Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[shernren]

wrong, when you have evidence against it, you reform the theory to adapt to the new problems. If not your theory doesnt add up, you may have 50 things that say this works but if you have just one problem the whole equation is null ... mechanic works with solid problems with solid answers. Evolutionsists are trying to prove a theory, totally different scenario.

Sigh. Let's take an instructive review of the history of the four fundamental forces of nature.

*********

Gravity:

First expressed by ancients as the nature of matter to go up or go down. Objects with "levity" tend to go up, such as air, fire, etc., while objects with "gravity" tend to go down.
1687 - Isaac Newton publishes a mathematical theory of gravity, using a formulation based on gravitational fields mediated by an inverse-square rule.
Newton himself was dissatisfied by "action at a distance" but couldn't think of anything conceptually better.
1915 - Albert Einstein develops General Relativity (GR) describing gravity as space-time curvature. Space-time is curved by the presence of mass, and mass's motion and energy is in turn affected by the curvature of spacetime. Solutions to Einstein's equations describe the interaction between the two.
1984 - First superstring revolution begins; initial work on quantum gravity.
1994 - Second superstring revolution begins; gravity conceptualized as being mediated by gravitons leaking between "branes" in M-theory.
Current - Quantized GR still not renormalizable; discreteness of quantum theory difficult to combine with smoothness of GR.

Electromagnetism

1600-1800s: Electrostatics, electrodynamics, magnetism and optics studied separately.
1752: Benjamin Franklin shows that lightning is electricity.
1767: Joseph Priestly proposes inverse-square law.
1820: Oersted notices deflection of a compass needle by current flowing in a wire (though not the first one).
1831: Faraday's Law of Induction; 1833: Lenz's Law.
1864: Maxwell publishes his equations governing dynamic electromagnetic fields.
1873: Maxwell states that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. A consequence is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, causing a problem for Galilean invariance. The solution is proposed in the form of the luminiferous aether.
1887: Michelson-Morley experiment reports no evidence of the luminiferous aether.
1900: Max Planck solves the blackbody radiation problem by proposing quantized radiation.
1905: Einstein introduces special relativity (SR), compatible with classical electromagnetism.
Einstein also undermines classical electromagnetism with another paper that year describing the photoelectric effect in terms of discrete light-particles called photons, identifiable with Planck's quanta.
1925: Quantum mechanics fully formulated.
1940: Quantum electrodynamics (QED) completed.
1968: Unification of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force completed by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg.

Weak Nuclear Force

1896: Henri Becquerel, Pierre and Marie Curie discover radioactivity while studying phosphorescence in uranium salts.
1934: Enrico Fermi publishes successful model of beta decay introducing the neutrino, first suggested by Wolfgang Pauli.
1950s: Chen Ning-Yang and Tsung Dao-Lee suggest that parity symmetry is violated by the weak force. This is confirmed in 1957.
1968: Unification of electromagnetism and weak nuclear force. W and Z bosons are proposed as the mediators of this force.
1983: W and Z bosons directly observed.

Strong Nuclear Force

1970s: Strong force postulated as the force that overcomes electrostatic repulsion between protons in the nucleus, when protons and neutrons were considered the fundamental particles.
1961: Murray Gell-Mann proposes the quark as the fundamental units making up protons and neutrons. Important because the strong force is not operating between nucleons but between quarks and gluons. What we see operating in nucleons is known as the residual strong force.
1973: The concept of quark color definitely established.
1979: Evidence of gluons, the mediators of strong force ("color force") between quarks in nucleons. Quantum chromodynamics a complete theory of their interaction. Mesons (combinations of quarks) as mediators of the "residual strong force" between nucleons.

Current status: The Standard Model unifies the electroweak force and the strong nuclear force. Quantum gravity still under development.

*********

You think evolution is in trouble? There's far, far more controversy about the fundamental nature of, well, nature itself than about evolution. There have been countless developments, revolutions, conceptual rebellions about these matters since the beginnings of science that make the evolution controversies sound like Christians arguing about whether it should be called the "Last Supper" or the "Eucharist".

