Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[bhsmte]

If ToE makes no claims about abiogenesis, then why does every ToE textbook claim abiogenesis?

Textbooks are not theories.

 

[RickG]

We already falsified that strawman - which is why you ignored answering.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-18#post-68899223

Sorry, that doesn't even address my question. There is nothing straw about it, you can't explain it away. Why are there no Precambrian rabbits or Devonian dinosaurs?

And still you attempt the same dishonesty and distraction you couldn't answer the frst time - praying no one would notice and call you on it. Well, I am calling you on it.

I asked a simple question you didn't even address.

I'll ask again: "Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook?"

Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook in all layers and ages in which the Mastiff or Husky is found????

I did not address that, I asked a question about deep time. You seem to have a lot of trouble answering direct questions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, that doesn't even address my question. There is nothing straw about it, you can't explain it away. Why are there no Precambrian rabbits or Devonian dinosaurs?

EDIT:

Misread that. Here is your answer.

I'll talk very slowly. There are no mammals in the Precambrian because mammals were not created until the 6th creation along with man. There are no dinosaurs in the Devonian because dinosaurs were not created until the 5th creation - before man. That's also why evolutionists try the strawman of two different orders of creation. Mammals were the animals created after the earth became desolate and waste and darkness encompassed the earth. The Devonian is that period of time of the 3rd creation - that of fishes and crawling things. The first was the Cambrian explosion - that of sea life.

Don't ask me to accept an incorrect translation of the second word of the second verse of the Bible just because you do. Hayah means to fall out or become - the state something becomes - not the state it is.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

You see - your strawmen fail because I accept the earth is of ancient times - just as the Bible says it is - it is only man and mammals that are of a recent creation.

But then that's why after all 5 extinction events life sprang up fully formed all across the globe - because of gradual evolution, right? Life that can't be found in those previous layers. Falsifying your strawman and supporting my beliefs.

I asked a simple question you didn't even address.

Your question was addressed. You have yet to explain why anyone should believe that no evolution would require all fossils to be found in all layers - you avoid the issue - not me. I gave you actual observational evidence to falsify your claims - you give nothing but avoidance. I'll underline the answer so you cant avoid it this time.

"Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate."

I did not address that, I asked a question about deep time. You seem to have a lot of trouble answering direct questions.

The only one avoiding answers is you.

Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook?

You fool no one with your strawmen and avoidance tactics. Everyone on here sees you for what your are. A dishonest person that refuses to accept observational evidence.

Keep digging your own hole deeper - I do appreciate your proving my point every single time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If ToE makes no claims about abiogenesis, then why does every ToE textbook claim abiogenesis?

Covering their bases just in case. So evolutionists can always claim Abiogenesis when questioned about their beliefs about how life started from non-life.

Abiogenesis is nothing more than the belief in spontaneous generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

So no matter how they want to try to double-talk their way out of it - the formation of living organisms without descent from similar living organisms is spontaneous generation. Life from non-life without something causing the miracle - is an obsolete body of thought. The only difference is you and I understand that the descent of living organisms from non-living matter requires a miracle. They on the other hand want us to accept an obsolete body of thought because they have no viable explanation for that miracle. Except that obsolete body of thought.

 

[stevevw]

Are we talking microevolution (the small changes that take place in a species, leading to variations, but do not lead to new species) or macroevolution (the theory that microevolution, given enough time, can cause a species to slowly turn into another species altogether)?

In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.

To say that because there is evidence of micro evolution so therefore there is macro evolution is based on an assumption. that in itself is not good science. Even if you cite observational evidence its still not good science as it is not testable to confirm it is true. But micro evolution depends on existing genetics being used ie switched on or off or recombined to make those variations. Often it is a loss of info that makes the new function or feature. But its a variation to an existing function that is already there.

Macro evolution where an existing creature will take on new functions and features it never had requires new info. Tests have shown that this is unlikely to happen with mutations and that overall there is a fitness cost rather than any gain in better functioning creatures. Estimates for even a small change such as a deletion, then substitution and the the addition of a new function would take 6 or more mutations. Tests have shown this cannot be done and the trade off comes with harmful results which wouldn't be tolerated. Even if a small change could happen it is estimated to take far to long a time for evolution to work. If we consider all the complex variety that ever was and is evolution would need more time that the earth has been in existence.

