A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

I wish that AngryAtTheBlindBelief guy would come back. I felt like he was on the verge of figuring it all out.

I remember that the moment my brain finally pieced together the beautiful simplicity of natural selection, was one of the single most exhilarating "Ah ha!" moments of my entire life. Things made so much goddamn sense after that. Light at the end of the Catholic School tunnel.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Because confirmation bias.

Hell is a constant threat lurking around the corner for Christians, they'll grab hold of anything that may seem to support their belief, no matter how weak those things are.

a reply to: TechUnique

These "failings" of evolution were addressed ad nauseum in your previous two evolution threads. One of which reached nearly 100 pages of repetition. How come you never address the rebuttals to your claims on this subject?

originally posted by: TechUnique
People hate the idea of God. It's quite sad really, especially considering that a lot of Atheists see the real possible for there being a God, they just hate the idea of what that God represents in their eyes.

I have not met a single person that hates the idea of God. Perhaps they are out there, I don't know. Hating what the Christian God (or any other) represents is another story and I agree there are people who feel that way.

Atheists do not see the real possibility for there being a God. That would make them something other than atheists. There are atheists who do not deny the possibility but not because they "see" anything.

Organisms can form on land too, Some organisms bridge between land and water like amphibians.

But it's more likely in the case of evolution we evolved from mud rather than say directly from the *Ocean*.
But that being said. I still think humans in particular are a special case.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TechUnique

Imature?.
Better that than ignorant to everything but a man made version of god.

Ok so I'm ignorant of everything other than a man made version of God? You draw that conclusion based on my disbelief in evolution theory?

All versions of god ARE man made...

a reply to: TechUnique

You want evidence for speciation?

How about modern whales? We know from the fossil record that the ancestors of whales had legs. If you look at the skeletons of modern whales , they still have a pelvis and finger and toe bones. They changed over a long time span to adapt to a life in the ocean. That is a pretty clear sign of macro evolution.

The fact that we can date fossils by the layers of ground we find them in is another clear way of showing that animals which didn't exist at one time, and clearly exist in a specific window of time, and then are not found at later times, although similar animals are found before and after that window and some are found to still exist even in modern times.
Dinosaurs/birds.

a reply to: TechUnique

I suspect that even more people will flame you for reposting a two year old Ray Comfort video that has not only been thrashed ad nauseum here on ATS, but that even other Christians think is a crock(oduck) of male bovine fecal matter.

Good luck.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TechUnique

You want evidence for speciation?

How about modern whales? We know from the fossil record that the ancestors of whales had legs. If you look at the skeletons of modern whales , they still have a pelvis and finger and toe bones. They changed over a long time span to adapt to a life in the ocean. That is a pretty clear sign of macro evolution.

The fact that we can date fossils by the layers of ground we find them in is another clear way of showing that animals which didn't exist at one time, and clearly exist in a specific window of time, and then are not found at later times, although similar animals still exist even in modern times.
Dinosaurs/birds.

Good morning. Sorry my bed was calling me. Very interesting reading to catch up on this morning. I'm still not convinced though.

A few problems... Whales having legs and toes etc. If the evolutionary process is such a marvel how does it create something as magnificent as a giraffe neck which is an uber complex item and yet can't drop a couple of toes?

Evolution is great I see how it could work, absolutely, but the facts are not there. The actual science is missing for me. A giraffe evolved due to food scarcities and one had a longer neck leading it to eat higher foods. Okay. The giraffe was not the only animal on the plains. If all the others survived by eating ground plants etc then there is no reason that the giraffe would have to look up at all.

An Ostrich also has a long neck. Same idea? One was born with a long neck, ate taller foods, passed it on. Why not shrink instead so that it can fly like other birds? It's just too far fetched for me.

If humans started out with fur, we are told we got rid of it due to creating clothing and covering up, therefore dropping the requirment for fur. Problem with that is if we have fur and are completely covered, keeping us warm like all other animals we would never develop clothing as that would simply make us far too hot to begin with.

