Evolution? how about Bull crud!

[yamijoku]

Hi, I'm a 12 year with the online name "Yami Joku"

anyway don't you find it weird how they can assume from 1 jaw bone a whole entire stage in evolution? it is rediculous!

I had a theory, if the Bible said we evolved to get to our current state don't you think that people would be saying we apeared here? think about it.

 

[Vance]

You know, even though you are only 12 years old, you are making arguments with as much sense as most other YEC's on this forum.

 

[ThePhoenix]

You know, even though you are only 12 years old, you are making arguments with as much sense as most other YEC's on this forum.

It hurts... My head... He doesn't know triginometry, much less calculus, much less chemistry, much less biology, and he's making as much sense as most of the more "mature" members.

 

[Bushido216]

Wow. I'm not sure whether or not to be proud of this kid or not...

 

[ElectricStorm]

All I've got to say is "Word" and that's all I'm going to say.

 

[wblastyn]

That's scarey. :/

 

[platzapS]

Welcome to the forums, Yamijoku.

There is a saying: "If the Bible said all matter and energy came from a single point a long time ago [the Big Bang], then scientists would never believe it."

It's kind of funny.

But I think that evolution is based on a lot more than just the occasional jawbone. There is a lot of other evidence, like the complete fossil record, vestigial organs (like the appendix--It's lost its original use), and the similarities between so many animals, just to name a few points.

Sometimes, even on a Christian forum, people can be insulting. So just try to be as nice as you can, and honestly search for answers.

I hope you have an interesting time here.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"If the Bible said all matter and energy came from a single point a long time ago [the Big Bang], then scientists would never believe it."

I don't agree with that statement. Scientists are people from all different religious backgrounds and walks of life.. Their goal is not to go out and disprove the bible. In fact, 200 years ago, the goal of most scientists was to prove the bible. It was by looking for evidence of the flood that it bacame clear (with much reluctance) that a global flood did not happen, and that the earth was much more ancient then a literal interpretation of Genesis allowed.

 

[platzapS]

Sorry--it was just meant to be humor.

 

[Buck72]

There is a lot of other evidence, like the complete fossil record, vestigial organs (like the appendix--It's lost its original use), and the similarities between so many animals, just to name a few points.

There are no vestigial organs. That is a terribly thin piece of evidence. The appendix is not vestigial just because you can survive without it. You can survive without your arms and legs, and they certainly aren't vestigial. In fact, is there any example of a true vestigial organ anywhere in nature? Is there any records of transitional species?

Also, just because life on this planet shares simliarities does not mean we are free to draw the conclusion that we have evolved into magnificent, astoundingly complex creatures from a single-celled organism that autogenisised itself from 'primordial soup' and bury the details in billions of years, stacking speculative theory upon theory, thus calling it science.

It could be that the similarities lend credit to a COMMON DESIGNER.

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

[notto]

Buck, Vestigal does not mean useless. You should read up on what vestigal means before making claims about is as a piece of evidence.

Life on this planet shares more than similarities. They share a development history over time that can be traced through multiple, independent, lines of evidence through the fossil record, DNA, and other evidences.

Evolution goes far beyond speculation. It is as valid, as accepted, and as verified as many other scientific theories. If it wasn't, there would be no reason for the majority of scientists, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Atheist to accept it.

 

[Buck72]

Thanks notto, I'll expand for the sake of defining our terms here:



According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary:



Main Entry: ves·tige
Pronunciation: 'ves-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin vestigium footstep, footprint, track, vestige
Date: 1602
1 a (1) : a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something (as an ancient city or a condition or practice) vanished or lost (2) : the smallest quantity or trace b : FOOTPRINT1
2 : a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms
synonym see TRACE
- ves·ti·gial /ve-'sti-jE-&l, -j&l/ adjective
- ves·ti·gial·ly adverb



BTW - I did not make claims about vestigial being a piece of evidence, I clearly said that it is not evidence since there are NO VESTIGIAL organs anywhere in nature. God does not make junk.



Evidence and evolution mixed together = drawn conclusions based upon scientific data and speculative theory to explain a great mysterious unknown. The Big Bang is about as scientific as Santa Claus - it is a nice theory, and loosely based on some science, but it is a speculative process and cannot even remotely be proven, modeled or legitimized beyond mere imagination - much like the comet-producing Oort Cloud that supposedly explains why comets continue to lose mass, yet are reproduced (?) in some imaginary cloud, which Jan Oort himself never observed.



I admit my worldview is religious. I wish my evolutionists friends would likewise admit much of evolution is religious and thus refrain from calling unoberved phenomena "science".



http://www.s-d-g.freeserve.co.uk/origin.html

 

[notto]

There are no vestigial organs. That is a terribly thin piece of evidence. The appendix is not vestigial just because you can survive without it. You can survive without your arms and legs, and they certainly aren't vestigial. In fact, is there any example of a true vestigial organ anywhere in nature? Is there any records of transitional species?.

This certainly sounds like a claim about vestigial organs to me. One that is based on a misunderstanding of the term.

