Jump to content
IGNORED

Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.


KiwiChristian

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Who has always known it to be false? It certainly isn't the people that have the background and curiosity to study fossils for a living.

Why even bother to follow those who are deceived by the world, the carnal world, the world opposed to JESUS ,

the society science and groups that OPPOSE GOD'S WORD ? 

The blind do lead the blind,  willingly, and they both fall into the pit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm fairly sure the original quote was "rarity". An article from creation.com has Gould quoted as using "rarity".


yes - different quotes by the same person on the same issue. In your provided quote, Gould said "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record". In my provided quote he says "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Why even bother to follow those who are deceived by the world, the carnal world, the world opposed to JESUS ,

the society science and groups that OPPOSE GOD'S WORD ? 

The blind do lead the blind,  willingly, and they both fall into the pit.

Would it not be worthwhile to study claims contrary to your beliefs, as Tristen does, in order to explain why you disagree with those beliefs?

Not everyone that accepts evolution is opposed to Jesus. He gave His life for me and I will follow Him as long as there is breath in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

19 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Ok, thanks. Sorry it took me so long to understand what you meant there. How do you counter the claim that the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon fossils represent transition from terrestrial mammal to cetacean? And the unusual pelvic anatomy for a swimming animal?

Can you point me to something specific? If not, I'll still take a look for myself - just might take a bit longer. And not sure if I'll be responding to what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Would it not be worthwhile to study claims contrary to your beliefs

No.  YHWH forbids this,  JESUS forbids this,  THE BIBLE forbids this.   It is not good nor right nor proper to do.

It also is disobedient to YHWH and HIS WORD, because it would be time "honoring" 'other nations' and ways that YHWH says not to look into, not to study and not to follow, 

thus it would be more sin again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

He gave His life for me and I will follow Him as long as there is breath in me.

GOOD !    HALLELUYAH ! 

(YES<  FOLLOW HIM(JESUS) !  > )

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Tristen said:

Can you point me to something specific? If not, I'll still take a look for myself - just might take a bit longer. And not sure if I'll be responding to what you mean.

There is a good summary of what is believed to be the evolutionary series here -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03. There are several adaptations that would have had to be made if there really was a transition from terrestrial to aquatic mammal, but one of those would be a limb changing form a leg to a fin in the pectoral region and loss of the limb (although vestigial hind limbs are present in some). The limb change may be more of what Darwin had suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

No.  YHWH forbids this,  JESUS forbids this,  THE BIBLE forbids this.

Studying scientific evidence that some believe supports evolution is not forbidden. What is your Biblical support for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Studying scientific evidence that some believe supports evolution is not forbidden. What is your Biblical support for this?

IF as you posted you are following JESUS as HE did in truth die for us,

then do what you want as long as HE permits you to.  It is none of my concern. 

JESUS IS OUR SHEPHERD ,  and HE will guide us right if we listen to HIM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is a good summary of what is believed to be the evolutionary series here -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03. There are several adaptations that would have had to be made if there really was a transition from terrestrial to aquatic mammal, but one of those would be a limb changing form a leg to a fin in the pectoral region and loss of the limb (although vestigial hind limbs are present in some). The limb change may be more of what Darwin had suggested.

There is a good summary of what is believed to be the evolutionary series here -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03. There are several adaptations that would have had to be made if there really was a transition from terrestrial to aquatic mammal, but one of those would be a limb changing form a leg to a fin in the pectoral region and loss of the limb

There is nothing in this information indicative of a transitional fossil (as I, and Darwin and Gould understand the concept).

Pakicetus was initially lauded as a walking whale ancestor based on a few skull fragments and teeth (i.e. no limbs or skeleton apart from those few fragments). The article is here (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595/403) – Note how they imagined the rest of Pakicetus by the cover art. Then they found a more complete skeleton; finding that Pakicetus was a running terrestrial mammal – and not all that similar to whales at all (http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/bio202/202-2002/Lectures 20202/thesissen et al 2001.pdf).

The original Ambulocetus was also based more on imagination than remains (i.e. a highly disjointed, mostly missing fossil), although they at least had a portion of one limb, and perhaps another limb (found in layers 5 metres above the rest of the skeleton). A lot of artistic licence needs to be added to this picture to assume fins (like those in the picture on your link).

There is nothing in either of these fossils suggesting a transitional form between legs and fins. The Pakicetus definitely had legs. The Ambulocetus may have had fins/flippers, or specialised arms/legs (and is questionably not a whale at all). But what occurred between those forms remains speculation.

 

(although vestigial hind limbs are present in some)

So there is a small (~5 inch) section of bone fused to whale vertebrates attached to reproductive organs (and are structurally different in males and females). They must therefore be functionless vestigial remnants of a time when whales had legs. I thought we'd thoroughly covered the intrinsic logic error in assuming no known function means no function.

 

The limb change may be more of what Darwin had suggested

The story is that fins changed into arms/legs, which subsequently either changed into wings, or back into fins. But there are no intermediate (i.e. transitional) structures in the fossil record demonstrating that process. There are simply fossils with fins, or wings, or arms and legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...