I'm incredulous as to how anyone could consider this a case against evolution. Yes, there was a flood, or at least a mud slide, and some animals got trapped in a mud pit and died: but that has happened millions of times throughout history. You are grasping at straws if you take every flood ever as proof of the biblical flood. There have been dozens of floods in living memory, why aren't they proof of the biblical flood?
@Blackmark52 We're not saying every flood is proof of the biblical flood. But based on the science we do know, there is just no way blood samples in a T-Rex or soft tissue within bones can last millions of years by natural means in earth/mudslides. This is just 1 piece of evidence to consider in favor the biblical flood or at least what science is currently doing... a serious examination of their understanding of floods/fossilization affected over time.
You don't know enough science. The video is about mammoths, which are mammals that lived as recently as 4500 years ago. They have found frozen mammoth meat that was still edible. What they found here were BONES, not fossils. T-Rex was a dinosaur which lived over 65 million years ago. Nobody has claimed to find blood samples or soft tissue, or even bones of dinosaurs, only fossilized remains. Get your facts straight.
@Blackmark52 Before you make assumptions and arrogant/insulting statements, please ask more questions. Google search 'T Rex blood' and you'll see PLENTY of articles from news worthy sources and science sources about blood and soft tissue found in dinosaurs. I only talk about this since you obviously find nothing convincing about this video. Just some more food for thought.
Hey sleanos. Give a video called "Zeitgeist - The greatest story ever sold" a watch. I found it helped me understand how this whole Jesus thing came about. Not saying u should convert to Atheism but give it a look.
@danjeliot Thanks. I've seen it. Much of their facts are correct, it's their conclusions that are questionable. I'd advise you investigate it further with credible evidence recorded in encyclopedias and take on a view other viewpoints from other historians and archaeologists as well.
Agreed - flood water by itself does not equal the bible being true. The bible is true in my opinion due to prophecy, archaeological finds and history that verify much of the Bible, and for life changing power that lasts found in Jesus Christ.
@sleanos Not to mention the struggles in the middle east and the Israelites. One thing an "honest" atheist can not do is explain right or wrong. Even for it to be a social agreeing would still need to borrow from the Judeo/Christian worldview. Darwinism teaches survival of the fittest so I should be able to take and get whatever I want.
Carbon dating depends mostly on assumptions,Also the reason that the Earth is believed to be old is because of little radiation found in rocks.This is assumed that the rocks are billions of years old,however Noah's flood would have washed much of the radioactive salts away making them appear very much older than they really are.
why is it that rocks along the sea floor can all be found to have hugely varying dates when they should have been all found to be of similar age. In fact According to your radio-active salt theory there should be no salts in seabed rocks because the water of the ocean washed it away.
I was wondering if anyone has been enlightened by the latest findings in the past few years that carbon dating after a certain time is not valid anymore b/c of the break down of it. Interesting to say the least when it comes to trying to date something back 'millions and billions' of years ago.
Simple: Have you ever done radio carbon dating? It is a best guess/approximation at best, yet it is not infallible, no dating method is. The ONLY accurate method of dating is one in which we can check against recorded history. Freshly formed Lava rocks have been known to give ages of thousands, even negative ages. The public doesn't hear much about that though, and so everyone assumes the dating methods are completely accurate & reliable when it comes to ancient things without historic records.
Meaning instead of being 1000 or 5000 years old, sometimes the carbon dating can return negative ages -1000 years old, etc. which is absurd for freshly formed rock.
It is in archaeological finds. And you can't historically date anything with radio-dating methods. That's like pulling a number out of a hate... even if the long ages certain methods present coraborate with one another. One still must ask what are the premises for choosing long age dating methods over short age dating methods.
I'd encourage you if you ever get the chance to take objects you KNOW the age of and test them yourself with the radio dating methods available. The results will be quite interesting and eye opening.
In and of itself, it does not prove a thing. It is just more evidence that can be used in favor of the great flood and against evolution and an old age earth. Same facts, numerous ways to interpret it based on the great body of evidences we have in support of either theory.
I'd say it's just the opposite. The site contains bones of ice-age creatures such as mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers, and a camel. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, and all life was created in six days, why weren't dinosaur bones and trilobites mixed in there? Why do all the remains fit the same time scale proposed by "evolutionists?"
You're asking a loaded questions. My ? to you is WHY would we expect to find dinosaurs and trilobites with every pocket of fossils we discover? Why do we find sea life fossils (like trilobites) in some of the highest mountains on the planet? U asked why the remains seem to fit time scales proposed by evo.... because the time scales are built on many assumptions and variables & selectively chosen for long ages. Read history to find out how the fossil record and dating of it began. Circular logic.
If this is some vast treasure trove of ancient remains, and the earth is really only 6000 years old, why does it only contain the bones of animals scientists say lived during a certain era? Why are the bones of triceratops never found alongside the bones of sabre-toothed tigers? Why are trilobite remains never found alongside mammoth tusks? Wouldn't the flood have put them there?
You are aware that certain types of animal roam together, yes? In the same way if a flood were to happen today, people wouldn't necessarily be grouped with the lions of Africa because we don't in great amounts camp out next to them. We have a similar situation in the past. And try drowning a lizard and a mouse sometime and see which one sinks or floats in water. Basic science (that CAN be tested , observed and repeated) answers the questions you pose.
That's a guess at best, guess you'll have to prove it. And while you're at it, try explaining why we find many trees and animal fossils spanning several strata (not just found in several strata, but the fossils actually SPAN several strata) if each layer is supposedly thousands-millions of of years old.
DonExodus2 recently did a video about how "polystrata" fossils are bullshit, but I love how you pretend to be scientific.
Could you explain how it is that paleontologists knew where to look for tiktaalik, for example? Shouldn't examples of the species be found in all different strata, rather than just the strata from the Devonian period?
Fossil findings of species within given strata is NOT nearly uniformed as you think it is. And no, we shouldn't expect species to be found in all different strata all around the world. If a catastrophe occurred in the past we wouldn't necessarily expect this. The fact we even HAVE fossils tells us something catastrophic happened in the past and quickly. Fossils are NOT possible slowly over years. Let a rat die in your backyard and see how quickly you DON'T get a fossil.
Fossils are actually an incredibly rare thing that can only happen if the creature that died had its body covered in layers and layers of mud and silt etc. You said that 'something catastrophic happened in the past and quickly'. But that would lend you to beleive that all fossils are therefore the same age, but we know that for example dinosaurs are older then mammoths so fossils are actually rare, random things that happen
Agreed. Fossils are incredibly rare and as you stated need to be covered fairly quickly to be fossilized. Good to see someone investigating this further. Now I'll address the rest of your statement which is a straw man. The flood account is a massive one time occurrence, that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge floods or catastrophic occurrences that would cause fossilization in remote parts of the world from different time periods occurring either. Ask more questions instead of assuming my stance.
Um sorry I wasnt assuming your stance its just you said what I have in quotes there further back in the comments. Also I'm not really sure how you think this proves creation. Is it the fact that all of these different animals were found together, and that they wouldn't normally be? Well as we can see from herd animals in Africa sometimes different species will stick together against predators. Just look at the fossil of two dinosaurs fighting, that was caused by a sandstorm, a freak occurance.
You MAY have quoted me exactly, but pay attention to what I was specifically responding to. CONTEXT. This isn't a thesis where I need to be crucified by you friend. And this DOESN'T in & of itself prove anything. I completely agree with your last statement about predators and the situation. This is the creationists interpretation of the evidence we can see when taken as a whole with all other evidence, builds the case of creation, not prove it %100. Darwinian Evolution isn't %100 either.
