T
Tenka
Guest
Creationism in 3 steps.
Step 1: Ctrl-C
Step 2: Ctrl-V
Step 3: Your move you angry, angry atheists!
Step 1: Ctrl-C
Step 2: Ctrl-V
Step 3: Your move you angry, angry atheists!
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Intelligent Design / Evolution
- Thread starter idscience
- Start date
- Status
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm seeing a lot of cdesign proponentist quote mining here.
It looks a lot like proof texting to me. Something one would do when arguing theology, not science. If one wishes to argue science, one needs to stick to the evidence.
It looks a lot like proof texting to me. Something one would do when arguing theology, not science. If one wishes to argue science, one needs to stick to the evidence.
Upvote
0
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
So here we have a paper from the journal Nature trying to explain why chimps and humans are no so similar after all. We read words like "rappid evolution" as if that expains anything. There is no mechanism for "rappid evolution" outside of "punchuated equalibrium", which is evolutions equivalent to a "miracle".
Many scientists believe humans are closer to orangutans than chimps.
So here we have a paper from the journal Nature trying to explain why chimps and humans are no so similar after all. We read words like "rappid evolution" as if that expains anything. There is no mechanism for "rappid evolution" outside of "punchuated equalibrium", which is evolutions equivalent to a "miracle".
Many scientists believe humans are closer to orangutans than chimps.
This is a numbers game. Chimps are not 99% similar to humans. As shown by the article above, the Y chromosomes alone are very different.
Ape's are ape's and humans are humans. We have similar building and regulatory instructions in us because the master builder programmed us that way. Life processes are similar in all living, breathing things, so it would be sensible that the programming would be similar as well.
The evolutionists turns this way and that way chasing his de-evolved tail to try and make sense of things. Comming up with theory after theory to try and make the evidence fit their theory, now in major crisis.
Upvote
0
This isn't what the record shows. The Cambrian explosion exibits the sudden appearance of all the major body plans (phyla) all at once. The fossils found there are almost identical to what is alive and well today.
This is taken from a paper at Harvard.edu.
Before the Cambrian explostion there is nothing but single celled organisms, similar to algae. Scientists has thought they had found embrios in the layer below and studied them for many years. Excited to finally be able to show progression and the beginnings of multicellular organisms. With the most recent technology they were able to look right into the cells and discovered that they are ont embryos. They turned out to be clumps of single cells, not multi-celled creatures.
The most oppositional evidence to gradualistic evolution is "stasis". This is where there is no changes in the fossil record. Many try to relate one to another with much difficulty and dispute, but stasis is the norm over millions of years. This is why living fossils that are found today, that have been thought extinct for hundreds of millions of years, are virtually identical to their fossils.
An onion has 12 times the DNA as your average evolutionary biologist and the Amoeba dubia has 200 times more DNA than you or I. That is puzzelling?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
When you encounter the average evolution supporter this is what usually happens, first you are insulted, then you will be told something like you don't know what you are talking about, then you will be told of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, then, you will be asked to prove your position, then any evidence put forth will be ridiculed and you will be personally attacked again.
Not every evolutionist is so insecure, but the vast majority are. Richard Dawkins is one of evolutions most prominent promoters. Here is what he said about anyone who does not believe in evolution.
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance."
Two points here. The evolution lobby has mixed one factual evolutionary process with one that is not. Variation within species is evident today and observable. What is not evident, observable or provable is that these small changes can account for the major changes involved in... lets say turning bones hollow for birds.
evolution is blind, so assuming bones became hollow because they are lighter is absurd. Not only is the process staggering in complexity over so many systems, processes and information exchanges, but the "bird" doesn't know hollow bones are a benefit.
Birds were long time thought to be from dinosaurs, new research has shown that birds did not come from dinosaurs, infact sceintists are now saying it may have happend the other way around. A complete reversal. In other words, scientists don't have a clue.
When met with hard evidence such as this, the insecure evolutionist will hit back with ridicule and insults. they will hit back with everything EXCEPT evidence to the contrary, known as a rebut. Some will but even Dawkins is guilty of avoiding the evidence and going straight to personal attacks.
The only evidence that humans and lemurs are in a common line of ancestry is similarity assumed to be related. It is related, we were all made by the same master. These similarites are a prediction of intelligent design. Why?