You think scientists rethinking the origins of birds represents a great affront to evolution? Well, when Einstein said that gravity isn't a force after all, but space curvature, why didn't Christians wag their fingers and say "They're just covering up for their mistakes ... They reform their theory to adapt to the problems"? When Michelson and Morley disproved the aether, and Einstein came up with SR, why didn't Christians start clucking about how electrodynamics was "just a theory"? Now that scientists are having difficulty reconciling gravity with quantum theory, why don't Christians start protesting that "if you have just one problem the whole equation is null ... gravity doesn't exist! Quanta are deceptions of the devil!"? Why don't Christians protest when quarks are taught in school? After all, quarks were first published with obvious references and similarities to Buddhist philosophy (quantum mechanics actually has an Eightfold Way just like Buddhism).

Enough Christians believe that gravity is spacetime curvature and light is an electromagnetic wave, although they've never seen space curve or electric fields and magnetic fields generate each other, and even though far more intellectual blood has been spilled and far more useless theories left half-dead on the side than in the case of evolution. So when evolution suggests we don't know enough about birds, is that reason to believe that it is completely scientifically invalid?

 

[Smidlee]

The only thing that kept evolution going is it's religious teachings unlike theory on gravity. Also mathematics works well (unlike evolution) with gravity even if there isn't no proof of spacetime curvature. While we don't know exactly what gravity actually is this doesn't mean we can't make accurate predictions on the effects gravity has on objects to send them to other planets,etc.
Also Evolution makes claims on the origin of man while gravity does not. So evolution is a weapon to mock christians (creationists) as in the movie "Inherit the Wind".
The only thing Darwinism has in common with gravity I can think of is they both sucks just in different ways.

 

[random_guy]

The only thing that kept evolution going is it's religious teachings unlike theory on gravity. Also mathematics works well (unlike evolution) with gravity even if there isn't no proof of spacetime curvature. While we don't know exactly what gravity actually is this doesn't mean we can't make accurate predictions on the effects gravity has on objects to send them to other planets,etc.
Also Evolution makes claims on the origin of man while gravity does not. So evolution is a weapon to mock christians (creationists) as in the movie "Inherit the Wind".
The only thing Darwinism has in common with gravity I can think of is they both sucks just in different ways.

But here's the rub, we have better evidence for the Theory of Evolution than the Theory of Gravity. We have two facts, change of allele frequencies over time, and masses attract each other. We have two theories, mutations+natural selection drive evolution and gravitons cause gravity. We can see mutations+natural selection, we have mounds of evidence supporting it, but we've never seen a graviton.

We have fossil records that show a increasing heirarchy of life, we have DNA evidence that follows our phylogenetic trees, we have a twin nested heirarchy of life all pointing towards UCD, but we still can't see the curvature of time-space.

Just admit it, the only reason why Creationists do not accept evolution, even though the same scientists and universities accept evolution as well as gravity, is because it goes against their views on Creation.

The only reason why it seems that Creationists are being mocked by evolution is because sometimes their beliefs lead to absurb conclusions. For example, Behe admitted that his definition of science would mean astrology would be considered a science. Do you think this is right? Do you think science should change it's definition just so ID could be taught in schools? If not, why do so many religious people support ID as a science and support Behe? Is this not absurb? What about Hovind believing that T-Rex was a vegetarian? Is this not absurb? By not denouncing absurb ideas, it lends credence that Creationists support these ideas.

Side Note: You mention that math doesn't apply very well to evolution. How much do you believe that statement? Have you even read any evolutionary mathematic papers? If not, why make statements about subjects you haven't even studied?

 

[Scholar in training]

What about Hovind believing that T-Rex was a vegetarian? Is this not absurb?

Actually, that's not so absurd. The T-rex's forearms were too small to be used to grab at and subdue prey, and it could not have used its legs to pounce. That isn't conclusive evidence that it was a "vegetarian", but there is evidence that suggests the T-rex may not have been a carnivore.

