Page 3 of 4
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 3:31 pm
by joejmz
vickers_m wrote:
Well what kind of books do you all read then? And can you refute them? I saw someone trying to refute Dawkins God Delusion book somewhere on this site and he was only able to respond to three measly chapters. I don't know I'm under the inkling that you all do not read pro evolution material and avoid it like the plague.
vickers, why are you trying so hard to stress the "fact" that you are a creanionist? It's a bit obvious that you're not, and that's really OK. I don't think anyone here is going to attack you, as long as you don't attack anyone here.
The whole "I'm a creationist just like you" line combined with the "I don't know I'm under the inkling that you all do not read pro evolution material and avoid it like the plague," barbs is actually childish and completely unnecessary.
At this point the only reason I can see for you to pretend to be a creationist is so that you can insult creationists with impunity. If you really are interested in a discussion, then just admit you're not a creationist and have a real conversation.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 4:32 am
by DRDS
I don't know. I think Vickers is telling the truth. I mean, we all go through doubts many times. I'm sure just about everyone here has doubted God's existence of have doubted their salvation from time to time. The guy is just doubting his creation views right now, he'll get over it.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 7:42 pm
by joejmz
DRDS wrote:I don't know. I think Vickers is telling the truth. I mean, we all go through doubts many times. I'm sure just about everyone here has doubted God's existence of have doubted their salvation from time to time. The guy is just doubting his creation views right now, he'll get over it.
There's a difference between having doubts and making snide remarks about the intelligence of creationists. Something about his replies seems more like an evolutionist who thinks he has found a safe way to insult creationists.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 7:53 pm
by DRDS
I don't know, you must have a sixth sense, cause I sure don't see it.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 1:31 pm
by csaliba
Gman wrote:vickers_m wrote: I need help terribly! I"m losing my faith!
Which faith? It's all faith based..
I am a creationist but also in a way believe that their is a kind of evolution.I believe also that definitely humans have their own specie unique specie.I believe so because The Son of God was the first born of every creature.
KJV Bible Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
I believe that the origin of the species where subject to a sudden change every time a new specie is being introduced.This change was caused through the Quickening of The Holy Spirit, within the Son Of God in order to create the very first ever specie.I am not going to give details for now how the Son of God was within this process,but I tell you this, that Jesus was raised up from death through the same process which as I said was the Quickening of the Holy Spirit.This same process will eventually happen for the last time, prior to Jesus coming,when all dead Jesus believers will come to life,and existing living creatures will be changed in a twinkle of an eye.
1Corintians 15:51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 2:43 am
by neo-x
I am a creationist but also in a way believe that their is a kind of evolution.I believe also that definitely humans have their own specie unique specie.I believe so because The Son of God was the first born of every creature.
KJV Bible Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
I believe that the origin of the species where subject to a sudden change every time a new specie is being introduced.This change was caused through the Quickening of The Holy Spirit, within the Son Of God in order to create the very first ever specie.I am not going to give details for now how the Son of God was within this process,but I tell you this, that Jesus was raised up from death through the same process which as I said was the Quickening of the Holy Spirit.This same process will eventually happen for the last time, prior to Jesus coming,when all dead Jesus believers will come to life,and existing living creatures will be changed in a twinkle of an eye.
If Jesus was born as the blueprint for the first specie or if he was the first specie than that means he was created and that means he is not the creator. he can't be both at the same time on a godly scale i.e. he can't be born, he is God.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 7:02 pm
by vickers_m
Hi again, Thank you Robs and rest for your help. Here are the things I"m still left with
The fact that a population of domestic sheep can no longer breed with their ancestors
fossils of dinosaurs with feathers
Consistency of phylogenetic and morphological trees
Ring species
Self-replicating polymers
Tail genes (switched off by mutation) identical to chimpanzees
Broken vitamin C genes identical to chimpanzees
ERVs identical in form and place to chimpanzees
mudskippers
Does anyone know what I can go for answers to these things? Thax.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 11:15 pm
by csaliba
neo-x wrote:I am a creationist but also in a way believe that their is a kind of evolution.I believe also that definitely humans have their own specie unique specie.I believe so because The Son of God was the first born of every creature.
