RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Audie]

If there is no explanation of the Origins OF -- how can there Be development Of.

Take a Person -- a baby -- we Know it came about from egg / sperm combo. The baby developed in the woman's uterus. It gets born -- the parents are Not surprised as to 'where did this baby come From'. Now -- IF a baby were left on someone's front porch -- they wouldn't simply take the baby into their house and begin raising it. They Would want to know Where the baby came From. Because there is - at Least a mother Somewhere. And obviously there was a Father or there wouldn't Be a baby to leave on a front porch. So -- the parents can watch their baby develop into a toddler, teenager, adult.

So -- we Know there is an earth with animals and people -- we can Observe That. And life Does happen one generation at a time. We also know That.

There are Lots of people who do ancestor searches because they are Curious as to Who their ancestors are.

Another subject -- birds that have wings but don't fly. Turkeys, chickens, peacocks, etc. They are born - one generation at a time, Also. People are the 'key' to any changes / to bring out features of the animal. "Birds of a feather Do flock together' / mate and reproduce little ones of their kind that grow up to be mature birds that continue to reproduce after Their Kind. They are Not going to change Gradually into something Else. Because they produce One Generation at a time.

If we dont know the origin of water, how can random raindrops produce this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=carlsba ... OurJhQM%3A

See how that goes? You could apply it to math, too. How can we study or know anything about math if we know not whence it comes?

I wonder if you would agree that you know next to nothing about
evolution? No crime in that, just an observation. I dont know enough about football
to know how many guys on a team or even if it changes depending.

[Audie]

Um, maybe you could studyvsome biology before you try to take a stand on what makes sense?

Birds run hotter than mammals, btw.

I do know that. That was my point. It seems to be evolving out of bird chararistics into a mammal over time. there are quite a few animals like this that seem to be in transision stage.
Honorary mammals
Kiwi’s habits and physical characteristics make them unbird-like in many ways. Sometimes they are referred to as an honorary mammal.
They build burrows like a badger, and sleep standing up.
The kiwi’s body temperature is lower than most birds, which range from 39ºC – 42ºC. The kiwi is more like a mammal, with a temperature between 37ºC and 38ºC.
The kiwi’s powerful muscular legs are heavy and marrow-filled, like a mammal, with skin as tough as shoe-leather. They make up a third of the bird’s weight. The skeletons of most birds are light and filled with air sacs to enable flight.
The eye sockets of most birds are separated by a plate, but in kiwi they are divided by large nasal cavities – just like most mammals.
While most birds depend on sight, the kiwi relies on a highly developed sense of smell and touch.
The kiwi’s sense of hearing is also well developed. Its ear openings are large and visible, and it will **** its head to direct its ear toward soft or distant noises.
Unlike most birds, which have one ovary, a female kiwi has two – like a mammal. If she produces more than one egg in a clutch, ovulation occurs in alternate ovaries.
The chick emerges from its enormous egg as a mini adult, fully feathered and able to feed itself – which is very unusual for a bird.
And finally, a kiwi’s plumage is shaggy and hair-like, and it has cat-like whiskers on its face and around the base of its beak. These super-sensitive way-finding whiskers are likely to have evolved to help the bird feel its way through the dark.

I missed your point then. You think a kiwi must speed up, or slow down its metabolism to turn into
a mammal?

The bird is not ever going to turn into a mammal. Sometime "convergent evolution" gives us
disparate creatures supetficially similar in morphology. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins eere not / are not
turning into fish.

[Audie]

[quote="Philip"]OK, Audie, then quite arguing evolution as if it makes some statement about God's existence or the truth of the Bible. And also quit using YEC interpretations of Scripture to dismiss the Bible scientifically - you've made a gazillion - yes, SNARKY - statements to that effect. Evolution proves not one thing that is important to a theism reality. Not one. So quick to dismiss creationism, but not terribly worried about the huge, inexplicable gaping holes between when NOTHING physically existed - not even the space for anything to expand into, and and instant explosion of a marvelous and astounding physical reality, immediately - but not RANDOMLY - but immediately obeying established laws of great specificity as well as the fact that these many complex things functioned together in amazing harmony. So that is your first huge gap. So, you have a stunning array and number of immensely improbable individual conditions, and THEN interactively so, before ANY cell could have even survived. So, that is your second, mind-boggling hurdle. Third, the conditions are right, but something had to make non-life become the first cell. And you should know that a simple cell is a massively complex thing that cannot EVOLVE. As ALL of its necessary components must be in place all at once, for that cell to be able to function as a living organism. Fourth huge hurdle - is how did that first simple cell survive - really, what are the odds. Immensely improbable, that's what. For healthy offspring of modern animals, with optimum conditions, the survival rate for many well developed and healthy offspring is VERY low.

