Evolution, why so many believe?

[troodon]

Yes the bible is to be taken literal.

So the Romans taxed native Americans?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yes the bible is to be taken literal.

Do you take Job literally? Do you believe the sea really has doors on it?

 

[eldermike]

We are in the Science, Creation & Evolution forum. In case you missed the sign on the way in.
Subjects that are welcome here:
Science is welcome here.
Creation is welcome here.
Evolution is welcome here.

It's right there, on the sign.

Bring your opinions, your proofs, and be ready for a fast moving discussion.

Read the rules: No personal attacks.

 

[Vintersorg]

A quick comment to the moderator. What if by stating the rules you are offending me? You stated that there will be no harassing, INsulting, or bringing accusations that somone is not a christian. Well for one, you insulted me by the mere fact of posting that message. Secondly what if someone brings up accusations of me being a christian, bcause thats insulting to me. I think the rules of this forum should be reworded to say. "Its the moderators choice to follow the rules or not, and all the rules are just based on perception and interpretation"

Now I hope i didnt insult you, and if i did im sorry but thoes are what the rules should say.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

NO EVIDENCE. And this one could have its own book. But I'll make it as short as possible.

It will be short, because the "no evidence" claim is demonstrably false.

For one, the fossil record does not support evolution.

I would beg to differ.

The different species appear in the fossil record abruptly, and suddenly, with no "middle man" to link them. Ever hear of the missing links? The keyword there is missing.

And yet transitions do exist.

There is no excuse for so much evidene to be missing. Lets look at how the fossil record would look if evolution did occur.[/quoe]

Fossilization is an extremely rare process. This was known even in Darwin's time. Yet plenty of transitions do exist. If creationism were true, there wouldn't be any at all.

For example, you have the frog, and lets say it was the ancestor for the wooly mammoth. Lets say it took 10 generations for this frog to turn into a mammoth.

We could say that, but nobody in their right mind would think it would take only 10 generations for such a thing to occur.

You have 2 fully formed frogs that are the beginning point of the transition to mammoth. They have 4 kids, then their 4 kids have 4 kids, etc, which would lead to the slow transition to a fully formed mammoth. So the lineage of the mammoth would look like this.

100 % frog to (2 original parents)
90% frog /10 % mammoth (4 children)
80% frog / 20 % mammoth (8 grandchildren)
70% frog/30 % mammoth (16 great grandchildren)
60/40 (32 great great grandchildren)
50/50 (64)
40 % frog /50% mammoth (128)
30 % frog /70 % mammoth (256)
20/80 (512)
10/90 (1024)
100% wooly mammoth (2048)

As you know, population grows with offspring. Thats how an organism multiplys, 2 parents have a litter of 5, those 5 have litters of 5 of their own, and the
population grows.

As has been pointed out, population growth is not exponential like that.

So what do we have in the fossil record today? We have 100% frogs and 100% wooly mammoths. (as an example) So what happend to all the missing links? Looking at steps 2 through 9, where the organism was a "missing link", you'll see that missing links are nearly as abundant as the final product (wooly mammoth). 2044 missings links vs 2048 fully formed wooly mammoth. So how is it that all these missing links just happened to not fossilize?

Again, fossilization is extremely rare. In your little scenario, it would be unlikely that any fossils would be found at all.

But that's besides the point, since transitions do exist. See troodon's bird post, for example. Or the example of whale transitions posted earlier.

Why does the fossil record show a sudden change of organisms? Why do you go straight from one to the other if it took such a long slow evolutionary process to go from one to the other?

Why do we have transitions at all? Why are there patterns of evolutionary development in the fossil record? If creationism were correct, those patterns would not exist at all.

 

[MartinM]

Oh so you're upset that I'm not the typical Christian who wastes all my posts on telling you how special you are and how I love you and how Jesus loves you?

Your..uhh...interesting choice of username makes that abundantly clear. 'Christian hero', indeed.

 

[MartinM]

There's no false analogy

Good, you must know enough elementary thermodynamics to defend your example, then. You can start by explaining ergodicity.

There had to be a point in time where extremely complex living things came into existence

Yes. So what?

I'm sorry my friend

You're neither.

but evolution is another one of Satan's deception

Hmm..someone remind me to start a thread asking how we know that the Bible itself isn't another one of Satan's deceptions.

Yes, I already know the answer. Faith, no? But still, it could be interesting.

 

[Jet Black]

A quick comment to the moderator. What if by stating the rules you are offending me? You stated that there will be no harassing, INsulting, or bringing accusations that somone is not a christian. Well for one, you insulted me by the mere fact of posting that message. Secondly what if someone brings up accusations of me being a christian, bcause thats insulting to me. I think the rules of this forum should be reworded to say. "Its the moderators choice to follow the rules or not, and all the rules are just based on perception and interpretation"

Now I hope i didnt insult you, and if i did im sorry but thoes are what the rules should say.

please stop using word "the" as I find it very insulting.... (your argument here is a bit silly isn't it?)

 

[GREG]

OK, THIS IS DONE...... Any ????? ask me