The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[BeyondET]

On 1/9/2024 at 10:20 PM, Sparks said:

Fossils are not evidence of evolution, they are evidence that something that once lived, died.  You will find that a world-wide flood, and the wrath of God, caused the vast majority of fossils that you find scattered in the fake geologic column.  It might surprise to know that you can make amber and fossils with little effort.  You will find that the famous transitional fossils were made by people, with little effort.

You have been fooled by Satan.

You can make coal too, what does amber have to do with the price of eggs.

Bones, shells, stone imprints are all fossils.

Satan could care less about fossils.

[The Barbarian]

20 hours ago, Sparks said:

Microevolution is real, the rest is not.  You mistake micro for macro, and the other alleged 5 types.

Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.   Species, genera, families, etc.    In fact, most creationist organizations now admit a limited amount of macroevolution.    They can hardly avoid that; it's been observed to happen.

Microevolution is evolution that does not produce new species.    And in fact, microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution in the case of clines or ring species.  Would you like to learn about that?

20 hours ago, Sparks said:

Haven't you ever asked yourself if evolution happened, why we don't have 20 or 30 billion people right now?

Why would evolution require our population to be four times larger than it is?    Human population began to rapidly increase after the industrial revolution, for reasons that are obvious.    But it fluctuated over time, before that.

20 hours ago, Sparks said:

Why you never, ever, ever see macroevolution of one kind producing another kind?

There are two kinds of maggot flies in the United States.    The hawthorn maggot fly has been in existence long before Europeans arrived here.    The other kind, the apple maggot fly, evolved after the introduction of apples to the United States.   The two kinds no longer interbreed; they've evolved life cycles that no longer allow it.   

O. gigas, a flowering plant, evolved from O. lamarckana by a polyploid mutation.   They can no longer interbreed.  O. gigas is a new kind, never seen before.

20 hours ago, Sparks said:

Why do you see no one growing little wing stubs, or antlers? 

Because, as Darwin pointed out, natural selection is limited to things that could only evolve by gradual changes which could not be harmful at any point.    A new set of hands would be great for humans, who are good at manipulating things, but the transitional forms would be harmful.   Antlers on a hominoid would be a huge disadvantage, most of them being forest animals spending a lot of time in trees.

Evolution isn't magic; it is limited to the possible

20 hours ago, Sparks said:

You have fallen for Satan's joke.

Evolution is God's creation; Satan can mock creation, but he can never make anything truly new other than deception and sin.  

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You can make coal too, what does amber have to do with the price of eggs.

Bones, shells, stone imprints are all fossils.

Satan could care less about fossils.

The point is it does not take trillions of years to make them, like the evolution crowd believes.  They believe a fossil indicates evolution, but why? 

[Starise]

The found marrow in dinosaur bones. Enough said. Does it need further explanation?

[Sparks]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:39 AM, The Barbarian said:

Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.   Species, genera, families, etc.    In fact, most creationist organizations now admit a limited amount of macroevolution.    They can hardly avoid that; it's been observed to happen.

Microevolution is evolution that does not produce new species.    And in fact, microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution in the case of clines or ring species.  Would you like to learn about that?

Why would evolution require our population to be four times larger than it is?    Human population began to rapidly increase after the industrial revolution, for reasons that are obvious.    But it fluctuated over time, before that.

There are two kinds of maggot flies in the United States.    The hawthorn maggot fly has been in existence long before Europeans arrived here.    The other kind, the apple maggot fly, evolved after the introduction of apples to the United States.   The two kinds no longer interbreed; they've evolved life cycles that no longer allow it.   

O. gigas, a flowering plant, evolved from O. lamarckana by a polyploid mutation.   They can no longer interbreed.  O. gigas is a new kind, never seen before.

Because, as Darwin pointed out, natural selection is limited to things that could only evolve by gradual changes which could not be harmful at any point.    A new set of hands would be great for humans, who are good at manipulating things, but the transitional forms would be harmful.   Antlers on a hominoid would be a huge disadvantage, most of them being forest animals spending a lot of time in trees.

Evolution isn't magic; it is limited to the possible

Evolution is God's creation; Satan can mock creation, but he can never make anything truly new other than deception and sin.  