What I would advise Audie is to quit throwing out cheap dismissals of the huge and insurmountable issues above, and either address them with facts and proof of how these things were possible, or stop being so dismissive of a Creation that we can scarcely understand its incredible complexity and functionality. Really, these things are beyond our comprehension. And lest we forget the biggest hurdle of all of this - Audie's Godless universe, of all of these astoundingly complex things of extraordinary design, had to first "pop" into existence and THEN self assemble themselves, blindly, randomly, unguided. It takes off the scale faith to believe these many things are possible without an eternal presence of beyond human understanding and of power untold. So when ANYONE is so easily dismissive, they need to do more than talk unsupported theories that basically are the equivalent of "scientific metaphysics." So you are wasting your time debating evolution with Audie or anyone else - as it proves not one thing about God, even IF it were true or provable.[/quot

Speaking of cheap shots, I never have never will do any of what you put in your first two sentences.

You are equally creative in the rest of your post. If you care to discuss something, we can do that, but it is not a discussion when go on about things unrelated either to the topic or anything I've ever said.

[abelcainsbrother]

I just want to say that I know debating whether or not evolution is true science or not will not bring a person to God. I know this although there are theistic evolutionists but I just want people to realize the importance of going by evidence in order to determine what is true or not. I know it is hard to change minds and people will still choose to believe what they choose to but I still say evidence is important and I know it seems like a mountain of evidence behind evolution which is pretty much how they won in court. They just plop so much so-called evidence up on the table that nobody can go through it all to realize how weak all of that evidence really is. I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God but even if evolution went away something else could take its place.

I'll admit that I've always been skeptical about evolution and I've read pretty much everything YEC's and OEC's have put out against evolution.But believe it or not I realized the evidence for evolution is weak by actually going to evolution web-sights like for example talk origins,but others also and actually going through the evidence for evolution. Now as I do this I ignore what is explained about how life evolves,or explanations about the evidence which seems like preaching to me,but I actually zero in and focus on what the evidence shows and it was mostly by doing this that I came to reject evolution. I actually saved the links evolutionists would give me and I would go through it focusing on what the evidence demonstrates and shows.I considered becoming a theistic evolutionist.This is why when I hear neo claim he did this,I can't see how. This is why I say I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist. You don't have to be a Christian to not want to be played a fool.

[crochet1949]

If there is no explanation of the Origins OF -- how can there Be development Of.

Take a Person -- a baby -- we Know it came about from egg / sperm combo. The baby developed in the woman's uterus. It gets born -- the parents are Not surprised as to 'where did this baby come From'. Now -- IF a baby were left on someone's front porch -- they wouldn't simply take the baby into their house and begin raising it. They Would want to know Where the baby came From. Because there is - at Least a mother Somewhere. And obviously there was a Father or there wouldn't Be a baby to leave on a front porch. So -- the parents can watch their baby develop into a toddler, teenager, adult.

So -- we Know there is an earth with animals and people -- we can Observe That. And life Does happen one generation at a time. We also know That.

There are Lots of people who do ancestor searches because they are Curious as to Who their ancestors are.

Another subject -- birds that have wings but don't fly. Turkeys, chickens, peacocks, etc. They are born - one generation at a time, Also. People are the 'key' to any changes / to bring out features of the animal. "Birds of a feather Do flock together' / mate and reproduce little ones of their kind that grow up to be mature birds that continue to reproduce after Their Kind. They are Not going to change Gradually into something Else. Because they produce One Generation at a time.

If we dont know the origin of water, how can random raindrops produce this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=carlsba ... OurJhQM%3A

See how that goes? You could apply it to math, too. How can we study or know anything about math if we know not whence it comes?

I wonder if you would agree that you know next to nothing about
evolution? No crime in that, just an observation. I dont know enough about football
to know how many guys on a team or even if it changes depending.

As far as the math goes -- a Starting point is our fingers and toes -- count up to 10 or 20.

