It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 20
26
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Statement: Everything has a beginning and something that created it, stuff doesn't just evolve, someone has to create it...ergo, there's a creator.


Well all the elements past helium were created in early stars going super nova, so one could say stars were the creators, but are they intelligent in design?




If the statement were true, something had to create this god creature.


Please explain to me why?



The whole "something HAD to create us, ergo there's a creator" is total hogwash!


So does time even exist outside our universe? Our universe seems to have had a beginning and one day an ending. Everything in it seems to begin and then end, but what is it like outside our universe, what if there is no beginning or end to anything.

Is this concept to complex for many of you to understand?


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xtrozero]




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

So OT which one is more outrageous or makes sense (even to 5th grader)?

Life can ONLY come from NON-LIFE by BLIND CHANCE?

Or

Life can ONLY come from LIFE by an Intelligent Creator?

Ty,
edmc2



Ed,

Speaking of the 5th grader dude..... www.gofishproductions.net...


"you might be a red neck, if you get that's rhetorical" but then again what do poor ole WV-ians know?



Keep up the good work, you are reaching more than you know!


I'll trust this guy in the end www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Is this concept to complex for many of you to understand?



Regarding time?

Nope, I get it time is not apart of ETERNITY...

Illustration:
Time was NEO's world

Eternity was MORPHIOUS'

A tad more here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   


This is a Photon.

One of the most abundant forms of energy in the cosmos.

The picture above expresses maxwell's magnetic and electric field equations that determine the properties of the photon.


Do you see the harmony?

The mathematical precision of a linear, self mediated dual wavefront that expresses itself as a ray, as opposed to an expanding sphere of energy like other waves? (Like Ocean Waves)


When I look at this.... I wonder how anyone can think that There was not an Intelligent Designer of the universe...


And then I see people like you.



Who are trying to state, that the *CREATOR OF THE ENTIRE FABRIC OF REALITY* would be so....


*CRUDE* as to introduce DNA into a SINGLE LIFEFORMS, HALFWAY THROUGH the Creation.....


What... DO you think that *GOD* has to *DEBUG* the Universe?




If you are saying that GOD is perfect... *AND* that god had to INTERFERE with the creation...



You are basically, Logically saying... that there IS NO GOD.



When We look at the Universe, we are NOT GOING TO FIND evidence of God's "Interference"


Everything we look at *WILL* look natural.



OR


You are calling GOD a poor Designer.





-Edrick



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
We can only understand what physics our universe works by, and within our universe we see beginnings and endings, and so we cannot comprehend the concept of always been here and always will be here.

So where is the problem? I think the problem is in our inability to comprehend…

So explain to me why God would need a creator, why does there need a beginning or end? I agree if he was within our universe he would need one and would need to live by our universal laws of physics.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Xtrozero]


That's a circular argument, friend. Working within a scientific framework your statement is utterly useless and could in fact be regarded as plainly stupid.

1) You ascertain we cannot comprehend it, yet here you are explaining what it must be like.

2) If it is beyond our comprehension, then it might as well not exist. This isn't Lovecraft, we're fully capable of comprehending the darndest things, and anything beyond our comprehension is either so far beyond our perceptions as to not matter anyway, or is just some doober in the internet trying to sound "deep."

3) If a creator-being exists in a plane of existence where there is no beginning and no end, then it would be unable to conceive of such notions and would be unable to create anything that conformed to these notions.

4) Multiple universe theory is more and more looking just like a bunch of baked physicists trying to get more grant money for their weed and pizza on the basis of "string theory." Their argument is circular too, "The only way our theory works is for there to be multiple universes, ergo there are multiple universes because our theory couldn't be wrong! Pass the Doritos, man."

5) The creator needs a creator by the bounds of the logic being imposed; if you're going to argue that the complexities of life demand a creator, then surely the creator must be complex as well, and so would need a creator... who needs a creator.. .who needs a creator. The only way to avoid this paradox is to arbitrarily decide a point where "turtles all the way down" stops, for no reason at all... conveniently ignoring of course ,that you have no proof of the existence of such things in the first place.

