Confused about evolution

.....and "atheists.org" wouldn't have any sort of agenda either.... :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

I tried to tell ya

 

Atheists work on their Premise that nothing can come from nothing, or that no living creature can come out of unliving things. If we have to accept such logic first and then defend our faith, it is contradictory the deity of God. God-ness means that He can do anything, He can create anything out of nothing.
Thousands of scientific discoveries deny and reject the Theory of Evolution. Trillions of fishes in Pacific Ocean are not evolving at all. Where are the intermediate links between the fossils?

 

Atheists are deceived individuals who have rejected the only true, living God and therefore live in darkness. What do light and darkness have in common? Nothing. Why would you even listen to them? Check out the website Annsni suggested. Like Pete said, atheists have an agenda, to discredit God.

 

With God all things are possible, there is nothing impossible.

 

The "stories told" about the 3.5 billion year geologic column "layering" of fossils would make the column on average 100 miles deep.

In places where the column due to wind and erosion etc has "piled high" we have about 1 mile max.

That should tell you something about their "story telling".

The horse series is a good example of how atheist darwinist fraud works. They arranged the fossiles of different animals in sequence to LOOK like a horse was evolving -- but that sequence matched NOTHING in the geologic column in terms of actual sequences found.

However this was done as "guesswork" since that is HOW the pseudoscience of athiest darwinism "works".

As Brittish scientist, atheist, leading darwinist, anthropologist Colin Patterson said "Stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Some general observations.
1. Atheists will throw any garbage at you to try and discredit the Bible including many things that are not true. It is not wise to go to an atheisitic site.
Even Julius Huxley, Darwin's great promoter of the evolutionary theory, admitted: "I believe in evolution not because it is credible, but because belief in God is far too incredible." He believed in the myth of evolution because he didn't want to submit himself to God as Creator. In doing so he knew the consequence--he would have to become subservient as one of God's creatures to God's commands. There was no other logical conclusion.

2. Evolution goes contrary to the laws of science and even science itself. Science is knowledge based on observation and then classified. Science always needs an observer. There was and still is no one to observe evolution taking place. In the beginning of Creation, the only one that was there was God himself. No evolutionist was there. There was no observer. Therefore evolution has put itself in the realm of the metaaphysical and has becocme a religion unto itself. It has stepped outside the bounds of science.

3. Regarding fossils. Most fossils are found in shale, and some are found at the bottom of the geological column as they say. But what does that prove? They use circular reasoning to prove their point which is illogical. How do you know how old the layers of the column are? Answer: The age of the fossils tells us how old they are. How do you know how old the fossils are? Answer: The age of the layer of the geological column tellus us so.

4. As I mentioned many fossils are found in shale. Interestingly enough there has been marine fossils found in shale rock upon some of the higher mountain tops. Now, how could that happen? It shoots their theories to pieces. The only way that could be accounted for is by the Flood described in Gen.6-9. Much of the shale is on the continental shelves. It is almost always found near water, because it is formed as a result of water. To find shale on the top of a mountain is an anomaly, highly unusual, out of place--and marine fossils??
An evolutionist can't explain that. But a world wide flood can, when it sent this world "topsy-turvy" so to speak. "Every mountain was covered." Thus even the so-called geological columns are not what they seem to be.

 

Let’s take this a point at a time, xdx,

I have heard about this fossil record problem according to which the simplest life forms are on the bottom and over the time with the different layers the life forms also seem to have haven gotten more complex.

This is false. There are some extremely complex forms at the bottom of the fossil record. The trilobite is an excellent example. It is the ‘index’ fossil for the Cambrian (if you find a trilobite, you are in the Cambrian strata by definition). One type of trilobite had a complex eye (two of them, actually) which has no relation to the idea of the evolution of the eye. It appears fully formed, complex, and functional from the start. The same can be said of other features of various organisms whose fossils are found in the Cambrian strata.

This is indeed something which makes you think that evolution has happened.

Be very careful here. ‘Evolution’ simply means change, and yes, there have been changes. But the type of changes which are the argument are the type which would have turned a bacteria into a bear given time, chance, mutations and natural selection. This is what is debated, not variations within existing kinds and not the loss of function of different organs or tissues.

Later on the writer asks if somebody who didn't read the Genesis account would have come to the conclusion on his own that everything happened the way the bible says it?