Because we see in the world today that designers and engineers, use and reuse components over a varity of systems because they work. Wheels for bikes, plans and trains, wings for flight and wings for race cars to stay stuck to the ground.
It is reasonable for the intelligent design theorists to infer an intelligent agent involved as it is observable by scientists today.
The visceral disagreements from evolutionists are not rooted in evidence or facts, it is rooted in their own inference being judged by them to be of greater importance then others.
Don't be intimidated by their tactics. The more you are attacted, the more you can be sure they don't know how to defend your evidence. It is the concept of a designer that really sends them off. If there is a designer they have to change their entire world view. That is what you are up against. The bullying and intimidation tactics are a holow attempt to shut you down, kill dissent, and stifle debate.
Not every evolutionist is so insecure, but the vast majority are. Richard Dawkins is one of evolutions most prominent promoters. Here is what he said about anyone who does not believe in evolution.
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance."
Two points here. The evolution lobby has mixed one factual evolutionary process with one that is not. Variation within species is evident today and observable. What is not evident, observable or provable is that these small changes can account for the major changes involved in... lets say turning bones hollow for birds.
evolution is blind, so assuming bones became hollow because they are lighter is absurd. Not only is the process staggering in complexity over so many systems, processes and information exchanges, but the "bird" doesn't know hollow bones are a benefit.
Birds were long time thought to be from dinosaurs, new research has shown that birds did not come from dinosaurs, infact sceintists are now saying it may have happend the other way around. A complete reversal. In other words, scientists don't have a clue.
When met with hard evidence such as this, the insecure evolutionist will hit back with ridicule and insults. they will hit back with everything EXCEPT evidence to the contrary, known as a rebut. Some will but even Dawkins is guilty of avoiding the evidence and going straight to personal attacks.
The only evidence that humans and lemurs are in a common line of ancestry is similarity assumed to be related. It is related, we were all made by the same master. These similarites are a prediction of intelligent design. Why?
Because we see in the world today that designers and engineers, use and reuse components over a varity of systems because they work. Wheels for bikes, plans and trains, wings for flight and wings for race cars to stay stuck to the ground.
It is reasonable for the intelligent design theorists to infer an intelligent agent involved as it is observable by scientists today.
The visceral disagreements from evolutionists are not rooted in evidence or facts, it is rooted in their own inference being judged by them to be of greater importance then others.
Don't be intimidated by their tactics. The more you are attacted, the more you can be sure they don't know how to defend your evidence. It is the concept of a designer that really sends them off. If there is a designer they have to change their entire world view. That is what you are up against. The bullying and intimidation tactics are a holow attempt to shut you down, kill dissent, and stifle debate.
Upvote
0
T
Tenka
Guest
Your answer shows you either don't know anything beyond creationist websites or you've chosen to use what you do know disingenuously.ID said:
Anyway, "Sudden" meaning over about 80 million years and the appearance of "all major phyla" doesn't mean there has been no evolution since then, actually most of the phyla are aquatic invertebrates you probably couldn't identify with David Attenborough as your phone a friend.
You are in the same phyla as a hagfish, for example.
And you're a textbook creationist, mountains of copy paste punctuated with rants about how nasty evolutionists are. How about skipping it this time please?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Notice how evolutionary defenders seem to be unable to produce supportive papers for their assertions. Usually a quck wikipedia search then another attempt at inacurate data slogging.
exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."
"Evolution's Big Bang Gets Even More Explosive" shrinking its duration to between 5 and 10 milion years.
(sciencemag.org)
and this is of course, if they are acurate about dating. Could be much less.
I am expecting a resounding "your wrong" followed up by your opinion.
I would also like to point out that evolution has no answer for the "SUDDEN" aprearance "explosive" apearance of body plans all ready formed with no transitional fossils before.