It's easy to be an expert on invisible immaterial unprovable incomprehensible beings. It's being an expert on reality that takes some learning and doing.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Note: this post is long as the information in links provided by nophun were long and many. A short reply won't suffice.

Nophun, I never ask you this:
Since there’s so many confusing definition of evolution as it relates to the origin of life, what do you think/believe is the most accurate definition of the evolution theory today?

Or is it abiogenesis evolution or just abiogenesis?

Back to your last post:


reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 05:55 PM by nophun
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by nophun
As for your statement that I was spinning what he said, no such motive on my part since I have the utmost respect for him and his work. As a matter of fact I've learned a lot from him growing up and still do along with other great men of science.

Thus the intent of the quote was to show that even him – a legendary Astrophysicist/biologist has to come to a conclusion that life requires a designer – be it of an alien origin or something else.


You said:

Alien and/or God the whole point of your OP is flawed. If something that "looks designed needs a designer", that designer needs a designer. Saying "He always existed. He always was" is doing nothing but waste time.


It is understandable why you said that “the whole point of your OP is flawed” because a simple logic that life begets life invalidates the evolution (abiogenesis) theory. So yes, I can see your point.

As for “Saying "He always existed. He always was" is doing nothing but waste time.” Of course, it is a waste of time to evolutionist because this concept is incompatible with the evolution theory at all levels. Furthermore an ‘always existing first cause’ puts the evolutionist’s often-used, illogical, nonsensical ad infinitum question “who created the creator of the creator of the creator?” to rest once and for all! It stops it right on its track!

But if one permits logic and common sense to be part of his reasoning in finding out the answer to the question ‘where God came from’ then the logical answer of “He Always Existed. He Always Was - the First Cause” becomes clear. It becomes clear also why it is the ULTIMATE answer, because the alternative (again) is NOTHING, absolutely nothing.
Also, the scriptures becomes more clearer to those who accept the logic of an Always-Existing Entity. It is clear as the mid-morning daylight when it says:
(in the American Standard Version bible)

“Jehovah is King for ever and ever” Psalm. 10:16

“Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, From everlasting and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.” – Psalm 41:13

“That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18

“Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” – Psalm 90:2

“Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and for that he is strong in power, not one is lacking.” -- Isaiah 40:26

“Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding.” – Isaiah 40:28

“Distil, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, that it may bring forth salvation, and let it cause righteousness to spring up together; I, Jehovah, have created it.” – Isaiah 45:18

“You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”—Rev 4:11 (NWT)
“and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created the heaven and the things that are therein,” – Rev 10:6

It is also true with the Origin of Life when it says:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)
A simple but elegant explanation indeed! Easy to understand and btw scientific!

How does evolution explain the origins of life again?

Now to help clarify this further let’s reason on it.
Consider the following key questions. It will help us understand the concept of an always-existing Entity:

We know E=mc2, that energy can be manipulated/transformed into matter - vise versa.

Question: was this original source of energy a living, intelligent personality? Or was it something inanimate, nonliving?
If we say living, then who is that intelligent personality? The obvious answer is a Creator – God.

If we say inanimate, nonliving then where did that energy come from?
Is it from nothing? If not, then the logical conclusion - it must be eternal. Correct?

Not according to scientific evidence (singularity). So if it’s not eternal then it must have a beginning. But according to evolution theory there’s no creator thus no source of life, no energy. In other words, by your logic (evolution) life came from nothing by chance or by plain luck. Correct?
So if I’m in your position, I see it too as a waste of time because you have no alternative but to believe that which is scientifically illogical and impossible: non-life begets life by chance. Agree?

Can you see the illogic of the evolution theory? I can!
Here’s some more.

Do you believe that space is infinite - no ending and no beginning? Evidence says yes.

What about the concept of infinity - mathematically and scientifically speaking does it exist! Evidence says yes.
What about the four fundamental physical forces: Gravity, Electromagnitism, Strong Nuclear Force and Weak Nuclear Force? I’m 100% sure you will agree with me that they exist.

But without these scientific terminologies to describe them, can you explain what they are? It will be very difficult to do so. Yet we are able to grasp them explain them w/o much problem even though we don’t fully understand them. We accept them as part of life, part of our existence.