And to answer your question about sea life found on mountains: the earth has undergone a lot of geographical changes in it's billions (not thousands) of years. Mountains have risen due to tectonic plates pushing together, and more of the planet used to be covered in water.
We find fossils high in mountains because the land was uplifted forming the mountain.If you think fossils got high up on mountains from Noahs flood,then you have a severe math issue because according to Genesis the waters only rose 15 cubits,which is roughly 30ft.
I love how you all try to quote scripture and MISQUOTE it. Read it again:
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
If all the high hills and mountains were covered, then that means the waters prevailed 15 cubits up beyond the height of the mountains. No conflict there.
The old stand by argument of "The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks" is a total canard.You date the rocks a particular fossil is found in and then after a while of finding the same fossil in the same age range of strata you can then use that fossil as an index to estimate age of other fossils found in the same beds as the index instead of getting the rocked dated everytime.
Have you read ANY history at all? Any? I ask you, HOW did we first come to date the strata? (by the fossils found withing) And HOW did we first come to date the fossils? (by the strata found within). CIRCULAR REASONING. And this was WAAAAY before any radiometric dating. So the dating system of fossils and strata is flawed from inception.
Have you read ANYTHING outside of creationist propaganda? Anything? Geologists have many different independent ways to date strata and the fossils within them. There are over 40 different types of radiometric dating, for example, and they all agree with each other.
Quite a bit if only you knew. But you're not getting it... initially the dating of fossils/strata was based on ciricular reasoning. The 40+ dating methods (regardless if they coincide with each other) were added after the fact and SELECTIVILY only the older dating methods are used. Give us a good reason WHY short date dating methods are not used. It is because it is ASSUMED that the old age strata/fossil assumption is correct. That's it
Answers in who? This is COMMON knowledge you can get from history books, encylopedias and taking geology/paleontology 101. The problem is most never stop to critically think about the information they were just given and automatically assume the methods by which the dating methods were established are completely correct. Not the case.
I've been waiting for this. These billions or millions of years the Earth has been in rotation is about to be shortened...dramatically. The Most High is calling out. Behold, He is coming quickly, and we know not the day nor the hour of His coming. In the name of Yeshaiah I do say...let it be known.
i have never been clear on many points of the flood story. none more than who was aboard noahs' boat.
it is my impression that it was only his family. if so this must have been one culturally diverse (2 Chinese, 2 native american, 2 African ect.)
and how did they avoid problems ALWAYS associated with incestuous sex? (not the adam & eve conundrum which contradicts itself openly. the story of noah does not)
You are correct, only Noah's family was saved on the boat. Why does His family need to be so dramatically diverse then to have produced the various cultures we have today? Does not evolution teach that all dogs were descended from a 1 or more dog types? Time/migration/genetics/adaptation can certainly bring about these changes. Look up a population chart sometime and see also just how quickly people populations grow in the matter of a few hundred years.
"and how did they avoid problems ALWAYS associated with incestuous sex?"
What is the skeptics obsession with incestuous sex? Bible states God man mankind in the beginning and that he was perfect at the point. Then the fall of man comes. There was no law given by God against incestual relations until the time of Moses and we believe perhaps because man's condition began to severely degrade both in health and longevity around that time.
i live where it floods all the time, does that mean there is a biblical flood happening all the time? Oh and i have always wanted to know why do fish die in the biblical flood. plenty go extinct in the fossil record but there isn't really a process for them to die when more water is added to the oceans. they can't really drown
you get fossilised fish, therefore i presume you use them to prove the biblical flood, if u are saying that mountains, cliffs etc are caused by the great flood you will have to take into account the fossilised fish
Yes we acknowledge that there are fossilized fish on mountains and cliffs. There is no conflict there. Even secular scientists for the most part surmise that the mountain ranges we find them on were once flat lands or below current sea level before having been formed through massive movements/earthquakes and/or volcanoes ages ago which fits with the biblical creation model also.
so are u saying fossilised fish come after the great flood or before? And i am aware of origanal horizontality. From my knoledge i would presume that you would get a different sequence of events that you find if there was just one big event, for example i would think that you would see a layer where all the wood and things that float would be deposited at once at the top of the sequence.
Generally speaking, we believe MOST of the fossils we find happened at the time of the flood and successively throughout history during cataclysmic events like landslides/volcanoes, etc. And yes we do find some rather odd findings in the fossil record like trees for example standing upside down/horizontal through supposed massive ages of strata/sedimentary, indicative of a flood-type of event and not long slow ages of burial.
I'm confused what you are trying to imply with this post. Are you saying that a flood in which a large group of animals died proves something other than the fact that none of these animals were able to breathe underwater or under-mud? I mean if they found a T-rex skeleton right next to the mammoths, I would say you have an interesting find, worthy of a raised eyebrow. But they didn't, so could you please clarify how this find disproves or proves anything?
Take the evidence here along with many other pieces of evidence throughout the paleontology field of study and you'll see a constant emerging pattern of animals that would not normally be found together both being struck by flood natural disasters. All over the world there are records of this, with the Cambrian explosion being one of the most striking evidences of a world wide flood in the past.
Well if you want to run with that, good on ya. That being said, don't you find it odd that the scientific community as a whole does not go along with your assessment of this evidence? If it is that obvious to you, should it not be as obvious to those who are actively studying the material? Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps you may be buying into a conspiracy theory?
Thanks. I have considered that. Most reject it, because they see no other alternative to their own theories. And for the record, thousands of scientists are seeing the evidence for this. Are you telling me every person who has graduated with a respectable degree(s) from reputable schools in the science fields who call themselves creationists or Intelligent Design advocates are %100 wrong?
The so-called "Scientific community" are only those who adhere to the Darwinian philosophical assumption story of evolution. The other credible scientists who DO NOT believe in Darwinian evolution are being SILENCED, and the main stream media has allot to do with it.
Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. I suggest you watch it.
It doesn't prove or disprove anything except, like you implied, that something died. However, it is evidence of the Biblical account of Noah's Flood, and is most likely only for the believers. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know the Father. Creationism is to strengthen those who already believe. There really is no reason to cross-examine Creationism - it actually proves their credibility.
Dude. 1) This isn't evolution 2) Granted mammoths did live a long time ago, but you need to study up on the process of fossilization. 3) There is more evidence to consider for God than the myth of Darwinian evolution. All the science we know today actually proves the OPPOSITE of the main premise of Darwinian evolution "tree of life" theory. Study up on the diversification of the wild dog, just for starters. I challenge you to go through all of evolution-facts(dot)org.
o.O so... a flood disproves evolution because... the bible said there was a flood? The person that can disprove evolution is the person that will win the next nobel prize. Maybe you should try, you'll get a million bucks too.
Childish statement. There are MANY other factors one must consider. And there are plenty of scientists who have and are continueing to prove the main premise of DARWINIAN evolution (tree of life) is completely false.
Whatever you say. I'm sure you wouldn't argue against what Berkeley and the NCSE teach about evolution. And THIS particular flood in and of itself doesn't disprove evolution, but couple this with tons of other archaeological and historical/cultural evidences and there is a strong case to consider that a world wide flood did in deed occur in the past contrary to what the skeptics say which is just another point for the Bible and one against the naturalistic explanation of origins.
Did this "bacteria" originally exist in it's present form or did this bacteria eventually mutate via natural causes/radiation, chemical exposure, etc. into what it is now?
