[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is not based on empirical evidence

[Mr. Neil]

:B-fly: So see why some of us don't believe you?
I treat stories like yours as childih fantasy and fiction.
it's all so silly.

Believe what? I don't believe in things such as sasquatch. I wasn't telling a story of my beliefs or pushing them onto you. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to actually read my posts, since I was quite clear on this point. And I would certainly appreciate it more if you didn't attempt to blow off my points as silly nonsense. I'm being perfectly civil and trying to engage in an intellectual discussion.
My point was that many people have claimed to have seen things that I think are silly. Elvis sightings are silly to me. And so are Bigfoot sightings and alien sightings. They're all silly, and apparently you think they're silly too, because you even said so. Well, I simply treat Jesus sightings the same way.
Lots of people claim to see all of these things, but not one of them has ever been substantiated or confirmed. It's tabloid-level hearsay. I don't take Jesus sightings seriously, and you shouldn't expect me to.

Besides, on what grounds can you call these other things silly, when you think that people have actually seen Jesus come to them? What is the difference in autheticity between a Bigfoot sighting and a Jesus sighting? Please explain in detail.

 

[Guest]

If things evolved,why are fish in the Ocean like they should be,and not in the sky?

Fingers of a fish from PBS at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html:

Or look at a mudskipper from http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/mud.htm:

From the website:
:B-fly: all this says to me is that God is a great artist,designer,and creator! Those creatures are adorable and God made them!
God is Excellent in all his ways!
If that creature is not still in a womb,I wouldn't exactly say those were fingers,but Racoon's look like they have hands and fingers. They are so cute when they try to wash a slice of bread.
here is a great site for you to check out. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-194.htm
thanks for the pic's.They are cute!

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: So see why some of us don't believe you?
I treat stories like yours as childih fantasy and fiction.
it's all so silly.

Believe what? I don't believe in things such as sasquatch.
:B-fly: Your fiction that the bible isn't true,thats what.
Jesus came to the earth in the form of a man. Not strange to see people
on earth,and Jesus Christ was actually on the earth.
Big Foot was a huge scarry creature that some people claim they saw,but not many.
It's just shocking that you'd compare God to something odd.
why not share what you do believe so no one has to guess?

 

[Guest]

great links to why evolution is fiction.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-132.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid7.htm

 

[Mr. Neil]

:B-fly: Your fiction that the bible isn't true,thats what.
Jesus came to the earth in the form of a man. Not strange to see people
on earth, and Jesus Christ was actually on the earth.
Big Foot was a huge scarry creature that some people claim they saw, but not many.
It's just shocking that you'd compare God to something odd.
why not share what you do believe so no one has to guess?

Blueeyeliner, while I certainly don't believe that there is a Bigfoot, I should at least point out that the Bigfoot legend is completely naturalistic. It's an animal that supposedly evades human discovery. It doesn't perform miracles or come back from the dead, where as Jesus does those things.
It seems to me that the Bigfoot legend has fewer extraordinary claims than Jesus!

And you didn't really answer my question. All you did was state your opinion that the Bigfoot legend is something odd while Jesus is not. On what grounds can you say that?
You don't think that the claim of a person coming back to life after three days is a bit strange?

Your fiction that the bible isn't true, thats what.

Am I not allowed to challenge the Bible? If people don't test things, then how are they supposed to learn?

 

[Ignatz]

I know that the following is your personal quote, Blue, But it illustrates the views of many Christians in this forum. I've read many of your posts, and I TRULY admire your faith and conviction. You have shown them to be rock solid, without a doubt. God Bless you. :angel:

all this says to me is that God is a great artist,designer,and creator! Those creatures are adorable and God made them!
God is Excellent in all his ways!

I COMPLETELY agree, and He is a great many other things as well.

QUESTION:
Why do so many of us believe that Gods' Wisdom cannot be observed in the workings of His creation by modern scientific theories of evolution/natural selection? We can go to the moon (astrophysics), we can split the atom (quantum mechanics), we can even alleviate suffering and and extinguish many of the diseases that have plagued our species since time immemorial. (chemistry, biology, chemical engineering, personal hygiene, etc.)

