proving evolution as just a "theory"

[BradB]

Hold it right there, cowboy.

Actually the huge Coconino sandstone layer has been shown convincingly to be of eolian (windblown) origin. We have found great numbers of fossil footprints in the layer. How can there be animals walking around in sand that is being deposited by a flood? Also we see marks of rain falling on the sand, and signs of the slump of the sand on the downwind side of the dunes. All this strongly suggests this was a large wind blown sand formation. How this can appear in the middle of deposits of Noah's flood is beyond me. See Small-Scale Structures in the Coconino Sandstone of Northern Arizona on JSTOR .

Okay I'll play your game. How can foot print impressions get left and preserved in dry sand? Also my understanding is that those foot prints were left by known amphibians. Where do amphibians mainly dwell?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The evolution tree is as a joke because you have no fossil links joining any of them to each other. I thought evolution had even abandoned that in the theory.

I have a suggestion. Before you start critiquing evolution, would it be too much to ask that you first understand what evolutionists say?

Here for instance, is what they say about fossil links:
ttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

So if you thought they abandoned fossil links, you are mistaken.

Why don't you explain how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea creature. Genetically of course.

Simple. Mutations and selection.

For instance, embryos typically have flesh growth stretching between their finger bones and later this gets removed to form fingers. So if you genetically inhibit the processes that eat that flesh away, you are left with a crude flipper. That is one way.

Maybe you can include how and why land animal surviving quite well on land could become a sea creature. That refutes natural selection, another evolution fantasy that should start with "one upon a time."

Simple. An animal like an otter can start to go into the sea to find food or protection from predators. Under the right conditions, it could spend more and more time at sea, and begin to favor any mutations that enhanced life at sea. Eventually you get this:

 

[pitabread]

in this case i dont even need a starting point. i only need to show a conservation as evidence for important rule. if we will look at many genes in several species, and we will find out that one specific gene is the same were other are different- we can conclude that this sequence has an important rule. otherwise why its so conserve compare to other genes?

You're just repeating yourself and you're unable to answer that very question. This is discussion is done.

i think we may even find such examples in human- made objects. a wheel shape for instance is very conserve among vehicles (car\truck\airplane) were other parts such as steering wheel is less conserve (in airplane for instance its different- a joytsick). this is because a wheel shape is very important when a steering wheel can be made in many shapes without a real problem. so here you have a functional reason under the design model.

 

[bhsmte]

You're just repeating yourself and you're unable to answer that very question. This is discussion is done.

And this reality will not change, it is far too risky for him to answer certain questions.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

To understand, just means to look at human psychology. When someone, has a very close personal belief they have held, that is rooted in a deep need to believe the same, it is quite painful to abandon this belief, even if presented with boatloads of evidence, that belief is wrong. Then, you see the defense mechanisms kick in to protect the belief, in the face of all the contradicting evidence and this thread is a terrific example of the same.

When and if the point ever comes, where it becomes too painful for a person who holds these beliefs to keep denying well evidenced reality, then they will adjust their belief and accept the evidence. Some get there, some don't.

I rather think people who defend such positions with only the evidence of their faith in the Bible for support, tend to lose their faith altogether when they accept that even a small part of it is untrue.
A faith that accepts from the start that error is both likely and possible, are far more resiliant and are more likely to hold on to their faith.
Such volt face, is a danger to their whole fragile mental health

 

[bhsmte]

I rather think people who defend such positions with only the evidence of their faith in the Bible for support, tend to lose their faith altogether when they accept that even a small part of it is untrue.
A faith that accepts from the start that error is both likely and possible, are far more resiliant and are more likely to hold on to their faith.
Such volt face, is a danger to their whole fragile mental health

Indeed. These types of beliefs are built on a house of cards, when there is so much well evidenced reality, that contradicts the belief.

If the person has to acknowledge that even one small part of their belief is wrong, the entire house comes tumbling down. This is why, the defense mechanisms of these folks, is so robust and they have to expend so much energy, to continuously; deny, use confirmation bias etc., to ward off the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Speedwell]

Indeed. These types of beliefs are built on a house of cards, when there is so much well evidenced reality, that contradicts the belief.

If the person has to acknowledge that even one small part of their belief is wrong, the entire house comes tumbling down. This is why, the defense mechanisms of these folks, is so robust and they have to expend so much energy, to continuously; deny, use confirmation bias etc., to ward off the cognitive dissonance.

The whole thing is strange to me. As a Christian, my faith is--as it should be--in salvation in Christ. Creationists have erected a huge rattletrap structure of apologetics to show that belief in a literal Genesis is necessary for that faith and so, as you say, they have to protect it at all costs. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would do such a thing.

