[_ Old Earth _] Random Mutation Generator

[jasoncran]

i have gambled before and that n series isnt a good analogy as that simpliest lifeform is far bigger then that,

let me ask you this since you brought up gambling.

would you allow yourself to be cut open by a doc if the odds you living(you are dying) are the same as the first cell appearing by random chance.

would you play the lotto on those odds?

 

[Barbarian]

i have gambled before and that n series isnt a good analogy as that simpliest lifeform is far bigger then that,

What's the simplest replicating chemical system? We still don't know how simple it can be.

let me ask you this since you brought up gambling.

would you allow yourself to be cut open by a doc if the odds you living(you are dying) are the same as the first cell appearing by random chance.

I don't know anyone who thinks it was by random chance. But there are some very good indications that it came about by natural laws. Would you like to see why?

would you play the lotto on those odds?

I never bet on misconceptions.

 

[jasoncran]

its chance correct? outside your faith what is guiding the meteorite that destroyed the dinousaurs what gravity? and other natural forces.

think about it. we dont call driving somewhere a natural even now do we. though it used it a natural means. we still have someone that is manipulating the car to go where he wants it to go.

natural selection is blind correct.

does something that is blind have direction to it. and knows what it is doing in order to make something better.

i dont buy that natural selection isnt random.

how does something blind choose. it does but its still in odds. isnt it not.

if one or two dinosaurs happen to live by dumb luck mutations then how is that not chance? they just got lucky by surviving the unguided meteor that hit the earth even though it was a natural cause.

by your thinking . we can blame the lord for aids and malaria and such like as that is a means of natural selection. elimating the vulnerable genepool and mutations that happen to be resistant to them will survive.

i dont want to serve a god that happen to plan that deliberatley as opposed to a reaction to man sin.

 

[Barbarian]

its chance correct? outside your faith what is guiding the meteorite that destroyed the dinousaurs what gravity? and other natural forces.

Nature is not random. It works by predictable laws.

think about it. we dont call driving somewhere a natural even now do we. though it used it a natural means. we still have someone that is manipulating the car to go where he wants it to go.

Works by natural laws.

natural selection is blind correct.

Nonrandom, to be precise. Predictable in many ways.

does something that is blind have direction to it.

Hurricane, for example? Yes.

and knows what it is doing in order to make something better.

Just follows natural laws. A hurricane is highly ordered, and yes, more complex than the elements from which it was formed.

dont buy that natural selection isnt random.

Demonstrably true. Want to see some examples?

if one or two dinosaurs happen to live by dumb luck mutations then how is that not chance?

by your thinking . we can blame the lord for aids and malaria and such like as that is a means of natural selection. elimating the vulnerable genepool and mutations that happen to be resistant to them will survive.

God could have given us a more comfortable world. I can only believe He knew what He was doing.

i dont want to serve a god that happen to plan that deliberatley as opposed to a reaction to man sin.

Surely God knew in advance that Adam would sin, or He would not be omnipotent.

 

[jasoncran]

a catholic calvanist, that's a first. i disagree yes he knew that adam and eve will sin, but that doesnt mean he didnt create the world perfect. notice that the verse in the bible says that the whole creation suffers from man's vanity and also that that it groans for his return.

why is that since the creation is still ongoing if the toe is truth.

nature has rules but since you say that. then it all came about by the big bang, which states there was no time and laws and so on yet it happened by chance. flukes and explosions.

that theory fails to explain the laws of nature just merely assumes that they are there. that takes faith since the law of thermodymanics states the opposite.

a hammer uses the natural laws to work but we guide it. so you are saying that God guides natural selection. that makes the toe something else.

you cant have it both ways. natural selection is still blind correct, unless you believe that we blindly flail hammers and such to build things. if its guided by God then it cant be evolution. as he is manipulating the genes.

if he is then those things are his fault. he sent the hurricane to new orleans and the earth quake.

you may dodge that one all you want but since you claim that he uses natural process to get things done then we can hold him to that. as you se he is doing it to make us better.


you claim evolution has no goals correct.

hard to fit that in when men are made in his image and have a purpose in life.

i'm sure that you dont deny those verses that state that he knows when the sparrows fall from the sky and the very hairs on your head.

if he is that loving and caring why would he choose to use a means that has no goals to create us.