And, for those of us who think that Gods wisdom cannot be observed, yet cite SCIENTIFIC evidence of the Creation, (even if it is contrary to what mainstream evolutionary theory/abiogenesis says), aren't we agreeing that observation and the scientific method CAN reveal Gods' handiwork, though we may come to different conclusions?

And, for those of us that cite examples of modern evolutionary theory that agree with the scriptures: Why do some of us feel that the people who devote their lives to the pursuit of such physical truths are "against God"?
Isn't ALL truth of God?
MANY Christians believe in evolution/natural selection. I'm one of them.

Is the search for "Truth" somthing that we, as Christians need to fear?
Can't Gods wisdom and actions in the physical world be just as beautifully described by observable phenomena as by our faith in the spiritual truth of the Bible?

Science cannot disprove that God exists, and no amount of faith can disprove the scientific, observable facts that our Holy Father saw fit to reveal to us in our search for understanding.

 

[Guest]

And you didn't really answer my question. All you did was state your opinion that the Bigfoot legend is something odd while Jesus is not. On what grounds can you say that?
You don't think that the claim of a person coming back to life after three days is a bit strange?

:B-fly: It's not strange at all when you consider that all life is a miracle,
and that beings like ourselves didn't just arrive here by chance or no
reason. It's not strange at all when you consider how ancient the faith
in God is,and how long people have known about him.
Big foot and such creations,ect.... are made up all of a sudden out of the
blue,but if you know the bible,you will also know that there is nothing new
under the sun.
Do you believe there is life on other planets? I do.
I believe the fallen angels are still hanging around the planets until they
are cast out of the heavens during the tribulation. evil spirits and demons
are trying to play tricks on people so they will believe in UFO's,ect....

 

[Mr. Neil]

The amount of time a particular myth has been around has nothing to do with whether or not it's true or false. I would grant Bigfoot more plausability just for having fewer extraordinary claims. However, the reason why I think Bigfoot is false is fairly elementary: no carcasses.

And Blue, the problem with miracles is that they fall under the category of an extraordinary claim, which I had mentioned already. It's an occurance outside of our impirically observable universe. Besides, Jesus' ability to work miracles is only within context of the story of the gospels, and I question the validity of the gospels.
I do count miracles as extraordinary claims. I think that's a circular claim.

That would be akin to if I had tried to convince you that leprechauns exist (which I would NEVER do), and you told me that they were just a myth, and no one has ever seen one. Well, people have claimed to have seen leprechauns, and it would be easy to appeal to the magical abilities to leprechauns to explain why no one ever sees one.
But in doing so, I'm appealing to an attribute of the leprechauns within context of the leprechaun legend. I have not proven that leprechauns exist.

You simply cannot reason that something exists by appealing the extraordinary contextual properties of the character, whether they are magic-wielding leprechauns or miracle-making sons of God.

Do you believe there is life on other planets? I do.

That's an interesting thing you just said there.
I don't live in the world of believe/disbelieve. I accept certain things under certain conditions.

I don't believe or disbelieve the existence of aliens, because the aliens are or aren't there, whether I believe or not. My belief doesn't affect them if they're there.
I think it's a distinct possibility that there is life on other planets. I would love to find out that there are. I hope we do find out some day.
But my wanting for them to be there won't make them be there if they aren't.

 

[Guest]

Do you believe there is life on other planets? I do.

That's an interesting thing you just said there.
I don't live in the world of believe/disbelieve. I accept certain things under certain conditions.

I don't believe or disbelieve the existence of aliens, because the aliens are or aren't there, whether I believe or not. My belief doesn't affect them if they're there.
:Fade-color When I said that I believe there is life on other planets,I am
talking about the fallen angels and demons.
The fact that people are here on earth and have the ability to think and
reason is proof of a creator to me.
You simply cannot say that God doesn't exist.You are not omni-present.
How can something evolve if it doesn't live long enough to evolve?
You accept certain things under certain conditions? Is your house set up in a certain way? How will you prove evolution is true?Do you have a -
laboratory in your house,or do you have access to one? If not,thats what
you'll need if you ever plan to prove your idea of evolution.
Life cannot be proven by science that it came from non living matter.
science doesn't even make such a claim.
you call your religion science just to keep it in schools using tax dollars
to fund it.

