Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[kedge]

When you are back, take the time to read all of the questions that you have been asked and respond to them. Doing otherwise lessens the reliability of your position.

I don't need to answer any of your questions chap, what questions?

 

[The Running Man]

There should be thousands if not millions? but there are none that i know of. Some birds have fingers but they are still classified as birds.

Millions of what? Fossils? You do realise that we don't have excavations with millions and millions of fossils to pick and choose from don't you? The process to record a fossil is something of very slight chance. that you could ask for this kind of evidence is showing a lacking of understanding on the possible availability of fossils to begin with.

technically if the world was only 6000 years old we shouldn't have any fossils anyway so even if we were to show you more fossils, you wouldn't believe in them?

But you can look here, see how you can find an animal that wasn't a bird but has feathers, like a.. half bird half not bird? is the

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/bird_evo.jpg

ALl of these fossils and species listed ARE the transitional species from the 'animals' of 240 million years ago to the birds you see today.

 

[The Running Man]

Ah so it was just a trick to make folk look foolish, well happy is you i suppose. I noticed you didn't answer the question on the platypus, nor does any evolutionist know what the first life form on earth was etc etc.

If you'd read the link I posted, if you are genuinely interested in furthering your own understanding, you'd know that evolution doesn't even attempt to describe how life began.

Evolution is a theory of how life changed into the life we see populating the earth today. Which is why I and the pope have both iterated that creationism is not necessarily at odds with evolution. Evolution is just a process to describe the change in life on earth.

 

[Shayper]

I don't need to answer any of your questions chap, what questions?

1. You yourself stated earlier in the thread that Christianity is one body. Yet more recently you have stated that you don't follow the Pope, the second greatest authority in said body. This is contradictory, and needs clearing up.

2. You have failed to respond to various evidence that greatly supports our claims, yet have provided unsubstantiated claims of your own, saying that "I believe". In discussions such as these this is unacceptable, so I must ask: where is your evidence to back up your position?

3. You really do need to answer questions given to you. Since you claim that God exists, the burden of proof is thus on you, and not us. We do not claim that evolution exists, and how it works is true. It is FACT that evolution works the way we have said it does. There is no getting around these points, so why do you disagree with stone cold evidence?

That's all i can come up with for now. Answering these questions in the correct way, i.e using evidence and proper arguments will help to reinforce your position. Doing otherwise will not. You have your choice, I suggest you do the former

 

[Robosapien]

The rate of occurrence must surely be vitally important. The Cambrian fossils show the appearance of animal types suddenly without any of the ancestors that Darwinism claims. This would have required massive amounts of new information. In Darwinism any changes are slow and gradual and as time goes on the changes are larger and more pronounced. The Cambrian record shows the complete opposite.

How would it have required massive amounts of new information? Explain your definition of information to me. The rate is important but what I'm asking is why would this need to be constant, why can't it appear to change? The rate of DNA mutations might have remained constant but this doesn't mean the consequences of it have to appear constant, nor does it mean it the fossil record would be complete.

So where does this new information come from? It seems from this thread that it is simply all about DNA mutations. If you mutate DNA continually, will you ever form something totally new?

Why not? Is anything ever totally new or is it just re-arranged? Define 'new'. Do you mean to tell me God magically creates new chemicals and it has nothing to do with electrostatic attraction between particles?

DNA can build proteins but what controls the building of proteins into larger structures and eventually new organs for example? Darwinism demands a bottom up approach but this has been totally overturned by the Cambrian fossils.

Chemistry, fundamental forces, randomness/probability.

 

[Robosapien]

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed"

Hitler should know.

No, it will be doubted and scrutinized by many.

 

[kedge]

I suggest you do the former

Might i just remind you of what the thread is about? the wonders of life and did any religious folk watch it.

 

[D.P.]

Let me give you an example of what a transitional species should look like in evolutionary terms and there should be millions of them. Take Reptile to Bird transition, if this really did happen then there should be observable evidence in the fossil records of half a lizard and half a bird, but no true transitional species existed or exist, what one actually sees is fully formed species and that of their kinds.

Wrong again, there are lots of fossil records to support such transitions such as fossil dinosaurs with feathers.

 

[kedge]

1. You yourself stated earlier in the thread that Christianity is one body.

Did i really, can you prove that i actually said that?.