 

[shernren]

The only thing that kept evolution going is it's religious teachings unlike theory on gravity. Also mathematics works well (unlike evolution) with gravity even if there isn't no proof of spacetime curvature. While we don't know exactly what gravity actually is this doesn't mean we can't make accurate predictions on the effects gravity has on objects to send them to other planets,etc.

You are missing my point completely. Often creationists point at evolution's controversies and say that they "disprove" or "invalidate" evolution. So, when Einstein corrected Newton, did this "disprove" gravity? When Planck's quanta overrode Newton's continuous emission and Michelson-Morley dismantled Maxwell's luminiferous aether, did this "invalidate" light? The fact is simply that good models were replaced by better models. This does nothing to prove that the underlying physical process is flawed or nonexistent. In the same way, when a good model of evolution replaces a not-so-good model of evolution, that does nothing to show that evolution itself does not happen. (It does show, however, that the mass media are very irresponsible for portraying science as absolute proof, setting up the public for this kind of misunderstanding.)

And knowing what gravity exactly is is very important. For example, if you tried to model gravity with a simple inverse-square force field when aiming for Mercury you'd simply miss most of the time. GR directly affects the orbital patterns of Mercury because it is very close to the Sun's huge mass. With a simple Newtonian gravity field, you wouldn't have black holes either because classical forces produce no acceleration for photons which are massless. Quantum gravity in turn would have a part in determining whether black holes themselves can be used to produce such exotica as tractor beams, wormholes and time machines in the far future. What exactly gravity is is rather important, especially for the purpose of space exploration.

And for all that, practically 99.99% of all Christians who believe that mass bends spacetime have never seen it happen. You think believing in evolution needs faith?

Also Evolution makes claims on the origin of man while gravity does not. So evolution is a weapon to mock christians (creationists) as in the movie "Inherit the Wind".

Actually, gravity makes claims on the origin of the universe. The nuclear forces are short-ranged and the electromagnetic force cancels out over long ranges because it can be both attractive and repulsive. Because of that, when scientists study the universe and its overall structure often it is only necessary to consider gravity and its effects unless considering times very close to the Big Bang (when quantum gravity, still a difficult theory, needs to be considered). About the only way to have a scientific theory of a young universe is to modify gravity and its conventional understanding, because given our observations of redshift and distance, with conventional gravity ages of billions of years fall out very naturally. Humphreys' white hole model is just one such attempt, although it has failed miserably outside the creationist community.

So why don't more creationists denounce gravity? Because it is not a political issue. Evolution is a weapon against the church only because it has been declared to be one by fundamentalists. Otherwise why are there Christians who live with evolution? When organizations like AiG say "Evolution is the bane of Christianity" guess where the evolutionists concentrate their efforts ...

Actually, that's not so absurd. The T-rex's forearms were too small to be used to grab at and subdue prey, and it could not have used its legs to pounce. That isn't conclusive evidence that it was a "vegetarian", but there is evidence that suggests the T-rex may not have been a carnivore.

AFAIK the current opinion is that T-Rex was probably a scavenging carnivore and not a predator carnivore.

 

[random_guy]

Actually, that's not so absurd. The T-rex's forearms were too small to be used to grab at and subdue prey, and it could not have used its legs to pounce. That isn't conclusive evidence that it was a "vegetarian", but there is evidence that suggests the T-rex may not have been a carnivore.

I find it funny when people with very little training in paleotology make claims about things they haven't studied. T-rex wasn't a vegetarian, however, Hovind claims it to be. How is it not absurb to claim that it is?

FYI, we've been making new discovers every year. For example,
http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/05/04/59571.html

links to a recent news article from my state about how we've discovered a dinosaur that's in the transition from meat to plant diet.

 

[Smidlee]

FYI, we've been making new discovers every year. For example,
http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/05/04/59571.html

links to a recent news article from my state about how we've discovered a dinosaur that's in the transition from meat to plant diet.

More story-telling nonsense like Darwin's "the little eyeball that could" story.