 

[Barbarian]

a catholic calvanist, that's a first.

Catholic doctrine is a little more subtle than Calvinism. We aren't fated to be saved or unsaved; He gives us complete freedom to do it as we will.

i disagree yes he knew that adam and eve will sin, but that doesnt mean he didnt create the world perfect.

He didn't say it was perfect.

notice that the verse in the bible says that the whole creation suffers from man's vanity and also that that it groans for his return.

That from man's perspective, not God's. Nature works fine. We could be very happy with it, if we'd live as He intended us to.

why is that since the creation is still ongoing if the toe is truth.

He created us, for example. What's wrong with that?

nature has rules but since you say that. then it all came about by the big bang, which states there was no time and laws and so on yet it happened by chance.

Science doesn't say so. And it wasn't an explosion.

that theory fails to explain the laws of nature just merely assumes that they are there.

That's as far as science can go. So far, everything fits nicely.

that takes faith since the law of thermodymanics states the opposite.

Show us that one.

hammer uses the natural laws to work but we guide it. so you are saying that God guides natural selection. that makes the toe something else.

All of nature exists only as He wills it. He made it lawful and predictable, and we can therefore use science to understand it.

you cant have it both ways.

God made it that way. I'm merely acknowledging the fact.

natural selection is still blind correct, unless you believe that we blindly flail hammers and such to build things.

I think you're confusing the hammer with the Carpenter. ;)

if its guided by God then it cant be evolution. as he is manipulating the genes.

Rather God created the universe so that it would work this way. He no more "manipulates genes" (unless it is for a miraculous purpose, to teach something) than he stirs up hurricanes.

if he is then those things are his fault. he sent the hurricane to new orleans and the earth quake.

He could have made life painless. But I suspect there's a good reason He intended us to live in this world.

you may dodge that one all you want but since you claim that he uses natural process to get things done then we can hold him to that. as you se he is doing it to make us better.

I have to believe He has it right. It's just that evolution is one of the ways He does things in this world.

you claim evolution has no goals correct.

A hammer has no goals, like evolution.

hard to fit that in when men are made in his image and have a purpose in life.

Remember, we are not our bodies. God made us living spirits, not mere animals.

I'm sure that you dont deny those verses that state that he knows when the sparrows fall from the sky and the very hairs on your head.

He is intimately connected to every particle of nature. It runs this way because that is His will.

if he is that loving and caring why would he choose to use a means that has no goals to create us.

How long has it been since you read the Book of Job? Read God's questions to Job and then let's talk again.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's a little exercise that's useful for making clear how random mutation and natural selection work:

Random/selection generator:

1. Roll dice six times, making a column of six random numbers.
2. Repeat six time.

You now have a population number things. Number things are able to live, only if they have 1 or more odd numbers. So remove all of your population that don’t. If all of them died, start over.

Now, pick the two most “fit.†Fitness is determined by these rules:

a. at least one odd number to survive.
b. 1 point added for each additional odd number
c. 4 points added for every “4â€
d. Two “6â€s next to each other are lethal and the thing dies before reproducing

Record the average fitness for your population at generation 1.

Take the 2 most fit and then have them produce 3 offspring each. But each one will have a mutation. Here’s how you randomly generate mutations:

a. roll a die to see which number in the column is mutated.
b. roll a die to see what the new number will be (it can be the same)

3. Take the six new organisms and calculate their fitness.
Record the average fitness for the new generation.

4. Allow the two most fit to reproduce. Go back to a.

Continue for a few dozen generations. Graph average fitness over time.

If you do a lot of these, you’ll find that sometimes the population dies out. This is common for very small populations. But other times, you’ll see fitness steadily increase. But that lethal mutation is always possible.

Enjoy.

 

[jwu]

would you tell your parents that it would be 'arrogant' of them to tell you that your special and that they wanted you.

No, and i don't see how you get that from my post.

is it arrogant to say that we are loved by our parents. that they wanted us to come into existence.

that is what you have just said.

No, it's not what i said. I said that not claiming special creation is more humble than doing so. Just because something is more humble than the other does not make the other one arrogant. Keep in mind, we're dealing with a wide spectrum here, not a black and white situation where only one position can be humble and the other then necessarily has to be arrogant.

