Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Howdy,

Thanks for the theory name, it's been a few years since my last extensive bio course, and the rocks have more weight in areas where organs used to. lol

That was a fair response to my post, but (I think you are aware, so let me just clarify for clarification's sake) I was mainly trying to give a starting point to what makes a cell. A cell, in essence, is a self-defined unit with a membrane, cytoplasm, and organelles. The membrane and cytoplasm are the logical first step, which can easily be made the phospholipid vesicle I described, right? (By which I mean cytoplasm being enclosed in a phospholipid bubble.) That isn't life at that point, but you can enclose things inside of that. Organic molecules, like nucleic acids... It would provide a less-than-open, semi-permeable system in which those organic molecules could then interact. This is a method of creating the isolation necessary for complexity to develop chemically (counter-intuitive, because usually when we talk about mostly closed systems and entropy, we talk about "less complexity possible," but don't think of entropy as complexity here. Entropy always refers to energy state, and if there are two polar molecules in a sea of non-polar material, the lowest energy state might be for those molecules to join together, like the phospholipid bilayer). See, a cell needs all of the things it needs to live because it is alive. If you take things out of the cell, it doesn't mean it can't chemically and physically exist by means of physical processes, merely that it is not alive.
Classic example, is a virus alive? It's simpler than bacteria, perhaps more complex than a phospholipid vesicle. Made of similar things, though... Most people would say no, it isn't alive. It's essentially a complex chemical machine.

I hope this somewhat clarifies my previous post. Again, I'm not a biologist or an expert in cell anatomy... Not even in organic chemistry.

Cheers.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well my first questions is why do you think creationist believe God magics animals into earth ? That's absurd. First I have a question for you OP, if evolution is true should we not occasionally see new life start up all on its own? I mean life started that what according to evolutionist so I'd say life would still need to occasionally pop up from inorganic material. We don't see that happening ever.

Abiogenesis and evolution AREN'T the same thing. While yes, if the conditions arise again that cause life to appear on the planet, then yes new life will appear, BUT that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution will take over AFTER the life has appeared.

Now you just posted evidence against evolution. You said 99% of all species are extinct. The majority of species today are heading toward extinction thanks to entropy. So my point is what you are saying shows that this reality is in a state of decay. The total opposite of what evolution claims.

This has nothing to do with entropy. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. The Earth isn't a closed system. It gets most of its energy from the sun. So until the sun runs out of energy, the Earth doesn't have to worry about entropy.

God created us out of dust. The atoms that make us only form in the belly of stars meaning we are in a sense star dust. As for animals , I'd say God created the first archetypes, and DNA can handle the rest. God created DNA and made it sophisticated enough to create all the life today from those archetypes.

This is equally absurd. If this were true then the fossil record would show an increasing diversity of fossils as we dig deeper. We'd also see things like bears being discovered next to dinosaurs, which doesn't happen either.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I dont think God just magically drops new species, but care to provide evidence that a cell could appear without appearing as a whole? I would say the cell had to appear whole. A cell is a precise piece of biological machinery that uses a 4 bit code known as DNA that also had to come into existence all at once with all the information necessary in order for that machine operate properly and survive.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis so it is FAR from proven, but it didn't stat with a cell appearing whole. It started with the building blocks of RNA and DNA first, then evolved into RNA which then evolved into DNA which then evolved into cellular structures. When Abiogenesis talks about the origin of life, it is actually speaking about the origin of the BUILDING BLOCKS of life not life itself. Once the building blocks appeared, evolution could take over and evolve them into more complex things, life being one of them.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: peter vlar
How do you get the Egg(Evolution) without the Chicken(Lifes Origin)?

Life's origin clearly came before evolution. This isn't a chicken or egg debate.

Why do you assume I am looking at such small time spans? I dont care how long it takes for it occur again the fact is that if it occurred once based of of random chance(which by the way is mathematically absurd as in higher than 1 in 10^50) then it should occur again based of random chance.

Don't bring probability into this. The fact that life is on the planet says that the probability for it to appear is ABOVE 0, therefore given a large enough area and large enough time, it WILL happen. Probability actually works AGAINST your case. Just because the percentage is very close to 0 DOES NOT mean that it equals 0. I don't care how absurd the chances are.