God originally made man good and holy and pure, and through rebellion, well I'm sure you watch the news.
I understand the argument. Look at the arrangement of the optic nerve in the eye with light entering. What do you think would happen if light/radiation directly hit the optic nerve?
tinyurl DOT com/nkkbf
Here is technical answer to what you claim to be a poorly developed eye for your consideration regardless if you disagree. tinyurl DOT com/363tbp
My next question would be, how come woolly mammoths haven't changed too much (evolved) if they supposedly lived from 4.8 million years ago to around 4,500 years ago?
No part of evolutionary theory says animals have to undergo drastic changes. This is a common misconception.
Suppose the mammoth was very well suited to its environment. There would be no evolutionary pressure acting on them that could result in a large change, so they didn't change very much, at least in their appearance.
We can't really tell if anything special went on inside the mammoth during those millions of years.
I am not saying what you are implying. Evolutionary speaking why is the mammoth essentially the same as it was millions of years ago. I think it's really convenient on the part of evolutionists to say that evolution all of a sudden shuts itself off more or less in the case of mammoths as you state and as many state today in the case of modern humans.
We're not talking about hereditary/genetic traits here. We're talking about the premise of darwinian evolution which is nature guides organisms from 1 life form into another even if you insist this process occurs slowly. Like fish into lizard or reptiles into birds. I'd like to hear an evolutionary explanation why evolution just seems to stop more or less in many organisms, animals & plants.
I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over.
In order from the gene pool to change, certain organisms in that gene pool have to benefit from their traits more than the other members do.
If all members can survive equally well, then no member has an advantage, won't have more offspring than anyone else, and its genes won't spread any more than anyone else's.
That is why some gene pools seem to just stay around the same point.
I agree. It's called a mantra my friend. And it doesn't make what you say true on the grand timeline of evolutionary change. Pure speculation. Micro-changes or variation within species. Macro-evolution, change from one species slowly into others, no, it doesn't happen. And it is not improbable as Dawkins insinuates and many others, it is impossible.
Not a mantra, so much as the same response, because you're asking a very similar question.
Can you please elaborate on your use of "macro-evolution"? Is this just speciation, a speciation event where the species becomes another class, or something different?
What makes that part of evolutionary theory, "speculation" anyway? Is it merely that we haven't observed all the events? We can see the evidence, and draw conclusions that are anything but speculation.
Evolutionists have no evidence that once upon a time a single celled organism became primitive lifeform/plant, into a fish, into a reptile, into a mammal, into a human.
So there is no question about what I mean by macro-evolution. tinyurl DOT com/2b6b3c from Berkeley's website on evolution. This is PURE speculation.
No evidence? Are you ignoring the fossil record, the fact that closely related species have similar structures, and more distant species have fewer in common, the entire field of genetics, vestigial structures which actually serve a purpose in some relatives, and countless other pieces of evidence, or do you find issues with each of them?
I know the scientific definition. Speciation (which is a change above the species level) has been observed, both in the lab, and in nature.
Look. I'm not ignoring anything. I've investigated the claims from both sides and don't find what evolutionists proclaim very convincing. You can't prove that 1 thing "evolved" from anything just by looking at bones, nor can you conclude that because something has similar structures that it evolved from it. That is an argument for a common designer as well. There are LOTS of issues with both theories. Creation makes more sense to me.
You're right, we can't claim evolution is true from the bones, or similar structure. We can state, however, that it exactly fits the model of what we'd expect to find.
Genetics (specifically ERVs and chromosome 2's fusion), is again, excellent evidence that fits the above.
Thank you. At least you are being honest when discussing the fossil record and so called homologous structures, for these are arguments for a common designer as well. I find the evidence for genetics to prove "darwinian evolution: common ancestry of all life" to be rather fallacious as well, speaking of the conclusions evolutionists draw from practical science.
The reason I don't buy into the common designer argument for 2 reasons.
1, we're not very well designed. From our blind spot, to way something like sickle-cell anemia works, improvements could be made. I expect more from God.
2, we haven't seen anything that common ancestry can't explain. If dogs had compound eyes, or their cells were those of plants, we'd be so very confused, and unable to explain it. That would convince me of common design.
1) If there is a God and the Bible is true, it explains very clearly how man has degraded severely from the time God made him. Compare today with 2000 years ago. We have MORE disease and health problems than EVER before because of our own doing? ANd you blame God for this?
2) SO you really believe your cousin waaaay back when on a different branch of the darwinian tree is an onion?
Common blueprints for all life (DNA) makes more sense than to say we are all related and evolved from a common ancestor. My personal opinion though.
The "I expect more from God" argument is so old. Please stop using it because the bible clearly reveals WHY we are in the mess we are in today and that God will soon set everything right again. (Not to be misinterpreted that we should just stop what we're doing in life as some arrogant people do)
I think it's funny that God designed us in such a way that evolutionary theory can explain it. Surely, he saw that coming, and could've designed around it.
Everything ever discovered fits our model, and it'd be so easy for a designer to go outside it. That doesn't seem odd to you, at all?
My friend. If there is an intelligent designer such as God and He is a personal God and has made you and I in His "image" per say, why is it hard to understand that we are able to decode some of the laws of nature which were encoded by Him? Some of the science set forth by evolutionists is correct, not all especially the conclusions of common ancestry drawn from it. Everything fits the creationists model much more than it fits the evolutionary model.
1) I would blame God for diseases, as he created germs and viruses, after all, but that was not my point. I'd blame God for our poor design. Our blind spot exists. How do you explain it?
2) If you go far enough back, and follow the correct path, sure, my distant cousin is an onion.
Do you believe that if you go far enough back, you're descended from Noah, and further back, Adam and Eve?
1) Um no he didn't. We did. Read about the side effects of drugs sometimes. You need a new drug to combat the effects of another drug to combat the effects of an illness which most likely was derived by us to begin with. You assume God created DISEASE and ILLNESS. Where is your proof?
"Blind spot" - short answer - God made us perfect in the beginning and we've been degrading more or less ever since, even with modern advances in medicine today which helps alleviate and extend life to a certain degree.
The brain fills in with surrounding detail and with information from the other eye, so the blind spot is not normally perceived. Amazing that we even have a brain that can compensate like this. I don't hear people normally complaining that their blind spot is a problem. Yes I know all vertebrate have this. All humans have it. And? We were made this way. We live in the air so have a different structure than say cephalopods who live in the water.
It's amazing that God would go to all that extra trouble, when he just could have just connected the nerve properly.
It'd also help out people who are blind/lose one eye for whatever reason.
I find it funny that if we started out perfect (that is, without this flaw in our design) that all members of our species have managed to get to this set-up. I also find it funny that it's an issue all vertebrates share.
It fits perfectly with the idea that we're descended from the same source.
It fits perfectly with the creation theory. Interesting, so you think you can design a better eye. Go for it chief. Our most advanced microscopes and telescopes don't even come NEAR the complexity of the eye.
cephalopods live in the water. You and I live in the air. Radiation would bake our eyes and the nerves serve as a defense. Water protects the eyes of the cephalopods. As I said, if it seems simple to you, go for it chief.
Your logic is flawed because you do not read the Bible to make such an assertion. God created Lucifer for example. God did NOT create a devil. The Bible tells us God found iniquity in Lucifer before his fall. And it is like that with men as well because of free will. There are good germs for the environment and what may be good there is not good for us.
