- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
This is just painful, I hope for your sake you aren't so misinformed as to think evolutionary theory would require such Frankenstein mash ups to exist. In fact, this sort of crap is so off it would actually refute evolution if creatures like this existed.
To be fair, getting this
From this
---is far harder.
.
A flat worm didn't give birth to a human, we just share ancestry with them.
Hard to believe people could actually believe that.
In effect, the offspring of flatworms eventually (in the sick mind of science) led to mankind existing! You really think we owe our very existence to worms having sex!!!!
Not only that, but science says earth is basically an insignificant dot in a boundless universe. They attack the destiny God has for earth and man. Here on earth, science considers us but beasts! Just another animal!!!! An animal that has no purpose or creator.
.
A flat worm didn't give birth to a human, we just share ancestry with them.
Darwin made mistakes, who cares, it isn't like evolution hasn't improved over time as a theory.
No, the issue is that they are being misquoted, taken out of context. Just think for a minute, if they were evolution supporters, why would they make any significant comments against that which they support? It wouldn't make any sense.
I have a few quotes of darwins doubt over the cambrian if you want. does that mean he wasnt an evolutionist?
yey darwins mistake here was pointed out numerous times and yet he still believed it. that reminds me of the problem of observation for evolutionists. macro evolution and chemical evolution both remain un observed.
Wrong, macro evolution has been observed.
I would like you to define "chemical evolution" before I make any other corrections.
No, did it ever occur to you that we might have found a fossil or two since then?
chemical evolution is abiogenesis, biological evolution (macro evolution) is unobserved as well.
Unless you would like to debate that fact? I figure you will dodge as usual.
I don't think you have, do you have anything pre cambrian?
That is the issue at stake here with darwin. Oh they exist, but they are few and far between, nothing like the cambrian explosion:
in fact let me post more about it:
the mysterious Cambrian explosion:
obviously not complete but that the ALL major phyla showed up from no where, and have not gone away since.
its' a problem because of this:
"Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.- from genesispark.com
Darwin's Dilemma - YouTube
video get interesting about 17 minutes into it when it speaks of darwins doubts over the cambrian explosion:
"IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty...."
origin of species, Darwin
read context here:
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Absence of Intermediate Varieties at the Present Day. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics
again he doubts:
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. "
origin of species, darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics
BTW this is all argumentation from the TEACH THE CONTROVERSY series (legal in 9 states)
Wrong, macro evolution has been observed.
I would like you to define "chemical evolution" before I make any other corrections.
i think it would be beneficial for you to define what you believe macro evolution is and how it has been observed.
the scientific community, last i checked, had taken the stance that the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution, is essentially time.
if you wade through the argument the idea is that adaptation on a genetic level can eventually develop into speciation.
the problem is that no direct change into a wholly new species has been observed, or recreated.
genetic drift does not correlate to new genetic material.
the real problem that occurs with what evolutionary proponents claim as examples of macro evolution, is the amount of time they require for the event to transpire.
millions of years being the minimum. billions of years if you want to talk about a single celled organism becoming a modern mammal.
this requires them to first prove the earth is at least millions of years old.
i have read through dozens of young earth creationist arguments that evolutionary scientists claim to have rebutted (although often it is merely that they have managed a rational counter claim that bears no more plausibility than the claim they attempt to undermine)
but one glaring irony seems to pose itself. what argument exists that the universe is billions of years old?
cosmochronology?
its based entirely off of speculation.
biostratigraphy? its a chicken and egg issue, how old is the fossil, well because its in this layer of strata, its 5 million years old. oh well how do we know that everything in this layer of the earth is 5 million years old?well you see, we found this fossil in there that went extinct 5 million years ago.
carbon dating has long since been abandoned by evolutionary scientists because its been proven useless. so now we have a dozen other ways to infer the age of fossils that all rely on pure assumption, and have no more hope of proving accurate than carbon dating did.
yet this did not stop evolutionary scientists from touting carbon dating as inarguable fact for decades.
the fallacy of these claims as to the age of the earth is that no means of measurement can be known valid, because no observation of their means of dating have lasted longer than a handful of decades.
evolution requires more faith than i have. because it requires consent to the validity of a series of assumptions that are constantly changing.
and every time their means of inferring proof are found out to be impossible, they simply fill the void with the next generation of new scientific assumption.
the problem people should really look at, is that evolutionary scientists try to make the math and science fit their theory.
instead of allowing the scientific data that's available to speak for itself.
science is meant to be unbiased. that's why it has to be observable and predictable.
How about we take your claims one at a time. What is your best argument against evolution? Post it and I will be able to show you how you are wrong.
lets start with the observance of speciation.
Seriously? Is this your best one?
Examples of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Even many creationists will own up to speication.
these observations note adaptation and genetic change within their own family of classification. but the theory of evolution is based on the premise that a single celled organism can ultimately evolve into an infinite variety of multicellular organisms.
speciation is observed only to the point of a rearrangement of genetic material that already existed within the original species. but has not yet observed speciation in which any new genetic material was created.
imagine the pieces of an intricate puzzle being interchangeable. the original had its own pattern and created a particular image. but you could rearrange those pieces to make a new picture. odd thing is the new picture looks almost exactly like the old one, because it uses all of the same pieces.
can you provide any examples where a species created new genetic material?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?