How does it show that? Evolution states that over time everything gets more specialized correct? Yet, when certain specializations take hold other favorable traits lose part or all of their function. An example of this can be seen in experiments done on antibiotic resistance. As a bacteria gains a resistance to a drug it loses other favorable functions. As a result, when the drug is removed those bacteria die off and the previous unresistant bacteria again takes population majority as the resistant bacteria die off. If everything gets more specialized over time what does that mean as you rewind time? Everything is more adaptable because they are more versatile.

No, if you rewind time it just shows that the lifeforms you are looking at are adapted to a different environment. The fact that life STILL exists despite 99% of life being extinct is a testament to evolution, otherwise the first thing that could kill most life on the planet would eventually kill ALL life on the planet because the surviving species' would never adapt to overcome it.

Read this: thetruthwins.com...

I see a reality in a state of decay. A fallen world. Idc if you agree these are just my opinions.

That is just another application of evolution. There is no such thing as devolution. If humans are getting dumber, smaller and weaker then that just means they aren't utilizing the functions for intelligence, height, and strength. It doesn't mean they are in a state a decay. Humans are just evolving into something else which happens to be dumber.

"In the time of chimpanzees, I wasn't evolved from a monkey. I was created by the one true God." - Beck, if he believed in Creationism.

Abiogenesis and evolution AREN'T the same thing. While yes, if the conditions arise again that cause life to appear on the planet, then yes new life will appear, BUT that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution will take over AFTER the life has appeared.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am quite aware of that. However, If evolution is true, and no creator of life is necessary then life must have arisen randomly from something completely unknown. If this is the case I see no reason(if completely absurd probabilities aren't taken into account as you do with evolution) why new life shouldn't rise again against all odds just as it did the first time. I am not saying this is a frequent even but we should see evidence of it in the fossil record and things like that. Evolution will take over? Evolution isn't a force it has no will.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis so it is FAR from proven, but it didn't stat with a cell appearing whole. It started with the building blocks of RNA and DNA first, then evolved into RNA which then evolved into DNA which then evolved into cellular structures. When Abiogenesis talks about the origin of life, it is actually speaking about the origin of the BUILDING BLOCKS of life not life itself. Once the building blocks appeared, evolution could take over and evolve them into more complex things, life being one of them.

Problem. RNA doesn't self replicate. DNA has never been shown to exist in nature outside of a cell. As you said hypothesis so I won't dog it to much but its a bad one. Why? DNA itself implies that their is an intelligence behind it. How? Ok, lets say you get in your car and your mom left you directions to a party. You read the note and first it says, "Drive five miles north." Do you think its possible to reduce the information from those scratches on paper conveyed to you by your mom in terms of physical and chemistry? I think not because it is abstract and implies an intelligent being as its Creator.

Now lets go back to cells. During protein synthesis, an mRNA molecule copies a DNA molecule and carries it to a ribosome, and the ribosome then takes in the necessary information from the 4 bitcode its been given and follows the instructions its given to make whatever protein its been told to make. Now do you think its possible to reduce the information conveyed from the mRNA molecule(the note) to the ribosome(you) in terms of physics and chemistry? Once again abstract information is portrayed and once again it should imply intelligence behind it. Does it prove God? No, but it does prove that life have an intelligent beginning imo.

This has nothing to do with entropy. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. The Earth isn't a closed system. It gets most of its energy from the sun. So until the sun runs out of energy, the Earth doesn't have to worry about entropy.

Isaac Asimov defines the First Law of Thermodynamics as follows:

"To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’ When the total quantity of something does not change, we say that it is conserved. The two statements given above, then, are two ways of expressing ‘the law of conservation of energy.’ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."
The entire universe is a closed system because the total energy is conserved.

Now to say that the laws of energy have nothing to do with evolution is not intellectually honest. All processes are energy conversion processes, and seeing as how everything in this reality is a kind of "process" then it deems that the laws of energy apply even to evolution which needs energy in order to function.


I am running late for work so I have to stop, but I will finish responding later.

a reply to: rupertg

The music artist Beck? Is that who you mean?