Cont...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
So if these concepts are believable and logical, why do evolutionist then incapable of grasping and understanding the same concept - of an always-existing (infinite) first cause, an everlasting God?
My conclusion – blind Desire:

It is the DESIRE to eliminate the obvious – that life (by design) begets life; that life can’t come from nonlife.

It is the DESIRE to believe the theory of evolution as a fact (however illogical, however the evidences are incomplete and contradictory), because to believe otherwise is death to its very foundation – not a good alternative.

It is also the DESIRE to free oneself from the moral guidelines and moral responsibility demanded by a loving Creator.

It is also the DESIRE to be free from religion (worship) and declare oneself superior to God and be free from bible believing people (becomes atheism).

*It is imho BLIND DESIRE that makes people blind to good logic and common sense.

The commons sense that says there must have always been a causing power in existence— a thinking power, a person, to bring about all those things in nature.

A fact that is solidly affirmed by the 2nd most recognized and beloved person in the universe:

“Therefore Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple and said: “YOU both know me and know where I am from. Also, I have not come of my own initiative, but he that sent me is real,..” –John 7:28

“For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” -- Hebrews 9:24

“If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.” -- 1 Corinthians 15:44

“God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.” -- John 4:24

SO Scientifically, Logically and most of all Scripturally speaking – Yes, an Always-Existing Creator - GOd is a reality and no evolution theory can erase that fact (unless you replace it with blind Desire)!

Makes sense?

So it’s not a waste of time believing in an always-existing first cause – a Creator. Why?

Because, it also gives the answers to most if not all of life’s very important questions;
such as:
What is the ultimate purpose and meaning of life?

Why is there death? What happens when we die?

If there’s a loving Creator, why is there so much suffering?

Why do we get sick, grow old and die (while a giant sequoia trees can live more than a thousand years).

Why do we have a brain with a capability to transcend space and time and store so much information yet can only live up to 80-90 years or 100 years.

Will life on earth eventually end? What’s in store for the future?

Does the Creator - Jehovah God/Yahweh care about his creation?

And so much more (please let me know if you want to know the real answers to the above questions.)

Evolution on the other hand – can only say about life: do the best you can, take all you can out of life, make the best you can out of life because life is short and has no ultimate meaning.

Survival of the fittest to some – an intellectually unsatisfying answer imho.

So nophun, what’s the alternative if there’s no Creator of Life? Still think it’s a waste of time?

*Note: Blind Faith sadly is present also in religion – this becomes evident when the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ are not followed and especially when traditions along with unscriptural doctrines of men are accepted and taught as if it’s the word of God. Some use the mercy of God as a license (once save always save) to commit sins and show unchristian conducts. But those who do not confess their sins and don’t want to change are fully rejected and condemned by the God and the lord Jesus Christ (Matt 7:13, 14, 21; 22, 23; 15:1-9; Isaiah 29:13)

Next you said:


Carl Sagan once said "If we say "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here?"

Nophun, we can’t say if "God" was always here, why not say the universe was always here?" because the Universe had a “beginning” (Gen 1:1). To quote

Prof. of Astronomy Robert Jastrow: “You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” Unless you disagree with his statement (btw - the Prof used to be a skeptic of the ‘big-bang’ concept then changed his mind).

Next:

I said

“BTW: Any idea why these statements are not brought up in schools nor on approved school textbooks? Could it be that somehow it might put doubts to the minds of students and start questioning the 'evidence'?


You said:

Most of them are out of context or completely fabricated. The Carl Sagan quote you posted is a good example of this.


Didn’t do such a thing, here, let me repost the intent of the quote:


[I]“As for your statement that I was spinning what he said, no such motive on my part since I have the utmost respect for him and his work. As a matter of fact I've learned a lot from him growing up and still do along with other great men of science.
Thus the intent of the quote was to show that even him – a legendary Astrophysicist/biologist has to come to a conclusion that life requires a designer – be it of an alien origin or something else. Nor the intent was to show that he a 'theist' (in fact he an atheist). If you read throughout my postings with his name in tag – the subject always deals with the origin of life, not to show or spin that somehow he believed in a divine being. Reason also why I asked if you have any idea of what he meant by a “Great Designer”.