Why do blind cave fish have eyes at all?
Why do whale embryos develop teeth only to lose them later?

So yes, there are manyexamples of true vestigial organs. There are also examples of transitional species. Life in the past was much different than life today. EVERY species is a transitional species. Did you have any particular one in mind?

 

[notto]

Evidence and evolution mixed together = drawn conclusions based upon scientific data and speculative theory to explain a great mysterious unknown. The Big Bang is about as scientific as Santa Claus - it is a nice theory, and loosely based on some science, but it is a speculative process and cannot even remotely be proven, modeled or legitimized beyond mere imagination - much like the comet-producing Oort Cloud that supposedly explains why comets continue to lose mass, yet are reproduced (?) in some imaginary cloud, which Jan Oort himself never observed.

If this is the case, evolution should be easy to falsify. The fact that the majority of scientists accept it regardless of their particular faith would seem to cast doubt on its religious nature. Not sure what the Big Bang or the Oort cloud has to do with evolution unless you are simply trying to state that you disagree with science that contradicts your interpretation of the bible while you live the rest of your life openly accepting scientific theories either consciously or unconsciously without a second thought.

(you might want to read up on the Oort cloud. Much of what Jan Oort hypothesised has been shown to be true and there are several lines of evidence to show that he most likely was correct, just like the evidence we continue to find in DNA and the fossil record continues to fulfill the predictions of Darwin.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

BTW - I did not make claims about vestigial being a piece of evidence, I clearly said that it is not evidence since there are NO VESTIGIAL organs anywhere in nature. God does not make junk.

Then what are dew claws in dogs? The only use for a dew claw that I can think of is to get infected and cause pain to the owned, kinda sadistic for God...

What about the small remnant of a tail in every human? That is kina useless...

What about the muscles that move the ears that cant even be used by 80% of humans... Kinda useless junk...

And then there is all the useless junk in our DNA... Why have genes to make a tail and then dissolve it before birth? Kinda useless...

And the broken viruses found in our genetic code... Junk if you ask me...

 

[Buck72]

Then what are dew claws in dogs? The only use for a dew claw that I can think of is to get infected and cause pain to the owned, kinda sadistic for God...

What about the small remnant of a tail in every human? That is kina useless...

What about the muscles that move the ears that cant even be used by 80% of humans... Kinda useless junk...

And then there is all the useless junk in our DNA... Why have genes to make a tail and then dissolve it before birth? Kinda useless...

And the broken viruses found in our genetic code... Junk if you ask me...

Do all dogs have dew claws that are troublesome, or cross-bred 'mutt' dogs that have been mixed with who-knows-what? Do non-domesticated dogs: wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc have dew-claw problems?

I can only assume that you mean the "tail remnant" to be the coccyx, the lowest part of the vertabral column. If that is vestigial, why don't you be the first to have yours removed? You'd discover real fast what it is used for!

BTW, if evolution is so helpful...where'd the tail go? I could really use one!

Ear muscles? I've never heard that one, but alright - each person has a unique muscluar development. Perhaps some folks just have facial muscles that are closer to the ears than others. Does that make the facial muscles somehow vestigial?

The gene pool has broken strands probably because of impurities over time. If anythying that should discredit evolution because things are NOT getting better...they are getting worse. We are not evolving, we are devolving. The creation is wearing out (see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) oh, and the Bible said that same thing before the evolution theory contradicted it:

Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands.

Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Psa 102:27 But thou [art] the same, and thy years shall have no end.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Why do whales and snakes have pelvic bones? Answer me that.

 

[Buck72]

Why do whales and snakes have pelvic bones? Answer me that.

Snakes don't have pelvic bones that I've seen:
http://www.reptileallsorts.com/anatomy.htm

I haven't seen whale pelvises either, but I'd be willing to bet if they have them, it is because God put them there.

Here's a Nova article about vestigial "evolutionary baggage" drawn from biased conclusions and speculative theories from comparitive analyses of structures of a common designer. Doesn't it take greater faith to believe these creatures spontaneously changed into completely different species? What happened to the transitional species? Why would a hippopotamus begin to grow a tailfin and breathe out of the top of its head to become a whale? Sounds fishy to me. (Oh, oh...my side!) http://www.nova.edu/ocean/biol1060/evolution3.html

I've answered your questions (as best I can for the moment). Now please answer mine:

Heb 2:1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,

Heb 2:3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

 

[Plan 9]

Do all dogs have dew claws that are troublesome, or cross-bred 'mutt' dogs that have been mixed with who-knows-what? Do non-domesticated dogs: wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc have dew-claw problems?

Any canine which must run to catch its prey will have dew-claw problems; I have discovered that its far better to dock them than have my whippets tear them half off on brush while chasing rabbits, squirrels and other prey.

 

[Buck72]

Well, I'm certainly no dew-claw expert, other than my own dogs having some problems a time or two, but I will contend that the vestigial organ argument is wrought with frailty. Also dew-claws do not prove that dogs used to be single-celled protozoa.