Scavengers for example. In his foresight with the problem of evil & death in the world brought about by man, scavengers serve the purpose to clean the earth. God warns us NOT to eat them. Yet we find people eating pigs, shrimp, catfish and we wonder why we have more disease in the world. America overall is an overweight country compared to the rest of the world. But people are starting to wise up to this at least.
If God intended for those animals to clean the Earth, he should've told us, "Allow them to multiply. Do not hunt them, do not eat them, for they clean the Earth," or some such. Instead he told us don't eat them, which really only covers one base.
Um He did on both accounts. It's very plain to see, unfortunately the majority of the Christian world ignores or is unaware of the scripture on this. See Jewish people, muslims and Seventh-day Adventists who understand this issue. Please stick with your science, it's obvious you don't really know the Bible.
Get e-swords (eswords DOT com) It's free and you can get many bibles including the greek/hebrew etc. to quickly do searches and compare. Happy Holidays!
Germs, viruses and bacteria have their specific purposes friend. According to the Bible, man was never intended to eat animal flesh but instead a healthy vegetarian diet which right their alleviates TONS of germs and viruses that make us sick or worse. Of course because of sin, it was later permissible by God and only the clean animals and only a specific way, no fat, no blood, etc.
...which doesn't really answer my question. God did put those bacteria, viruses, germs, and whatever else in place, even if he had another reason to, right?
He did know, through omnipresence, that people would disobey his laws, and end up sick, correct?
Nope I can't see it. That's like blaming mommy and daddy for warning you not to touch the fire, even though it serves a purpose like warmth and cooking, but can also be used to burn things down and be destructive. You're like a 5 year old wanting to blame God. How old are you again sir? And look what man wants to do with it now. BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. mm hmm keep blaming God...right.
It is much MORE plausible to believe we descended from HUMAN BEINGS than it is to say we descended from bacteria, singl-celled organisms and fish->reptiles->ape-like beings.
You admit that small changes can occur. Is it implausible for many small changes to accumulate? Is it implausible for two groups to become seperated, and develop differently?
Because you have NO PROOF that we descended from anything other than a human being. Evolutionists speculate and draw some convoluted conclusions based on evidence. It is impossible the types of changes you believe in to occur.
Evolutionary thinking is just a racists way of thinking. This is what justified the awful actions of people who thought they were more superior than black people because they resembled "apes" or "ape like ancestors". And practically all the hominids found were either hoaxes, fully human, or fully ape, with only a handful of disputed specimens today as our "ancestor".
Evolutionary theory does not state that humans are better than apes. This is all in the minds of those misinterpreting the theory.
The fault is with those perpetrating the acts. Surely, you must agree with me on this point, given the numerous terrible things that those who have misinterpreted the Bible have done.
I can agree in part. But then again you need to read Descent of Man and a more recent book, Race, Evolution and Behavior - which classifies Asians at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks at the bottom. For evolution is true, then this is to be expected and embraced as a part of the theory you adhere to.
U tell me. I don't believe in the conclusions set forthy by darwinian evolution and believe in the Bible that states God made us in the beginning and we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, age, not some species evolved from lesser forms of life with some "races" move evolved than others. Ask white/black supremacists what they think.
2) Agreed. That's not what evolution teaches. When/if the next superior race of humans evolved, they will be more evolved that U or I, according to the theory. What is the difference between the classification of homo-sapien & homo-sapien-sapien according to your theory.
3) Yes yes, survival of the fit, not necessarily the fittest. I understand the stance.
U know, the same thing happens amongst evolutionists and paleontologists. Catch up on your history and look at how many times science has been fooled by bones. 40 years with Piltdown man. Yes, you have a lot of bones, but I meant a handful of speciman types. And i've seen the photos of many of the findings compared to dreamt up artist renditions. Not very convincing.
Oh, I know it does. And I think it should show that even the best trained people in the fields can't agree on what exactly this specimen is. If a specimen was fully ape, or fully human, wouldn't people agree on it?
I know scientists were fooled by Piltdown and other hoaxes. I'm not all that worried, because science has advanced since then, and it was, you know, scientists who exposed it as a fraud.
Yup, but the point is, these hoaxes were touted as PROOF of evolution for a LONG time before being exposed as false. Thank goodness science has advanced since then, which is why more scientists don't believe in evolutionary theory as the only means to explain life, hence the complexity of DNA & the cell. ID theory which fits fine in the creation model.
Friend, there are SO many hoaxes or fully ape or fully human bones that the fossil record clearly doesn't support human ancestry from some primate/hominid. And the bones you are probably claiming to prove evolution are highly contended and disputed amongst paleontologists.
Friend. You, like evolutionists only speculate on unitarianism principles in part that what happens today is what happened in the past. U assume that changes experienced by mutations (the vast majority ALL bad) can somehow with the few beneficial ones (still due to lost genetic information) can somehow accommodate for all the vast life we have today.
Pure speculation of what we do know. (gene duplication with point mutations is dreamed up concept to explain origins of ANYTHING or COMMON Ancestry of ALL life.
I see you say "vast majority" which I'm going to assume means you acknowledge that beneficial mutations can and do occur.
Gene duplication is a mutation that can result in new "information". Further point mutations, either in that creature, or a descendant, can lead to new traits.
To suggest that all beneficial mutations come from a loss of DNA is, well, wrong.
Yes. Beneficial mutations do occur. However, they are extremely RARE and NOT one mutation (good or bad) ever adds ANYTHING to DNA for life to evolve in an upwards fashion. Which is why the theory has evolved once again to now tout gene duplication as an added mechanism because mutations and natural selection can't help Darwin Evo. out by itself.
Cite one beneficial mutation experiment (NOT A CONCLUSION) online and we'll see if it ever added DNA, lost DNA, or stayed neutral. If it stayed neutral we know no evo can take place. If it lost DNA, that doesn't help either.
It states "partial gene duplication is suggested" and that it is still a hypothesis. Ok no problem there, it hasn't been proven yet. And if you have a duplicated gene, where is the upwards evolution? A duplicated gene doesn't give you ANYTHING that it didn't have before.
No, I'm not saying it is bad because of new information. I'm saying the evolutionists are wising up to the claims made against Darwin's theory by creationists and Intelligent Design advocates that they MUST change up the theory to make it more palatable to people.
Even mathematicians crunching the numbers say it is IMPOSSIBLE based on the combinations within DNA nucleotide chains and requires astronomically MORE time than what science dates the universe at. You just don't have enough time for it to be possible.
Take 5 decks of cards. Hand one card to 260 different people. Make an alphabetical list of people, their card, and deck number.
Realize that the odds of getting that exact order of cards is improbably small. However, also realize that a result is always going to occur, and that the result is always going to be improbably small, even the one you've recieved.
Now increase the deck of cards to say 1000 and give one card to each person (52000 people). Calculate the possibility of getting a royal flush from 5 consecutive people. Not only is it extremely improbable, it just went into the realm of impossibility and there are grossly more changes that have to occur in DNA/genes to get human life from something other than itself. Can't believe you compared genetics/DNA changes to 5 decks of cards. LOL
Also also, you should realize that probability statements cannot make something impossible.
A really improbable event could happen any time. An event with a probability of 1/1,000,000 could happen on your 1st trial, your 1,000th, the 1,000,000th, or never.
Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.8 x 10(50 power). Anything beyond 10(50 power) statistically has a ZERO probability of occurance. And so you NEED infinitely MORE THAN 4.5 billions for it to even resemble being possible.
8.0658 x 10^67. That's 1/(52!), which is the odds of one specific outcome with a single deck of cards.