 

[jwu]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14667-junk-dna-may-have-handed-us-a-gripping-future.html

junk dna isnt junk after all then if our opposible thumbs are part of that "junk".

It's not that simple. DNA is classified as junk DNA if it appears that it never gets transcribed. If it never gets read, then it has no effect. Do we agree on this so far?

In this particular case it was discovered that this particular gene which was previously classified as junk DNA has been subject to selective pressure in the past. In other words, at some time in the not all that distant past it wasn't junk DNA.

This leaves two possible scenarios:
1. It has been misclassified as junk DNA. This is unlikely given that the mechanisms that govern which parts of a genome get read and which don't are quite well understood. We can test this directly by observing a lack of selective pressure (free mutation) on other such sequences.

2. It has become junk DNA just recently in human history.

Both possibilities are interesting, but neither is a problem for the ToE.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14667-junk-dna-may-have-handed-us-a-gripping-future.html

junk dna isnt junk after all then if our opposible thumbs are part of that "junk".

True!
This is another tactic used by evolutionists. They stamp this DNA which they have no explanation for as "JUNK" and it goes into the public consciousness as another scientific fact discovered by "real" scientists.
But right from the begining this DNA was not understood by them and therefore became a possible threat because if they came righ out and admitted they ahd no clue as to what it did or waht it was for, people may begin to realise these evolutionists scientists may not have all the answers after all. In fact they have none of the real answers.

John Bronzesnake

That would make some remote sense if it hadn't been "evolutionist scientists" who made that discovery about this particular gene. But since that was so, your conspiracy theory here makes no sense.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barbarian my brother.

Barbarian asks:
But if you can accept that your parents brought you into the world by natural means and still love you, why is it hard to accept that God brought the human race into the world by natural means and still loves us?

There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that except that's not what God said He did.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 and God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things(bugs/insects etc), and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Turns out, He did say it.

Thanks for agreeing that God unambiguously stated that He created animals such as cattle after their own kind.
God does not say He created amoebas or simple single celled life which mutated over multi millions of years, or even billions of years does He Barbarian?
And yet even when the specific “kind†of animals are listed, the theistic evolutionists appears unable to comprehend the grammar and is forced to turn a blind eye to God’s word in order to corroborate the satanic lie of evolution.
Sad.

Here’s more scripture which I’m sure the theistic evolutionists will have extreme difficulty reading.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

This next verse actually explains that these “whales†and “fowl†are blessed by God and commanded to multiply and fill the seas and let the fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

So God actually tells us that right from the beginning He created these animals as we know them today, birds and cattle and great whales etc ,and God had them multiply right from the very beginning in order that they would fill the earth. And yet even with this unmistakable truth right from God’s own lips, the theistic evolutionist are forced to convince themselves that this is not what the scriptures actually say. As though great whales, and fowl and cattle are actually secret code words for single cells!
It really makes one wonder if English was a selective course in some schools.

God goes out of His way to reinforce the truth of His creative powers...
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Any unbiased person who would read these scriptures whether they were Christians or not would easily understand them to say that God created animals such as cattle, and birds and whales right from the beginning and commanded them to multiply and fill the earth. The only way you could see any evolutionary process in these scriptures would be if you had an agenda to pervert the scriptures in order to convince yourselves that God didn’t mean what He actually said, and that atheistic scientists, who scoff at the very concept of a God creator, are actually the ones we should go to for the truth, because this God fella has it all wrong!

Tell me, what else are the scriptures wrong about Barbarian? Did Jesus actually exist? If He did, were the miracles He performed real, or are we to reinterpret those as well? Perhaps we should ask our atheists’ scientist buddies what the scriptures actually, really mean to say in relation to Jesus and salvation...I mean they seem to be good enough to trust with Genesis, so we should be consistent and go to them for all our scripture right? I mean God obviously isn’t trustworthy is He?

I wonder what God actually meant to say here?
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I guess God must have been be a single celled organism right Barbarian?
God must have started out that way and after uncountable mutations He must have evolved into God.
That’s in keeping with your ridiculous ideas Barbarian.

This next verse proves you are correct...
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So if I’m consistent, and I keep to your foolish ideas, then God must have started out a single celled organism and mutated into God right?
Can’t you admit when you’re wrong Barbarian?
Can’t you see how ridiculous your ideas are when we take them to their logical conclusion?