"In 1993, radiometric dating of zircon
crystals from formations just above and just below Cambrian strata in Siberia allowed for
a precise recalibration of the age of Cambrian strata. Radiometric analyses of these
crystals fixed the start of the Cambrian period at 543 mya
crystals from formations just above and just below Cambrian strata in Siberia allowed for
a precise recalibration of the age of Cambrian strata. Radiometric analyses of these
crystals fixed the start of the Cambrian period at 543 mya
4 and the beginning of the first
appearance of the animal phyla2 (i.e., the Cambrian explosion itself) at 530 mya. (See
Figure 2) These studies also showed that Cambrian explosion occurred within an
appearance of the animal phyla2 (i.e., the Cambrian explosion itself) at 530 mya. (See
Figure 2) These studies also showed that Cambrian explosion occurred within an
exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years."
"Evolution's Big Bang Gets Even More Explosive" shrinking its duration to between 5 and 10 milion years.
(sciencemag.org)
and this is of course, if they are acurate about dating. Could be much less.
I am expecting a resounding "your wrong" followed up by your opinion.
I would also like to point out that evolution has no answer for the "SUDDEN" aprearance "explosive" apearance of body plans all ready formed with no transitional fossils before.
Upvote
0
Sudden geologically speaking. The Cambrian Explosion occurred
over a period from to 20 to 70 million years. And no, most of the fossils found there are now extinct. You are not only not familiar with what you are criticizing, you appear to be making stuff up.
http://dev.biologists.org/content/126/5/851.full.pdf
The Cambrian âexplosionâ: Slow-fuse or megatonnage?
http://dev.biologists.org/content/1994/Supplement/15.full.pdf
http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/ConwayMorris1989.pdf
http://www.bios.niu.edu/davis/bios661b/661b_Giribet2002b4.pdf
It is rather difficult to distinguish what you are quoting from the Harvard paper and what you are saying. Please give citation of the Harvard paper because there were multi-celled organisms prior to the Cambrian Explosion.
That has nothing to do with the questions I asked. How about trying again.
1. Using science, explain the fossil record throughout geologic time without evolution.
2. Explain how life become more diverse and more complex throughout geologic time.
Upvote
0
Large scale changes in evolution are called macro-evolution. Although, it also is used for small changes. A fish with the only change being an inability to breed with another of its species, is described as speciation. They can look identical but they cannot breed so evolution is invoked, proof is supported and job is done.
The problem is scientists cannot decide what speciation even is. They try this and that definition but they are stimede. What they thought were different species from the fossil record, contradicts what the molecular data shows. Even deeper, DNA trees contradict RNA trees.
Speciation has evolutionists falling all over themselves. Some say the line of macro-evolution is speciation but cannot define what it is. Some say species can't breed while it is clear interbreeding of species happens all the time. Evolution asks you to take as fact what they themselves cannot even agree on.
There you have it. The Atheists manifesto: The beginning of universe was a miracle, the evolution of life was a miracle. Out of nothing comes everything. 150 years of desperately trying to prove God does not exist, and the best they can come up with is, yes, there were miracles, it just wasnt God who did them, it was nothing did them! For others who believe there may have been an intelligent cause, and not a nothing cause, we are IDiots.
The problem is scientists cannot decide what speciation even is. They try this and that definition but they are stimede. What they thought were different species from the fossil record, contradicts what the molecular data shows. Even deeper, DNA trees contradict RNA trees.
Speciation has evolutionists falling all over themselves. Some say the line of macro-evolution is speciation but cannot define what it is. Some say species can't breed while it is clear interbreeding of species happens all the time. Evolution asks you to take as fact what they themselves cannot even agree on.
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
The origin of life Scientific American August 1954p.48, George Walds scientific analysis of the origin of life."
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Stephen Hawking"
There you have it. The Atheists manifesto: The beginning of universe was a miracle, the evolution of life was a miracle. Out of nothing comes everything. 150 years of desperately trying to prove God does not exist, and the best they can come up with is, yes, there were miracles, it just wasnt God who did them, it was nothing did them! For others who believe there may have been an intelligent cause, and not a nothing cause, we are IDiots.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hobz
Ponderer of Things
You don't seem to be responding to questions, but i'll do my best to be courteous.
I have just two questions:
1. What are the features or characteristics which are unique to things which are intelligently designed? I.e. What selection criteria do you use to determine something is created intelligently vs unintelligently.
2. What do you consider the best positive evidences for intelligent design? I'm not interested in evidences against evolution, infact, I want to leave evolution out of the discussion totally and focus on your original OP; namely the evidence for intelligent design.
