Jump to content
IGNORED

disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less


justme007

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That all depends on how you define "evolutionist". If it is someone that accepts the theory of evolution, then there are literally millions of us that accept evolution while believing in the Most High God.

Darwin, for example, wrote that God created the first living things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, JTC said:

And I certainly don't believe we were once apes.

We are apes.   Humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos form an ingroup within the ape clade.    Would you like to see how we know?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, JTC said:

Many yrs later I was told if Darwin didn't give credit to God no publisher would have taken his book.

No, that's wrong.   The first edition (which rapidly sold out) did not have Darwin's later statement that God created the first living things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, JTC said:

No matter what Darwin believed his name became synonymous with atheist and atheist is synonymous with evolution. An evolutionist might believe ancient astronauts but I never heard of 1 believing in the Most High God. So I still say evolution is a failed unproven theory.

No, Darwin was never associated with atheism.    He did have an agnostic associate, but he also had a Christian associate as well.    Most Christians in the world acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith.   And remember, evolution is directly observed.   Some consequences of evolution, like common descent, are not observed, but the evidence for them is compelling.   Here's an honest YE creationist explaining:

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

On 10/14/2019 at 11:42 PM, The Barbarian said:

It certainly isn't in any of the Bibles I have.   Mine says that life was brought forth by the earth.   It says that life diversified, but doesn't say how that happened.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

 

God created light, and only then do we have days of evenings and mornings. These appear to be literal days. On one literal day, day 5, God created the fish and the birds. Then on day 6 he produced land animals. 

 

How do you understand that? 

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

And the fossil record (not to mention genetics) shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.  If you doubt this, name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and let's see if there's a transitional form.

What would you like to choose?

 

 

I will choose an easy one for you, the famous trilobite. Please show where the Redlichiid (an early trilobite) came from. Which of the small shelly fossils of the Late Ediacaran is the ancestor of the Redlichiid? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I will choose an easy one for you, the famous trilobite. Please show where the Redlichiid (an early trilobite) came from. Which of the small shelly fossils of the Late Ediacaran is the ancestor of the Redlichiid? 

That's not a major group, just a part of the arthropoda, but it's easy enough.  Since the early trilobites (or trilobite ancestors) were not calcified, none of the SSF were ancestral.

When the fossil was first discovered in Canada's Burgess Shale, it was believed to be a crustacean, such was the difference between this and other trilobites. Its continuous shield hid most of its structure, interfering with proper classification. When Harry B. Whittington began dissecting some specimens (Naraoia was among the most populous of the Burgess Shale animals), he discovered that the legs (and gills) of the beasts were very similar, if not identical to those of trilobites, thus the current placement of Naraoia in class Trilobita. Misszhouia longicaudata was formerly considered a member of the genus Naraoia, originally known as N. longicaudata, until separated in 1997.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraoia

 

This Parvancorina minchami is a Vendian animal ichnofossil from the White Sea coast in Russia that closely resembles fauna from the lower through middle Cambrian. As such, it supports the appearance of arthropods during or before the Ediacaran. Some impressions suggest there were about 10 biramous legs. There also appears to be affinity for Burgessia, an arthropod from the Burgess Shale, as well as apparent similarity to arthropods from the Kaili biota in China.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/whitesea/Parvancorina-minchami/Parvancorina-minchami.jpg

Description: Bugessia bella derives its genus name from the location that also lent it name to this spectacularBurgessia bella Fossil Art window on early life and the Cambrian Explosion. It was presumably a benthic organism that made a living crawling on the seafloor. It falls within the arachnomrphs, and so is related to both the chelicerates and trilobites. Note the antenna, central gut, telson, and partial legs seen within the carapace. This wonderful example shows all the major features of the taxon in incredible detail for a specimen more than a half billion years of age.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/burgessshale/Burgessia/Burgessia.htm

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not a major group, just a part of the arthropoda, but it's easy enough.  Since the early trilobites (or trilobite ancestors) were not calcified, none of the SSF were ancestral.