If I believe you, and we started out as simple cells, then God also started out the same way according to these scriptures.

Notice that you are the one who won't accept what He says. Your YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is directly in opposition to His word in Genesis.

Hold it a minute. I need to ask you a question.
How come your god’s book is called “Origins†and yet there’s not a single speck of mention about the actual “origin†of man? How did we get from rock to life Barbarian?
And you say I’m guilty of ex nihilo...that’s rich!

Last time I checked, matching the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin", and Project Steve, we come up with about 0.3% of biologists who don't accept evolution. As you might expect, the less expertise a scientist has in biology, the less likely he is to accept the theory.

So in your mind scientific facts are measured by consensus ?...interesting, very interesting indeed.

For example, the predicted whale intermediates have since shown up, as well as large number of transitional hominins. Frogs and turtles are no longer question marks, as we have their transitionals, too. The fossil record continues to grow, and it's not just that the fossils match predictions of evolutionary theory, it's that they never show anything that would not be predicted by the theory

Well, if you say so then it has to be fact!

You've been misled about that, too. Even entomologists are not in it; the transition between ants and other hymenopterans has been found. And of course Phil Gingritch has a wealth of fossil whales that confirm predictions about their ancestry. If you doubt this, feel free to name any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional.

OK I’ve almost begged for any series of transitional fossil Barbarian, but you keep on giving excuses.
Just post the photos and shut me up.
I’ll enlighten you in relation to your so called whale evidence Barbarian.
In a new post...

John Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

OK Barbarian.
I have waited and waited for you to post your transitional proof. You keep on stalling Barbarian, and you’ve tried to set up pre conditions which I’m am to agree to before you’ll bring this “proof†out into the light.

However, it has become painfully apparent that you’re attempting to have me agree to terms which would make it almost impossible for me to put forth an honest rebuttal to.
“Agree to these terms or I won’t post my solid proof" Listen my friend, if macro evolution is so air tight, then just post the proof and be done with it.

The fact that you have kept stalling should be a red flag even to your buddies here, who get so angry at me because they don’t understand their own theories! I don’t hesitate one second in posting anything because that’s how confident I am that God has not lied to us, and God has not been wrong, and that God does not communicate to us in secret code that only atheists can decipher!

So, I am delivering a pre-emptive strike in regards to what I’m almost certain you will be offering as proof of macro evolution and then you can relax and stop worrying about getting me to agree to sketchy terms in order to give your “proof†even a slightest of hopes of going unexposed as well dead wrong.

OK here we go.
The following is taken from the book “Foolish faith†By Judah Etinger
With my own commentary added.

According to your theory, the earliest fossils are micro-organisms such as bacteria and blue-green algae correct? The oldest ones appear in rocks which have been incorrectly dated at 3,500,000,000 old. The oldest animal fossils which have been incorrectly dated at about 700,000,000 years old come from small wormlike creatures with soft bodies. The first vertebrates, appeared about 400,000,000 years ago (if you believe the evolutionists sketchy dating methods) and the first mammals less than 200,000,000 years ago. The Encyclopedia Britannica, from an evolutionary viewpoint, states that “the history of life recorded by fossils presents compelling evidence of evolution.â€

Now that 200 million fossil specimens have been catalogued of over 250,000 fossil species, the fossil record allows for meaningful analysis. If living things have in fact evolved from other kinds of creatures, then many intermediate or transitional forms of creatures, with halfway structures, should be evident in the fossil record. However, if God created different kinds of animals separately, as creationists believe, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed.
Would you agree with this Barbarian?

Have a look at this image Barbarian.

Section A is a typical example of how evolutionists have dishonestly represented their “proof†for evolution by placing a scattering of real fossilised bones and drawing in the rest including those which are essential for their evolutionary wannabees to look like a transitional.

So section A at first glance does appear to be an excellent candidate for a single transitional.
Now look at section B Barbarian.This is what was actually discovered – the real fossilised bones. The dotted bones are what were discovered together and the shaded bones were discovered 5 metres above them. I wonder how many millions of years 5 metres would represent? Hmmmm.

The critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are drawn in additions! These critical skeletal elements never existed except in the minds of desperate evolutionists Barbarian! You’ve been duped!