 

[goliwog man]

Just a question for Evolution. If animals all evevolved from various ancestors where did the platypus come from? It has a bill like a duck burrows like a beaver, can live on land and water has electricity in its tail like an eal, has a pouch like kangaroos and has webbed feet. (correct me if i'm wrong.

Also the octopus has the exact same type of eye as a human. according to evelution this would mean a common ancester. But the only common ansester is in fact a worm. Did we inherit eyes from a worm?

I think God made things to perfect for men to understand :

 

[Guest]

Just a question for Evolution. If animals all evevolved from various ancestors where did the platypus come from? It has a bill like a duck burrows like a beaver, can live on land and water has electricity in its tail like an eal, has a pouch like kangaroos and has webbed feet. (correct me if i'm wrong.

Also the octopus has the exact same type of eye as a human. according to evelution this would mean a common ancester. But the only common ansester is in fact a worm. Did we inherit eyes from a worm?

I think God made things to perfect for men to understand :

:B-fly: I believe you are on to something here.
There are some things just too wonderful for us to know,as Job learned,
but God is soooo good at giving us what we need to know and what we
need to grow with.
Also,if evolution was true,you would think there would be some form
of evidence like some partial human animals before the final result,human
people. Like,before people could evolve,there should be examples left of
what they were just before they became human.
There should have been evidence of creatures in transition.
There is nothing,not even a hint that humans evolved.
We didn't evolve of course,but I think many people who cannot accept
the bible as the truth the way it is,feel the need to believe differently.
They may not realize that the bible is a book that we should continue
to read and study and talk about. You learn more as you study it.

 

[Quath]

If animals all evevolved from various ancestors where did the platypus come from? It has a bill like a duck burrows like a beaver, can live on land and water has electricity in its tail like an eal, has a pouch like kangaroos and has webbed feet. (correct me if i'm wrong.

The platypus has nothing in common with a bird except the shape of the bill. A duck bill and a platypus bill are made differently. A duck bill is a hard keratin structure and a platypus bill is a soft flexible organ with sensors in it. (I never heard of an electric tail before.)

The platypus seems to be a strong cross between a reptile and a mammal. There are very few fossils available so it is hard to trace its ancestory. However, since mammals evolved from reptile-like creatures, it is not too odd that there is an animal that has similar traits. My guess is that it is a mammal that re-evolved some lizard like traits that were very suited for its lifestyle.

Also the octopus has the exact same type of eye as a human. according to evelution this would mean a common ancester. But the only common ansester is in fact a worm. Did we inherit eyes from a worm?

Usually the octupus eye is mentioned as arguments against creationism. Basically, the eye has some designs that are better than human eyes. Homan eyes have the blood vessels, nerve fibers and nerve cells blocking the sensors. Octupus eyes are different in that there is nothing blocking the light. So in terms of design, octupus eyes seem better. So the question then becomes, why would God create two different eyes in which one has a better design than the other? Evolution has no problem re-inventing something because its algorithms can find similar solutions. However, Creationism has a problem because if God designed by functionality, He should make things that are functionally the same, be designed the same way.

Quath

 

[Quath]

people. Like,before people could evolve,there should be examples left of
what they were just before they became human.
There should have been evidence of creatures in transition.
There is nothing,not even a hint that humans evolved.

Ummmm. If you are truly interested, you can look at human fossils going back 6 or 7 millions years ago. Here is a website with important human fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html So you can see humanity in transition if you really want to.

Quath

 

[Wertbag]

The fact that people are here on earth and have the ability to think and
reason is proof of a creator to me.
You simply cannot say that God doesn't exist.You are not omni-present.