When answering number 2 please do your best not to mention evolution at all, as I'm happy to assume it to be wrong for the purposes of discussion, and the exploration of the intelligent design theory.
I look forward to your answers!
I have just two questions:
1. What are the features or characteristics which are unique to things which are intelligently designed? I.e. What selection criteria do you use to determine something is created intelligently vs unintelligently.
2. What do you consider the best positive evidences for intelligent design? I'm not interested in evidences against evolution, infact, I want to leave evolution out of the discussion totally and focus on your original OP; namely the evidence for intelligent design.
When answering number 2 please do your best not to mention evolution at all, as I'm happy to assume it to be wrong for the purposes of discussion, and the exploration of the intelligent design theory.
I look forward to your answers!
Upvote
0
I do answer questions. I don't dance with those with an agenda.
1. highly specified, highly functional systems. (Specificity combined with function). Complex, interrelated systems that together have purpose but separately have no purpose, like the emergent properties of systems biology. Complex components with many parts that only work if assembled show purpose of design. Not just the physical component buy the connections to sensory and motor functions, shows a high degree of purpose for function.
A structure or system has a high degree of implausibility to have happend by chance or without an intelligent agent.
Specified functional information.
The ripples of sand on a beach have pattern but no functional information. Mount Rushmore, has specified information in the form of the images of presidents. That is specified functional information. A message is sent and received. Archeology distinguishes every day what is of intelligent origin and what is not when they sift through historical sites.
2. The digital code in DNA (no known source other than intelligence). The enormous amount of instructions encoded in the genome. The layers of networks within the genome that interact on system wide levels. The information systems in the genome are recognizable by computer systems analysts, the hiarchy of nested systems are very similar to what is used today only vastly more sophisticated. It is a language with error correcting code, switching, delay code and a whole suit of regulatory software.
Cascading systems like the immune system or bood clotting system that layers of logic (if/then) signalling redundancy that prevents catastrophic events, and to accomplish a goal.
Nano machinery on the microscopic level like the bacterial flagellum. An actual outboard motor with a propeller than can spin up to 100,000 rpm then change direction in less than a 1/4 turn.
The reverse engineering taking place on the machines that is leading to bio-mimicry science. The fact that an engineering background is helpful in discovering how biological systems work.
High levels of efficiency in biological systems. The flagellum has been called the most efficient engine in the universe.
The only source of specified functional information that is known is an intelligent mind. the only known source of language is an intelligent mind. Which the genome is rife with.
Aparent common design, similarity of things across all living breathing things. Similar base programming for building living body plans. (hox genes)
The staggeringly eficient manufacturing plant called the cell.
The discovery that junk DNA has function. The inabillity of scientists to create a cell from scratch.
The mind. Scientists can know every aspect of someones brain, down to the last physical detail and know nothing about the mind of that person. Instinct, emotion, awareness and morality. The non physical aspects of humanity.
A little farther out there but connected to living things here is the fine tuning of the universe to support life. If parameters were just a little deviant from what they are, life could not exist anywhere. The laws of the universe seem to be set up for life.
And the fact I have experienced the first breath of a new born baby. Until you do, you have no idea what I am talking about.
Those are the few things off the top of my head as to why I support intelligent design theory.
Upvote
0
Hobz
Ponderer of Things
Ok so according to (1) you are assuming that the traits of human intelligence are the same traits as the intelligence of your Designer. Why do you assume that the intelligence of the designer would have the same hallmarks of the intelligence of humans? Let me put it this way, how can you state the hallmarks of an unknown designer without knowing his abilities or intentions? Are you to say that this designer is only capable of making designs which humans recognise?
Also (1) is a bad definition, take the concrete slab for example, it is neither highly specified or highly functional, so therefore it is not designed according to your definition. This is blatantly false. This leads to my next question:
3. Why should we accept your definition of intelligent design when it doesn't even encompass all of human design, nevermind the unknown methods that an unknown designer has as his disposal?
Concerning (2) I see you've discovered alot of amazing biological phenomenon, blood clotting cascades, DNA coding, the bacterial flagellum, etc. I'm not going to discuss the specifics of the phenomena themselves, as I agree that they are amazing phenomena worthy of explanation. My question regarding this is (and I hate to bring up evolution but I must):
4. Why do you think these biological designs couldn't be brought on by natural selection?
Thanks for keeping this civil, lets continue this discussion without any copy pasting from websites!
