Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Split Rock]

Then you will have no trouble explaining why Turkana Boys femour looks nothing like a human chimp or gorilla. I dare you to try as no one else can.

Looks very human like to me. Especially when you compare the two at the same angle, instead of deilberately trying to use different angles to make it look like they are very different. Satan would be proud of you!

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Swimmers.jpg

Here's
an even better comparison of A. afarensis to human and chimp. Even the earlier hominid looks very human.
http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/courses/f...190e/review/20101207/FemurAngleComparison.jpg

[You have likely recieved responses that did not suit you is the more likely truth. Junk DNA does not suit a creationist paradigm and you evos used to stick it to creationistist...untill....'junk DNA; was no longer found to be functionless but rather of vital importance.

Perhaps you can explain the function of highly repeated or satellite DNA. Or why the puffer fish has no junk DNA at all!

[Finding an actual intermediate between an ape and human would suffice also. To date you can only produce apes, such as Turkana Boy and other erectus/ergaster, put forward as straw grabs of misrepresentative intermediates.

We've given you many intermediates, you just misrepresent them (like Turkana Boy) and then claim there are none. Very Christian of you...

 

[AV1611VET]

You are irrelevant, make very poor arguments, and no one should give two hoots what you think.

Good --

 

[variant]

Good --

Wonderful. I am glad we could get that cleared up for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. The Bible does not teach evolution; but in fact, teaches its antithesis: creationism.

The bible teaches neither.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created...

I'd say that settles it.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Fast forward a few steps. Most (all?) known cases of mutations resulting in new genetic info, are a result of one critter usurping code from another. This means you have to START with a working ecosystem.

If Ev theory can't show how genetic material increases due to mutation w/o that - Lucy, you still got lots of 'splainin ta do; i.e., it's not reasonable to expect abiogenesis to poof a working ecosystem into existence right off the bat. You've got no cohesive theory for life, the Universe and everything; ya can't count to 42

So your position is that if we can't explain Everything, we can't explain anything? That would render any discussion about any topic moot.



AV? Are you still with us. I'm sticking with the 'new information' point until we make progress.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your position is that if we can't explain Everything, we can't explain anything? That would render any discussion about any topic moot.



AV? Are you still with us. I'm sticking with the 'new information' point until we make progress.

No, I'm sorry, RK.

Not to disappoint you, but I'm through here.

This thread gives me a headache.

It was worth a try, though.

And I appreciate your input --

 

[razeontherock]

So your position is that if we can't explain Everything, we can't explain anything? That would render any discussion about any topic moot.

No, that renders limitations on the current state of our knowledge. Those limits should be respected, as should the knowledge we are amassing about the world we find ourselves living in. Discussion should reflect that, but unfortunately it doesn't.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Sure, but bacteria is still bacteria, and finches are still finches

So? Why would you expect it to be anything else? Our taxonomy has to draw lines somewhere. The reality is that all life here is on a single family tree, and we put different names on different branches. Bacteria can't "hop" onto another branch, they can only make new branches within what they are (and they do.)

There is difficulty in assigning "species" and differentiating between them in asexual organisms. It's easy for sexually reproducing organisms...if they can't produce viable offspring, then they're a different species. But you can't do that with bacteria. So what we have with bacterial taxonomy is an ever splintering family tree that gets really complicated.

But bacteria fill a niche, and fungi fill a niche, and protists fill a niche, and plants fill a niche, and animals fill a niche. Our lifetimes are so short that all we get to witness is a snapshot of where life is right now. If you could freeze yourself and come back in a million years, a lot would be different.

 

[razeontherock]

Bacteria can't "hop" onto another branch, they can only make new branches within what they are (and they do.)

And this is what is being stated by those who say micro-Ev is true, while macro is not.

 

[Split Rock]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created...

I'd say that settles it.

Sure, that God created the universe is a basic principle of Christianity. That does not equate, however, to creationism, which teaches we should ignore the reality that your god presumably created for us.

 

[Jazer]

creationism, which teaches we should ignore the reality that your god presumably created for us.

Creationism does NOT teach that at all. All of GAP Creationism is backed up with rock solid science. That in and of itself is a miracle because science is known to get it wrong time and time again. Yet Science still confirms that the Bible is true. Why? Because scripture can be tested. Science gives us a way to test the scriptures so we can confirm that they are indeed true. The Bible gives us an accurate account. Moses 3500 years ago was able to seperate truth from error. Something very few people have been able to do.

 

[Split Rock]

Creationism does NOT teach that at all. All of GAP Creationism is backed up with rock solid science. That in and of itself is a miracle because science is known to get it wrong time and time again. Yet Science still confirms that the Bible is true. Why? Because scripture can be tested. Science gives us a way to test the scriptures so we can confirm that they are indeed true. The Bible gives us an accurate account. Moses 3500 years ago was able to seperate truth from error. Something very few people have been able to do.

Lets get your version of GAP creationism nailed down. So...
1. How old is the earth?
2. Do humans share common ancestry with other life on earth?
3. How old is the universe?
4. How long has mankind existed?
5. Was there a global flood?
6. Were all languages created at the Tower of Babel?

 

[Ration]

Creationism does NOT teach that at all. All of GAP Creationism is backed up with rock solid science.

Despite the fact that it really isn't. I would like to see some of this science. Would you mind telling your source?

 

[driewerf]

AV1611VET, before answering this, do you know how DNA codes for proteines?

No.

Would you like it if I explained it, in terms as easy as possible?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

And this is what is being stated by those who say micro-Ev is true, while macro is not.

That is exactly what macro says. Macroevolution is defined by speciation, as in, when one branch splits into two. That's the whole point. Microevolution is defined by small changes that don't split the branches yet, but lots of micro leads to macro.

 

[Greg1234]

Lets get your version of GAP creationism nailed down. So...
1. How old is the earth?

Not strictly Creationism

2. Do humans share common ancestry with other life on earth?

3. How old is the universe?

Do you need the definition of Creationism?

4. How long has mankind existed?

Not strictly Creationism

5. Was there a global flood?

That's the flood actually.

6. Were all languages created at the Tower of Babel?

Wow. Ok please hold while you're being redirected...
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

 

[Nostromo]

You make such a convincing argument Greg.

 

[cupid dave]

1. The Bible does not teach evolution; but in fact, teaches its antithesis: creationism.

The Bible never says "how" or by what process God performs the steady changes from the appearance of the Universe in the beginning to the present day circumstances we observe.

So why do you fight with scientists who merely add their own insights concerning the use of The Natural Laws to do this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, that God created the universe is a basic principle of Christianity. That does not equate, however, to creationism, which teaches we should ignore the reality that your god presumably created for us.

Creationism is the belief that the universe was created -- period.

Anything after that would be a subdoctrine.

Jews are creationists, Muslims are creationists -- (insofar as they are not atheists, that is).

 

[razeontherock]

lots of micro leads to macro.

Not proven, demonstrated, or anything but speculated. Bacterium are still bacterium, and finches are still finches. I'll conceded Ev theory has shown how what you posit here is plausible, it's an interesting thought experiment, and teaching it has benefits including learning organization.

If your side of the aisle would learn to be content with that which really shouldn't be so hard, we'd see this whole thing become the non-issue it should be.