What you're telling me here, is that I cannot deal 52 cards out in any order, because it is "has a ZERO probability of occurance"
Really improbable things are happening all the time. The odds of you even existing are improbably small. Think about all your ancestors that had to have sex at just the right moment for you to be born. It is far greater than 4.8 x 10^50.
Question for you then since you seem to believe in the improbable. By your own admission, wouldn't it be possible for miracles to occur then as well? Do you believe in God? Isn't it possible for God to exist then as well? What is your stance as U don't strike me as a militant anti-thiest like most on here.
Miracles are supposedly outside the laws of our universe. Incredibly unlikely events are within those laws. So no.
God's chances are improbably small. I acknowledge that a God could exist, in the same way that I acknowledge that all the molecules in my monitor could move towards me, crushing my head instantly. Yet I sit here, because I know the odds are incredibly small.
You are free to believe what you like of course. But there are many intelligent people who do acknowledge a creator God as described in the Judeo-Christian Bible. What you state is just an opinion and so I respect it as such even though I question how you could possibly calculate the probabilities of God existing as "small". Pretty arrogant statement, imo.
Science is purely speculative on origins considering REAL written HISTORY only goes back to around 2200 bc - 3500 bc depending on where you site from which correlates just fine with the creation theory of a biblical world flood considering almost EVERY people group on the planet has some trace of this story in some form.
I'm incredulous as to how anyone could consider this a case against evolution. Yes, there was a flood, or at least a mud slide, and some animals got trapped in a mud pit and died: but that has happened millions of times throughout history. You are grasping at straws if you take every flood ever as proof of the biblical flood. There have been dozens of floods in living memory, why aren't they proof of the biblical flood?
Blackmark52 8 months ago
@Blackmark52 We're not saying every flood is proof of the biblical flood. But based on the science we do know, there is just no way blood samples in a T-Rex or soft tissue within bones can last millions of years by natural means in earth/mudslides. This is just 1 piece of evidence to consider in favor the biblical flood or at least what science is currently doing... a serious examination of their understanding of floods/fossilization affected over time.
sleanos 8 months ago
@sleanos "based on the science we do know"
You don't know enough science. The video is about mammoths, which are mammals that lived as recently as 4500 years ago. They have found frozen mammoth meat that was still edible. What they found here were BONES, not fossils. T-Rex was a dinosaur which lived over 65 million years ago. Nobody has claimed to find blood samples or soft tissue, or even bones of dinosaurs, only fossilized remains. Get your facts straight.
Blackmark52 8 months ago
@Blackmark52 Before you make assumptions and arrogant/insulting statements, please ask more questions. Google search 'T Rex blood' and you'll see PLENTY of articles from news worthy sources and science sources about blood and soft tissue found in dinosaurs. I only talk about this since you obviously find nothing convincing about this video. Just some more food for thought.
sleanos 8 months ago
Hey sleanos. Give a video called "Zeitgeist - The greatest story ever sold" a watch. I found it helped me understand how this whole Jesus thing came about. Not saying u should convert to Atheism but give it a look.
danjeliot 1 year ago
@danjeliot Thanks. I've seen it. Much of their facts are correct, it's their conclusions that are questionable. I'd advise you investigate it further with credible evidence recorded in encyclopedias and take on a view other viewpoints from other historians and archaeologists as well.
sleanos 1 year ago
@danjeliot Just to let you know the "Zeitgeist" video has been debunked. Look it up.
cottoncandicane 9 months ago
Flood water does not equal the bible being true. Floods happen all the time.
proatheism 2 years ago
Agreed - flood water by itself does not equal the bible being true. The bible is true in my opinion due to prophecy, archaeological finds and history that verify much of the Bible, and for life changing power that lasts found in Jesus Christ.
sleanos 2 years ago
Amen brother!
I agree with that!!!!
ChiefClickClack 2 years ago
@sleanos Not to mention the struggles in the middle east and the Israelites. One thing an "honest" atheist can not do is explain right or wrong. Even for it to be a social agreeing would still need to borrow from the Judeo/Christian worldview. Darwinism teaches survival of the fittest so I should be able to take and get whatever I want.
cottoncandicane 9 months ago
Carbon dating depends mostly on assumptions,Also the reason that the Earth is believed to be old is because of little radiation found in rocks.This is assumed that the rocks are billions of years old,however Noah's flood would have washed much of the radioactive salts away making them appear very much older than they really are.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
why is it that rocks along the sea floor can all be found to have hugely varying dates when they should have been all found to be of similar age. In fact According to your radio-active salt theory there should be no salts in seabed rocks because the water of the ocean washed it away.
wertyi33 2 years ago
I was wondering if anyone has been enlightened by the latest findings in the past few years that carbon dating after a certain time is not valid anymore b/c of the break down of it. Interesting to say the least when it comes to trying to date something back 'millions and billions' of years ago.
deabcd 2 years ago
sleanos: I'm interested to know what your rebuttal to the 'Red Lady' being 29,000 years old (found using radiocarbon dating) is.
sinksinkswim 2 years ago
Simple: Have you ever done radio carbon dating? It is a best guess/approximation at best, yet it is not infallible, no dating method is. The ONLY accurate method of dating is one in which we can check against recorded history. Freshly formed Lava rocks have been known to give ages of thousands, even negative ages. The public doesn't hear much about that though, and so everyone assumes the dating methods are completely accurate & reliable when it comes to ancient things without historic records.
sleanos 2 years ago
What do you mean by negative ages?
sinksinkswim 2 years ago
Meaning instead of being 1000 or 5000 years old, sometimes the carbon dating can return negative ages -1000 years old, etc. which is absurd for freshly formed rock.
sleanos 2 years ago
But carbon dating isn't used for rocks...?
sinksinkswim 2 years ago
It is in archaeological finds. And you can't historically date anything with radio-dating methods. That's like pulling a number out of a hate... even if the long ages certain methods present coraborate with one another. One still must ask what are the premises for choosing long age dating methods over short age dating methods.
sleanos 2 years ago
Some kinds of radiometeric dating methods are used on rocks,they do it all the time to lava flows and sedamentary rocks.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
I'd encourage you if you ever get the chance to take objects you KNOW the age of and test them yourself with the radio dating methods available. The results will be quite interesting and eye opening.
sleanos 2 years ago
So how does this disprove evolution? Or prove the great flood?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
In and of itself, it does not prove a thing. It is just more evidence that can be used in favor of the great flood and against evolution and an old age earth. Same facts, numerous ways to interpret it based on the great body of evidences we have in support of either theory.
sleanos 2 years ago
I'd say it's just the opposite. The site contains bones of ice-age creatures such as mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers, and a camel. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, and all life was created in six days, why weren't dinosaur bones and trilobites mixed in there? Why do all the remains fit the same time scale proposed by "evolutionists?"