The origin of water -- let's look back at Genesis1:6 "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." vs 9 "And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land' and the gathered waters He called 'seas'. And God saw that it was good.
It was 'poofed' into existence by God.
Actually I know quite a bit about evolution -- I simply Don't Agree with it. No crime in That, either.
As for the pics in the site you included -- the beauty of nature that God has given us.

[Philip]

ACB: I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God

That's because 1) they are asking themselves the wrong questions, and 2) they don't seem to understand that it would have been entirely dependent upon what is more important that needs explaining (why there is ANYTHING that exists, and how design and function existed in things INSTANTLY appearing, and immediately obeying complex laws). They also fail to understand evolution - even if it occurred, refutes absolutely nothing when it comes to God. These are why it is foolish to get sucked into evolution arguments. It's the wrong argument about the wrong thing.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God

That's because 1) they are asking themselves the wrong questions, and 2) they don't seem to understand that it would have been entirely dependent upon what is more important that needs explaining (why there is ANYTHING that exists, and how design and function existed in things INSTANTLY appearing, and immediately obeying complex laws). They also fail to understand evolution - even if it occurred, refutes absolutely nothing when it comes to God. These are why it is foolish to get sucked into evolution arguments. It's the wrong argument about the wrong thing.

Maybe,maybe not. You see I know when I'm dealing with atheists about evolution and if I am able to convince them evolution is wrong I have a much more believable theory to present to them that I believe confirms the bible true. Now I don't do it as much here as far as discussions about evolution. I just mostly focus on why I reject it. But I know how to bring the bible and even Jesus into it if I can convince an atheist evolution is bunk science.

[dougangel]

I missed your point then. You think a kiwi must speed up, or slow down its metabolism to turn into
a mammal?

The bird is not ever going to turn into a mammal. Sometime "convergent evolution" gives us
disparate creatures supetficially similar in morphology. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins eere not / are not
turning into fish.

I did give you quite a comprehensive list where the Kiwi is in fact gaining mammal features and losing bird features and in fact biologists are calling it an honorary mammal so I don't know why you don't understand that ?

because its wings are shrunk and not used anymore and it forages on the ground at night because before man came there were only predator birds no native land mammals in New Zealand. So it was safer on the ground and there was a better food supply in the bush at night.

So I can't agree with you. It is changing into a mammal and you can see this happening over a long period of time.

[hughfarey]

I'm not sure what this discussion is really about, but I haven't posted for a while, so let's have a go.

1) Where did kiwis come from? It seems probable that the area of Gondwanaland in which kiwis began to evolve had few if any mammals, so that in the absence of such predators, some birds were able to sacrifice the ability to fly in favour of conserving the energy required to do so. It is not clear how closely all flightless birds are related, i.e. whether one group of flightless birds dispersed across South America, Madagascar and Australasia and diversified once the continents separated, or whether flightlessness evolved independently in different groups. Either way, as New Zealand separated due to tectonic drift, it continued to exclude mammals (except for a few bats, which could fly across the sea) until they were introduced by people in the 18th century, so kiwis were able to evolve according to a relatively predator free environment.

2) Where are they going? In the absence of predators or humans, there is a tendency for island species to get smaller, which may be why kiwis are not as big as emus. Like Australian marsupials, the kiwi has evolved to fill the ecological niche which in other continents is filled by mammals, so it is not surprising that, given 85 million years or so, it has evolved to resemble mammals in many ways. However, as dougangel points out convergent evolution will not make a bird a mammal, any more than, say, a marsupial rat is in any way a rodent, however closely it resembles one (or a dolphin is a shark, as suggested previously). Kiwis will never to be able to mate with badgers (whose ecological niche they seem mostly to have occupied).

[RickD]

[abelcainsbrother]

The evidence in evolution science proves kiwi's will always be kiwi's with only normal variation.This is why viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,dogs remain dogs,salamanders remain salamanders,humans remain humans,fruit flies remain fruit flies and so kiwis will also remain kiwis.And they have always been kiwis according to evidence life evolves and the environment has absolutely no effect regardless of predators. Life is either able to adapt like Eskimo's in the extreme cold or bacteria that adapts to live in Chernobyl in radiation or it dies but no life evolves based on environmental pressures.You cannot say kiwis are birds and are evolving into a mammals based on the evidence in evolution science.It must be demonstrated life evolves first,and there is no assuming going on.And if you want to say it cannot be demonstrated because it happens over such long periods of time? Then you need to drop evolution because you are admitting it is based on assumption and imagination.

