Not even attempting to answer that question is standard Christian fundamentalism.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Not even attempting to answer that question is standard Christian fundamentalism.
TestedandTried
New member
Scripture states that the world was formless and void when before God created the universe. Each step of God's creating took place in the measure of our current standard time measure of one day. But this only serves to clarify for those Christians who tend to hold to the evolution theory...they want to subscribe to both the Creation and the evolution theory. Evolutionists will usually reject Creation out of hand...it requires faith as Hebrews tells us...
Hebrews 11:3:
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Faith comes from hearing the message...
Romans 10:17:
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
Our hurdle is finding the atheist willing enough to to hear the message.
When I was in college, there were no transitional whales. No transitional bats, frogs, ants, turtles, and so on. And creationists asked "where are these transitionals you keep predicting? Then over the years, these and many more turned up as paleontologists continued to work.
You're about a half-century behind.
Wrong again. The Precambrian Ediacaran biota was widespread, multicellular, and include the first examples of body plans that diversified in the Cambrian. Want to learn about those?
No. In Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms, YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise lists a large number of series of transitional forms, saying that they are "strong evidence" for evolution. He can't explain them in creationist terms, but expresses confidence that they will someday be so.
An honest creationist. They are more common than you might believe by cruising creationist sites on the web.
Indeed, they have. For example, the two surviving species of coelacanths are very different from the ancient forms from which they evolved.
There are no ancient species of horseshoe crab alive today; they have evolved into other species.
Crocodiles are extremely ancient, older than dinosaurs. But the modern ones are quite different than ancient species, which included vegetarian crocs, and those standing upright. (when crododiles want to move really fast, usually to flee, they gallop as their ancestors did)
The closest thing I can think of to an unchanged species would be elephant shark (actually not a shark), which seems to have changed very little in hundreds of millions of years. But then they have been living on the bottom of seas, along continental shelves, and that environment has been pretty constant for a very, very long time.
I answered it, Dum Dum.
When Mrs. Barbarian was in graduate school, we lived in a university housing area. Behind us, was a family with a little girl who (being Iranian), knew little English, so when she was irritated, she'd always say "You dummy dummy."
Of course, English was her second language, and she was about 5 years old.
If you're alive, how can your uncle not be dead? You do know that evolutionary theory says that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, right?
They usually have G-sections.
You know, I've actually had creationists ask me these questions for real.
iouae
Well-known member
There is not an organism in the world, living or fossilised, which does not have ghost lineages.
That means it has missing links in its fossil record.
For evolutionists, the missing links can be blamed on an incomplete fossil record.
For Creationists, the sudden appearance of the organism can be explained by a creation event.
Thus, both evolutionists and creationists rely on faith. Evolutionists have faith in an incomplete fossil record. Creationists have faith in a Creator God.
To both, their faith is perfectly logical.
That means it has missing links in its fossil record.
For evolutionists, the missing links can be blamed on an incomplete fossil record.
For Creationists, the sudden appearance of the organism can be explained by a creation event.
Thus, both evolutionists and creationists rely on faith. Evolutionists have faith in an incomplete fossil record. Creationists have faith in a Creator God.
To both, their faith is perfectly logical.
Nope. Evidence. Stop pretending Darwinists have contributed anything useful to this discussion.
So do evolutionists.
It doesn't matter if something is logical "to" someone; it matters whether it is logical at all.
You can't play a rational part in a conversation when your assertions always need so much correcting.
iouae
Well-known member
You have rock solid evidence for Creation?
Start by explaining the geologic column and why organisms are sorted into layers?
I am not a prophet, but I am expecting a smart retort, not a smart answer.
Yes they have. They have provided a foil to your rapier sharp wit.
That's what I said - evolutionists too have faith. I see you are new to this reading thing.
Are you chief inspector of the logic police?
Have you considered that pushing a Book under evolutionist's noses does not constitute evidence to them?
Show an animal that pops onto the scene suddenly and without forebears, as occurred in the Cambrian explosion - that is the sort of evidence they are looking for. Even then, folks like Barbarian are pretty good at lifting rocks and finding forebears.
I don't start a priori insisting that my book "The Holy Bible" is right and your book "On the origin of species" is wrong, when the whole point of the discussion is to prove that. That would be irrational.
But Stripe, you are not so much into research. Surprise me with some actual science in your answers.
Literally — yes, but not philosophically.
That's not how rocks show creation; that's how they are evidence for the flood.
Radiometric features are more in line with pointing to creation. Basement rocks and unstable isotopes. That sort of thing.
Also, astronomy.
