"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Nic Samojluk]

Nope, there is no evidence that supports your limits.

I gave some examples of those limits that we find in nature: “Experts have experimented with viruses, for example, but although they do evolve, scientists have never observed viruses evolve into higher forms of life. The same can be said about horses, elephants and rats. We have a variety of dogs, but dogs always breed dogs.”

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Most of them know how badly their hypotheses have fared in the past and they are not willing to have their ideas tested.

Evolutionists have two major hurdles they so far have not been able to overcome: The origin of life from inert matter, and the transition from one major life form into a higher one.

In addition, the defenders of macro evolution have failed miserably in convincing lay people that life came out of nowhere. Most Americans still believe that someone designed what we see in nature, in spite of the fact that evolutionists have had a monopoly on education for several centuries.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil record is NOT what we would expect to see if the theory of evolution was correct. Where is the record of the ancestors of the living life forms present in the Cambrian Explosion?

Of course it is. You simply don't understand it. The Cambrian explosion is thought to have occurred because the oxygen content of the atmosphere finally rose to a high enough level so that calcium carbonate was able to be produced by organisms and fossilization of hard body parts became possible. Prior to that life was rather different, though we do see possible forerunners in he Ediacaran fossils. Those were made by a totally different process so it is difficult to find a one to one correspondence.

What sort of fossils do you think that we would see before hard body parts evolved?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave some examples of those limits that we find in nature: “Experts have experimented with viruses, for example, but although they do evolve, scientists have never observed viruses evolve into higher forms of life. The same can be said about horses, elephants and rats. We have a variety of dogs, but dogs always breed dogs.”

And once again you do not understand what the theory of evolution predicts. It does not predict a "change of kind". The problem is that you cannot define "kind". I can. You really need to take a basic course on evolution before you attack it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists have two major hurdles they so far have not been able to overcome: The origin of life from inert matter, and the transition from one major life form into a higher one.

No, the first problem is a related but different topic. It does not matter where the first life came from, we know that life evolved after it came into existence. And you need to explain better by what you mean by "transition from one major life form into a higher one".

In addition, the defenders of macro evolution have failed miserably in convincing lay people that life came out of nowhere. Most Americans still believe that someone designed what we see in nature, in spite of the fact that evolutionists have had a monopoly on education for several centuries.

Most Americans is not most of the world. Most Americans are sadly rather ignorant. Our comparative test scores demonstrate that. Worldwide, at least in first world countries, evolution is very well accepted.

 

[RickG]

Evolutionists have two major hurdles they so far have not been able to overcome: The origin of life from inert matter, and the transition from one major life form into a higher one.

In addition, the defenders of macro evolution have failed miserably in convincing lay people that life came out of nowhere. Most Americans still believe that someone designed what we see in nature, in spite of the fact that evolutionists have had a monopoly on education for several centuries.

Nic, I have no problem with you or anyone not accepting the theory of evolution. However those reasons you stated are incorrect.

1. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. And just FYI, both science and the bible show life beginning through abiogenesis. An no, abiogensis does not say life came from "inert" matter, rather quite active matter.
2. There are numerous examples of macro evolution. However, ponder this; if there were no evolution, the fossils of all life forms that ever lived would be contained and mixed all layers of sedimentary strata. They are not.
3. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with disregarding ToE and basing that belief on religious faith. But to claim evolution is false through (scientific) claims that are not true seems to me to degrade one's faith. And don't take that personal, I mean it in a broad sense for those who argue evolution is false for the wrong reasons.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But then creationists do not have a working definition of kind either.

I gave you some examples of major life forms: dogs, elephants, and rats. Do you need more? Do I need to give you a scientific definition for what a major life form is?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

And you need to explain better by what you mean by "transition from one major life form into a higher one".

In the example I provided, it means that after so many generations the bacteria ceased to be classified as belonging to the life form known as bacteria. The same can be said about dogs and elephants.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

2. There are numerous examples of macro evolution.[/QUOTE

Please enumerate a few of them!

 

[RickG]

Please enumerate a few of them!

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...tion-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

However, I think you may be confusing macroevolution with transitional fossils.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

If evolution cannot proceed beyond the first life form, then it means that evolutionists are forced to admit that we are faced with a mystery. What do we do when we encounter a cul-de-sac in our search for knowledge?