Then you said:

As for the "the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" quote I have no way of checking that source, but I do know the statement "still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" statement is complete bull#.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I recommend you check out phylogenetic ancestry of the horse for a really good example.

en.wikipedia.org...

Moving on.


Cont..



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Whenever something is proven someone decides they think they can disprove it.... When evolution was suggested first it was just a theory, then several years later we observed micro organisms evolving..... So then it turns into fact but its not all fact because we haven't watched a human evolve in front of our eyes...... The creationist hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper with every new scientific discovery, not that evolution contradicts creation but you think trying to disprove it will prove your god is real somehow and give you meaning in life.....



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
[qoute]
? Q: how much of a 'fossil' evidence is available to us today since the conception of the evolution theory? Any idea? With the passage of time, surely we should have enuff evidence to silence any doubters.


We are still on this ?
Is elephants good enough ?
locolobo.org...
You have obviously never actually spent 10 minutes to look and see what fossils we have .. have you ?”


On the contrary, there are so many books and websites out there that purported to be authority on the subject (the origins of life). But as soon as you dig into them, you will discover that much of the information are just figments of imagination mostly based on inaccurate data, incorrect hypothesis, pre-conceived ideas and most all incomplete specimens (i.e. fossils).

Here, do you agree with this statement that “one of the interesting things about evolution and paleontology is that its sometimes nearly impossible to tell whether you're looking at two different kinds of animals, or just two different version of the same thing. Because the way evolution works, everything can be described as another version of anything else you want to put next to it.” Agree?

In other words, evolution is very subjective - it all depends on how the “experts” including the ’artist’ interprets the data (fossil record).
Thus any evolutionist can make statements or assumptions like the one quoted below and considered as scientific and ‘very intelligent. Agree?

Here’s a quote on “Evolution of Elephants”:


Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...


Question:
Is the artist’s conception of the “mother of elephant” shown below based on scientific fact or imagination?



What about this one below? Was this one the ancestors of the modern elephant? Is the “artwork” based on complete fossil records or a partial or just on imagination?



(hey – this gives me an idea of new thread)

Continuing…

You said:

“You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.”


Well, after going to voluminous statements, dissertation upon dissertations, and pages of assumptions on top of other assumptions. I found this disclaimer:


“This site is an amateur endeavor to promote science, but is not a scientific resource. 
Readers interested in further investigation of either biological evolution or the origin of life
are encouraged to visit the University of California at Berkeley's exemplary web-primer.”


Are you aware of this statement nophun? Do you consider this site a good scientific resource since you recommended it as a “REAL science … web page?

BTW, any idea what your fellow evolutionist will do to me if I use information coming from sites that supports Creation? They will enthusiastically say, the information is ‘hogwash’. Why some even complained when I quoted a contradictory statement of a well respected evolutionist’s from the 80’s. I was accused of providing old information as if it’s longer valid. Imagine that!

Anyway, after going thru the sites, I eventually stopped reading because the story line is always the same. I got bored (sorry). But I was hoping that somehow it will reveal something very convincing about evolution and factual some like:

If the evolution theory is founded in facts; the fossil record reveals beginnings of new structures in living things. We found fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs, fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. We also found reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

Fact is, after going thru much of the statements, the fossil records presented are still INCOMPLETE and did not PROVIDE any PROOF OF EVOLUTION (whether Macro or Micro)

  Here’s just one evidence of the many statements I found: On the subject of Helicoprion


“In any case, Helicoprion exemplifies some of the difficulties involved in reconstructing ancient creatures from only a few clues.”


Were you aware of this?

www.elasmo-research.org...

Many of the pictures shown in your sites purporting to prove evolution are mostly based on the so-called expert's best guess.