But at the most fundamental level, the most obvious evidence for creation is not in physics, it's in philosophy.
Don't worry, nobody would ever accuse you of that.
You were speaking of faith in something else.
That's [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION].
I'm his deputy.
That's one of the many fatal flaws in the thinking of Darwinists; they reject ideas because of their source. It's called the genetic fallacy.
I think they are fooled by the name into thinking it's a good thing.
You've bought into the notion that the two competing ideas are equally founded.
They're not.
Creationism has logic, philosophy, mathematics, and evidence all going for it. Darwinsm has lots of words, yelling and red faces, but not much else.
I'm not trying to prove anything.
All I ask is that you present what you believe and defend it rationally while allowing me to do the same.
You'll get what you're given and like it, otherwise, take a hike. :up:
Last edited:
iouae
Well-known member
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/10/29/on-the-fossil-record/
Worth a read on whether finding the fossils is the problem.
Worth a read on whether finding the fossils is the problem.
iouae
Well-known member
So which is it?
Whichever you choose. :idunno:
iouae
Well-known member
Oh Stripey, I'm still waiting for you to explain the physics/"Darwinist" issue you raised in the Ark/speciation thread.
Think you could manage that? Contribute something of value there?
iouae
Well-known member
From http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/10/29/on-the-fossil-record/
3 – Historical tests of the completeness of the fossil record
In natural history fieldwork, the “collector curve” is often used to indicate how close to complete ones work is, as new discoveries will begin to tail off. ....
.... Benton gives similar graphs on dinosaur discoveries:
Fig09.jpegOne can see that in the old European collecting grounds, the graph is near saturation, whereas in the less-studied Chinese beds, there is still a steep curve, with a levelling of uncertain significance only in the last decade or two. It is fair, though, to predict that some time in this century the Chinese graph will match the European, and that other areas will follow suit (presumably Antarctica being the last to yield its unique species).
This means that we can be pretty certain that we are now aware of most European dinosaur species that have left fossils.
It is my opinion that the strongest evidence against evolution is encapsulated in graphs such as the above.
What we see with fossil hunting is that at first finds are slow, then they pick up pace, then the curve flattens out as no new dinosaur fossil species are found.
That last sentence in italics above shows that we have [nearly] the complete fossil record of European dinosaurs. And do European dinosaurs have most missing links filled in? Absolutely not. The graph is SHOUTING at us that the chances of further missing links being found is nearly zero. We have almost all we are going to have.
This being the case, are we satisfied that evolution occurred, since dinosaurs occur as different animals, with NOT ONE SINGLE DINOSAUR HAVING ALL ITS MISSING LINKS. Most of the dinosaur record is ghost lineages. And the graph is telling us it will stay that way.
And the same applies to all fossils. The Chinese dinosaur record is rapidly becoming the same as the European one with the flattened top of the "S" shaped curve appearing.
All fossil records follow the same curve.
This is strong evidence that these dinosaurs were created as individual species.
3 – Historical tests of the completeness of the fossil record
In natural history fieldwork, the “collector curve” is often used to indicate how close to complete ones work is, as new discoveries will begin to tail off. ....
.... Benton gives similar graphs on dinosaur discoveries:
Fig09.jpegOne can see that in the old European collecting grounds, the graph is near saturation, whereas in the less-studied Chinese beds, there is still a steep curve, with a levelling of uncertain significance only in the last decade or two. It is fair, though, to predict that some time in this century the Chinese graph will match the European, and that other areas will follow suit (presumably Antarctica being the last to yield its unique species).
This means that we can be pretty certain that we are now aware of most European dinosaur species that have left fossils.
It is my opinion that the strongest evidence against evolution is encapsulated in graphs such as the above.
What we see with fossil hunting is that at first finds are slow, then they pick up pace, then the curve flattens out as no new dinosaur fossil species are found.
That last sentence in italics above shows that we have [nearly] the complete fossil record of European dinosaurs. And do European dinosaurs have most missing links filled in? Absolutely not. The graph is SHOUTING at us that the chances of further missing links being found is nearly zero. We have almost all we are going to have.
This being the case, are we satisfied that evolution occurred, since dinosaurs occur as different animals, with NOT ONE SINGLE DINOSAUR HAVING ALL ITS MISSING LINKS. Most of the dinosaur record is ghost lineages. And the graph is telling us it will stay that way.
And the same applies to all fossils. The Chinese dinosaur record is rapidly becoming the same as the European one with the flattened top of the "S" shaped curve appearing.
All fossil records follow the same curve.
This is strong evidence that these dinosaurs were created as individual species.