Leehofooks 2 years ago
You're asking a loaded questions. My ? to you is WHY would we expect to find dinosaurs and trilobites with every pocket of fossils we discover? Why do we find sea life fossils (like trilobites) in some of the highest mountains on the planet? U asked why the remains seem to fit time scales proposed by evo.... because the time scales are built on many assumptions and variables & selectively chosen for long ages. Read history to find out how the fossil record and dating of it began. Circular logic.
sleanos 2 years ago
If this is some vast treasure trove of ancient remains, and the earth is really only 6000 years old, why does it only contain the bones of animals scientists say lived during a certain era? Why are the bones of triceratops never found alongside the bones of sabre-toothed tigers? Why are trilobite remains never found alongside mammoth tusks? Wouldn't the flood have put them there?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
You are aware that certain types of animal roam together, yes? In the same way if a flood were to happen today, people wouldn't necessarily be grouped with the lions of Africa because we don't in great amounts camp out next to them. We have a similar situation in the past. And try drowning a lizard and a mouse sometime and see which one sinks or floats in water. Basic science (that CAN be tested , observed and repeated) answers the questions you pose.
sleanos 2 years ago
People may not be grouped with lions, but eons from now, they will at least appear in the same strata.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
That's a guess at best, guess you'll have to prove it. And while you're at it, try explaining why we find many trees and animal fossils spanning several strata (not just found in several strata, but the fossils actually SPAN several strata) if each layer is supposedly thousands-millions of of years old.
sleanos 2 years ago
DonExodus2 recently did a video about how "polystrata" fossils are bullshit, but I love how you pretend to be scientific.
Could you explain how it is that paleontologists knew where to look for tiktaalik, for example? Shouldn't examples of the species be found in all different strata, rather than just the strata from the Devonian period?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Fossil findings of species within given strata is NOT nearly uniformed as you think it is. And no, we shouldn't expect species to be found in all different strata all around the world. If a catastrophe occurred in the past we wouldn't necessarily expect this. The fact we even HAVE fossils tells us something catastrophic happened in the past and quickly. Fossils are NOT possible slowly over years. Let a rat die in your backyard and see how quickly you DON'T get a fossil.
sleanos 2 years ago
Fossils are actually an incredibly rare thing that can only happen if the creature that died had its body covered in layers and layers of mud and silt etc. You said that 'something catastrophic happened in the past and quickly'. But that would lend you to beleive that all fossils are therefore the same age, but we know that for example dinosaurs are older then mammoths so fossils are actually rare, random things that happen
IciePanther 2 years ago
Agreed. Fossils are incredibly rare and as you stated need to be covered fairly quickly to be fossilized. Good to see someone investigating this further. Now I'll address the rest of your statement which is a straw man. The flood account is a massive one time occurrence, that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge floods or catastrophic occurrences that would cause fossilization in remote parts of the world from different time periods occurring either. Ask more questions instead of assuming my stance.
sleanos 2 years ago
Um sorry I wasnt assuming your stance its just you said what I have in quotes there further back in the comments. Also I'm not really sure how you think this proves creation. Is it the fact that all of these different animals were found together, and that they wouldn't normally be? Well as we can see from herd animals in Africa sometimes different species will stick together against predators. Just look at the fossil of two dinosaurs fighting, that was caused by a sandstorm, a freak occurance.
IciePanther 2 years ago
You MAY have quoted me exactly, but pay attention to what I was specifically responding to. CONTEXT. This isn't a thesis where I need to be crucified by you friend. And this DOESN'T in & of itself prove anything. I completely agree with your last statement about predators and the situation. This is the creationists interpretation of the evidence we can see when taken as a whole with all other evidence, builds the case of creation, not prove it %100. Darwinian Evolution isn't %100 either.
sleanos 2 years ago
And to answer your question about sea life found on mountains: the earth has undergone a lot of geographical changes in it's billions (not thousands) of years. Mountains have risen due to tectonic plates pushing together, and more of the planet used to be covered in water.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Aside from the age of the earth, you've just explained to a small degree what creationists believe. Thanks!
sleanos 2 years ago
No. I wasn't talking about a ridiculous flood.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
You guys who insist that a world wide flood could have never happened in the past are just funny.
1) Historical science is continuously changing their thoughts are the past and what might have occured.
2) Did you forget, the earth is covered more than 75% by water.
sleanos 2 years ago
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened. I'm saying there's not a shred of evidence that it has. All the evidence is to the contrary, actually.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Whatever you say.
sleanos 2 years ago
We find fossils high in mountains because the land was uplifted forming the mountain.If you think fossils got high up on mountains from Noahs flood,then you have a severe math issue because according to Genesis the waters only rose 15 cubits,which is roughly 30ft.
Aaron518 2 years ago
I love how you all try to quote scripture and MISQUOTE it. Read it again:
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
If all the high hills and mountains were covered, then that means the waters prevailed 15 cubits up beyond the height of the mountains. No conflict there.
sleanos 2 years ago
The old stand by argument of "The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks" is a total canard.You date the rocks a particular fossil is found in and then after a while of finding the same fossil in the same age range of strata you can then use that fossil as an index to estimate age of other fossils found in the same beds as the index instead of getting the rocked dated everytime.
Aaron518 2 years ago
Have you read ANY history at all? Any? I ask you, HOW did we first come to date the strata? (by the fossils found withing) And HOW did we first come to date the fossils? (by the strata found within). CIRCULAR REASONING. And this was WAAAAY before any radiometric dating. So the dating system of fossils and strata is flawed from inception.
sleanos 2 years ago
Have you read ANYTHING outside of creationist propaganda? Anything? Geologists have many different independent ways to date strata and the fossils within them. There are over 40 different types of radiometric dating, for example, and they all agree with each other.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Quite a bit if only you knew. But you're not getting it... initially the dating of fossils/strata was based on ciricular reasoning. The 40+ dating methods (regardless if they coincide with each other) were added after the fact and SELECTIVILY only the older dating methods are used. Give us a good reason WHY short date dating methods are not used. It is because it is ASSUMED that the old age strata/fossil assumption is correct. That's it
sleanos 2 years ago
cite your sources please. answers in genesis is not a scientific source.
dondondodo 2 years ago
Answers in who? This is COMMON knowledge you can get from history books, encylopedias and taking geology/paleontology 101. The problem is most never stop to critically think about the information they were just given and automatically assume the methods by which the dating methods were established are completely correct. Not the case.
sleanos 2 years ago
I've been waiting for this. These billions or millions of years the Earth has been in rotation is about to be shortened...dramatically. The Most High is calling out. Behold, He is coming quickly, and we know not the day nor the hour of His coming. In the name of Yeshaiah I do say...let it be known.
~Champion
PhoenixChampion 2 years ago
riddle me this, god-boys:
i have never been clear on many points of the flood story. none more than who was aboard noahs' boat.
it is my impression that it was only his family. if so this must have been one culturally diverse (2 Chinese, 2 native american, 2 African ect.)
and how did they avoid problems ALWAYS associated with incestuous sex? (not the adam & eve conundrum which contradicts itself openly. the story of noah does not)
confused heathen wants an answer!
myfingerisup 2 years ago
You are correct, only Noah's family was saved on the boat. Why does His family need to be so dramatically diverse then to have produced the various cultures we have today? Does not evolution teach that all dogs were descended from a 1 or more dog types? Time/migration/genetics/adaptation can certainly bring about these changes. Look up a population chart sometime and see also just how quickly people populations grow in the matter of a few hundred years.
sleanos 2 years ago
"and how did they avoid problems ALWAYS associated with incestuous sex?"
What is the skeptics obsession with incestuous sex? Bible states God man mankind in the beginning and that he was perfect at the point. Then the fall of man comes. There was no law given by God against incestual relations until the time of Moses and we believe perhaps because man's condition began to severely degrade both in health and longevity around that time.
sleanos 2 years ago
sleanos: If you have to prove the bible right, anything goes: incest, whatever.