Here’s what the author of one the site said:


“Below is a sculpture I did of Elginerpeton, what I consider to be the real-life animal depicted on all the Darwinfish bumper stickers. I did this piece a few years ago, when I didn't know so much about them. But I had the assistance (via email) of paleoartist, Richard Hammond, and the famous Cambridge professor of vertebrate paleontology, Dr. Jennifer Clack, the world's foremost expert on the fauna of that period.  We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape. But this is one of several contemporary species in this apparent sequence, and they all look about the same. So I've made this one consistent with its siblings. Notice that both dorsal fins and the anal fin are absent from this rendering, as they are on all similar species from this class. And as is typical, the tail fin is not fluked. The first fish with fluked tails lived alongside this one. But their tails are still obviously quite primitive, like a salamander's tail. Most sarcopterygiian fish never had a more fish-like tail than Elginerpeton did.”


Will you say the image of the Darwinfish accurate when “We don't have enough of the skeleton to be certain about the whole shape”?

Cont...

edit: added missing link (pix)


[edit on 28-8-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Here’s another statement I found on the site: The Evolution of Lamnoid Sharks

The lamnoids (order Lamniformes) include many of the most famous and instantly-recognizable of sharks. The Goblin Shark, Sandtiger, threshers, Megamouth, Basking, and the Great White are all members of this group. From the dim depths of prehistory, these sharks have left a rich fossil record. 

As a group, lamnoids are characterized by heavily-built, solid teeth that have proven durable against the onslaught of erosion over geological time. As a result, their ancestors have left many beautiful and highly informative fossil teeth. In addition, the lamnoids have heavily calcified but fragile vertebral centra which are also sometimes preserved. Beyond these structural basics, only a few assorted fossilized bits and pieces survive - some of them squirreled away in private collections, where their true value remains hidden from paleontologists.”


So based on fossilized teeth one can conclude how sharks evolved and construct how it supposed to look liked? Is it possible that the tooth/teeth found is a variety of the shark family instead of purely evolving from one form to another shark form? Remember the finch family?

Here’s another:


“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.


As for assumptions:


Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, had several skeletal features becoming more mammalian, particularly in the teeth, which began to show the first true rooted canines, and not the sort of fangs snakes have. Subsequent species lost the last vestiges of strictly-reptilian bones, and developed the ear drum, another exclusively mammalian trait. Throughout this sequence, we also see an improvement in the ligaments and muscularity to show a steady progression from very primitive lizard-like things to more advanced and adaptive "reptiles" that were also arguably mammals of one sort or another at the same time. In fact, there were several of these which blur the line between reptiles and mammals so much that in some cases, its difficult to state which class these things should belong to. Procynosuchus (latest Permian) the first cynodont, was already a sort of dog-like pseudo-lizard which quickly begat some very lizard-like primitive quasi-mammals, like thrinaxodon. These early Triassic cynodonts had very definite canine teeth and are considered by many to be one of the first mammals, even though they weren't quite complete mammals, and still bore some vaguely-reptilian vestigial traits. These were also among the very few mammal-like semi-reptiles to survive the Permian extinction, an event even more devastating than that which later brought on the demise of the dinosaurs. By the time we get to things like Cynognathus (early Triassic, but suspected to have existed even earlier) we have a nearly complete mammal with just the slightest reptilian traits, like the as-yet undistinguished uniform reptilian-style cheek teeth behind the definitely mammalian canines.


More assumptions and hypothesis -


Lagomorphs:
Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional, while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large premolars.
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.


Unbelievable, hypothesis and assumptions based only on few clues and incomplete specimen! Presented as FACTS!

Now to prove my point further, I’ll quote to you what some of the recognized experts in the same field said (again) - confirming the incompleteness of the fossil record to support of the evolution (abiogenesis) theory:


“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.


But you said:


Stephen Jay Gould .. Did you know he is a evolutionary biologist?
Yes, he would be talking about the Cambrian explosion, and the point of quoting this would be ... ?
Your creationist website might tell you the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution ... but it does not. ( I am guessing this is your point )

No, sorry but you missed the point again nophun. The point is evolution has so many contradicting statements and evidence to support their evidence but it’s still accepted as facts.

Here’s furhter proof taken from the site/link you provided:

en.wikipedia.org...


Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, as evidence comes exclusively from biological and chemical signatures in rocks and very sparse fossils.


So what should one do if one is bent on proving a theory based on a “very sparse fossil” evidence?