The Bible is for our instruction in part so we won’t make mistakes. However, the concept of special creation by kind is actually the inevitable honest conclusion of biology and genetics. We cannot see nor force changes in anything beyond simple variation regardless of what we do. Too much variation results in death. That is what we find. Evolutionary believers declare that it happened anyway, and that is pure belief without a shred of extant evidence to support it.

What if people like Darwin were indeed sincere and looking for the truth?

Did you know Darwin was so unsure of his ideas that he did not want to publish his first book, but was pressured into it?

If we didn't have the bible then I don't think that there would be many people which would come to the conclusion that everything was created from nothing at one point in time or what do you think?

Logically, we have an option. Either matter existed forever and ended up inventing a deity or deities, or God existed forever and invented matter. The evidence all around us points to the latter option.


The Logic Of Evolution
The conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple observations:

Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence.

It has not been demonstrated to be possible at any time.

Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were very different from living things today.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion: Life has changed through time (evolved).

That is an erroneous conclusion. All the evidence from those two statements shows is that living things come from living things and that there were some living things in the past which are not around now. That’s it. To go further than that requires more information than is given in the two observations.

Let me quote for you from Henry Gee, one of the editors of the peer-reviewed and highly esteemed journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, he writes:

“A fossil can be thought of an event in Deep Time. Compared with the immensity of time in which it is found, a fossil is a point in time of zero extent: a fossil either exists or it doesn’t. By itself, a fossil is a punctuation mark, an interjection, an exclamation, even, but it is not a word, or even a sentence, let alone a whole story. Fossils are the tableaux that are illuminated by the occasional shafts of light that punctuate the corridor of Deep Time. You cannot connect one fossil with any other to form a narrative.

…In the end, we never see fossils as they are, but only imperfectly, in the light of models that are more or less approximate. Given this constraint, it is surely hard enough to make progress understanding the evidence we have without leaping way beyond it, with presuppositions about chains of ancestry and escent, and about missing links. Such presuppositions are exposed as vacuous once the evidence finally catches up.”

 

part two response to the OP:

According to the fossil record, vertebrates went without jaws for many millions of years.Finally, at the beginning of the Devonian Period (395-345 million years ago), the first fish with jaws entered their remains into the record in the rocks. At the very end of the Devonian or the beginning of the Carboniferous Period (345-280 million years ago), the first primitive amphibians arose. These fish-like animals differed from their air-breathing fish ancestors mostly in their elaboration of the bony structure of the paired appendages - converting fins into hands and feet - and in reinforcement of the structures attaching the paired appendages to the spinal column. The first reptiles did not appear until the last half of the Carboniferous Period.

The mathematics and genetics of this occurring make it impossible. How many mutations would all that take? Considering that all known mutations reduce specificity, how are they going to get the increases in specificity required? Considering also that the evidence points to at least a thousand expressed negative mutations to one potentially positive expressed mutation, how are they going to get past the millions of negative mutations to get positive on top of positive on top of positive, etc., to get a hand from a fin? It is pure imagination and has not a shred of genetic evidence which makes it more than that.

To give the lie to creationist claims that there are no connecting-link fossils to join the vertebrate classes, the Permian Period (280-225 million years ago) saw the appearance of an entire order of animals, the mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida), which can be seen to change with time from typical, primitive reptiles, into primitive mammals. It was not until late in the Triassic Period (225-190 million years ago) that the therapsid-mammal transmutation was complete. Contrary to the first chapter of Genesis, which claims that the first mammals appeared on the earth a mere twenty-four hours after the first fish, the first mammals did not appear on earth until more than 300 million years of fish evolution had transpired!

Actually, that’s not nearly enough time. Evolution tells us that the transition, or evolution, from a single-celled organism to the first multicellular organism took about a billion years. Let’s go with that, OK? Right now, the very primitive E.coli has a twenty minute generation time. That means it only takes 20 minutes between an initial cell division to the time when the two daughter cells are able to divide. Generation time for chimps, by comparison, is about 10-12 years. Giving evolution every possible benefit of the doubt, let’s allow only ten generations a day for those early organisms – WAY less than prokaryotes take today. That gives us 3650 generations in a year. That means it took 36,500,000,000,000 generations of something like bacteria to get to a multicellular stage. OK, how many generations of fish can you get in a year? Maybe, if they are guppies, 25? Larger fish require much longer times, as do amphibians and reptiles. So HOW MANY GENERATIONS WOULD IT TAKE FOR A FISH TO BECOME AN AMPHIBIAN? You see, it is not the years, but the generations required, and when that is taken into account, 300 million years is not nearly enough time, even if it COULD happen genetically, which we have no indication is possible!