2. You have failed to respond to various evidence that greatly supports our claims, yet have provided unsubstantiated claims of your own, saying that "I believe". In discussions such as these this is unacceptable, so I must ask: where is your evidence to back up your position?.

I use the same information as evolutionists do with regards to the universe, earth and life upon it, it's just that some claim evolution and some claim creation, the evidence is in the complexity of all that is in our universe. This is my opinion, i never state that God and creation is an observable fact but i do adhere to the real scientific method of observation which is in harmony with my worldview.

3. You really do need to answer questions given to you. Since you claim that God exists, the burden of proof is thus on you, and not us. We do not claim that evolution exists, and how it works is true. It is FACT that evolution works the way we have said it does.

I believe that God created the universe and all the wonders within it and life on earth but i can not prove this using the time tested scientific method. Micro changes within species is observable and i don't know of anyone that would dispute this fact but there is no scinetific evidence that can prove that one species changed (evolved) into another species of a higher order.

 

[The Running Man]

Wrong again, there are lots of fossil records to support such transitions such as fossil dinosaurs with feathers.

I've already posted links to this with diagrams etc like I said, he doesn't want answers to his questions, he doesnt read them. he just wants to ask more and more questions ignoring the answers to the last as he trots off reason after reason why he believes that gaps existing in the fossil record must categorically mean there is a literal god from genesis in the bible.

it is a strange position to take really.

 

[Angilion]

That's not explaining anything, evolutionary scientists assume the eye evolved bit by bit by time and chance, there is no real scientific method of explanation, there is no working model for eye evolution, which bit of the human eye evolved first?

Scientists aren't assuming that. I think you're projecting your theistic way of thinking onto everyone because you don't understand any other way, so you assume that everyone starts from a conclusion and makes whatever assumptions fit that conclusion. While any human is likely to do that to some extent, it's the opposite of science and so scientists must avoid doing so when working.

Not only is there a working model for eye evolution, there are extant living animals with eyes that fit into various stages of that model. You can go and look at them if you like.

The bit of the human eye that evolved first was photosensitive cells, long before humans existed.

If you're thinking in terms of the current human eye divided into parts, you're completely missing the whole point of what evolution is.

So...start with just a patch of photosensitive cells. The animal can detect intensity of light and no more, but that gives some advantages. It could detect what direction the surface is when underwater, whether it's night or day, whether predator or prey is casting a shadow on it.

Next step is a curved patch of cells. The animal can then get a much better idea of the direction the light is coming from, which is obviously very useful. The deeper the curve, the better the direction sensing.

With enough of a curve, the animal will begin to be able to detect blurry images. That's obviously useful, since it enables the animal to crudely differentiate between things that it sees and that could easily make the difference between life and death.

So you have an evolutionary progression from flat sheet to deeply curved sheet...and that leads to a sphere because that's as curved as it gets. So the eyeball has evolved.

There's an inherent vulnerability because it must be hollow and open to the environment in order for light to get in. There's just a hole at the front, like a pinhole camera. A covering would be an advantage, but it would have course have to be transparent in order for the eye to be able to function.

So now we have an eyeball with a transparent sheet...which only needs some curve on it to become a lens that will give the animal a distinct advantage - the ability to see objects much more clearly.

Etc, etc.

Small changes that confer advantages in key areas of biological success - finding food and avoiding becoming food. The eye is textbook evolution. There is a working model for eye evolution. You have been seriously misinformed.

 

[kedge]

But evolution has been observed.

Small changes have been observed, this is within boundaries and limitations only within the species and not above it. Evolution has a bigger picture to paint, evolution encompasses ideas and evidence for lifes origins.

 

[kedge]

Not only is there a working model for eye evolution.

I'm sorry but this is impossible to prove using the scientific method, the model is based on assumptions.

 

[Jason2]

This thread needs to be closed. You cannot argue with the fanatical atheists.

I would just ask people to read the evidence that has been presented and make their own minds up. There are numerous inconsistencies in evolution. These exist because, in my opinion, evolution did not happen. We look around us and see devolution, and not evolution. All things are winding down. And that includes the universe.

 

[The Running Man]

see I actually think he is blindly trolling and quoting this site for reference

http://pluto.matrix49.com/15934/?subpages/Observable-Evidence-of-Creation.shtml

In what is called by evolutionists, the Pre-Cambrian era, there were no fossils. In the Cambrian era that followed there was an explosion of fossils. Thus, fossils did not appear gradually.