Cont...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Use every means available to gather and manipulate the data so that “anything else you want to put next to it” can be interpreted as such, then submit it to the scientific community (largely composed of people with same mind and goal). Discuss it, make some more assumption, talk some more add more assumption; provide sketches showing evolution took place, then voila! Proof of evolution/abiogenesis.

Even though “most fossils are destroyed by erosion or metamorphism before they can be observed.” Even though “the fossil record is very incomplete, increasingly so, further back in time. Despite this, they are often adequate to illustrate the broader patterns of life's history”

And what about dates? Well “dates or descriptions of sequences of events should be regarded with some caution until better data become available”.

So again even though “the fossil record is very incomplete it is considered an ‘adequate’ evidence, a solid scientific proof of evolution? Is that you’re the process you subscribes to nophun?

But until then with no “better data available“, it becomes mainstream.

On the other hand the intelligence and beauty that I see in all creation whether in the macro or micro world are not “adequate” evidence of an Intelligent Creator while “fossil record [that] is very incomplete” is “adequate” enuff to prove evolution? Accepted as “… adequate to illustrate the broader patterns of life's history.”?

There’s more but I don’t want to bore you so on to next link.
www.talkorigins.org...

In the link noted above, the subject is “Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.” Which I used as evidence of the missing time period in which life should have evolved according to evolution theory.

The Response in the site was extensive – sounded very convincing!

But one thing to note though is that the source of my evidence is from evolutionists also. Thereby showing the disagreements amongst top evolutionist. Thus proving that evolution is not fully establish especially with regards to the “fossil records”.

So the responses presented in your link are a disagreement with your fellow evolutionist. My question to you is which evolutionist is correct? The ones quoted in your link or the ones I provided? And why do you say so? (btw – this is not a tactic as noted in the TalkOrigins.org website you’ve provided – I’m merely asking a logical question.)

If all of them are correct, then why the contradictions?

Might this be because the amount of radiation back then to the present fluctuated so much - giving an inaccurate time period reading? (how accurate is carbon dating, any idea?)

Note what item 7 (TalkOrigins):

Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).


BTW, here’s some more quotes (again) with differing conclusions with regards to the much maligned, almost laughable evolution “fossil records“:

Starting with:

“A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. …”


Quoting Dr. Gould, et al again:

“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.


The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:

“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.


Here's another:
A View of Life states:

“Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.


Another:

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote:

“Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.


And another:

Zoologist Harold Coffin states:

“If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.


Here's what an article from The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California
law professor noted, that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments:


“Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”


cont...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
And another

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.


Of course from A Guide to Earth History:

Said that

“By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.” – p 48.


But what does the evidence show?

Again,


”The critical first billion years, during which life began, are blank pages in the earth’s history.”-- Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 97


Why? Again!


“The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,”
says Jastrow.

Then further stated:

“The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.

From The New Evolutionary Timetable:

“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv

Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:

“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49

Thus scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:

“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” – Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October 1980, p. 88.

The famous Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated:

“For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.” – The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 12


After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded:


“[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.” - The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November 14, 1980, p. E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.



A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.


Finally Zoologist Coffin notes:

“To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.” - Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 14


Conclusion:
So clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not fully support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for CREATION.

Next: www.youtube.com...

--- I think I’ll skip this one as I don’t have time to write or paraphrase the discussions. Besides the evidence I’ve provided already disproves their premise/claims.

My statement:


So if the fossil record is as what most 'evolutionist' claim. Why is it that the evidence gathered do not support it (according to the quotes above).



You said:

First off I stopped reading all the quotes you are using, for the reason above.

No, the fossil record is just a very, very small piece to the evidence we have supporting evolution. I am talking HUGE amounts of evidence.


Not according to the links you’ve provided and the quotes I provided!

Next:

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow, you really loaded up on this one, another argument - Evidence of common descent.

I’m sure you’ve read all of its contents. So may I ask you a quick question?

Since the Fossil Record is still being debated amongst your fellow evolutionist, where do you actually base the common descent from? Do you have solid evidence that noone can dispute or is it based again on more assumptions and hypothesis? Please let me know.

So that we can see the proof that if “common descent” is real / factual, then we ‘should be able to see evidence of succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!’

cont..



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
But a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.’

Am I dreaming here? Please let me know if I’m in the Land Of The Lost?