Birds, which, according to both creation myths in Genesis, were created on the same day as fish, do not enter the fossil record until the Jurassic Period (190-136 million years ago). Representing an ultimate variation on the dinosaur theme, birds trace their descent from reptiles quite different from those ancestral to the mammals. Contrary to the claims of some creationists, evolutionists do not claim that reptiles evolved into birds, and birds evolved into mammals!

Let’s not worry about what ‘some’ creationists claim. Let’s take a look at what evolutionists claim. First of all, the vast majority of fossils are marine. Therefore birds would not get buried with them in underwater mudslides and such, right? Second, the Jurassic, in the middle of the Mesozoic, would be when the birds had finally propagated enough after the flood to be in enough places to get buried in LANDslides and other local catastrophes. By the way, it is the belief of many of us crazy creationists that the Flood of Noah, real as it was, had nothing to do with the fossil record, as that was the result of things that happened after the Deluge.

Even though the first mammals appeared in the Triassic Period, forms for which the English language has names would not appear until the late Cretaceous (136-65 million years ago), when opossum-like forms appeared, the Eocene Epoch (60-40 million years ago), when primitive whales originated, and the Oligocene Epoch (40-25 million years ago), when apes, monkeys, and primitive grazing mammals appeared.

The record in the rocks, thus, is evidence either for fishes evolving into birds and mammals, or it is evidence of thousands of successive "special creations" - magical replacements of successive faunas by slightly different ones. Curiously, the latter interpretation is as unbiblical as it is unscientific.

There is a third option, which is quite biblical and scientific, and agrees with genetics as well as the geological data:
http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm -- this is the summary conclusion. Barry Setterfield is my husband, so after you have read some of the material and you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

 

part 3 in response to the OP

If either of the biblical myths were true, all types of vertebrates - living types of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes - would be found along with bacteria and trilobites at the very beginning of the fossil record and would be extractable from all rock layers of later ages. But of course, nothing could be farther from reality. The infamous "gaps in the fossil record," adduced by creationists as evidence against evolution, are actually a devastating refutation of the idea that all forms of life were miraculously zapped onto the earth at the same time!

That argument is a false one. There is no reason at all to assume that a giraffe would be in the same environment as a jellyfish. Nor would I feel comfortable, personally, living in the sort of swampy area that insects, mosses, and ferns thrived in. I would prefer higher ground. There is no reason, in other words, to assume that all fossils should be mixed together in the fossil record.

The Logic Of Natural Selection
Since creationists in their attacks of evolution in general, and of natural selection in particular, usually obfuscate the scientific principles involved and generally substitute a straw man which is easier to ridicule, it is important that we state clearly just what it is that science has to say on the topic of how new species come to be. The modern ("synthetic") theory of natural selection consists of a tightly interwoven fabric of observations and logical conclusions drawn from them.

Observation 1: All living things tend to reproduce in geometric progression, so that if all offspring survived, the entire earth would be overrun by them.


Observation 2: In fact, however, the earth is NOT so overrun. The populations of various species remain approximately constant in size from century to century, due to the finite resources of the environment.

The second observation is faulty, as evidenced by the existence of endangered species and the fact of exterminations and extinctions.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion A: There must be a competition for the available resources of the environment, a "struggle for existence."

Observation 3: Heritable variations (mutations) are observed to occur spontaneously, from time to time, in populations of all species.

Ask them to name a few and take a look at what they are talking about!

Observation 4: In a given environment, some of these variations are helpful in the struggle for existence, and others are harmful or neutral.

Ask for examples and take a look at the genetics involved. You will find a reduction in specificity in the KNOWN mutations.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion B: A natural selection of individuals will result. Those with helpful mutations will survive and expand in numbers, and those with harmful mutations will tend to perish and be reduced in numbers.

This conclusion is based on faulty premises, number one, and, number two, goes against what we actually see. Natural selection deletes from the potential for variability in any population by eliminating from breeding, or even living, a certain portion of the population. The members that are left are then dealing with a truncated gene pool and mutations of the potentially beneficial sort, however they arrive, do not and cannot keep up with this kind of truncation. The actual result of natural selection is endangered species – populations so truncated genetically that they have no variation potential left and therefore cannot live outside of their own particular ecological niche. THIS is something we see and do not need to guess about.