He's a lifelong scientologist. Now there is a religion which almost makes the creationists look good..

I doubt you mean my favourite Beck, Jeff Beck, the awesome guitarist.

Of course, you may mean Glenn Beck, the right wing propagandist who recently lost his mind and who now claims he is some prophet of God. In which case, hilarity will no doubt ensue..

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.

Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.

And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..

In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..

The dating of rocks is not just a theory. Radiometric dating

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I am quite aware of that. However, If evolution is true, and no creator of life is necessary then life must have arisen randomly from something completely unknown. If this is the case I see no reason(if completely absurd probabilities aren't taken into account as you do with evolution) why new life shouldn't rise again against all odds just as it did the first time. I am not saying this is a frequent even but we should see evidence of it in the fossil record and things like that. Evolution will take over? Evolution isn't a force it has no will.

First off, this thread isn't about abiogenesis, but if you must know obviously the conditions that caused abiogenesis to happen don't exist on the planet anymore. This can be seen since scientists are having problems replicating abiogenesis. Though it can be said that if scientists DO manage to replicate abiogenesis and the lifeforms created don't die off or the scientists don't kill them off, evolution will take over. This would also mean that all life on earth WOULDN'T have come from a common ancestor, but rather two of them. But that isn't the case yet and is all conjecture.

Problem. RNA doesn't self replicate. DNA has never been shown to exist in nature outside of a cell. As you said hypothesis so I won't dog it to much but its a bad one. Why? DNA itself implies that their is an intelligence behind it. How? Ok, lets say you get in your car and your mom left you directions to a party. You read the note and first it says, "Drive five miles north." Do you think its possible to reduce the information from those scratches on paper conveyed to you by your mom in terms of physical and chemistry? I think not because it is abstract and implies an intelligent being as its Creator.

Those are assumptions, there is no proof that DNA is an example of a greater intelligence. For all we know, DNA is just a product of the unique properties of the carbon atom.

Now lets go back to cells. During protein synthesis, an mRNA molecule copies a DNA molecule and carries it to a ribosome, and the ribosome then takes in the necessary information from the 4 bitcode its been given and follows the instructions its given to make whatever protein its been told to make. Now do you think its possible to reduce the information conveyed from the mRNA molecule(the note) to the ribosome(you) in terms of physics and chemistry? Once again abstract information is portrayed and once again it should imply intelligence behind it. Does it prove God? No, but it does prove that life have an intelligent beginning imo.

You do realize that this thread wasn't made to discuss god(s) existence right? I made it to discuss the alternate idea to evolution. If God created life and uses DNA to help replicate it, then so be it. That doesn't disprove evolution though.

Isaac Asimov defines the First Law of Thermodynamics as follows:

"To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’ When the total quantity of something does not change, we say that it is conserved. The two statements given above, then, are two ways of expressing ‘the law of conservation of energy.’ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make."
The entire universe is a closed system because the total energy is conserved.

Entropy is defined in the second law of thermodynamics though.

Now to say that the laws of energy have nothing to do with evolution is not intellectually honest. All processes are energy conversion processes, and seeing as how everything in this reality is a kind of "process" then it deems that the laws of energy apply even to evolution which needs energy in order to function.

You misunderstand what I meant. I'm not specifically saying that it doesn't apply. I'm saying that since the earth receives most of its energy from the sun, you cannot look at JUST the earth and apply the second law of thermodynamics since it has an outside source of energy. You'd have to look at the earth AND the sun as a system. Though even that would be flawed since the earth also receives energy from distant stars and galactic events. But as long as the sun is producing energy, the living creatures on earth won't be subjected to entropy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We must also remember that the theory of evolution was devised to explain speciation not the origin of life.

Remember the title of Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection". And the biggest words on the original title page (and what has become the shorthand title for the work ever since) are:

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

It's meant to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Not its genesis.