Also (1) is a bad definition, take the concrete slab for example, it is neither highly specified or highly functional, so therefore it is not designed according to your definition. This is blatantly false. This leads to my next question:
3. Why should we accept your definition of intelligent design when it doesn't even encompass all of human design, nevermind the unknown methods that an unknown designer has as his disposal?
Concerning (2) I see you've discovered alot of amazing biological phenomenon, blood clotting cascades, DNA coding, the bacterial flagellum, etc. I'm not going to discuss the specifics of the phenomena themselves, as I agree that they are amazing phenomena worthy of explanation. My question regarding this is (and I hate to bring up evolution but I must):
4. Why do you think these biological designs couldn't be brought on by natural selection?
Thanks for keeping this civil, lets continue this discussion without any copy pasting from websites!
Upvote
0
Science has to act on what is known. What is known about human intelligence is used to identify markers of what we know to be intelligence. the same way SETI is trying to detect intelligence in the universe without knowing anything about what intelligence might be out there. they are using what they know about intelligence here as a bases. We can make no assumptions as to what the intelligent agent is capable of, all we can do is infer from the knowledge we have currently. Design is recognizable to us.
A concrete slab does not have to be designed but if it has reinforcing rods, a simetrical shape and a house is sitting on it. It would have hallmarks of design as it has function and a complexity that is highly unlikely to have occurred naturally. There are degrees of complexity and function and the slab of concrete may or may not fall into the category.
3. Why should we? are you speaking on behalf of a group? I don't understan your question about it not encompassing all of human design. The unknown methods of an intelligen agent are outside scientific discovery. All that ID can do is apply the knowledge that is available.
4. First let me say that there are aspects of evolution(macro) that seam reasonable. That is to say I can see how the logic get scientists there. Inference to common ancesty from similarities in nature is a reasonable but not exclusive inference. I can even see how extapolating variation changes within species to large body plan changes of billions of years can be done, which gets me to your question.
Natural selection and random mutation seems to have limitations to how much change can take place. No experiments have been successful in increasing information to the point where new structures apprear. With the decades of e-coli, malaria and fruit fly experiments the results have been neutral or loss of information. With fruit flyies the only exception was a set of non function wings. They were not new because it already had wings. After 600 generations of fruit flies there were three kinds of flies, normal, abnormal and dead. No functional increase. The results from the long term e-coli experiment, 50,000 generations later, no increase in information or function, just variation. Malaria, and other bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics by a loss of information, like a bridge that is taken out to inhibit a pathway to kill it. With malaria the cure is sickle cell anemia. Another broken pathway or loss of information. The irregular hemogloben cell makes it impossible for the malaria cell to attatch and penetrate it, so it dies.
Selection needs to see advantage to keep it. With the flagellum, there are 40 parts of which none are a selective advantage untill they are all there. selection cannot see the building of the system and has no knowledge of what it will be because it is blind. Those mutations would be lost because they would not be seen. One theory is neutral mutations can be conserved until all are there to function. It is unreasonable to think a random process could build all those components, just so, in the specific order in which they need to be built. Another problem is the energy needed to make these parts with no selective benefit is to high to the cell, they would be selected out and die off.
another common theory for building it is co-option. The flagellum can be separated into two key components. One of which is very similar to the type three secretion system and evolution took it and reused it for the flagellum.
Couple problems with that. The ttss system is made up of 20 parts or so itself. As discussed earlier, selection could not of built it either. Also, without that structure, the other major 20 part component has no function, why would it be there. If you could find some sort of function for it, how could selection build it as all 20 parts need to be there. The ttss system needs a major overhall to combine with the rest of the flagellum, plus many brand new parts need to be made. Where does all this new information come from to build it. How does it get around all the regulatory systems in the cell made to keep everything working as it should.
The final problem is even if selection mutation built it, it would be dead unless it was hooked up to an energy source. Then it needs to be connected to a sensory system, and a control system so the bacterium can actually use it. Only then does it become a selective advantage.