Now on the other hand, I've been told repeatedly that creatures do not choose to evolve, it just happens. So one day a human was born without hair and that somehow was more efficient keeping their bloodline alive while most others died out etc etc. That doesn't make sense to me either. All mammals have hair. Lots. A coyote that lives where its hot has hair. It seems as though the survival of the fittest doesn't apply to humans at all.

There are simply too many gaps in evolution for it to work. Yes I agree it's a nice idea. Doesn't involve a higher power etc. It's just lacking a lot of science in my opinion.

Now from the comment above, dating fossils by rocks. Scientists do use circular reasoning. They date fossils with rocks and the other way around and are very good at making thing fit, excusing things that do not. Carbon dating has been shown to be very inacurate also. Yet it is pushed as exact fact.

There are numerous discoveries that do not fit the status quo. Elongated skulls, giants in the grand canyon. Proven items. The giants are in old newspapers. With Smithsonian whistle lowers saying they did destroy them.

If evolution is such fact, why is there a need to hide, cover up and dismiss or fire people or items that do not fit the mould?

I am not religious. I simply pick a topic that I see problems with. Evolution being one of them.

a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

You are stuck in the old "Survival of the Fittest" paradigm. Evolution has been show to not entirely work that way. It's more a survival of the adaptations that don't get you killed. That doesn't necessarily mean it is the BEST mutation for the job, just that it gets the job done. Also, keep in mind that mutations aren't directional. A mutation could come along that takes the species on a completely different evolutionary path because it evolve that adaptation when it needed another or something. Another point to keep in mind that you only evolve the things you need for the species' environment. So the mutations that make an animal excel in the jungle, could be VERY detrimental somewhere else.

a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

'giants found in the grand canyon'

Yeah.....seems you get all your scientific information from religious creationist source.

Have they found unicorn skeletons?

a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

Look into the nerve in the neck of a giraffe, it proves evolution.
On phone at work so can't link it.
It really shows how evolution can be a liitle odd and shows that if designed the designer needs firing.
Its called the laryngeal nerve look it up and if you can find an autopsy of a giraffe. ....fascinating.

Isn't this the same video that was shown to be heavily edited a long time ago in another thread? I can't remember the interviewers name, but he was shown to have manipulated the audio of the video on numerous occasions. He does it by never being filmed himself in the videos and adding in the questions during editing to make it sound as if he is asking something else than what he really asked the interviewees during filming.

I will find the original thread on this and the complete debunking of this guy.....he is a total BS artist from what I remember.

If this video is what you are going to use as some sort of prof of anything, I would suggest you investigate the videographer and his editing follies....may open your eyes to how he can only get these folks to look bad by manipulating the actual audio.

Like I said, pay close attention to the fact you never once see the interviewer on camera asking any questions....all you see is a mic and the people being interviewed.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't count on the OP to actually research his sources. As long as it agrees with his confirmed beliefs then it is a valid source in his eyes. The OP does these kind of threads all the time then skips out on them after his "evidence" is picked apart.

Ah....here it is....it was Ray Comfort...total scam artist like that Ken Ham fellow.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and another thread that discusses the same guy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And my original response to this video showing how he manipulates his audio and his interviewees....

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Here are a couple examples of the ways Ray Comfort manipulates in his videos:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't count on the OP to actually research his sources. As long as it agrees with his confirmed beliefs then it is a valid source in his eyes. The OP does these kind of threads all the time then skips out on them after his "evidence" is picked apart.

Yeah...it is par for the course from the other 2 threads I linked to that showed the manipulative ways of Ray Comfort....the OP's in any of them have some major issue with being able to show that these videos are manipulated after the fact, and adding in different audio than was originally recorded.

Gotta love when all you have to do is reference 2 other, older threads and don't have to rehash everything all over again....makes life a bit easier on ATS.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

'giants found in the grand canyon'

Yeah.....seems you get all your scientific information from religious creationist source.

Have they found unicorn skeletons?

If you have nothing constructive kindly go back to your video games.

As far as I have read the US Supreme Court was involved in the Smithsonian incident. It will of course be thrown into the realm of crazy because it doesn't fit the norm.