[hughfarey]

Hi ACB! How are you with plate tectonics? The trouble with creating kiwis with lots of carnivores about is that they would have become extinct very soon. However, after New Zealand had separated from Antarctica, without any mammals, there was a much better chance that a flightless bird would survive. This happened about 85 million years ago. So were kiwis created spontaneously 85 million years ago, or is becoming a small furry flightless burrowing creature just "normal variation" for a bird? For that matter, you may like to consider any number of island creatures for whom a mainland existence would have resulted in rapid extinction. Do you think God waited until these islands appeared and then created special species just for them? Or are all endemic species just "normal variations" of other species? What about the dodo? Madagascar separated from India about 88 million years ago. Were dodos created then, or was the dodo, like the kiwi, just "normal variation"?

[Audie]

I'm not sure what this discussion is really about, but I haven't posted for a while, so let's have a go.

1) Where did kiwis come from? It seems probable that the area of Gondwanaland in which kiwis began to evolve had few if any mammals, so that in the absence of such predators, some birds were able to sacrifice the ability to fly in favour of conserving the energy required to do so. It is not clear how closely all flightless birds are related, i.e. whether one group of flightless birds dispersed across South America, Madagascar and Australasia and diversified once the continents separated, or whether flightlessness evolved independently in different groups. Either way, as New Zealand separated due to tectonic drift, it continued to exclude mammals (except for a few bats, which could fly across the sea) until they were introduced by people in the 18th century, so kiwis were able to evolve according to a relatively predator free environment.

2) Where are they going? In the absence of predators or humans, there is a tendency for island species to get smaller, which may be why kiwis are not as big as emus. Like Australian marsupials, the kiwi has evolved to fill the ecological niche which in other continents is filled by mammals, so it is not surprising that, given 85 million years or so, it has evolved to resemble mammals in many ways. However, as dougangel points out convergent evolution will not make a bird a mammal, any more than, say, a marsupial rat is in any way a rodent, however closely it resembles one (or a dolphin is a shark, as suggested previously). Kiwis will never to be able to mate with badgers (whose ecological niche they seem mostly to have occupied).

you sure this is what you want to say?

[Audie]

I missed your point then. You think a kiwi must speed up, or slow down its metabolism to turn into
a mammal?

The bird is not ever going to turn into a mammal. Sometime "convergent evolution" gives us
disparate creatures supetficially similar in morphology. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins eere not / are not
turning into fish.

I did give you quite a comprehensive list where the Kiwi is in fact gaining mammal features and losing bird features and in fact biologists are calling it an honorary mammal so I don't know why you don't understand that ?

Im not the one who doesnt understand what they mean.

. So it was safer on the ground and there was a better food supply in the bush at night

you are just making things up. Safer from what?

So I can't agree with you. It is changing into a mammal and you can see this happening over a long period of time.

Suture self but "changing into a mammal" is nonsense; whoever calls it an honourary mammal do not mean that. Nor would anyone familiar with what evolution is say something that out to lunch.

[Audie]

ACB: I do think that evolution keeps a lot of people from believing in God

That's because 1) they are asking themselves the wrong questions, and 2) they don't seem to understand that it would have been entirely dependent upon what is more important that needs explaining (why there is ANYTHING that exists, and how design and function existed in things INSTANTLY appearing, and immediately obeying complex laws).

IF there are people who let evolution keep them from belief in god, they are stupid.

They also fail to understand evolution

Much like you and abe

- even if it occurred

"even tho" "is occurring"

, refutes absolutely nothing when it comes to God

Evolution is a process of course, but nothing in science refutes God. The six day poof and the gad and some other silliness, that is another matter.

. These are why it is foolish to get sucked into evolution arguments. It's the wrong argument about the wrong thing

That really makes no sense, unless the discussion is specifically about whether science
proves there is no god. Which is a dumb argument that I hope nobody here is than much of a dimwit.

From my pov, it is a bit foolish to discuss / argue it as nobody on the creationist side can approach the subject with knowledge and / or intellectual honesty.

Still, it seems possible that the cognitive dissonance will somehow lead to an epiphany for some few.

Few. The crazed absurdity of claiming that glaciers were "stuck down' during the "flood",
as a way to get out of the fact that the glaciers prove there was no world wide flood-that is not enough to crack through the thick ideological armor needed to hold onto "flood" as a real world wide event.

I guess if they thought that floodism requires saying hot is cold, then they'd burn a hole through their hands before they'c say that charcoal actually can be real hot.




.