This is actually great news Barbarian because it means you don’t have to continue reinterpreting Genesis to fit this lie. You can now become a strong and faithful man of God. Just think of what an inspiration you can be barbarian! I truly pray that you will not be too weak or proud to see the truth Barbarian. I honestly pray to our Lord that you have the fortitude to admit you’ve been lied to and that He will use you as a powerful leader who can bring others who have been deceived back to His truth! Come on brother, suck it up and turn away from this satanic deception!

If this example isn’t enough for you to turn away from the lie, then read on my brother there’s more deception to be uncovered.

Evolutionists point to a few transitional animal forms that they believe show evolutionary transition in the fossil record. However, such intermediates are often speculative and much disputed, even amongst evolutionists themselves. For example, one commonly used transitional form is the Ambulocetus natans(above) (“walking whale that swimsâ€), discovered recently. It is believed that whales evolved from some form of land mammal, and that the Ambulocetus natans is transitional between the two, with halfway structures between land mammal and whale. But when reconstructed fossil drawings of Ambulocetus natans are compared with the actual bones found, it is realized that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are missing! See diagram (above).
Barbarian, this kind of artistic deception is rampant in the evolutionary literature.That's why I ask for photograph, and not illustrations.


The media often sensationalize fossil “proofs†of evolution reported in scientific journals. But when these journals later report disproofs of the same fossils, the media rarely mention it. For example, in 1996 there were headlines like “Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds.†This was about a fossil called Sinosauropteryx prima. About a year later, four leading paleontologists, including Yale University’s John Ostrom, found that the “feathers†were not really feathers at all — they were just a parallel array of fibers. Another example is when the cover of Time magazine illustrated a dino-bird link with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had actually been found!

OK, you mentioned Turtles Barbarian. Let’s get that deception resolved.
The Encyclopedia Britannica contains an interesting article on turtles which claims “the evolution of the turtle is one of the most remarkable in the history of the vertebrates.†However, in the next sentence it states, “Unfortunately the origin of [the turtle] is obscured by the lack of early fossils, although turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.†The article affirms that “intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.â€

If turtles leave “more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates†but transitional forms are “entirely lacking,†what can this say for intermediates between all other vertebrates?

In reality, the fossil record seems to fit the creation model well — the record is in fact characterized by abrupt appearances of fully formed organisms, with large systematic gaps (lacking transitional forms) between different types of creatures. Geologist David Raup, curator at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, explains, “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day, actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequnce very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.â€

To Continue On Next Post

 

[Bronzesnake]

Now I know you evolutionists just can’t stand this next quote, but the fact is that this is exactly what Gould stated.
We’re not saying he was a creationist, or even inferred that creation, or I.D. was even a remote possibility.
We’re saying he meant what he clearly said. That Darwin’s idea was simply wrong because there are no transitional! This reality forced Gould and Eldridge to come up with a new theory – P.E. which is just as void of any evidence as Darwinian evolution is.
P.E. isn’t even scientific in that it says species changed into new species suddenly and abruptly. So quickly as a matter of assumption, that we can’t see any proof of it!
That is not science my friends, it’s a desperate idea launched at a desperate population of evolutionists in the dying days of their religion.

World-renowned evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould further acknowledged, “New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. . . . The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. . . . I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.â€

Over a hundred years ago, Darwin pointed out the “fatal†significance of abrupt appearances and systematic gaps in the fossil record: “Why do we not find them [innumerable transitional forms] embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? . . . If numerous species . . . have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory [of evolution]. . . . Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.â€

Here is a bluntly honest comment by Niles Eldridge, one of evolutions preeminent scientists, and he tolled the death bell of Darwinian evolution...
But evolutionist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said, “[Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later; it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.â€

Here is another highly respected evolutionist. Geologists David Raup exposing the truth about the so called horse evolution evidence...
Geologist David Raup, supervisor of one of the largest fossil collections in the world, said that today “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. . . . The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would. . . . Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.â€

Can you hear the bells yet? Here Eldridge admits that evolutionists are seriously dishonest!
Niles Eldredge, again commenting on the acclaimed exhibit of horse evolution, states, “There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.â€
BONG!!!!!