Now, before all you eager atheists and agnostics jump on this and say that "science doesn't speak to God," I will elucidate this statement.

Even though scientists claim that science - in which they include the "science" of origins - does not speak to the existence of God, this is nothing more than a falsification of fact. The reason is simple: If God exists, then, by His very nature, there are things in this world that cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God.

When scientists say that everything in this world can be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God, it is the same as saying that there is no God. Because if there is a God, then His actions will have caused effects that cannot be satisfactorily explained without Him.

What intrigues me is that - in this regard - evolutionists apply a premise that is not thought reasonable if applied anywhere else. The premise is that if we can understand the parts and workings of something, that is evidence that it didn't have a Designer.

There is another premise applied by evolutionists that is not thought reasonable anywhere else. That is that if things are similar, that is evidence that one came from another, or all from some lower thing of the same variety.

But if we tried to apply these premises to any other orderly thing in the universe, these same scientists would ridicule us.

For example, we understand very well how a cell phone works. But if we tried to use our understanding of a cell phone as evidence that it came to being by completely natural processes with no intelligent interference, we would be ridiculed for this notion (and rightly so).

If we were to say that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were carved out over thousands of years by natural processes and just happen to look like real faces, we would be ridiculed (and rightly so).

If we were to claim that because all vehicles have features common to them, it's evidence that they evolved without outside interference from a single vehicle, which itself came about through purely natural processes, we would be laughed at (and rightly so).

And yet, scientists say that because we can understand a large portion of the incredibly complex systems that make up physical life - because we can analyze the components that all living creatures physically have to process food, water, etc. - that this is enough evidence to say that there is no need for an intelligent Creator of life.

Furthermore, they say that because all life has certain similarities, it all evolved from an original life form, that itself came about by purely natural causes. They further say that closer similarities indicate evolutionary ancestry.

So why do I choose to not believe in macroevolution? Because I believe that there is a God, and therefore there are things that exist because He made them to exist. And the most unsatisfactory explanations of evolution do not negate the intricacy, complexity, and glory of His works.

Even if you say that evolution happens you have to say that there is a point where new info had to be created that wasn't there. Even with the beginning of life where life comes from non life. But the process of complex life being created from simple life also needs the addition of new info. So some may believe in evolution but they still have to include something that had to inject the mechanisms for making life to begin with and at other times where it is impossible for a naturalistic process to have done it. You say that science can explain how things happen and that this gives substance for saying that there must have been a naturalistic cause because we can explain the breakdown in the steps of how it happened.

First off scientists can't explain everything. They have been working for years on trying to create life in a lab with all the greatest minds in the world. They need massive computer data bases to even hold the info of our genetic makeups and to calculate the processes that go into making a human work. Secondly an explanation or understanding how things work or knowing the maths that calculate how something works doesn't have any creative ability. It only explains and doesn't do. Sometimes people think just because we can understand something that this automatically means that something can make itself. They are two completely different things and there is a massive gap between the two. In fact evolution leaves out many gaps when it comes down to the detail of explaining how something can actually create itself through a naturalistic process..

 

[nomadictheist]

Sorry, that doesn't even address my question. There is nothing straw about it, you can't explain it away. Why are there no Precambrian rabbits or Devonian dinosaurs?



I asked a simple question you didn't even address.


I did not address that, I asked a question about deep time. You seem to have a lot of trouble answering direct questions.

http://www.icr.org/article/8167/

The fossil record is not so stratified as you claim.

 

[RickG]

EDIT:

Misread that. Here is your answer.

I'll talk very slowly. There are no mammals in the Precambrian because mammals were not created until the 6th creation along with man. There are no dinosaurs in the Devonian because dinosaurs were not created until the 5th creation - before man. That's also why evolutionists try the strawman of two different orders of creation. Mammals were the animals created after the earth became desolate and waste and darkness encompassed the earth. The Devonian is that period of time of the 3rd creation - that of fishes and crawling things. The first was the Cambrian explosion - that of sea life.