KJV Bible Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
I believe that the origin of the species where subject to a sudden change every time a new specie is being introduced.This change was caused through the Quickening of The Holy Spirit, within the Son Of God in order to create the very first ever specie.I am not going to give details for now how the Son of God was within this process,but I tell you this, that Jesus was raised up from death through the same process which as I said was the Quickening of the Holy Spirit.This same process will eventually happen for the last time, prior to Jesus coming,when all dead Jesus believers will come to life,and existing living creatures will be changed in a twinkle of an eye.
If Jesus was born as the blueprint for the first specie or if he was the first specie than that means he was created and that means he is not the creator. he can't be both at the same time on a godly scale i.e. he can't be born, he is God.
No,No,No,
To clarify,
God the Father created first the heavenly beings,the spiritual creatures,through His Son,His word,when He was purposely within His Son, in order to be Hidden and be also a temporary mystery even to the spiritual creatures during their probation period as a test for their love to God.During this period a war emerged and not to go into details,subject to time, length,and in order to keep with the topic,the Son's spirit since obviously, was their creator,was within them,a spirit within a spirit, all in Him, all by Him, and all for Him, otherwise they wouldn't exist. God had to punish them, but since He is a loving God He wanted them to return in a way back. He locked them within our world to be part in the process of the new recreation of our world after the destruction of the former one through the rebel. The spirit of the Son of God was obviously sacrificed within them as well since He himself had to recreate our world. During creation the Son of God's job was definitely as I explained the first born of every creature(specie) within the flesh and the Father's job through the Holy Spirit was to transform those spirits into souls in order to return to the Father as humans. That was also the only way For the Son of God to return to the Father, but only through practically transforming Himself into an immaculate body for Mary, the only source that He needed to become flesh, since the Holy Spirit was through His Father, the mystery not for me in a way, was His soul which was also locked within those evil spirits and was transformed by the Father into a soul????
I know I created a big bang but that's the way I am in a way being inspired through the Holy Spirit. It is surely the End Times!!!
God bless
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 3:05 pm
by vickers_m
Another thing I need to add to the list is the transitional fossils. If you all are not familiar with them go here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 4:31 am
by Telstra Robs
This should cover the dinosaurs to birds thing (not just the aspect you inquired about, but many others as well, such as the implications of the great disparities between the breathing apparatuses of birds and dinosaurs)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html.
Transitional fossils are too wide a topic to cover. If there are any specific alleged transitional fossils you are referring to that would be great (it would be somewhat tedious to attempt to find every single alleged transitional fossil in existence and argue a case against it being a transitional fossil).
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 6:03 am
by Gman
Let's start from the beginning.. I would like someone to show me the transitional fossils of trilobites. In the cambrian rock layers below trilobites is algae. How did the algae create the trilobites?
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 6:48 am
by DannyM
Gman wrote:Let's start from the beginning.. I would like someone to show me the transitional fossils of trilobites. In the cambrian rock layers below trilobites is algae. How did the algae create the trilobites?
Yes, that'd be a good start.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 3:32 pm
by joejmz
vickers_m wrote:Hi again, Thank you Robs and rest for your help. Here are the things I"m still left with
The fact that a population of domestic sheep can no longer breed with their ancestors
Are these actual ancestors or are they supposed to be ancestors according to the theory? If you're using the theory to prove the theory then that's circular thinking not logical thinking.
fossils of dinosaurs with feathers
What exactly is the issue you perceive with feathered dinosaurs?