A senior evolutionary paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson has also made some surprising statements about transitional fossils: “Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. . . . I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. . . . It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. . . . But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.â€
Devastating! Are you beginning to see the light yet brother?

One of the predictions made by Darwin regarding the theory of evolution was that no species would remain the same over a long period of time: “We may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.â€But there are many examples of living organisms that have not changed at all from the time when some of their ancestors were fossilized. Consider the following examples:
Bat fossils that are considered 50 million years old look essentially the same as today’s bats of the same type.

Turtle fossils dated to 200 million years ago look virtually the same as today’s turtles. “Turtles . . . have plodded a stolid and steady course through evolutionary time, changing very little in basic structure.â€

The famous broadcaster and writer David Attenborough described fossil sea pens, a type of jellyfish, in Australian rocks that are considered 650 million years old, and noted that sea pens are living in the sea less than 100 miles away.

The coelacanth is a bony fish that was known only from fossils dating back at least 65 million years, until a live specimen was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938 — and many more have been discovered since. Live specimens are sold at Indonesian fish markets today.

In many cases, it seems the controversy between creation and evolution is merely the result of each side’s bias when interpreting the data. As evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged, “We understand that biases, preferences, social values, and psychological attitudes all play a strong role in the process of discovery. . . . It is how we interpret these animals [in the fossil record], and what we say they mean for the history of life that is obviously subject to biased ways of thinking.â€

“Lucy†is the popular name given to one of the most well-known australopithecine fossils ever found. American anthropologist Donald Johanson found this famous fossil skeleton in 1974 in Ethiopia. But according to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson are probably the best-known fossil- anthropologists in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster,†thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species Lucy belonged to.
Evolutionist Dr. Charles Oxnard (professor of anatomy and human biology at the University of Western Australia) completed one of the most sophisticated computer analyses of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that they have nothing to do with the ancestry of man, and are simply an extinct form of ape. “It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans.†Moreover, the world-renowned Richard Leakey has stated, “Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans, and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. . . . David Pilbeam (a well-known expert in human evolution) comments wryly, ‘If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on.’ â€

My brothers. The facts are indisputable. Evolution is dead. Are we arguing simply to be “right� Or, are we really and truly looking for the truth regardless of where that leads?
Do we still want to trust atheist scientists over God? We have seen what evolution’s best people have had to say, and this is just scratching the surface. I could keep going on quoting evolution scientists who will say the same truths over and over.

How many times do these evolution scientists have to tell you before you believe them?
What will it take for you to see that the God of scriptures is never wrong, and does not use secret cryptic codes which only evolutionists can decipher?
Darwin was wrong my friends, it’s a sad fact of reality, but he was simply wrong.
It’s not the first time a man was wrong trust me.

We have an almighty Father who loves us, who has given us a clear unambiguous description of exactly how He created the entire universe, and yet we chose to believe in fallible man over God.
Let’s leave our human pride in the flames of sin at the feet of our almighty Lord, and admit we made a mistake. Jesus will gladly accept us back brothers. As long as there is air in your lungs and your heart is still beating, there’s still time to come back.

It’s not my intention to be “right†it’s not my intention to say “I told you soâ€
I know I may have been a wee bit saucy at times, but in the end my only intention is for my brothers to feel the joy in the knowledge that our Father in Heaven can be trusted. That His scriptures are trustworthy and reliable.
Amen?

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Now I know you evolutionists just can’t stand this next quote, but the fact is that this is exactly what Gould stated.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.

We’re saying he meant what he clearly said. That Darwin’s idea was simply wrong because there are no transitional!

Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Let's test that belief. Name me a geologic period from the Cambrian on, and I'll see if I can find a transitional from that time.

Raup was referring to the idea of horse evolution as a ladder. His argument that it was a bush, with many branches. Again, I don't think you're being intentionally dishonest, but you are copying edited 'quotes' from people who are.

One of the predictions made by Darwin regarding the theory of evolution was that no species would remain the same over a long period of time: “We may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.â€But there are many examples of living organisms that have not changed at all from the time when some of their ancestors were fossilized. Consider the following examples:

Bat fossils that are considered 50 million years old look essentially the same as today’s bats of the same type.

Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

Turtle fossils dated to 200 million years ago look virtually the same as today’s turtles. “Turtles . . . have plodded a stolid and steady course through evolutionary time, changing very little in basic structure.â€

Surprise.