And, so pendants don't jump down my throat, yes there's also an alternate title on that title page, printed in still smaller letters, it reads: "Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Surely you can see the point in bringing up abiogenesis in an evolution argument? You are all smart individuals. The whole point of Creationism is that God started life. God is the creator. Step 1 on how we are all here today is life starting. Without the first spark or breath of life starting Evolution is not even a player in the game. Evolutionists have no answer for this and instead want to completely ignore the topic and skip to step 2 which is the diversity of life on the planet. For me as a Creationist Step 2 is not as important - with the exception that man was formed separately from the animals as indicated in Genesis. If God created one cell that eventually evolved into a bear, or one bear that evolved to all the types of bears, or individually created each bear species, of if He even made a million bears pop whole into existence - the point is God is the Creator.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Scientists (not evolutionists) DO have an answer for how life started. Actually they have several answers, but they are all hypotheses. The reason the origin of life isn't discussed when talking about evolution is because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists. The science to discuss the origin of life is completely different. But don't pretend like there isn't an answer or that scientists don't want to find the answer. And man didn't form separately from other animals. Man evolved from apes. We have tons of evidence to corroborate this.

Though I'm curious, do you believe God created life and let evolution take over? I mean this is really the only valid way left that God would interact with life that science hasn't disproved. And that is only because science's answers for how life started aren't theories yet. Though I'm willing to bet that the most likely outcome for God's existence is that he just pushed a button or whatever that made the universe go into action and all then let all the various processes throughout the universe take over from there and develop the universe.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Surely you can see the point in bringing up abiogenesis in an evolution argument? You are all smart individuals. The whole point of Creationism is that God started life. God is the creator. Step 1 on how we are all here today is life starting. Without the first spark or breath of life starting Evolution is not even a player in the game. Evolutionists have no answer for this and instead want to completely ignore the topic and skip to step 2 which is the diversity of life on the planet. For me as a Creationist Step 2 is not as important - with the exception that man was formed separately from the animals as indicated in Genesis. If God created one cell that eventually evolved into a bear, or one bear that evolved to all the types of bears, or individually created each bear species, of if He even made a million bears pop whole into existence - the point is God is the Creator.

It makes sense for creationist to talk about it. Not evolutionary biologists. So talk about.

What mechanisms does God use to create? What might be the markers for those mechanisms? Conceive some experiments to look for and identify those markers.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Surely you can see the point in bringing up abiogenesis in an evolution argument? You are all smart individuals. The whole point of Creationism is that God started life. God is the creator. Step 1 on how we are all here today is life starting. Without the first spark or breath of life starting Evolution is not even a player in the game. Evolutionists have no answer for this and instead want to completely ignore the topic and skip to step 2 which is the diversity of life on the planet. For me as a Creationist Step 2 is not as important - with the exception that man was formed separately from the animals as indicated in Genesis. If God created one cell that eventually evolved into a bear, or one bear that evolved to all the types of bears, or individually created each bear species, of if He even made a million bears pop whole into existence - the point is God is the Creator.

Sorry, but bringing up abiogenesis (a hypothesis on how life started) has nothing to do with genetic mutations and natural selection. That is the mechanism in which evolution works. Evolution defenders don't address it because it's not proven, and you can't have genetic mutations without genes. The life has to already be there before this can occur. Genetic mutations didn't create life, so it's a completely different concept. Evolution is well understood, the origin of life is not.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.

Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.

And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..

In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..

The dating of rocks is not just a theory. Radiometric dating

Of course it's a theory since you need a reference point/rock where you need to be sure 100% of its age. And that is not the case, because we just guess the age

originally posted by: Hellas

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.

Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.

And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..

In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..

The dating of rocks is not just a theory. Radiometric dating

Of course it's a theory since you need a reference point/rock where you need to be sure 100% of its age. And that is not the case, because we just guess the age

Nope you don't need a rock that you know the exact age of to get a good radiometric date for. Radiometric dating measures the radioactive decay of the elements within the rock which we can show through half-lives. If we know that the rock started with X amount of a certain radioactive isotope with half-life A and there is only Y amount of the isotope left, and the age of the rock is time T then we can easily use A, Y, and X to find T. It's all math. The hardest part of that equation would be finding X, but we can do that by studying the percentage that the isotope we are measuring appears in a newly formed rock.