 

[notto]

More story-telling nonsense like Darwin's "the little eyeball that could" story.

Or the vegetarian T-rex?

 

[QuantumFlux]

Even this URL=http://eebweb.arizona.edu/PostDocs/Gilbert/tom_web/papers/Gilbert_TIG_2005_.pdf]webpage[/URL] will state that they are still testing the remains of the findings on flores to determine whether they are homo sapiens or different descendents of homo erectus. Your worldview cannot explain ANY other hominids regardless of the results of the homo floriensis studies.

The funny thing is, is that it doesn't have to. The other hominids you have found a bunk to begin with. You find fragments of jaw and small pieces of a skull and call it a missing link! when in reality the fragements would fit into the range of a homo sapiens skull just fine. I'll explain the other hominids for you... they never existed!

Also, explain the error that led people to conclude that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor (NO we did not evolve from monkeys). Source= http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html. Happy refuting on that one.

I suppose you are looking for a more complicated answer than what I am going to present, but he even says it in the article and does a bad job of refuting it. You can make that statement correct by changing the word ancestor to designer.

What it comes down to is you don't have the age of the earth right, you don't have the literal history of Genesis right, you don't have special creation right, you don't have a proper exegesis on Genesis and I'm betting we differ on the NT as well, and you have absolutely no scientific findings that actually support young earth creation. ZIP, ZEDE, ZANA, ZULU, ZONO, nothing that we find in our world supports your view of our origin. That's a fact and its sad that people cannot move on.

At some point, you thought I needed a scientific backing for God's word. I've already stated the logic behind creating a mature earth. I've demonstrated repeatedly the context will only allow a literal Genesis. And your "facts" about nothing supporting my view is far from a fact. What is sad is how evolutionists believe the fairy tales that they create with such little supporting evidence.

 

[QuantumFlux]

You are missing my point completely. Often creationists point at evolution's controversies and say that they "disprove" or "invalidate" evolution. So, when Einstein corrected Newton, did this "disprove" gravity? When Planck's quanta overrode Newton's continuous emission and Michelson-Morley dismantled Maxwell's luminiferous aether, did this "invalidate" light? The fact is simply that good models were replaced by better models. This does nothing to prove that the underlying physical process is flawed or nonexistent. In the same way, when a good model of evolution replaces a not-so-good model of evolution, that does nothing to show that evolution itself does not happen. (It does show, however, that the mass media are very irresponsible for portraying science as absolute proof, setting up the public for this kind of misunderstanding.)

Maybe it is you who is missing the point. Evolution isn't a fact.... thats the point. This isn't one person modifying the theory, this is 1,000's of people modifying it on a daily basis and completely disagreeing with each other. That doesn't represent a fact, it represents an opinion. Get use to it.

 

[theFijian]

This isn't one person modifying the theory, this is 1,000's of people modifying it on a daily basis and completely disagreeing with each other

So are some of these people saying that mutations+natural selection aren't what drives evolution?

 

[stumpjumper]

The funny thing is, is that it doesn't have to. The other hominids you have found a bunk to begin with. You find fragments of jaw and small pieces of a skull and call it a missing link! when in reality the fragements would fit into the range of a homo sapiens skull just fine. I'll explain the other hominids for you... they never existed!

I never knew I was an anthropologist. It does sound like a fun job and I'll do my best

So you just dismiss every other hominid that we have found as total bunk. Every extinct species of hominins are homo-sapiens. Is that correct?

All of these species of bipedal hominins are bunk: Australopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus. Orrorin may have been bipedal--there is still dispute about that.

Kenyanthropus was also present around three mya. Then the australos appear (Paranthropus aiethiopicus), and the earliest members of the genus Homo appear (H. habilis followed closely by H. rudolfensis). New species of Australo also appear.

By around 1.8 million years ago there is Homo ergaster, getting on to modern body proportions but a much smaller brain than modern humans. hominids now proceed to leave Africa and colonize most of the rest of the Middle East and Asia (but not Europe). They are in the far east perhaps as early as 1.6 million years ago.