The fact that there are such debates raging on these subjects shows that the natural world and human beings existing doesn't convince most people.
People can say God doesn't exist, its just a matter of each individual looking at the evidence presented to them and coming to their own conclusions. Christianity is a taught religion, if you take an African tribesman and ask him his beliefs he won't come to the same conclusions that Christians do. You might find sun, moon or earth worship, but the only way to be touched by God is by knowing in advance that is a possibility.
Reasons for disbelief are many and varied: can't believe miracles, no sign of modern miracles like the stories of the Bible, stories of the Bible unbelieveable (900 year old people, global flood etc), no agreement in the churches, so many religions to choose from, so many versions of the Bible, so many different holy books, no results from prayer, no contact of any kind with supernatural beings, no physical benefits obvious to any followers of any religion (health, life expectancy), if God wanted everyone to know him he could but doesn't, terrible things done in the name of religion, lack of physical evidence of any claims, no way to prove claims of heaven/hell/angels etc so have to take someones word, not agreeing with the evidence supplied by science, after thousands of years there is still no resolution or agreement on what is correct...
I'm sure people could add many more to the list, and due to this you should see how easy it would be to disbelieve.

 

[mh13]

Just a question for Evolution. If animals all evevolved from various ancestors where did the platypus come from? It has a bill like a duck burrows like a beaver, can live on land and water has electricity in its tail like an eal, has a pouch like kangaroos and has webbed feet. (correct me if i'm wrong.

Also the octopus has the exact same type of eye as a human. according to evelution this would mean a common ancester. But the only common ansester is in fact a worm. Did we inherit eyes from a worm?

I think God made things to perfect for men to understand :

a few more questions for evolutionists: http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id18.html

 

[Quath]

a few more questions for evolutionists: http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id18.html

Well, we don't know everything, but there are no ovbious holes in the theory either. So I can answer some with a little guesswork based on what I have read.

-If the big bang is true, where did the matter come from? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did it come from? Where did the energy come from that caused the explosion? Why are some planets spinning clockwise while others spin counterclockwise. This violates the law of the conservation of angular momentum. Why isn’t the matter in the universe evenly distributed?
My guess is that matter/energy is the binding energy of space/time. If you can release space/time you also release the energy that contained it. There are a lot of other theories, but this is just an example theory.

Planets spinning do not contradict angular momentum. Sometimes people confuse local conservation with universal conservation. So planets can spin backwards due to collissions and other forces as long as the total momentum of the solar system is conserved.

Matter is not everny dispersed probably due to quantum effects. It seems that there is some graininess on the planck scale.

-How did the matter organize itself?
By the forces like gravity, electromagetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

-Where did the laws that govern the universe come from? Laws such as gravity and inertia.
That may have been formed with the universe. Laws about creation of the universe do not have to apply to the creation of the universe. It is similar to laws of software in a computer do not exactly relate to the laws of hardware to create the computer.

-If the first life form came from a primordial soup, how did a living organism evolve from non-living material?
Part of the problem is the definition of life. The simpliest is probably some self replicating molecule. Amino acids are created naturally. They could form RNA of simple lengths. We could have natural cell walls from clay or bubbles or water pockets in porous rocks. There are many possibilities and we haven't found the simplest one yet. However, having a molecule that self-replicates is not magic or anything and it is the basis of evolution starting.

- When and how did the first life form reproduce?
Probably assually. You just need a molecule that can copy itself. RNA is a good candidate, but there are other molecules that coule perform this as well.

- How did evolution occur to allow a changeover from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
Sexual reproduction allows for better passing on of mutations and evolvs faster. A study by CalTech and JPL in National Geographic shows hat with a high mutation rate you can get single celled orgabisms to sexually reproduce.

-How did single celled plants become multi-celled?
All you need is a few similar single cell organisms that like to clump and you have multi-celled. Eventually the DNA will be customized for clumping behavior and will start to generate behavior that can alter how the cells clump.

-How can evolution explain the platypus or the bombardier beetle?
The playtpus was just coved a day or so ago. There is a good article on the evolution of the beetle at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html. Basically, a lot of creationist litature have incorrect information about the beetle.