a reply to: Hellas

Howdy,
Being an avid fan of the geological sciences, I'd like it very much if you'd take a listen to what I have to say. Do be aware that I do not have a degree in the science, yet, but that I'm also more educated on geology, having seen more geology with my own eyes and having applied the theories behind it to make accurate predictions more times than most care to. So, perhaps I am biased, but I have seen these things in action and understand the processes, even if just in theory.
Now, of course you need a reference point. A rock that you can be sure 100% that the rock is the age it is. More precisely, I should say you need a reference mineral. More often then not, igneous sourced zircon can easily be used. (I make a distinction here between igneous and detrital zircon, as all zircon is originally developed in igneous melt, but owing to the toughness of the mineral, it is often found in clastic sedimentary rocks. These detrital grains can usually give you a good age for the mineral, but the rock is younger than the mineral, as clastic rocks are made of weathered, eroded, and deposited mineral grains from other rocks...)
So, why zircon? Zircon, as I said, is a tough mineral. It's slightly harder than quartz, which is the dominant mineral in clastic rocks (and one of the toughest minerals in ordinary clastic rocks... ) so it can stick around for geologic periods of time... Sure, useful for clastics, but what about igneous? Well, crystallographers understand that the crystal lattice of zircon is pretty tough, too, but it can incorporate trace amounts of Th or Ur due to size and charge. What it cannot incorporate is Pb. Now, Pb is produced as a product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Now, using the experimentally derived decay rates of uranium, we can calculate the age based on a ratio of parental Ur and daughter Pb. This works best for fresh crystals(those that are unfractured), in igneous source. That's common enough... And this is but one of the potential dating methods of an igneous rock. We can use another to check this one...
A common igneous rock is granite (okay, common on Earth...). Granites contain a larger than average proportion of potassium (K) in their crystal structures. Some K (as you should be aware... bananas) is radioactive. When it decays, it produces inert Argon gas. (This is one of my favorite methods, as argon is a noble gas, nonreactive under most conditions.) Now, we can experimentally melt granites in crucibles and it has been observed that the argon leaves a melt. (As it should, being a gas lighter than the melt, it should differentiate based on density.) When it solidifies as rock, the argon once again becomes trapped in the rock/crystals. So, experimental data suggest we can use the ratio of potassium to radiogenic argon (which can be differentiated from nonradiogenic sources if contamination is feared) to determine age. Limitations on this would potentially be fractures with fluid movement and metamorphism. Both are easily recognized by a trained geologist, and other methods can be used to support the dates or check if they are accurate. One such method would be to compare the ratios of these two elements in all minerals of the rock that contain potassium and compare those ratios to each other. If unaltered, they should be relatively close (within the degree of uncertainty of the method.) If issues occur, you can use a different radiometric dating method and compare it to the others possible for that rock.
So, the power of radiometric dating does not come from a single source. It comes from the use of multiple sources that give the same exact answer. When they do not agree, we can rightly assume that the dates are meaningless, or have less meaning. One might be correct, as conditions might be correct as to allow for one elemental constituent escape while not affecting the elements of another dating method.
Here is a list of some possible dating methods and some limitations, as geologists are well aware that all methods are not suitable for all rocks...
en.wikipedia.org...
Cheers.

a reply to: hydeman11

First of all star for you for your effort! I appreciate it that you took your time to explain it to me.

Since I'm no geologist, all I can do is use my logic. Now, all that you've said, is used to date those rocks that we know of and how it is done. With the radioactive stuff and decay etc. But who's to say that this apllies to the really old rocks? I mean it's fine for the ones we truly know that they are i.e. 200 years old. To be able to use those methods you mentioned, we must know everything that surrounded that era. To measure the decay etc. we must know the exact climate conditions back than, the environment, humidity etc. (since those factors play a major role for all the chemical processes to happen right?)