Sorry, you can't go by the Genesis creation account because it is out of order of the fossil record, and never mind that it has grass, herbs and fruit trees before the sun. It just amazes me how people go to non-literal extremes to justify a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

 

[RickG]

http://www.icr.org/article/8167/

The fossil record is not so stratified as you claim.

The fossil record is most certainly stratified, and your link is about a unscientific as it can be. Here's an example. They state that dinosaurs perished around the time of the first flower, citing a TV show as their reference. The first flowering plants appeared 100 million years before the dinosaurs perished. Their claims of fossils out of place are misrepresentations. In particular is one by D. Archibald. There are examples of dinosaur fossils being found in younger strata than the Cretaceous. However, in all cases, it is more than obvious that they are there through erosion and washed into an area of younger age. BTW, Archibald is probably better known for his misrepresentation of Climate Science than his misrepresentations in Creation Science.

Of the 11 references cited, only one, the eleventh is from an actual scientific source and it reeks with misrepresentation. You see, the idea of out of order fossils is that old fossils are found in very young strata. The 11th claim states: "A kind of fossil tube worm designated as 550 million years old and once used to identify Cambrian rocks was found below Cambrian strata and still lives today, unchanged.11." The fossil is not out of place, it only extends its known existence back further in geologic time. Such discoveries are not uncommon.

Here is a link to the full cited paper: Please show me where this paper supports your sources claim.
http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/85598/moczydlowska-etal-2014-e.pdf

 

[Jimmy D]

The only one avoiding answers is you.

Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook?

Why anyone claim such a thing?

Did you answer my question? Where exactly did the asians come from? Please don't just repeat your standard post about chinooks. It takes two 'infraspecific taxa' is not an answer that explains anything.

 

[nomadictheist]

The fossil record is most certainly stratified, and your link is about a unscientific as it can be. Here's an example. They state that dinosaurs perished around the time of the first flower, citing a TV show as their reference. The first flowering plants appeared 100 million years before the dinosaurs perished. Their claims of fossils out of place are misrepresentations. In particular is one by D. Archibald. There are examples of dinosaur fossils being found in younger strata than the Cretaceous. However, in all cases, it is more than obvious that they are there through erosion and washed into an area of younger age. BTW, Archibald is probably better known for his misrepresentation of Climate Science than his misrepresentations in Creation Science.

Yes... the usual "clarity" around anything that contradicts evolutionary theory. Amazing how this is so clear, and yet unproven.

Of the 11 references cited, only one, the eleventh is from an actual scientific source and it reeks with misrepresentation. You see, the idea of out of order fossils is that old fossils are found in very young strata. The 11th claim states: "A kind of fossil tube worm designated as 550 million years old and once used to identify Cambrian rocks was found below Cambrian strata and still lives today, unchanged.11." The fossil is not out of place, it only extends its known existence back further in geologic time. Such discoveries are not uncommon.

Here is a link to the full cited paper: Please show me where this paper supports your sources claim.
http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/85598/moczydlowska-etal-2014-e.pdf

Yes, I'm fully aware that because many of the sources cited are from scientists who don't adhere to evolution means that you won't accept them as scientific sources. That is, of course, unscientific in itself, because it disallows testing of theories based on the point of view rather than the credentials.

It's also why I only posted one article by scientists who have made a life's work of studying the real data about the evolution-creation debate. Because I know that anything not supporting evolution will be rejected out of hand because of the viewpoints of their authors.

And that's not science - it's indoctrination.

 

[RickG]

Yes... the usual "clarity" around anything that contradicts evolutionary theory. Amazing how this is so clear, and yet unproven.

I am not concerned whether you accept evolutionary theory or not. What concerns me is either accepting or dismissing it, or any science, based on deliberately misrepresented information. That is what I was pointing out. And just for the record. Science does not deal with proofs, the highest order of understanding in science is a "theory". There is quite a bit of difference between the dictionary lay definition of a theory and what a "scientific theory" entails.[/QUOTE]

 

[Black Dog]

Why are there no Precambrian rabbits or Devonian dinosaurs?

artist's rendering

 

[Black Dog]

http://www.icr.org/article/8167/

The fossil record is not so stratified as you claim.

I checked out your link.

Apparently The Institute for Creation Research has never heard of erosion, earthquakes, and plate tectonics. If they had, they would realize why the article they published is bunk of the first degree.