Philos2006 2 years ago
hmmm riight. I guess you don't understand what it means to be a Christian in the biblical sense.
sleanos 2 years ago
i live where it floods all the time, does that mean there is a biblical flood happening all the time? Oh and i have always wanted to know why do fish die in the biblical flood. plenty go extinct in the fossil record but there isn't really a process for them to die when more water is added to the oceans. they can't really drown
plasdas 3 years ago
1) The bible teaches that the biblical flood was a one time event and that would never happen again.
2) Where does it say fish died because of the biblical flood?
sleanos 3 years ago
you get fossilised fish, therefore i presume you use them to prove the biblical flood, if u are saying that mountains, cliffs etc are caused by the great flood you will have to take into account the fossilised fish
plasdas 3 years ago
Yes we acknowledge that there are fossilized fish on mountains and cliffs. There is no conflict there. Even secular scientists for the most part surmise that the mountain ranges we find them on were once flat lands or below current sea level before having been formed through massive movements/earthquakes and/or volcanoes ages ago which fits with the biblical creation model also.
sleanos 3 years ago
so are u saying fossilised fish come after the great flood or before? And i am aware of origanal horizontality. From my knoledge i would presume that you would get a different sequence of events that you find if there was just one big event, for example i would think that you would see a layer where all the wood and things that float would be deposited at once at the top of the sequence.
plasdas 3 years ago
Generally speaking, we believe MOST of the fossils we find happened at the time of the flood and successively throughout history during cataclysmic events like landslides/volcanoes, etc. And yes we do find some rather odd findings in the fossil record like trees for example standing upside down/horizontal through supposed massive ages of strata/sedimentary, indicative of a flood-type of event and not long slow ages of burial.
sleanos 3 years ago
wow they must of crack the ice back than, poor creatures.
victorcelmare 3 years ago
Some things for evolutionists to consider about why evolution is nonsense.
1) The fossil record is inconsistent with evolution
2) The decay of Earth's Magnetic field
3) Accounts of a great flood handed through hundreds of cultures.
4) Population growth (as in there are far too few people for us to have been around for millions of years.)
5) Polonium - 214 (evidence that rocks formed instantly)
6) And the sheer odds of life happening spontaneously is 1 in 10 to the 4,478, 296th power.
Omegasigmaepsilon 3 years ago
Amen!! Amen!! Amen!!
Ephesians 6:11-15
God Bless you!
singinrick 3 years ago
I'm confused what you are trying to imply with this post. Are you saying that a flood in which a large group of animals died proves something other than the fact that none of these animals were able to breathe underwater or under-mud? I mean if they found a T-rex skeleton right next to the mammoths, I would say you have an interesting find, worthy of a raised eyebrow. But they didn't, so could you please clarify how this find disproves or proves anything?
1n354a 3 years ago
Take the evidence here along with many other pieces of evidence throughout the paleontology field of study and you'll see a constant emerging pattern of animals that would not normally be found together both being struck by flood natural disasters. All over the world there are records of this, with the Cambrian explosion being one of the most striking evidences of a world wide flood in the past.
sleanos 3 years ago
Well if you want to run with that, good on ya. That being said, don't you find it odd that the scientific community as a whole does not go along with your assessment of this evidence? If it is that obvious to you, should it not be as obvious to those who are actively studying the material? Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps you may be buying into a conspiracy theory?
1n354a 3 years ago
Thanks. I have considered that. Most reject it, because they see no other alternative to their own theories. And for the record, thousands of scientists are seeing the evidence for this. Are you telling me every person who has graduated with a respectable degree(s) from reputable schools in the science fields who call themselves creationists or Intelligent Design advocates are %100 wrong?
sleanos 3 years ago
The so-called "Scientific community" are only those who adhere to the Darwinian philosophical assumption story of evolution. The other credible scientists who DO NOT believe in Darwinian evolution are being SILENCED, and the main stream media has allot to do with it.
Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. I suggest you watch it.
singinrick 3 years ago
It doesn't prove or disprove anything except, like you implied, that something died. However, it is evidence of the Biblical account of Noah's Flood, and is most likely only for the believers. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know the Father. Creationism is to strengthen those who already believe. There really is no reason to cross-examine Creationism - it actually proves their credibility.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 3 years ago
Dude u realize that 1 this is evolution 2. Mammoth lived a long time so anything you could find would be bone. 3 God is in your imagination.
JWA3001 3 years ago
Dude. 1) This isn't evolution 2) Granted mammoths did live a long time ago, but you need to study up on the process of fossilization. 3) There is more evidence to consider for God than the myth of Darwinian evolution. All the science we know today actually proves the OPPOSITE of the main premise of Darwinian evolution "tree of life" theory. Study up on the diversification of the wild dog, just for starters. I challenge you to go through all of evolution-facts(dot)org.
sleanos 3 years ago
o.O so... a flood disproves evolution because... the bible said there was a flood? The person that can disprove evolution is the person that will win the next nobel prize. Maybe you should try, you'll get a million bucks too.
Jarenjang 3 years ago
Childish statement. There are MANY other factors one must consider. And there are plenty of scientists who have and are continueing to prove the main premise of DARWINIAN evolution (tree of life) is completely false.
sleanos 3 years ago
Show me
Jarenjang 3 years ago
What am I, your butler?! Do some research.
Go to ideacenter(DOT) org -> Resources -> Links for tons information.
sleanos 3 years ago
How does a flood in a certain area disprove evolution? It just proves there's been a flood.
Clearly you don't even know what theory of evolution is about at all.
Shinganzer 3 years ago
Whatever you say. I'm sure you wouldn't argue against what Berkeley and the NCSE teach about evolution. And THIS particular flood in and of itself doesn't disprove evolution, but couple this with tons of other archaeological and historical/cultural evidences and there is a strong case to consider that a world wide flood did in deed occur in the past contrary to what the skeptics say which is just another point for the Bible and one against the naturalistic explanation of origins.
sleanos 3 years ago
Did this "bacteria" originally exist in it's present form or did this bacteria eventually mutate via natural causes/radiation, chemical exposure, etc. into what it is now?
God originally made man good and holy and pure, and through rebellion, well I'm sure you watch the news.
sleanos 4 years ago
I understand the argument. Look at the arrangement of the optic nerve in the eye with light entering. What do you think would happen if light/radiation directly hit the optic nerve?
tinyurl DOT com/nkkbf
Here is technical answer to what you claim to be a poorly developed eye for your consideration regardless if you disagree. tinyurl DOT com/363tbp
sleanos 4 years ago
Additionally, are you going to approve these comments I'm leaving? If you're not, I might as well send private messages.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
I'll only approve statements which have some credible explanation and not mere speculation/opinion.
sleanos 4 years ago
Does that include your own comments? :)
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Yes ;)
sleanos 4 years ago
My next question would be, how come woolly mammoths haven't changed too much (evolved) if they supposedly lived from 4.8 million years ago to around 4,500 years ago?
sleanos 4 years ago
No part of evolutionary theory says animals have to undergo drastic changes. This is a common misconception.
Suppose the mammoth was very well suited to its environment. There would be no evolutionary pressure acting on them that could result in a large change, so they didn't change very much, at least in their appearance.
We can't really tell if anything special went on inside the mammoth during those millions of years.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
I am not saying what you are implying. Evolutionary speaking why is the mammoth essentially the same as it was millions of years ago. I think it's really convenient on the part of evolutionists to say that evolution all of a sudden shuts itself off more or less in the case of mammoths as you state and as many state today in the case of modern humans.
sleanos 4 years ago
What standards are you using to judge similarity of mammoths, anyway? Skeletal structure? That's just...one part of an animal.