Ans since we can't know what was going on, we take a model that is known to us and compare it to those rocks. Which in fact is guessing and so we put a couple of zeros behind a number, which is just another way of saying, this rock is older and this one seems older..

a reply to: Hellas

Howdy,
Thanks for being open-minded about this.
That's the beauty of radioactive decay. It is not a chemical process dependent upon humidity, chemical environments, or climate. It is a nuclear process, and one that as far as has been measured (I'm reasonably sure, but cannot provide a source... Here is the only arguable issue, too.) by physicists to be consistent for each radioisotope under controlled conditions. As I said, the only thing that could be used to argue against these nuclear processes would be to show that radioactive decay rates are not constant. Many people have tried to show this, but mainstream science rejects it, often because of improper protocol (too loosely controlled experiment, confirmation bias, ...)
You bring up an interesting point that I had not thought of that further provides evidence... See, igneous flows from modern volcanoes/volcanic activity can be measured using the same methods of radioactive decay, so yes, you do have absolutely knowable values. Thank you for pointing that out, as I was merely mentioning experimental data from crucible studies...
Now, yes, science is all based on models. You're absolutely correct. Scientists use observations from the field and experimentally derived data to make models that have predicative capabilities. Good models provide accurate predictions. The act of employing these models tests the validity of the model, so if one were to predict that the age of a rhyolite flow based on radioisotopic studies would be 57 years old (give or take some margin of error...), and you had historical documentation saying it was 55 years old, well, that'd be a sound model.
You bring up another interesting point, though... In the case of rocks, it might be harder to date younger rocks simply because you need to be more precise in your measurements. If the rock is younger than one half-life of the radioisotope your measuring, you might not be able to measure the daughter product simply because it is such a low proportion of the rock. That's kinda why one method doesn't fit all...
Now, if you want to discuss relative dating methods (by use of fossils and structure, mostly...), unconformities (large erosional surfaces in the rock record that indicate a local gap in sediment deposition and thus geological time), or something like the generation of metamorphic rocks with respect to pressure and temperature conditions, well, those models also point to large amounts of time... An old earth. The beauty of the geological model(and really the beauty of all scientific models that have been labeled theories) is that they have great predictive power and are supported by evidence by completely independent means. (As in, more than one scientific fact points to this theory being accurate.)
I will mention in full disclosure that most geology is based on one simple assumption... Uniformitarianism. Simply put, the assumption is that the laws of nature acted the same in the past (as in, gravity still existed, magnetism acted the same way, chemistry worked the same way... Basically all observable things now like, decay rates which seem to be constant, were acting the same way...). You're right that we can't go back in time to observe the past, so we can't know for sure... But look at the alternative. Either we keep uniformitarianism, or we lose ALL of the predictive capability of our model. No more ability to find oil, gold, coal, or fossils. No more predictions at all. And seeing as the laws of nature have remained constant as long as they have been measured, this is not an unfounded or unwarranted assumption. It is an assumption supported by a large amount of independent data.
Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phantom423

Historical documents (which the Bible actually is, and has been proven to be) cannot be compared with fossil evidence dug out of rocks. Nor are historical documents the same as scientific theories. Apples and oranges.

No, evolution is NOT proven, not even close.

Ok - I'm ready. Do you want to debate the evidence? Statements like "evolution is NOT proven" are not enough.
We'll debate the hard evidence, point by point. Agreed?

Regarding the Bible and rocks, you were quite impressed with the human footprint and dinosaur footprint found together (or so you think anyway). An historical document can be a fraud too. No one witnessed the event so anything is possible.

What do you mean by "the Bible and rocks"?

The "hard evidence" isn't really all that telling. Basically, we have fossils, and scientists make guesses. it's like trying to set out a family history by looking through an incomplete photo album with no labels. You can guess, but that's all it will ever be.

The footprint is real enough. Dino prints from that location have been verified, yet the places that did said verification refused to even look at the mammal prints or the human one. "Vandals" did attempt to destroy them, however. Why would legitimate scientists refuse to look at evidence? They could have looked and tested and showed a fake easily enough, but they refused to come out. That's quite telling. That isn't very scientific, either. Science should be seeking answers, not merely looking to confirm old theories.

Historical documents do have ways to be verified. When very old, other documents that collaborate the initial one are good evidence, and various archaeological finds can also verify documents. With evolution, we have evidence that contradicts. Layers are not in the same order everywhere, trees bisect said payers, which should be impossible, if the layers were placed as commonly believed. There are many reasons to question evolution, and I read about those reasons in various places that were PRO-evolution. That is why I started asking questions, and having doubts. A logical and critical look at ALL the data demands questions, and shows massive flaws.