Then we get to the geographic variants of early Homo--Homo erectus in Asia, Homo erectus/ergaster to very early "Homo sapiens" in Africa (H. rhodesiensis, if you want to put a name on them), appearing roughly around 600,000 years ago.

Somewhere around 350,000 years ago archaic humans are in Europe (Atapuerca). Around 250,000 to 200,000 years ago Neanderthals appear. Around 160,000 years ago the earliest anatomically-modern humans appear in Africa.

Here is where the origins of Out of Africa hypothesis starts: It is generally agreed that all "modern humans" are descendants of a population of early moderns who migrated out of Africa sometime after 100,000 years ago and replaced all the existing human populations all over the world.

It is surmised that early homo-sapiens either killed off the other hominins or that they carried diseases that killed of the other groups that they encountered. Mitochondrial DNA supports the Out of Africa hypothesis (this should be good news to Christians meaning that we were unique in how we emerged and moved about the world). Read here for more on Out of Africa vs Multiregionality: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

At any rate, by 25,000 to 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens were the only ones left. Everyone else was gone, with the possible exception of a distinct and isolated population of those homo-floriensis on that small Indonesian island.

I suppose you are looking for a more complicated answer than what I am going to present, but he even says it in the article and does a bad job of refuting it. You can make that statement correct by changing the word ancestor to designer.

Okay. So God uniquely created homo-sapiens and chimpanzees to look like they came from a common ancestor. It is a mutation that fused the chromosome in one and created a new species while the other species followed a different path from the original. A designer did that in the span of one earth week?

God sure is a funny guy.

At some point, you thought I needed a scientific backing for God's word. I've already stated the logic behind creating a mature earth. I've demonstrated repeatedly the context will only allow a literal Genesis. And your "facts" about nothing supporting my view is far from a fact. What is sad is how evolutionists believe the fairy tales that they create with such little supporting evidence.

So why do you keep posting scientific "refutations" of evolutionary theory? Just say I believe everything we know about the world is wrong and the first 11 Chapters of a mythical creation story are correct and be done with it. I won't agree with your conclusion but at least the discussion will be over.

 

[QuantumFlux]

All of these species of bipedal hominins are bunk: Australopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus. Orrorin may have been bipedal--there is still dispute about that.

Kenyanthropus was also present around three mya. Then the australos appear (Paranthropus aiethiopicus), and the earliest members of the genus Homo appear (H. habilis followed closely by H. rudolfensis). New species of Australo also appear.

By around 1.8 million years ago there is Homo ergaster, getting on to modern body proportions but a much smaller brain than modern humans. hominids now proceed to leave Africa and colonize most of the rest of the Middle East and Asia (but not Europe). They are in the far east perhaps as early as 1.6 million years ago.

Then we get to the geographic variants of early Homo--Homo erectus in Asia, Homo erectus/ergaster to very early "Homo sapiens" in Africa (H. rhodesiensis, if you want to put a name on them), appearing roughly around 600,000 years ago.

Somewhere around 350,000 years ago archaic humans are in Europe (Atapuerca). Around 250,000 to 200,000 years ago Neanderthals appear. Around 160,000 years ago the earliest anatomically-modern humans appear in Africa.

Here is where the origins of Out of Africa hypothesis starts: It is generally agreed that all "modern humans" are descendants of a population of early moderns who migrated out of Africa sometime after 100,000 years ago and replaced all the existing human populations all over the world.

It is surmised that early homo-sapiens either killed off the other hominins or that they carried diseases that killed of the other groups that they encountered. Mitochondrial DNA supports the Out of Africa hypothesis (this should be good news to Christians meaning that we were unique in how we emerged and moved about the world). Read here for more on Out of Africa vs Multiregionality: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

Thank you for describing the evolutionary fairy tale. What you presented is exactly what I am talking about. You tell the story without presenting the evidence. Your evidence for this consists of about maybe 20 fossils, many of which are broken, and most are probably fossils put together that are supposed to be from the same skeleton but could just as easily be from different species and personages.