Consistency of phylogenetic and morphological trees
Phylogenetic and morphological trees are man-made concepts based on subjective standards. Here is an interesting article
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v14i11e.htm
Ring species
Aren't ring species an example of microevolution and adaptation? The reason one population can mate with a neighboring population but not another is an indication of a loss of alleles, leading to diminished genetic variability.
Self-replicating polymers
Yet another interesting article from the same site:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i7e.htm
Tail genes (switched off by mutation) identical to chimpanzees
Broken vitamin C genes identical to chimpanzees
ERVs identical in form and place to chimpanzees
A programmer will usually find more than one use for his work. If he can use a particular portion of code in more than one program, it is economic to do so. An intelligent creator could have done much the same and used portions of genetic code on several different life forms, making minor modifications instead of rewriting the whole sequence.
mudskippers
A species designed to function mainly on water but with the ability to function on land by an ingenious design which allows them to continue to oxygenate water and keep their gills lubricated while on land. I actually would love to see how someone who accepts the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for the diversity of life explain the random unrelated sequence of events that resulted in a fish being able to do that.
Does anyone know what I can go for answers to these things? Thax.
I would highly recommend the Science Against Evolution website
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 7:59 pm
by joejmz
The only thing that makes these fossils transitional is wishful thinking.
There is no genetic material in fossils, so there is no way to even begin to make the case that there is a genetic link between any of these fossils and any other fossils. That leaves us with similarities in physical appearance and in the case of "transitionals" there are physical similarities between these fossils and the fossils of the two life forms it's supposed to be the intermediate of. But that could be a case of the human ability to detect patterns--the same thing that lets us see a sailboat-shaped cloud. Just because three or more people can look at a cloud and see the sailboat does not mean the cloud is in objective reality in the exact shape of a sail boat.
The other reason these are considered transitional is because the fossils appears in strata between the two fossils it's supposed to be in transition. This is a logical fallacy. Just because George Custer lived and died before I did does not make him my ancestor.
Re: Big list of evolution evidences I can't refute
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 7:33 pm
by vickers_m
joejmz wrote:vickers_m wrote:Hi again, Thank you Robs and rest for your help. Here are the things I"m still left with
The fact that a population of domestic sheep can no longer breed with their ancestors
Are these actual ancestors or are they supposed to be ancestors according to the theory? If you're using the theory to prove the theory then that's circular thinking not logical thinking.
I think it's both. They are both actual ancestors and they are supposed to be ancestors according to the theory. That's why evolutionists like to point this out because it supports this portion of their theory.
fossils of dinosaurs with feathers
What exactly is the issue you perceive with feathered dinosaurs?
The issue is that evolutionists say this is how reptiles gradually became birds and that these are true intermediates between reptiles and birds.
Consistency of phylogenetic and morphological trees
Phylogenetic and morphological trees are man-made concepts based on subjective standards. Here is an interesting article
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v14i11e.htm
Ring species
Aren't ring species an example of microevolution and adaptation? The reason one population can mate with a neighboring population but not another is an indication of a loss of alleles, leading to diminished genetic variability.
Self-replicating polymers
Yet another interesting article from the same site:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i7e.htm
Yeah this might be a example of microevolution. I hope it is.
Tail genes (switched off by mutation) identical to chimpanzees
Broken vitamin C genes identical to chimpanzees
ERVs identical in form and place to chimpanzees
A programmer will usually find more than one use for his work. If he can use a particular portion of code in more than one program, it is economic to do so. An intelligent creator could have done much the same and used portions of genetic code on several different life forms, making minor modifications instead of rewriting the whole sequence.
mudskippers
A species designed to function mainly on water but with the ability to function on land by an ingenious design which allows them to continue to oxygenate water and keep their gills lubricated while on land. I actually would love to see how someone who accepts the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for the diversity of life explain the random unrelated sequence of events that resulted in a fish being able to do that.
Does anyone know what I can go for answers to these things? Thax.
I would highly recommend the Science Against Evolution website
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm
Thanx I'll check it out.