"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[RickG]

Next thing you know, they'll want to call in the Hardly Boys to solve the case and try to prove we evolved from fossils they find in rocks and coal. Never mind what the book of Genesis says. God was just being allegorical. He really didn't create man as a separately unique species. My great x 1,000,000,000,000,000th ancestor was some single-celled organism that eventually evolved into a poo-slinging ape, from which evolved man.

You go on and on and on about fossil records and such, when all they have is a theory, and a very poor one. You know, the scientists proposing this trash remind me of some of the stupid crackpot scientists on the show called Ancient Aliens that usually airs on the History Channel. They present the material very convincingly, but then you find that it is all built on a bunch of lies. They should start a spinoff show and call it "Ancient Evolution", and say at the start of every other sentence in the show, "Ancient Evolution Theorists believe, claim, etc.".

Then you can explain the fossil record without evolution. Please do, I am very interested.

 

[loveofourlord]

Cataclysmic floods can do that.

ummmm no they can't thats just rediculous, explain how ANYTHING let alone flood can turn sea shells and other things into solid stone in under a year.

 

[-57]

If you knew the actual science you too would be able to see that the information they present is deliberate misrepresentations of the science. You have never actually read Schweitzers paper have you?


There's a perfect example of your total ignorance of any geologic dating method, and I have discussed this with you in other threads in the past as well. First, carbon dating does not date or try to date anything millions of years. Its half-life is only 5730 years. The 14C in diamonds and coal is "in situ" 14C, not atmospheric 14C which is used in dating. They form through different avenues, something the dishonest creation science literature purposely leaves out.


No, you find tons of opinion and baseless claims that are not supported any original data or research. Think I'm wrong? Then provide a link to one of those tons of sources that provides "original data and research" to support their claims. Just one 57, just one.

Here. Your rebuttle will be that it's from a creationist site.

 

[Hieronymus]

ummmm no they can't thats just rediculous,

Wow, great argument bro.

explain how ANYTHING let alone flood can turn sea shells and other things into solid stone in under a year.

Mt St Helens provided us with proof for that.

 

[Waterwerx]

Both genetics and evolution are important in modern biomedical research. That's why the biomedical research institute I work for spends a lot of money and effort studying evolution, as does Harvard Medical School across the river.

Heh, Harvard. The last time it came up in a discussion with the nursing faculty a few years ago, I heard a good portion of their Medical graduates ended up in admin positions so they wouldn't end up harming/killing patients. Its still a good college, but too much money is involved there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow, great argument bro.

He's not wrong though.

Mt St Helens provided us with proof for that.

A localized volcanic eruption is not the same as a supposedly world wide flood.

 

[-57]

Then you can explain the fossil record without evolution. Please do, I am very interested.

Haven't you ever heard about the world wide flood? It's in the bible.

Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find. Furthermore, even though the catastrophic geologic activity of the Flood would have waned in the immediate post-Flood period, ongoing mini-catastrophes would still have produced localized fossil deposits. rest of article

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Haven't you ever heard about the world wide flood? It's in the bible.

Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find. Furthermore, even though the catastrophic geologic activity of the Flood would have waned in the immediate post-Flood period, ongoing mini-catastrophes would still have produced localized fossil deposits. rest of article

But then why do we only find human fossils in incredibly recent layers instead of being mixed up with all of the other fossils, which is what we would find in a global flood condition.

 

[loveofourlord]

Wow, great argument bro. Mt St Helens provided us with proof for that.

I don't need a argument, what you said is impossible, and no mt st hellens did NOT turn seashells into solid stone try again. Show ANYTHING becoming solid stone in under 6000 years.

 

[sfs]

Of those 1% mutations what percentage of them are harmful, neutral and beneficial?

Overwhelmingly neutral. When did they happen?

 

[Waterwerx]

Then you can explain the fossil record without evolution. Please do, I am very interested.

Refer yourself to the book of Genesis, chapters 1-2 regarding creation. If you're going to dismiss what it says and make the claim that God created man from another species using evolution, why are you even here then?

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't need a argument, what you said is impossible,

This is really not a reasonable response.

and no mt st hellens did NOT turn seashells into solid stone

Perhaps because there were no seashells there?
By the way, seashells are made of calcium- something, which is already 'stone'.

try again. Show ANYTHING becoming solid stone in under 6000 years.

I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
Good day to you.

 

[loveofourlord]

when we talk about seashells on mountains this is what were talking about.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8a/2b/ed/8a2bed275117b4146b87845ffe3dd550.jpg

Thats no a seashell thats the impression of a seashell left in solid stone, or like with bones it's been replaced, show a mechanism that can turn ANYTHING into solid stone in under a year.

 

[-57]

Overwhelmingly neutral. When did they happen?

What percentage is beneficial? I understand you can't nail the percentage down hard and fast....but a ball park number will suffice.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is really not a reasonable response. Perhaps because there were no seashells there?
By the way, seashells are made of calcium- something, which is already 'stone'.I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
Good day to you.

So in the end, you make a claim, but completely and utterly refuse to support that claim. Bravo...

 

[-57]

when we talk about seashells on mountains this is what were talking about.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8a/2b/ed/8a2bed275117b4146b87845ffe3dd550.jpg

Thats no a seashell thats the impression of a seashell left in solid stone, or like with bones it's been replaced, show a mechanism that can turn ANYTHING into solid stone in under a year.

I can post a picture of a fossilized hat. Now I don't think it happened in a year. But it could of.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Of course they're not a living system. The point is they are ordered structures.

Why do some whales have hip and leg bones in their skeletons?

Survival of a species from a mutation(which you say is random) does not get us from apes to humans.

Humans are apes. Ape is defined as a large primate without a tail.
99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same place in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if we share a common ancestor.

Oh, not the fossils and carbon-dating nonsense again... thought up by a bunch of knuckleheads that want to push the evolution theory. I thought it was common knowledge that carbon-dating is only accurate back to a couple of thousand years?

We don't use carbon dating for fossils.....we use potassium-argon and uranium lead radiometric dating...just to name a couple. Those dating methods are good for up to 4.5 billion years. Are you claiming that fossils are fake?

 

[Waterwerx]

I don't need a argument, what you said is impossible, and no mt st hellens did NOT turn seashells into solid stone try again. Show ANYTHING becoming solid stone in under 6000 years.

My head, for starters.

Anyway, given the possible pressures involved with the amount of water and the large amount of dirt & debris, I'm sure it set the stage for some of it to be solidified over a much shorter period of time. There were man-made objects found embedded in solid lumps of coal, so either mankind is hundreds of millions of years old(not!), or we do not have a very clear picture of how these things were formed and the specific environment involved.

I'm also of the opinion that the 6-day creation period covered a much greater expanse of time as opposed to it consisting of a literal 24 hours for each day. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord.

 

[sfs]

What percentage is beneficial? I understand you can't nail the percentage down hard and fast....but a ball park number will suffice.

It doesn't matter. I'm talking about the overwhelming majority that are neutral. When did those mutations occur? Each of us carries thousands of them. Which of our ancestors did they occur in?

 

[RickG]

Here. Your rebuttle will be that it's from a creationist site.

Like I said, no data or research to back what they are saying, in fact it reads like op-ed article with zero citations.