It's lame, I probably have more evidence of Santa Claus than you do of this fairy tale..

Okay. So God uniquely created homo-sapiens and chimpanzees to look like they came from a common ancestor. It is a mutation that fused the chromosome in one and created a new species while the other species followed a different path from the original. A designer did that in the span of one earth week?

Perhaps you should stop making assumptions, you assume that similar DNA means that they have common ancestors, when in reality, DNA is merely the schematic for the body. Having similar DNA only means that they have similar bodies, not that one came from the other.

As for fusing chromosomes in a week, I've never been one to limit God, but if you wish to, go right ahead.

So why do you keep posting scientific "refutations" of evolutionary theory? Just say I believe everything we know about the world is wrong and the first 11 Chapters of a mythical creation story are correct and be done with it. I won't agree with your conclusion but at least the discussion will be over

Because the point of the thread is why some christians dismiss evoltuion. I dismiss it scientifically, philosophically, morally, and theologically. The thread keeps going because people keep posting. I'm not here to change your mind, it appears however that many people wish to change mine.

 

[shernren]

At some point, you thought I needed a scientific backing for God's word. I've already stated the logic behind creating a mature earth. I've demonstrated repeatedly the context will only allow a literal Genesis. And your "facts" about nothing supporting my view is far from a fact. What is sad is how evolutionists believe the fairy tales that they create with such little supporting evidence.

If you don't need a scientific backing for God's word then why are you so hard against evolution's scientific credentials? Why insist that evolution is unscientific? Surely it shouldn't matter to you whether or not evolution is good science if you're convinced from the start that science isn't going to tell you anything useful about origins.

Maybe it is you who is missing the point. Evolution isn't a fact.... thats the point. This isn't one person modifying the theory, this is 1,000's of people modifying it on a daily basis and completely disagreeing with each other. That doesn't represent a fact, it represents an opinion. Get use to it.

Go on and prove it. If evolution is being modified on a daily basis by thousands of people you should be able to find me seven thousand separate articles published within the last week each undermining a central tenet of evolution and disagreeing with each other, outside of creationist literature. I'll be impressed if you can find ten.

 

[QuantumFlux]

If you don't need a scientific backing for God's word then why are you so hard against evolution's scientific credentials? Why insist that evolution is unscientific? Surely it shouldn't matter to you whether or not evolution is good science if you're convinced from the start that science isn't going to tell you anything useful about origins.

because it is, that is just another reason why I don't believe it. There is not one reason why I don't believe it, there are multiple. Scientifically I disagree with it as well.

Go on and prove it. If evolution is being modified on a daily basis by thousands of people you should be able to find me seven thousand separate articles published within the last week each undermining a central tenet of evolution and disagreeing with each other, outside of creationist literature. I'll be impressed if you can find ten.

well i already gave two within the last week, I'm sure it wouldn't be a hard task, someone already posted about the t-rex being not being acarnivore, that's already 3 and I haven't even started.

Personally I don't have time to do as you wish, but its pretty obvious that the evolutionary theory is fluxuating constantly.

 

[shernren]

well i already gave two within the last week, I'm sure it wouldn't be a hard task, someone already posted about the t-rex being not being acarnivore, that's already 3 and I haven't even started.

Personally I don't have time to do as you wish, but its pretty obvious that the evolutionary theory is fluxuating constantly.

Note that I said published. As far as I remember (post that link again?) the bird-dino article wasn't published within this week, and the t-rex not a carnivore article wasn't given (and in any case, that is more a re-examination of paleontology than evolution itself). It's up to you, but until you take the time to find 10 (just 10! Google returns millions of search answers) articles published within the last week detailing a major change in conventional evolutionary theory, it won't be obvious to me that evolution is continually fluctuating. Darwin proposed natural selection operating on variation centuries ago, and even the discovery of genes and genetics only upheld and refined his paradigm instead of overhauling it. That's better performance than Newton's gravitational fields.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thank you for describing the evolutionary fairy tale. What you presented is exactly what I am talking about. You tell the story without presenting the evidence. Your evidence for this consists of about maybe 20 fossils, many of which are broken, and most are probably fossils put together that are supposed to be from the same skeleton but could just as easily be from different species and personages.