David Attenborough described fossil sea pens, a type of jellyfish, in Australian rocks that are considered 650 million years old, and noted that sea pens are living in the sea less than 100 miles away.

And identical to the sea pens living 650 million years ago? Show us that. BTW, sea pens are not jellyfish.

The coelacanth is a bony fish that was known only from fossils dating back at least 65 million years, until a live specimen was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938 — and many more have been discovered since. Live specimens are sold at Indonesian fish markets today.

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

In hindsight, coelacanths seem like primitive antiques. But not so when they first appeared as small freshwater, inshore predators.
http://www.dinofish.com/bkchapt1.html

“Lucy†is the popular name given to one of the most well-known australopithecine fossils ever found. American anthropologist Donald Johanson found this famous fossil skeleton in 1974 in Ethiopia. But according to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson are probably the best-known fossil- anthropologists in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster,†thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species Lucy belonged to.

Let's take a look...

AL 444-2 skull, the most complete single afarensis specimen, about 70% complete. Fortunately the major landmarks were found, which makes it very clear what the species was like.

My brothers. The facts are indisputable. Evolution is dead.

A lot of people have said that. Most of them are dead.

Do we still want to trust atheist scientists over God?

Do you want to trust deceitful creationists over God? By now, you've been repeatedly embarrassed as one thing after another falls apart in the light of critical examination. They lied to you. No way to sugarcoat it.

You're putting your faith in man, when you should be trusting God. Let Him do it His way.

 

[jasoncran]

if God did it via evolution then it can be said that there was more then one type of adam and eve , that didnt sin.

what of them?

and since you had sad that were just spirits in a body,where upon death do we go and be sure to reconcile that with revalation.

 

[Barbarian]

if God did it via evolution then it can be said that there was more then one type of adam and eve , that didnt sin.

Don't see how. Only one pair were given immortal souls by God. I don't know when that happened, or even the precise species, but it did happen.

and since you had sad that were just spirits in a body,where upon death do we go and be sure to reconcile that with revalation.

We go to wherever we have chosen during our lives. I don't know all the details, but Jesus says that if we love God and each other, and act on it, we will go to be with Him. And that's good enough for me.

 

[jasoncran]

but heaven nor hell were meant for man.

i hope you realize this. if so see the genesis account then look at revalation 21, and 22 and what happens after the millienial reign.

 

[Barbarian]

but heaven nor hell were meant for man.

i hope you realize this. if so see the genesis account then look at revalation 21, and 22 and what happens after the millienial reign.

In my belief, Heaven is a real place, and we will, if we follow Him, go there someday. But I'll not argue the point further.

 

[jasoncran]

i am asking that and trying to wrap my head around thiestic evolutionists and how they reconcile the allgory of genesis with the book of revalation and other referals to the beggining. so that i can understand that argument.
not that i will agree but at least know the argument.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.
Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

I agree with Gould’s explanation, and in spite of protests from evolutionists, I have not misquoted Gould. I am agreeing that there are no transitionals at the species level which is exactly what Darwinian evolution requires.
I am not arguing against micro evolution Barb.

Raup was referring to the idea of horse evolution as a ladder. His argument that it was a bush, with many branches. Again, I don't think you're being intentionally dishonest, but you are copying edited 'quotes' from people who are.

What exactly does that infer? If evolution is reality why are all the arguments based on such semantics? There should be irrefutable, solid empirical evidence throughout the earth, but instead of this we are constantly defending evolution via “bushes’ and “branches†and punctuated equilibrium.

Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

You know I don’t subscribe to those ages barb. I’m using the alleged fossil ages.
Perhaps a better example to make the point is the Cœlacanth. This fish was touted as the model transitional with its “feet†however as you most likely know these fish were rediscovered recently and are virtually identical as the supposed millions of years old transitional fossils are.
There are scores of living fossils. These are a huge problem for evolution because they must have forgotten to evolve. In any case these living fossils go a long way to corroborate stasis which lines up with scriptures and creation, and goes directly opposite to evolution.

Nice Turtle “illustrations†barb.

And identical to the sea pens living 650 million years ago? Show us that. BTW, sea pens are not jellyfish.