If you have tangible evidence then you Sir as they say is “a genius” and have successfully put the following scientist/evolutionist to shame:

150 specialists in an important conference in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois:

“[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.” - The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November 14, 1980, p. E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.


So what say you, nophun? Do you have solid verifiable evidence to support your claim? That “evolution with common descent provides the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world.”?

Coincidentally here’s what your link said:

On Limitations


“The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major evolutionary lineages.[citation needed] When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".
There is a gap of about 100 million years between the beginning of the Cambrian period and the end of the Ordovician period. The early Cambrian period was the period from which numerous fossils of sponges, cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), echinoderms (e.g., eocrinoids), molluscs (e.g., snails) and arthropods (e.g., trilobites) are found. The first animal that possessed the typical features of vertebrates, the Arandaspis, was dated to have existed in the later Ordovician period. Thus few, if any, fossils of an intermediate type between invertebrates and vertebrates have been found, although likely candidates include the Burgess Shale animal, Pikaia gracilens, and its Maotianshan shales relatives, Myllokunmingia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella lanceolata, and Haikouichthys.[citation needed]


So, what say you nophun? Any solid evidence to base your theory?
(I deleted the rest of the Contents of your links here since they take too much reading and space)

Oh no! There’s more…do I have read this one too?

www.talkorigins.org...

OK I done, more of the same…time is a wastin to talk about it.

Next you said:


What is hard to understand about this ? Did you read the page I posted ?
Edmc2: Sure I did! and it gave me a headache -ty.
Seriously what do you not understand here?
Edmc2: Why you can’t fathom the concept of an “always-existing designer/creator”?

Okay the alien thing again ...

Okay even if there is a god and/or alien creators, We KNOW evolution happened here on Earth. We KNOW humans and the apes share a common ancestor.

Edmc2: “We KNOW evolution happened here on Earth”. Says who? I assume you and your fellow evolutionist here. Correct? OK got it.

“We know there were no Homo sapiens in the beginning.”

edmc2:That sir is a fact and I truly agree 100%! They were created after the earth was ready to be inhabited ("6th creative 'day'").

You can say some alien god thing put a few unicellular prokaryote here 4 billion+ years ago .. but WTF is the point?

Edmc2: If you say so! But the point is life can only come from life - that is the truth and nothing but the truth!

Do you seriously think a real scientist would accept this as a final answer ?

Edmc2: Of course, real scientist accepts the truth that “LIFE CAN ONLY COME FROM LIFE”. But misguided scientist with the agenda to push the evolution theory as a fact? Of course not, they will not “accept this as a final answer“. For it also takes honest and humble heart not only mind to accept the truth that God is the source of Life! And there are a lot of them out there; they are just too humble to get recognized for their work. Because the first thing in their life is God, then their savior and Lord Jesus Christ then family and the rest, details.

Next you said:

(# it! I am sick of searching google for more link for you )

You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.


www.talkorigins.org...

Read that one too -- yeash, that was a waste of time also. Anyone who wants to prove me wrong try going through it - read just a couple of chapters.

Speaking of (Talk)Origins - One thing is for SURE, evolution cannot bridge the WIDE GULFS separating the various kinds of life forms. True, fossils give tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man’s arrival. IN FACT they have not produced the expected evidence backing the evolutionary view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter.

Because of this lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching said this:


“The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.”


cont...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them.
Question: Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings?

As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps.

Here’s another honest admission:

Final quote:

” Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”--Hoyle and Wickramasinghe


Q: Do you or do all evolutionists have to use these scientific words in order to sound SUPER-INTELLIGENT?

I guess to simple “semi-intelligent” folks like me bordering on the ‘red-neck’ side of the woods (thanks OT although I’m of Asian ‘descent‘) I can honestly say it is indeed brain numbing.

No wonder a lot of evolutionists are so confused and can’t fathom a simple logic.

Heck! w/o using any dictionary, can you please give me the meaning of each of these SUPER-INTELLIGENT terminologies – just these few (although there are hundreds of them)? And explain how each one evolved (macro-micro, micro-macro) and WHY? Be short and concise if you can.