When the fossil was first discovered in Canada's Burgess Shale, it was believed to be a crustacean, such was the difference between this and other trilobites. Its continuous shield hid most of its structure, interfering with proper classification. When Harry B. Whittington began dissecting some specimens (Naraoia was among the most populous of the Burgess Shale animals), he discovered that the legs (and gills) of the beasts were very similar, if not identical to those of trilobites, thus the current placement of Naraoia in class Trilobita. Misszhouia longicaudata was formerly considered a member of the genus Naraoia, originally known as N. longicaudata, until separated in 1997.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraoia

 

This Parvancorina minchami is a Vendian animal ichnofossil from the White Sea coast in Russia that closely resembles fauna from the lower through middle Cambrian. As such, it supports the appearance of arthropods during or before the Ediacaran. Some impressions suggest there were about 10 biramous legs. There also appears to be affinity for Burgessia, an arthropod from the Burgess Shale, as well as apparent similarity to arthropods from the Kaili biota in China.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/whitesea/Parvancorina-minchami/Parvancorina-minchami.jpg

Description: Bugessia bella derives its genus name from the location that also lent it name to this spectacularBurgessia bella Fossil Art window on early life and the Cambrian Explosion. It was presumably a benthic organism that made a living crawling on the seafloor. It falls within the arachnomrphs, and so is related to both the chelicerates and trilobites. Note the antenna, central gut, telson, and partial legs seen within the carapace. This wonderful example shows all the major features of the taxon in incredible detail for a specimen more than a half billion years of age.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/burgessshale/Burgessia/Burgessia.htm

Sorry I didn't read your question properly. You were looking for transitional forms between major groups. What exactly do you mean by "groups", do you mean phyla?

When God created organisms, He did not limit himself to "groupings" but created some unique organisms that don't easily categorize into one group or another. An evolutionist, assuming evolution, may assume these are "transitional", but nearly every phylum appeared fully  intact in the early Cambrian. 

 

(regarding the trilobites, Burgessia Bella, and Naraoia are from the Middle Cambrian and so cannot be an ancestor of the Redlichiid which came earlier. Regarding the minchami, it had some "superficial similarities with Cambrian trilobite-like arthropods" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parvancorina

"Superficial similarities" are not what one would expect from a convincing ancestor of the trilobite)

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Sorry I didn't read your question properly. You were looking for transitional forms between major groups. What exactly do you mean by "groups", do you mean phyla?

Phyla or classes.  But this worked O.K.

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

When God created organisms, He did not limit himself to "groupings" but created some unique organisms that don't easily categorize into one group or another. An evolutionist, assuming evolution, may assume these are "transitional", but nearly every phylum appeared fully  intact in the early Cambrian. 

Your assumption is that these transitional forms aren't related to later examples of the same form.   But y0u have no evidence for that assumption.   And all organisms, even transitional ones like Parcorvina are "fully formed."  

 

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

(regarding the trilobites, Burgessia Bella, and Naraoia are from the Middle Cambrian and so cannot be an ancestor of the Redlichiid which came earlier.

Actually, Naroia is first found in the Early Cambrian,

Naraoia is a genus of small to average size (about 2-4½ cm long) marine arthropods within the family Naraoiidae, that lived from the early Cambrian to the late Silurian period. The species are characterized by a large alimentary system and sideways oriented antennas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraoia

And being soft-bodied, not fully-formed as an arthropod, we don't know when it first appeared.   Without exceptional circumstances, such organisms are generally not preserved.   Redlichiids came later.

Redlichiida is an order of trilobites, a group of extinct marine arthropods. Species assigned to the order Redlichiida are among the first trilobites to appear in the fossil record, about halfway during the Lower Cambrian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlichiida

 

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

"Superficial similarities" are not what one would expect from a convincing ancestor of the trilobite)

 

Some scientists think that Naroia  is sufficiently like a true trilobite to be included in the group.   So that pretty much shows the transitional is what it is.   The key is that lack of evidence isn't evidence for anything.    Your assumption that there are no antecedents to forms that appeared in the Cambrian is falsified, and even where it isn't, you can't show that it's true, because possible antecedents came much earlier.   

And given the genetic, anatomical,and fossil data showing common descent, that's a real problem for creationism.

 

 

 

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...