Take it up with Attenborough.

In relation to the CÅ“lacanth

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

The Royal Ontario Museum has a fossilised example of the Cœlacanth on display Barb. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

AL 444-2 skull, the most complete single afarensis specimen, about 70% complete. Fortunately the major landmarks were found, which makes it very clear what the species was like.

The yellow areas are guesswork; however it looks like a monkey skull to me. How does this help evolution?

Do you want to trust deceitful creationists over God? By now, you've been repeatedly embarrassed as one thing after another falls apart in the light of critical examination. They lied to you. No way to sugarcoat it.

So, God isn’t the creator?

John

 

[Barbarian]

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

Barbarian observes:
I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.

(no response)

What a surprise.

Barbarian observes:
Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

I agree with Gould’s explanation, and in spite of protests from evolutionists, I have not misquoted Gould. I am agreeing that there are no transitionals at the species level which is exactly what Darwinian evolution requires.

But that's not what Gould said. He said species level transitions are rare. He did not say there were none. And your belief requires that there be none at all.

Barbarian observes:
Raup was referring to the idea of horse evolution as a ladder. His argument that it was a bush, with many branches. Again, I don't think you're being intentionally dishonest, but you are copying edited 'quotes' from people who are.

What exactly does that infer?

Perhaps you don't know what "infer" means.

If evolution is reality why are all the arguments based on such semantics?

In science, precision counts. Horses didn't evolve in a straight line, but diverged into many lines.

There should be irrefutable, solid empirical evidence throughout the earth, but instead of this we are constantly defending evolution via “bushes’ and “branches†and punctuated equilibrium.

That's what the evidence shows. The "e-word", again, um?

Bat fossils that are considered 50 million years old look essentially the same as today’s bats of the same type.

Barbarian chuckles:
Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

You know I don’t subscribe to those ages barb. I’m using the alleged fossil ages.

So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

Perhaps a better example to make the point is the CÅ“lacanth. This fish was touted as the model transitional with its “feetâ€

No. It has no feet. It's close to the line of fish that did have feet, however.

however as you most likely know these fish were rediscovered recently and are virtually identical as the supposed millions of years old transitional fossils are.

Nope. The ancient ones were small, freshwater fish. The modern ones are large, deep ocean fish. The modern genus and species are unknown in the fossil record.

There are scores of living fossils. These are a huge problem for evolution because they must have forgotten to evolve.

You've been misled on that, too. Darwin pointed out that a well-adapted organism, in stable selection pressures, would not evolve. It's called "stabilizing selection" and it's well-known.

In any case these living fossils go a long way to corroborate stasis which lines up with scriptures and creation, and goes directly opposite to evolution.

Surprise. There's a lot more you don't know about the theory. Maybe you'd be well-advised to learn what it actually says.

Nice Turtle “illustrations†barb.

Yep. One of the holes in our list of transitionals was the connection between turtles and primitive anapsids. Now that one is filled. Little by little.

Barbarian observes:
And identical to the sea pens living 650 million years ago? Show us that. BTW, sea pens are not jellyfish.

Take it up with Attenborough.

You presented it. Up to you to defend it. Or accept the consequences.

Barbarian observes:
And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

The Royal Ontario Museum has a fossilised example of the Cœlacanth on display Barb. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

Um, yes they do. And it is indeed of the same species that exists today. For good reason. It was recently caught off the Comoros Islands.

Opened in late 2009, the Life in Crisis: Schad Gallery of Biodiversity features endangered species, including specimens of a polar bear, a giant panda, a white rhinoceros, a Burmese python, Canadian coral, a leatherback turtle, a Coelacanth, a Rafflesia flower, and many other rare species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ontario_Museum

AL 444-2 skull, the most complete single afarensis specimen, about 70% complete. Fortunately the major landmarks were found, which makes it very clear what the species was like.

The yellow areas are guesswork; however it looks like a monkey skull to me.

If you think so, you've never seen a monkey skull.

How does this help evolution?

It's nicely intermediate between apes and Homo.

Do you want to trust deceitful creationists over God? By now, you've been repeatedly embarrassed as one thing after another falls apart in the light of critical examination. They lied to you. No way to sugarcoat it.

So, God isn’t the creator?

God is the Creator. You just don't approve of the way He did it.