Palaechthon, Purgatorius,Cantius,Pelycodus,Amphipithecus, Pondaungia,Parapithecus,Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus,Aegyptopithecus,Proconsul africanus,Limnopithecus,Dryopithecus,Sivapithecus,Tetonius homunculus,Ursus minimus,Plesictis,
Hyaenotherium wongii,Palinhyaena reperta,Belbus Beaumont,'Merychippus' gunteri,Dinohippus,Loxolophus,Wasatchia,Esthonyx xenicus to E. oncylion to E. grangeri…

Yaadiyadi..yada…

Punctuated equilibrium, gene flow, macro evolution, micro evolution, non-neutral evolution, abiogenesis, drake equation, natural selection, ordinary extinction, common descent, mass extinction, genetic selection, speciation, genetic drift, recombination, etc …

Nophun, after reading a lot of the information you’ve provided in your links, I came to this one overriding conclusion. It’s full of, SUPER DUPER-INTELLEGENT, HIGHLY MIZMIRIZING, HEADACHE-INDUCING/CONFUSING-PROCESSES, STOMACH TURNING TERMINOLOGIES, WHICH I CALL THE GREAT GRANDILOQUENT GOBBLEDYGOOK.

Sorry just being honest.

In Conclusion:

For those whose ears are open to hear (and has not yet devolved), the fossil record is saying: no evolution, no abiogenesis, no punctuated equilibrium and most of all no common descent but Special Creation by an Intelligent and loving always existing first cause - Jehovah God

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side Note:

This is interesting:
“Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information.”

IMHO, the public understand true science but not science based on evolution theory. And it is of my humble opinion that due to illogical reasoning endemic to the evolution theory, it will be impossible for evolutionist to make the public understand it clearly. For it takes someone to suspend common sense in order to fully accept it.

“Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest.”

That is a true statement; I agree not dishonesty but most of the time pride, illogic reasoning and the desire to elevate evolution theory as a fact that is a barrier.

“On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.” – Laurence Moran (TalkOrigins.org)

Again not true science but science based on evolution doctrine that one needs to work (a lot) harder in order to understand it (sometimes will require a Mdegree or Phud to fully understand it).

----------------------------vvvvvvvvvvvvv----------------------------------

Sheezz that was exhausting but worth it (I think).

I told you it's long..

Signing off from The Land of the Lost…

Ty,
Edmc2



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
Whenever something is proven someone decides they think they can disprove it.... When evolution was suggested first it was just a theory, then several years later we observed micro organisms evolving..... So then it turns into fact but its not all fact because we haven't watched a human evolve in front of our eyes...... The creationist hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper with every new scientific discovery, not that evolution contradicts creation but you think trying to disprove it will prove your god is real somehow and give you meaning in life.....


thanks jheated5, can you please explain what you mean by this statement: "micro organisms evolving". Is it evolving into a different species - or is still a micro organism?

Can you please provide a link or solid evidence.

ty
edmc2



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Still saying evolution relies on "chance"...you should really read at least the wiki page about evolution before making statements like that


Oh, and every fossil we found so far fully backs up the theory. You might wanna check your sources



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Okay. Since this thread is apparently here to bash what some people think....

I can also say Christianity is based on illogical reasoning.

A guy in a diaper who got crucified says there is some all knowing being living in the sky that wants us to love him and people actually believe this?

Attack and expect retaliation.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by DARKCYDE_CROWLEY]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Is there a reason that most of the sources in your posts above are from the early 80s?

You do realize that the early 80s were about 30 years ago. Are you aware that we have made scientific progress since then?

Maybe you should look for some more current sources. You can find several in this thread alone.

I must warn you. Some of them will go against what you want to believe.

Correction: Some of your sources are from the mid to late 70s and I saw one from the late 50s.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Are you denying micro evolution has happened or been observed? If you think I'm talking about micro organisms turning into an elephant than no that's not what I"m talking about.....



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Are you denying micro evolution has happened or been observed? If you think I'm talking about micro organisms turning into an elephant than no that's not what I"m talking about.....


can you please explain how it happened and please provide a step by step process of how the microorganism evolved and into what?

ty,
edmc2




top topics



 
26
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join