Macroevolution is something unobserved.  A theory.  Now there are a lot of bad scientists like Richard Lensky who think they see macro when they observe micro, but that's about it.  They claim Cit+ evolves in the LTEE, but the old and new strains have the same data in their DNA, and therefore it is just more micro. 

 

[Sparks]

12 minutes ago, Starise said:

The found marrow in dinosaur bones. Enough said. Does it need further explanation?

As recently as 2005, they have found collagen fibers, red blood cells, blood vessels and skin.  In perfect conditions, DNA may last 100,000 years.  Yet scientists have found DNA inside an allegedly 65 million year old Hadrosaurus.

Evolution 'scientists' skip over problems like this when they cannot explain them.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Macroevolution is something unobserved.  A theory. 

Two errors there.   First, it's been directly observed.    Do you understand what "macroevolution" means in science?   What do you think it is?

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

As recently as 2005, they have found collagen fibers, red blood cells, blood vessels and skin. 

Fossils of red blood cells, blood vessels and skin.   Collagen, if stabilized by iron, can persist for millions of years.   Here's the scientist, discussing how creationists have misrepresented her work:

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.

...

I don’t think my being a Christian has anything to do with the fact that the data I’m proposing is challenging. I’ve only had one or two people say they don’t trust my science because of my faith. So if I’m doing science according to the rules, which I’m doing to honor God, and I’m aware that anything and everything I do could be proven wrong tomorrow, then my job is to be as careful and cautious as I can and not overstate my data. All I can do is the best that I can do.

So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved. We’ve known for a while that skin gets preserved. It’s the same with anything controversial—for example, it was decades ago now that somebody first proposed that continents move, and everybody laughed and said that shouldn’t be possible. Nowadays if you say that isn’t true you’d be a laughingstock. DNA, too—nobody wanted to believe that DNA was the carrier of biological information because it’s too simple a molecule.

...

Well I guess I’m just a pretty ordinary person. I make a lot of mistakes and I try to live my life as best as I can. I take my work very seriously because I believe that honors God. But —I don’t how to put it exactly—my work is what I do, not who I am. I know I could be wrong; as a scientist I can only say what the data say. And I think the one thing I think I would like everyone to know is I how proud I am of my kids and how blessed I am to have them in my lives, and they are the greatest gift other than Jesus that I could have.

One other thing I might say is that I’ve gotten a lot of pretty cruel, harsh, judgmental emails over the years—and if you’re a Christian saying things like that, it’s no wonder my colleagues don’t want anything to do with faith. Christianity is about love, and these are not really loving responses to anything.

If you believe 24/7 creation is really the only interpretation possible and ignore tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life was a simple construct that got way more complex over time, that’s fine—we may be wrong about the science (I don’t think we are, but as a scientist I have to leave that minute possibility open). I think that parents need to tell their kids that there are a lot of REASONS scientists say what they do, and virtually NONE of those reasons are to disprove God’s existence. That doesn’t enter in. I’ve had lots of students come into my office in tears over the years, saying, “I don’t understand…” The thing is, if you go with the scientific evidence and it turns out to be wrong, I don’t think God is going to punish you for that; God made us curious people. I believe we should step back a little bit and consider other views equally—anything less is doing God and your child a disservice.

Mary Schweitzer

https://biologos.org/articles/not-so-dry-bones-an-interview-with-mary-schweitzer

Interestingly, they found some heme in the bones (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule).   When tested it turned out to be more like that of birds than of other reptiles.    So the find you're referencing turned out to confirm one again that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.

Creationists skip over problems like this when they cannot explain them

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Macroevolution is something unobserved.  A theory. 

You were going to tell us what the scientific definition of "macroevolution" is.   I believe that's the source of your confusion.   What do you think it is?

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

They believe a fossil indicates evolution, but why? 

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species leveland above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Two errors there.   First, it's been directly observed.   

No it hasn't.

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You were going to tell us what the scientific definition of "macroevolution" is.   I believe that's the source of your confusion.   What do you think it is?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species leveland above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Fossils are not evidence of evolution.