We turn around and look for a better alternative. I do have such better explanation for this mystery, while evolutionists do not. The only reasonable alternative to evolution is a common design instead of common ancestry.

Once we accept the common design premise, we have no problem accepting a common design for all major life forms instead of a theory that leads to a not through street.

 

[RickG]

If evolution cannot proceed beyond the first life form, then it means that evolutionists are forced to admit that we are faced with a mystery. What do we do when we encounter a cul-de-sac in our search for knowledge?

Nic, you just have a basic misunderstanding that is quite common. The origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution are two completely different scientific disciplines. Abiogenesis is the study of how life may have first appeared through chemical processes. Evolution is how organisms change over time. And yes, abiogenesis is quite a mystery. My personal opinion is that if abiogenesis in the scientific sense did occur, I see no reason why it doesn't even continue to occur today.

We turn around and look for a better alternative. I do have such better explanation for this mystery, while evolutionists do not. The only reasonable alternative to evolution is a common design instead of common ancestry.

I understand that view and do not condemn it. As I have previously pointed out, my only beef is when science or anything for that matter, is misrepresented to support the common design.

Once we accept the common design premise, we have no problem accepting a common design for all major life forms instead of a theory that leads to a not through street.

Are you aware that there are mainstream denominations that either accept or have no problem with the theory of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you some examples of major life forms: dogs, elephants, and rats. Do you need more? Do I need to give you a scientific definition for what a major life form is?

Those are examples, it is not a definition of "kind". Actually all of your samples were of the same "kind". They are all mammals. They all share a common ancestor that was a mammal. No change of kind.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...tion-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

Do you really believe that the descendants of chimpanzees, might after millions of years, be able to build skyscrapers, write poetry, and discuss the complexities of mathematical equations?

The gap between chimpanzees and humans is so enormous that no wishful thinking individual will be able to ever bridge. A common design is a much more reasonable explanation for this enigma.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the example I provided, it means that after so many generations the bacteria ceased to be classified as belonging to the life form known as bacteria. The same can be said about dogs and elephants.

But that is what the theory of evolution predicts. It does not predict that bacteria will evolve and no longer be bacteria. Yes, the offspring of dogs will always be dogs, and the offspring of elephants will always be elephants. I use "kind" as a synonym of "clade" it is a well defined term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you really believe that the descendants of chimpanzees, might after millions of years, be able to build skyscrapers, write poetry, and discuss the complexities of mathematical equations?

The gap between chimpanzees and humans is so enormous that no wishful thinking individual will be able to ever bridge. A common design is a much more reasonable explanation for this enigma.

This is merely an argument from incredulity. It has not meat to it. Now granted, chimpanzees are not as intelligent as man. They followed a different evolutionary pathway. But if intelligence became a major environmental factor there is no reason that they could not evolve more intelligence. We are not as unique as you seem to think that we are.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

The origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution are two completely different scientific disciplines.

Yes, but they are interconnected. Evolutionary theory leads to a cul-de-sac. The common design is able to bridge that mystery gap. This means that it has a superior explanatory power.

 

[RickG]

Do you really believe that the descendants of chimpanzees, might after millions of years, be able to build skyscrapers, write poetry, and discuss the complexities of mathematical equations?

The gap between chimpanzees and humans is so enormous that no wishful thinking individual will be able to ever bridge. A common design is a much more reasonable explanation for this enigma.

Biologically speaking chimpanzees are closest to us than any other species of the "great apes". However, and I admit that biology is not my field of expertise, but I don't believe that we evolved from chimpanzees, rather humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, the offspring of dogs will always bedogs, and the offspring of elephants will always be elephants.

Thank you for admitting this serious limitation of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but they are interconnected. Evolutionary theory leads to a cul-de-sac. The common design is able to bridge that mystery gap. This means that it has a superior explanatory power.

No, evolution is used every day in the world of biology. How is it a dead end? And as I explained to you common design is not even a hypothesis. In the world of science it is worthless. When a theory or hypothesis is shown to be wrong it can still be of some value since failure often points us in the right direction for success. Your idea in science is called "not even wrong".