Observable Evidence for Gods Creation:

1. The laws of the universe
2. Creation of life from spontaneous non-living inorganic chemicals
3. Irreducible complexity
4. Fossil record

If evolution were true, there should be millions of intermediate fossils to prove it.

every time we provide evidence to dissuade one point he moves onto the next, ignoring the evidence and then back to the top and repeat the process.

 

[Urgannagru]

Let me give you an example of what a transitional species should look like in evolutionary terms and there should be millions of them. Take Reptile to Bird transition, if this really did happen then there should be observable evidence in the fossil records of half a lizard and half a bird, but no true transitional species existed or exist, what one actually sees is fully formed species and that of their kinds.

So these don't qualify then?

Juravenator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Juravenator_BW.jpg
Does this look like it has dinosaur like features to you? Key points being the long tail and lizard like head. However can you also see the feathers? Yes I know its an artists impression but I'm going to have to trust an experts opinion as we don't have access to the fossils ourselves to look for traces of feathers.

Anchiornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anchiornis_BW.jpg
Similar shaped body (slim with a long tail), but now also has a beaked head and long feathers coming from its "arms" which have now become crude wings.

Confuciusornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confuciusornis_sanctus_mmartyniuk.png
One of the earliest fossils we have that has most of the classic features associated with birds. More developed wings to allows flying rather than gliding. A "fatter" body shape due to skeletal changes to allow larger pectoral muscles, so that the "bird" can flap it's wings for powered flight.

Are these not suitable examples of transient speacies or are you wanting something along the lines of a chicken with a t-rex's head?

 

[kedge]

So...start with just a patch of photosensitive cells.

Where did these photosensitive cells originate from?

 

[Shayper]

Did i really, can you prove that i actually said that?.

Sorry, I apologise, is was jmc007

I use the same information as evolutionists do with regards to the universe, earth and life upon it, it's just that some claim evolution and some claim creation, the evidence is in the complexity of all that is in our universe. This is my opinion, i never state that God and creation is an observable fact but i do adhere to the real scientific method of observation which is in harmony with my worldview.

That is a MASSIVE contradiction. You cannot adhere to the scientific method of observation and believe in a creator. There is absolutely zero scientific proof of a creator.

I believe that God created the universe and all the wonders within it and life on earth but i can not prove this using the time tested scientific method. Micro changes within species is observable and i don't know of anyone that would dispute this fact but there is no scinetific evidence that can prove that one species changed (evolved) into another species of a higher order.

It has been constantly said in this thread that micro evolution is no different to macro evolution, it is simply on a smaller time scale.

What do you mean by a higher order? Are you claiming that humans are somehow special?

I'd say an eagle is much more special than a human. Pinpoint accuracy, stunningly sharp eyesight and the ability to fly. True beauty in nature. Humans, on the other hand, are blind, deaf and clumsy in comparison the the majest of a Golden Eagle.

 

[Urgannagru]

There should be thousands if not millions? but there are none that i know of. Some birds have fingers but they are still classified as birds.

As far as I'm aware all birds have remains of fingers in their wing structure, same as bats, whales, turtles and many other animals, this is an example of how evolution works one structure can fulfill different roles with (relatively) small changes.

 

[The Running Man]

This thread needs to be closed. You cannot argue with the fanatical atheists.

I would just ask people to read the evidence that has been presented and make their own minds up. There are numerous inconsistencies in evolution. These exist because, in my opinion, evolution did not happen. We look around us and see devolution, and not evolution. All things are winding down. And that includes the universe.

It seems that it is the theists who have an unbending opinion that is based upon illogical sources, such as the bible, or 'intuition' for want of a better word for that warm fuzzy feeling we get when we look up at the universe and wonder, how did I get here?

There are numerous inconsistencies in evolution. These exist because, in my opinion, evolution did not happen. We look around us and see devolution, and not evolution. All things are winding down. And that includes the universe.

You have said there are inconsistencies in evolution, would you like to point them out? And would you also consider that evolution as it stood when Darwin created the idea is not a static rule. it is a theory to describe how things have changed using the evidence available.

As such, and new observations become available, the theory can and will be altered - this is a sign of strength for scientific progress as it is always challenging itself to find new answers to these questions.

Creationists stopped asking questions and I don't know why?