God, His infinate love and His truth will always remain with us. The truth of God will not cease to be true because we do not choose to believe in it.

Edit: for some reason, I couldn't post nearly as many pictures as I wanted but I did what ones I could.

Really, could it be that they are missing links?

Disclaimer: Don't take my responses too seriously, I am not attacking you, but rather at what you are regurgitating as undisputed fact.


Silly evolutionists, myths are for kids!

To God be the glory!

 

---------------------------------------------------------
"Let reasoning not guide your faith, but rather let faith guide your reasoning." - Unknown
---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV] 

 

[wblastyn]

By left over, you mean vestigial organs right? I think that has been addressed and discarded years ago. The snake pelvis, "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:" Gen 3:14 [KJV] Don’t know of any genome for tails in humans, assuming there are then God must have been apelike, because He did create man in his own image. Bats have eyes, imagine that, so do dolphins, and sperm whales.

No they haven't. Explain why God would put the information for a tail in the human genome, then suppress it with more genes? People have been known to be born with tails due to a mutation than causes the tail gene to be switches on. Bats are blind, therefore have no use for eyes.

Here are some vestigial organs, and there's even a picture of a human with a tail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges



So you believe God is a human? The Bible says God is Spirit, therefore we were made in His image SPIRITUALLY, not physically, otherwise God would be a man.

Human likeness but not mortal. Clarify “spiritual” image.

Well His triune nature, we are spirit body and mind.

I think your not getting the message, if the creation was allegory – was the virgin birth of Christ also allegory, or the miracles that Christ performed or His death and resurrection? The Jews would not have cared about evolution because they knew God for who He is and in what He said to them as being the Truth.

No, because the Gospels are wriiten as eye-witness accounts of events that real people actually saw haoppening, whereas Genesis is written with mythological language, and is a poem/song in the original Hebrew, Jews sing it in the synagogue.

I think God could of done it in mere fractions of a second if He wanted to - we are talking about the almighty God of the Bible here right? He created in six days and rested on the seventh, gee where did the seven day week come from I wonder? I see science as simply the study of God's creation.

Good, and science has discovered evolution.

Not its not, it is "junk science" as someone called it in another thread. It explains little if anything about what is actually observed. And benefits little of the other real sciences. Who really uses evolution to engineer a plane, build a rocket, synthesize new polymers, or new drugs for that matter?

No it isn't, you just think that because you don't like it. It has been observed, you should do some real research on it rather than reading creationist sites. I recommend here: http://www.talkorigins.org

Evolution is used in medicine, it predicts that species that are closer in the evolutionary line will react the same way to drugs, which is why drugs are tested on rats (monkeys and dogs/cats are too expensive).

Natural selection is has little to do with designing anything, because new genes are not added in any known kind of animal today only existing ones are reshuffled

No, it actually has. Natural Selection selects which genes will give the organism an advantage of survival and preserves it, which helps design the organism.

So why then believe in the supernatural if it can't be tested, observed or falsified?

Because of my own personal experience, and faith.

It's probably something I haven't seen before.

I'm fairly certain your creationist sites would not have extensive information on the evidence for abiogenesis. i used to be a creationist so I've already read AiG, Dr Dino, etc. They are pseudo-science and i rather stick to real science.

No, it shows you can cut and paste. I can cite research that says other wise, but I won't get reduced to simply regurgitating information from fallible men, you need to explain to me in your own words how it occurs so that I and others can understand.

I think I know more about evolution then I want to know. From my own experiments abiogenesis does not work - you simply need to do your own experiments instead of relying on biased research that use technical jargon most lay person could careless about. I think we can simply throw information back and forth until the cows come home and won't get anywhere.

Oh ok, just let me get my pHD in biochemistry first.

Silly evolutionists, myths are for kids!

There's another irony meter up in smoke, as they like to say here.

You've just proven, like most other creationists, you aren't interested in finding the truth, all you do is spout empty rhetoric and ignore the evidence. (Eagerly awaits the "what evidence?  There is no evidence!")

Btw, here is some information on genes and mutations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html