 

[bhsmte]

The whole thing is strange to me. As a Christian, my faith is--as it should be--in salvation in Christ. Creationists have erected a huge rattletrap structure of apologetics to show that belief in a literal Genesis is necessary for that faith and so, as you say, they have to protect it at all costs. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would do such a thing.

Well, some folks, are only capable of black and white thinking. In essence, the bible is either 100% correct, or it is all wrong.

 

[rjs330]

I have a suggestion. Before you start critiquing evolution, would it be too much to ask that you first understand what evolutionists say?

Here for instance, is what they say about fossil links:
ttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

So if you thought they abandoned fossil links, you are mistaken.


Simple. Mutations and selection.

For instance, embryos typically have flesh growth stretching between their finger bones and later this gets removed to form fingers. So if you genetically inhibit the processes that eat that flesh away, you are left with a crude flipper. That is one way.

Simple. An animal like an otter can start to go into the sea to find food or protection from predators. Under the right conditions, it could spend more and more time at sea, and begin to favor any mutations that enhanced life at sea. Eventually you get this:

You can't show that ever happened. You can't test it and it has never been observed.

 

[xianghua]

Except all the evidence as pointed out in the peer reviewed research paper you don't want to acknowledge...

Delusions of grandeur and self-deception aside, are you seriously expecting me to believe all the evolutionary biologists, molecular biologists, medical researchers and geneticists who have decades of education and experience in this field, producing tangible results from their endeavours are all wrong and You, an armchair amateur, who produces nothing of substance in this field whatsoever, is the one that has it right?

LOL! Where's your peer reviewed paper then?? You're the one going against the mountains of evidence in favour of evolution, so it's up to you to substantiate your claim.

since you didnt gave any evidence for evolution so far, and since they didnt gave any evidence that this gene realy lost, i think the answer is clear. but again: you are welcome to believe anything you want...

 

[rjs330]

The whole thing is strange to me. As a Christian, my faith is--as it should be--in salvation in Christ. Creationists have erected a huge rattletrap structure of apologetics to show that belief in a literal Genesis is necessary for that faith and so, as you say, they have to protect it at all costs. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would do such a thing.

Most creationists do not believe that. If course there are people who are Christians who believe all kinds if stuff that isn't really biblical. Such as those that believe Christians do not sin, ever. The vast majority if creationists do NOT believe that you must be a creationist to be saved. Just because you have been challenged by a few on this forum do not lump us all in that category.

What pretty much all creationists do believe is that all theistic evolutionists have done is to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to trust is accurate and what parts they don't. The fact that you it others might choose to see the story of David and Goliath as accurate or not has nothing to do with salvation. Because as you say your faith in Christ and following him in obedience and faith determines your salvation. Not the belief in the accuracy of the OT.

 

[rjs330]

Well, some folks, are only capable of black and white thinking. In essence, the bible is either 100% correct, or it is all wrong.

It is correct. Is not wrong. Folks love to poke holes at the Bible because it gives them the out not to believe. Once you relegate scripture to Allegory or a bunch of neat stories it's no more powerful than the Illiad and the Odyssey or Aesops Fables.

 

[pitabread]

Once you relegate scripture to Allegory or a bunch of neat stories it's no more powerful than the Illiad and the Odyssey or Aesops Fables.

The flipside of that is once you insist that all parts of the Bible including the Genesis creation story are a literal history of the world, you open it up to falsification.

 

[rjs330]

You're just repeating yourself and you're unable to answer that very question. This is discussion is done.

Guess what all those things were designed.

 

[Speedwell]

Guess what all those things were designed.

How do you know? Seriously how do you know?

 

[pitabread]

Guess what all those things were designed.

Way to miss the point.

(You might want to wind back a few pages to get the context of the discussion.)

 

[rjs330]

The flipside of that is once you insist that all parts of the Bible including the Genesis creation story are a literal history of the world, you open it up to falsification.

Yep and so far evolution from a common ancestor hasn't been shown to be true. It hasn't been tested, observed or reproduced. All that can be shown is all living things have a common design. All observation shows common design.

 

[xianghua]

Simple. An animal like an otter can start to go into the sea to find food or protection from predators. Under the right conditions, it could spend more and more time at sea, and begin to favor any mutations that enhanced life at sea. Eventually you get this:

like this example?:

(image from Ferrari Evolution)

we also need to include this "out of place" fossil of marine whale:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

 

[pitabread]

Yep and so far evolution from a common ancestor hasn't been shown to be true. It hasn't been tested, observed or reproduced. All that can be shown is all living things have a common design. All observation shows common design.

So what's the weather like in Denialsville these days?

 

[Speedwell]

It is correct. Is not wrong. Folks love to poke holes at the Bible because it gives them the out not to believe. Once you relegate scripture to Allegory or a bunch of neat stories it's no more powerful than the Illiad and the Odyssey or Aesops Fables.

Even though it was inspired by God?