Of course, if they have heard of these, then they are being deceitful. I'll leave it to you to decide which.

 

[RickG]

I checked out your link.

Apparently The Institute for Creation Research has never heard of erosion, earthquakes, and plate tectonics. If they had, they would realize why the article they published is bunk of the first degree.

Of course, if they had heard of these, then they are being deceitful. I'll leave it to you to decide which.

Creationism (creation science) is not mainstream Christianity. It bewilders me as to why Mainstream Christianity doesn't openly point out the problems and deliberate misrepresentations of creation science, as it is in violation of the 9th commandment. I think there are no better arguments for "there is no God", than the arguments presented by creation science. Why? If one has to deliberately misrepresent science, or any information for that matter to support a belief, what does it say about that belief?

 

[Larniavc]

In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.

How refreshing to hear it stated so candidly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why anyone claim such a thing?

I'm wondering the same thing. Why would anyone claim such a thing? So why does your fellow evolutionist claim such a thing????

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...an-evolutionist.7916357/page-20#post-68904671

"If evolution were false, we would find all forms of life that ever existed in all layers of geologic strata. Or are you going to say they all just popped into existence at just the right place and time?"

Yet it is only you all that claim they "popped" into existence. I say two infraspecific taxa mated at those times creating a third - just like ALL observations of life propagating have shown us. Only YOU want me to believe they magically arose from one thing.

Did you answer my question? Where exactly did the asians come from? Please don't just repeat your standard post about chinooks. It takes two 'infraspecific taxa' is not an answer that explains anything.

I sure did. I can assure you Asian did not evolve from one thing - anymore than Afro-Asian evolved from just Asian or Africans. And the Asians remained Asian and the African remained African. Neither of them evolved into the Afro-Asian

So my question to you is why do you ignore all the observational evidence????

But go ahead, why don't you tell us where the Asian came from, fitting it to the observational evidence, since you know in all cases it takes two or more infraspecific taxa to create a new one?

Well, come on - show me how well your theory matches direct empirical observation in which you have never once observed one thing evolve into two??????

I'm sorry - I keep forgetting you all care nothing about direct emperical observations which pure theory trumps every time in your minds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Speaking of stratification - and extinction events - why in every layer are all new forms of life found fully formed after those extinction events that did not exist in the previous layer?

There is no gradual evolution from one layer to the next. All new forms of life arise fully formed in each case. As a matter of fact besides in one's own mind - there is no evidence of evolution at all. In all cases entire new forms of life arise fully formed that did not exist previously. But it is convenient that they all just indeed "pop" into existence as someone claimed, is it not???? In the same order as that described in the Bible.

 

[RickG]

In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.

By that reasoning everything that doesn't state that there is a God does not exist. Would you mind citing any of the scientific literature where it states that it assumes there is no God? Science does not address what it cannot observe. Not being able to observe something does not mean it doesn't exist, nor does it imply there is no God.

 

[RickG]

Speaking of stratification - and extinction events - why in every layer are all new forms of life found fully formed after those extinction events that did not exist in the previous layer?

After each extinction event, we see more diversity and new life forms appearing, mainly because previous predators no longer exist or are a major influence as they once were. Additionally extinction events are due to environmental changes, where abrupt or gradual. Isolation of populations also spawns diversity. Currently recognized are 5 major events and some 20 minor events.

There is no gradual evolution from one layer to the next.

For those that did not go instinct there most certainly is.

All new forms of life arise fully formed in each case.

No they did not. Furthermore, you are ignoring that when terms like "short, quickly, and rapidly" are used with respect to geologic time, it can mean hundreds of thousands and even millions of years. An excellent example of that is the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong.

Evolution, does not deal in how life originated.

A very common misconception, with creationists.

Macro evolution is part of the TOE and nothing in the TOE, discusses the "origins of life"

The TOE deals with, how life evolved, not how it originated.

Rather convenient isn't it to just pretend life magically happened and only then will we discuss science. Before that we will ignore anything. Act as if life just always existed so we can ignore it's origins.

And I believe Darwin's theory is on the "origins of species" but then you have no origins since ToE does not discuss origins. But then I guess those original life forms were not species? So explain their origins?????