It's lame, I probably have more evidence of Santa Claus than you do of this fairy tale..

Of course there is evidence for Santa. He's real and he'll be at the local mall the end of this month. The fact is that there are fossils (much more than 20 too). There are fossils of species that have not existed for millions of years. Explain the Dinosaurs from the view of YEC. You cannot. You might say T-Rex was a herbivore but you cannot explain why there is a T-Rex or a velociraptor or ANY extinct species. Was God bored and wanted to create Dinosaurs simply to wipe them out a few million years before he created them?

As for fusing chromosomes in a week, I've never been one to limit God, but if you wish to, go right ahead.

The point is that if God created everything via unique, special, creation in a week there should not be a mistake in one species that mirrors a mutation in another species and points to a shared common ancestor. If it was between humans and spiders than it would be coincidence; since it is between humans and the great apes it supports Darwin's theory.

Was God tired when he got around to humans and messed up?

 

[Mikecpking]

Quantumflux,
You are an enigma! I have noted your replies to various posts and some of the more tricky points for you, you choose to ignore.

So, I will ask you this question.

How do you explain in the fossil record differing species appearing and dissapearing throught geological time. EG: Why don't you find trilobite fossils which are relatively common in late Cambrian rock, but nothing in lets say the Cretaceous or Quaternary?

In the Jurasic, why do you find different species appearing and dissapearing, but never repeating, ammonites all through the sequence?

 

[Mikecpking]

BTW, there is evidence for a real Santa, St. Nicholas was benevolent to children.

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=23

 

[QuantumFlux]

it won't be obvious to me that evolution is continually fluctuating

well like i said before, I'm not here to change your mind, if you want me to believe otherwise you will have to prove it to me.

The fact is that there are fossils (much more than 20 too). There are fossils of species that have not existed for millions of years.

more stories, no evidence.

Explain the Dinosaurs from the view of YEC. You cannot. You might say T-Rex was a herbivore but you cannot explain why there is a T-Rex or a velociraptor or ANY extinct species. Was God bored and wanted to create Dinosaurs simply to wipe them out a few million years before he created them?

Easily, they didnt exist millions of years ago, they were created along with everything else. There are hints throughout history of "dragons" however many myths surrounded them, perhaps there is a shred of truth to them. On two separate insances (one in canada or alaska i believe, and one in australia), dinosaur bones (that is right, bones, not fossils) have been found with red blood cells inside them. Certainly evidence that they existed much less than millions of years ago.

if you study reptiles you know that many of them continue to grow throughout their life, were some of them from the garden of Eden, they may have grow to much larger sizes. The question is, how many of them were there? we don't have that many fossils to say that they encompassed the earth, but we can be sure that there were a few. Dinosaurs don't say anything negative to a young earth.

The point is that if God created everything via unique, special, creation in a week there should not be a mistake in one species that mirrors a mutation in another species and points to a shared common ancestor.

really? do you know all of the affects of the Fall? Perhaps the mutation was a part of the changing that occured that made them to die, some had different ones than others. I don't know, i wasnt there, but there certainly were more consequences than the ones that were stated.

How do you explain in the fossil record differing species appearing and dissapearing throught geological time. EG: Why don't you find trilobite fossils which are relatively common in late Cambrian rock, but nothing in lets say the Cretaceous or Quaternary?

because to you the fossil record is something that is important. To me, its almost humourous. In my opinion, the layers were created by the world wide flood, which only makes sense that it would cover certain species at certain levels, covering the lower ocean lvl creatures and then moving upward.

besides that, your fossils are very little evidence to me at all. Most of them are not just incomplete, but barely recognizable. Some phd guy says that this chip of a fossil belonged to a dinosaur with big teeth and then makes this whole story up when the only evidence he has in a chip of a fossil... To me it looks like the fossil record is 98% assumption and 2% evidence.