To often, these molecular and chemical pathways are glossed over with simple terminology and logic to present the enormous complexity of implementation seem easy. Well, it just does this and does that. It sounds easy, but from a molecular, chemical, informational, and interconnectivity perspective, these are enormous steps that are not accomplishable by mutation and selection.
There is much more I could say but I hope this helps you to see why I take this position and like I stated, I can see why evolutionists take theirs.
Upvote
0
Hobz
Ponderer of Things
It is only reasonable to act on what is known. You are making the assumption that human intelligence and the unknown designers intelligence have common forms, this in my view is a bad assumption. How are we to recognise the design of that which is unknown?
How is this specificity combined with function? I mean if you're saying it's specifically concrete and its function is to be hard, then I'd propose absolutely everything is intelligently designed (which we know is not the case). Can you please be more specific about where your line between intelligent design and unintelligent design is drawn. Wave Rock is a good example of supposed design, using specificity and functionality explain to me why Wave Rock is a product of unintelligent design and a piece of stone sculpture depicting wave rock is intelligent design. (Google Wave Rock if you are unfamiliar.)
The we I refer to are those who are unconvinced by the argument of intelligent design. If the unknown design methods of this intelligent agent are outside the scope of what we can know, why do you assume to be able to recognise his work? ID seems to be applying knowledge it doesn't have. I am still unconvinced that your definition of intelligent design holds any water, maybe you could convince me some more. See my challenge above.
Evolution is quite slow, the types of examples I'd love to show you are all in the fossil record and I know you won't like that. There are examples like the peppered moth in England, and the Galapagos Finches but these are modifications rather than additions. This is where we must turn to bacteria since they reproduce so rapidly and give us a chance to actually see these additions occur, and there are many examples. We have bacteria which can digest nylon (which is a totally synthetic substance), we have examples of E. Coli changing it's metabolic pathways to be able to digest new compounds which they could now digest before. All these are examples of features being added which were non-existent previously.
The bacterial flagellum has been largely accounted for since IDers brought it up, and the whole irreducible complexity argument has been shredded. Let me see if I can explain the general idea. All that is needed for irreducible complexity to present itself in biological systems is:
1. Add a part
2. Make it necessary
As silly as it may sound that's what the argument boils down to. Behe who coined the term and originally brought up the argument had a faulty assumption, and that was that evolution only occurs through the step-wise addition of parts. We know this is incorrect, in evolution parts can be removed, they can be modified, and they can be translocated. Now that we can add AND remove/modify/translocate parts irreducible complexity falls apart. I wish I could explain the flagellum to you but I can't post links yet and it's too involved for an internet forum.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but does this mean you agree that evolution COULD be true even though you consider it unlikely? Is the main problem you have with ID vs Evo a probability one?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
T
Tenka
Guest
You're arguing against a strawman, no theory of evolution supposes that a bunch of parts appeared and by chance stuck together
It is a self replicating molecule, amazing but flawed in ways that even humans can understand. If it were a good programming language like the ones computers use, we'd be able to reactivate our vitamin C and be able to synthesize our own. And we wouldn't get cancer either.
And what exactly are those odds?
This is just interesting trivia, they don't explicitly support your position.
Upvote
0
Still waiting. I'll make it simpler this time.
Why are there no hominid fossils in Cretaceous strata?
Why are there no bear fossils in Devonian strata?
Why are there no Mammoth fossils in Triassic Strata?
In other words how do we get from simple life forms prior to the Phanerozoic Eon to increasingly complex life forms in the Cambrian and becoming more complex and diverse through each successive geologic period to present?
Explain how that happened. I don't care about speciation, or macro-evolution. I want to know in your own words without irrelevant copy/paste how that came about without evolution. That is all I ask.
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
^^^^^ If anything about creationism needs to be explained, it's THAT.
But the only explanation I've heard of this is that the devil put all those fossils in the ground in chronologically separated layers to make us think things evolved to discredit the "special creation" of the Bible.
Actually, there is one more theory I've ran across:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCiStLKzivM
Upvote
0
Greg1234
In the beginning was El
Questions raised about oldest mammal | Science News | Find Articles
Scientists had formerly dated both the limestone and sandstone to be about 1.1 billion years old, but the shells in the limestone indicate that this layer is only about 540 million years old.
Virginia Steen McIntyre, PhD Suppressions: Archaeological Coverups - YouTube
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