That is my problem. The second something doesn't fit it is dismissed. Science bends and flexes for everything while it fits within the constraints of normalcy. If it doesn't fit. Destroy it.

Anyway unicorns? Unicorn fossils have never been found but they are in stories. The missing link between many millions of creatures has never been found either, just as relevant?

Please don't answer that. Just bring something to the table or sit this one out.

a reply to: TechUnique

While I fully agree that evolution is a theory (but a scientific one with a lot of circumstantial evidence to support it), you must admit that the Bible's version of creation is just as theoretical, but lacking in the same amount of scientific, evidentiary support to back its claims.

If your implication is that you shouldn't listen to the findings of a study with ongoing research that often furthers the support of the theory being factual, and instead, we should trust the written, millenia-old word of people who didn't even understand the origins of lightning or how large and diverse the earth actually is, you'll have to excuse me while I chuckle and move on.

A word of advice--instead of trying to prove a theory wrong, you should present evidence to support your theory and just ask for thoughts on it.

a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

A giraffe evolved due to food scarcities and one had a longer neck leading it to eat higher foods. Okay. The giraffe was not the only animal on the plains. If all the others survived by eating ground plants etc then there is no reason that the giraffe would have to look up at all.

An Ostrich also has a long neck. Same idea? One was born with a long neck, ate taller foods, passed it on. Why not shrink instead so that it can fly like other birds? It's just too far fetched for me.

in both cases the organism gets an advantage - rather than the giraffe having to compete for the grass with all the other grass eaters, it opened up a new niche - one where it didn't have to compete

and that is a key feature of the evolutionary process - there is not just an advantage of being better - there is also an advantage in being able to utilise resources others can't - it's one of the main drivers of speciation

if you look throughout the animal kingdom there are very many closely related and similar species that have evolved slightly differently in order not to compete for resources

it's one reason why we have the mind boggling diversity of life

the ostrich actually lost it's ability to fly - natural selection dictated that the population that got bigger and faster but lost the ability to fly was successful - it works and ostriches are proof

So one day a human was born without hair and that somehow was more efficient keeping their bloodline alive while most others died out etc etc.

man probably 'lost his hair' because he learned how to make clothes - it wasn't needed for warmth - would you fancy living in africa with a permanent fur coat on? you'd get very hot during the day but you'd need it during the night otherwise you'd freeze - by inventing clothes we allowed our bodies to become tolerant of a greater range of climates - a big advantage

we actually have as many hairs as a chimp - it's just that the hair on most of our body has got much shorter and finer - the advantage is already mentioned

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

Look into the nerve in the neck of a giraffe, it proves evolution.
On phone at work so can't link it.
It really shows how evolution can be a liitle odd and shows that if designed the designer needs firing.
Its called the laryngeal nerve look it up and if you can find an autopsy of a giraffe. ....fascinating.

That is a very interesting read. Another hot evolutionist/creationist topic on its own it seems.

Even in humans it is wrapped around the heart, totally inefficient. I can see why the survival of the fittest model is being phased out to survival of whoever survives

My interest in the idea of evolution is the 'how' from the beginning. I mean the very beginning. There are so many functions that need to happen together to keep an organism alive that I cannot fathome how evolution would have just begun. This takes away from all other aspects.

I see that evolutionists take an existing animal and work out how it may have reached the point it's at. Such as a giraffe. Was a horse, had a longer neck, slightly. Continue the line and you have a giraffe. Okay. But let's go way back. When the heart was being created. Was it pumping blood? Was the blood falling out because it didn't evolve to close all the ports. How did theanimal survive during that phase? If it was already alive and well while the heart was being created why did it need to create a heart (not that it chose too)?

These are the questions that science fails to answer as I see it. This is where evolutionists need to have a little faith that that's the way it happened, now we move on.

I'm not saying God put us here or aliens etc. Don't care. I like answers. If all scientists have is speculation on the above then it is not science, it is faith until it can be proven and duplicated.

I hate that anyone that questions evolution is attacked or insulted quote often. Is that due to a fear on the part of the evolutionist that their world may be turned on its head?