Observation 5: The source of inheritable changes is either (1) change in the sequence of chemical "bases" in the DNA molecules making up an organism's genes, (2) rearrangement of genes on chromosomes, or (3) multiplication or deletion of genes or chromosomes.

Observation 6: Physically and chemically speaking, there is no limit to the amount of base changing possible in DNA or the amount of gene rearrangement which can take place.

Only in their imaginations. In real life too much variation results in death. This is also something we see in real life.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion C: There will be no limit to the amount of variation possible in any given species. Given enough time, and changing environmental conditions, mutation will add to mutation, and any species will gradually change into one or more new species. As mutations cause greater and greater cumulative change, and as sexual recombination assembles novel hereditary ensembles, species will turn into new genera, genera into new families, etc.

Total imagination based on faulty premises and suppression of the real data we have in genetics and biology.

 

final part of response to OP


With the exception of the observations concerning changes in DNA and chromosomes as the source of evolutionary variation, the theory above was discovered by Charles Darwin in the middle of the last century.Darwin came to his theory grudgingly - he had originally been a creationist himself. But the facts of nature which he uncovered in his trip around the world on H.M.S. Beagle forced him to give up the Genesis mythology in favor of evolutionary science, and made him formulate the theory of natural selection.

It was essentially his grandfather’s theory, actually.

The lesson to be learned from this is that the facts of nature compel unbiased minds to conclude that evolution has occurred, and that natural selection is at least a part of the cause of evolutionary change. (Population size and genetic isolation of populations are also important factors affecting the degree to which evolutionary change will occur.)

Contrary to their declarations, the actual facts of nature indicate a severe limitation to the amount of variability available to any gene pool, and this strongly indicates special creation by kind.

As we examine the bizarre details of the Genesis creation myth, however, we must ask: Is it conceivable that any person not already aware of the first Genesis myth could go out into the world of nature and conclude that green plants came into existence before the sun?

Actually, when we realize the first light came to the earth from the quasar that used to be associated with our black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and that the sun itself, a generation I star, did not light up immediately (until the fourth day) there is absolutely no problem with the plants growing before our sun lit up. If you check out the plasma model of the cosmos you will find that in any solar system the planets are formed before the central suns, and that, therefore, given the fact that God did create as He said, there is no problem with plants coming before the sun.

That birds existed before reptiles? Without knowledge of the second Genesis myth, who would come up with the idea that man is older than both plants and animals, but that woman did not come into existence until the last animal species had appeared?

This demonstrates an ignorance of what Genesis is saying. In Genesis 2 we see that the plants and animals HAD BEEN created. As far as birds before reptiles, well, they may not like that, but that is the way it was.

Without being brainwashed by the Noah's Ark tale, what geologist would conclude that the whole planet was covered by a shell of water 4,334 years ago?

Which is why the evolutionists are stuck with the idea of a ‘snowball earth’ despite the evidence that the matrix around the boulders could only form in warm water….the Flood deposits are in the several miles of both tillite and then carbon and kerogen rich sedimentary layers under the Cambrian. Here: http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm


What independent observer would conclude that the kiwi, which can neither swim nor fly, came to New Zealand from Mt.Ararat in Turkey, but couldn't make it to Greece or Australia? Could anyone conclude that there was once a "firmament" in the sky -- with windows in it, and water above it?

The Bible is quite clear that there was one continent in the beginning (which, by the way, required science a few thousand years to agree with), and that the continents were not divided until the time of Peleg. This gives ample time for the kiwis and all other animals to migrate.

In short, the evolutionists are doing two things, both of which are wrong:

• They are basing their arguments on imagination
• They are setting up creationist straw men to fight and thus try to prove themselves.

The data and extant evidence point strongly toward the actual and real truthfulness of the biblical account of creation.

 

We do have the bible. Excluding it for the sake of discussion leads to faulty conclusions.

 

That's really not the point. The point is, can we discern anything about origins without the Bible? And yes, we can, as I tried to point out with the couple of hours' of work I did above.

 

thanks, Scarlett. xdx's lack of response confirms what I had suspected -- he is really not interested at all in the responses to the "questions" he is posting. He is only interested in stirring things up and then -- possibly -- laughing with friends or by himself or whatever -- at the responses and then moving on to the next one.

 

Helen, so what if he is?

The questions stir discussion and thought, so it's a win either way.