-Why would animals reproduce? Wouldn’t this hinder their chances for survival?
Survival is not as important as paassing on of the genes. The process of evolution is you take an existing DNA, mutate it, pass it on and judge success. Success creates the next generation. If a species had DNA that did not allow for reproduction not only would it die out from accidents, it would eventually be out designed by the rest of the creatures evolving to become better suited to the environment.

-How did intermediate life forms survive? Why don’t we find any of these transitional forms in the fossil record?
We find some. There are some good human transition fossils that were just posted a day or so ago. But basically evolution is a process with a lot of small changes instead of really big ones.

Quath

 

[bob]

a few more questions for evolutionists: http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id18.html

-If the big bang is true, where did the matter come from? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did it come from? Where did the energy come from that caused the explosion? Why are some planets spinning clockwise while others spin counterclockwise. This violates the law of the conservation of angular momentum. Why isn’t the matter in the universe evenly distributed?
I don't know.

-How did the matter organize itself?
I don't know.

-Where did the laws that govern the universe come from? Laws such as gravity and inertia.
I don't know...physics?

-If the first life form came from a primordial soup, how did a living organism evolve from non-living material?
I don't know.

- When and how did the first life form reproduce?
I don't know...July 16th, 4.1 billion years BCE?

- How did evolution occur to allow a changeover from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
I don't know.

-How did single celled plants become multi-celled?
I don't know.

-How can evolution explain the platypus or the bombardier beetle?
I don't know

-Why would animals reproduce? Wouldn’t this hinder their chances for survival?
I don't know.

-How did intermediate life forms survive? Why don’t we find any of these transitional forms in the fossil record?
I think we have...but I don't know.

Now my question for you. Can you answer all these questions without using the words; God, creator, Lord, Jesus, Christ, supreme being, deity, Holy Spirit, bible, or Genesis?

Believing is easier than thinking. That's why there are so many more believers than thinkers.

 

[Wertbag]

-If the big bang is true, where did the matter come from? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did it come from?

Personally I always thought the theory of an eternal universe made the most sense. The matter compacted until reaching critical mass then expanded outwards in a big bang. Universe expands until the energy is lost at which point it falls back in on itself and recreates the big bang again. Impossible to test the theory of course, but it seems to fit the best from the answers I've seen presented.

How did the matter organize itself?
-Where did the laws that govern the universe come from? Laws such as gravity and inertia.

They are called natural laws because they occur naturally, its the way things are. These laws caused the matter to organise as we see it.

How did evolution occur to allow a changeover from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?

Possibly how crocidiles have their young. The eggs in the nest that gain alot of heat become male and the cooler/deeper buried ones become female. A single nest can have 2-3 dozen eggs. The sex of the parent isn't important in deciding the sex of the young, so any creature with vast numbers of offspring would fit.

Why would animals reproduce? Wouldn’t this hinder their chances for survival?

No, it in fact increases the survival. The strength of the gene pool is the strength of the next generation. Its always the biggest strongest male of a pack that has breeding rights, and as he becomes too old or weak to defend his position he would be replaced by a younger healther male.
Natural selection weeds out the weak and sick and stops them from having offspring. Its only humans with technology that break the natural laws.

 

[Barbarian]

If I can add one thing, the question about how asexual reproduction switched to sexual reproduction, the answer is "gradually."

Bacteria, which usually reproduce asexually, have a form of reproduction called "conjugation" in which two of them join and share genes. This is very useful and has been shown to rapidly spread useful mutations in a population.

Later on, for some organisms, it appears that sexual reproduction became more established, and eventually became the only possible way of reproducing for some forms.

It is interesting to note that there is a form of sexual reproduction in retroviruses like HIV. Two varieties can infect the same individual,and recombine to form new "species" of virus. And they aren't even alive.

 

[goliwog man]

The platypus seems to be a strong cross between a reptile and a mammal.

If so were did the platapus get its instincts to burrow holes like rabbits. When scientist in england saw thier first stuffed platapus they thought it was a joke, a combination of animals stuck together. Shows how much science knows....