Okay, here's the question: What change should have happened to make the mammoth better suited to its environment?
Give a good reason for any suggestion you have. If, say, the climate slowly began to get warmer, perhaps less fur would be in order, for example.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
We're not talking about hereditary/genetic traits here. We're talking about the premise of darwinian evolution which is nature guides organisms from 1 life form into another even if you insist this process occurs slowly. Like fish into lizard or reptiles into birds. I'd like to hear an evolutionary explanation why evolution just seems to stop more or less in many organisms, animals & plants.
sleanos 4 years ago
I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over.
In order from the gene pool to change, certain organisms in that gene pool have to benefit from their traits more than the other members do.
If all members can survive equally well, then no member has an advantage, won't have more offspring than anyone else, and its genes won't spread any more than anyone else's.
That is why some gene pools seem to just stay around the same point.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
I agree. It's called a mantra my friend. And it doesn't make what you say true on the grand timeline of evolutionary change. Pure speculation. Micro-changes or variation within species. Macro-evolution, change from one species slowly into others, no, it doesn't happen. And it is not improbable as Dawkins insinuates and many others, it is impossible.
sleanos 4 years ago
Not a mantra, so much as the same response, because you're asking a very similar question.
Can you please elaborate on your use of "macro-evolution"? Is this just speciation, a speciation event where the species becomes another class, or something different?
What makes that part of evolutionary theory, "speculation" anyway? Is it merely that we haven't observed all the events? We can see the evidence, and draw conclusions that are anything but speculation.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Evolutionists have no evidence that once upon a time a single celled organism became primitive lifeform/plant, into a fish, into a reptile, into a mammal, into a human.
So there is no question about what I mean by macro-evolution. tinyurl DOT com/2b6b3c from Berkeley's website on evolution. This is PURE speculation.
sleanos 4 years ago
No evidence? Are you ignoring the fossil record, the fact that closely related species have similar structures, and more distant species have fewer in common, the entire field of genetics, vestigial structures which actually serve a purpose in some relatives, and countless other pieces of evidence, or do you find issues with each of them?
I know the scientific definition. Speciation (which is a change above the species level) has been observed, both in the lab, and in nature.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Look. I'm not ignoring anything. I've investigated the claims from both sides and don't find what evolutionists proclaim very convincing. You can't prove that 1 thing "evolved" from anything just by looking at bones, nor can you conclude that because something has similar structures that it evolved from it. That is an argument for a common designer as well. There are LOTS of issues with both theories. Creation makes more sense to me.
sleanos 4 years ago
You're right, we can't claim evolution is true from the bones, or similar structure. We can state, however, that it exactly fits the model of what we'd expect to find.
Genetics (specifically ERVs and chromosome 2's fusion), is again, excellent evidence that fits the above.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Thank you. At least you are being honest when discussing the fossil record and so called homologous structures, for these are arguments for a common designer as well. I find the evidence for genetics to prove "darwinian evolution: common ancestry of all life" to be rather fallacious as well, speaking of the conclusions evolutionists draw from practical science.
sleanos 4 years ago
The reason I don't buy into the common designer argument for 2 reasons.
1, we're not very well designed. From our blind spot, to way something like sickle-cell anemia works, improvements could be made. I expect more from God.
2, we haven't seen anything that common ancestry can't explain. If dogs had compound eyes, or their cells were those of plants, we'd be so very confused, and unable to explain it. That would convince me of common design.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
1) If there is a God and the Bible is true, it explains very clearly how man has degraded severely from the time God made him. Compare today with 2000 years ago. We have MORE disease and health problems than EVER before because of our own doing? ANd you blame God for this?
2) SO you really believe your cousin waaaay back when on a different branch of the darwinian tree is an onion?
sleanos 4 years ago
Common blueprints for all life (DNA) makes more sense than to say we are all related and evolved from a common ancestor. My personal opinion though.
The "I expect more from God" argument is so old. Please stop using it because the bible clearly reveals WHY we are in the mess we are in today and that God will soon set everything right again. (Not to be misinterpreted that we should just stop what we're doing in life as some arrogant people do)
sleanos 4 years ago
I think it's funny that God designed us in such a way that evolutionary theory can explain it. Surely, he saw that coming, and could've designed around it.
Everything ever discovered fits our model, and it'd be so easy for a designer to go outside it. That doesn't seem odd to you, at all?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
My friend. If there is an intelligent designer such as God and He is a personal God and has made you and I in His "image" per say, why is it hard to understand that we are able to decode some of the laws of nature which were encoded by Him? Some of the science set forth by evolutionists is correct, not all especially the conclusions of common ancestry drawn from it. Everything fits the creationists model much more than it fits the evolutionary model.
sleanos 4 years ago
1) I would blame God for diseases, as he created germs and viruses, after all, but that was not my point. I'd blame God for our poor design. Our blind spot exists. How do you explain it?
2) If you go far enough back, and follow the correct path, sure, my distant cousin is an onion.
Do you believe that if you go far enough back, you're descended from Noah, and further back, Adam and Eve?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
1) Um no he didn't. We did. Read about the side effects of drugs sometimes. You need a new drug to combat the effects of another drug to combat the effects of an illness which most likely was derived by us to begin with. You assume God created DISEASE and ILLNESS. Where is your proof?
sleanos 4 years ago
"Blind spot" - short answer - God made us perfect in the beginning and we've been degrading more or less ever since, even with modern advances in medicine today which helps alleviate and extend life to a certain degree.
sleanos 4 years ago
The human blind spot is caused by the optic nerve being connected on the interior side the retina.
And you're telling me that it moved... because humans have degraded? Moved not only in a handful of humans, but all humans?
Did you know that all vertebrates have this same blind spot?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
The brain fills in with surrounding detail and with information from the other eye, so the blind spot is not normally perceived. Amazing that we even have a brain that can compensate like this. I don't hear people normally complaining that their blind spot is a problem. Yes I know all vertebrate have this. All humans have it. And? We were made this way. We live in the air so have a different structure than say cephalopods who live in the water.
sleanos 4 years ago
It's amazing that God would go to all that extra trouble, when he just could have just connected the nerve properly.
It'd also help out people who are blind/lose one eye for whatever reason.
I find it funny that if we started out perfect (that is, without this flaw in our design) that all members of our species have managed to get to this set-up. I also find it funny that it's an issue all vertebrates share.
It fits perfectly with the idea that we're descended from the same source.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
It fits perfectly with the creation theory. Interesting, so you think you can design a better eye. Go for it chief. Our most advanced microscopes and telescopes don't even come NEAR the complexity of the eye.
sleanos 4 years ago
Not me personally, no. A creator God could easily create a better eye, though. Connect the optic nerve behind the retina. Seems simple enough.
It works fine in cephalopods, after all.
It seems like any animal fits in with creation. God can really create anything he wants to.
For evolutionary theory to be true, though, there are plenty of possible outcomes that do not make sense. Funny how we never run into any of those. :)
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
cephalopods live in the water. You and I live in the air. Radiation would bake our eyes and the nerves serve as a defense. Water protects the eyes of the cephalopods. As I said, if it seems simple to you, go for it chief.
sleanos 4 years ago
"Where is your proof?"
God... created all living things. Germs and viruses are living things.
Here's another one which assumes man created disease. God created man. Man creates disease X.
You...see how I can blame God for disease X, right? Especially with the omniscience and all.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Your logic is flawed because you do not read the Bible to make such an assertion. God created Lucifer for example. God did NOT create a devil. The Bible tells us God found iniquity in Lucifer before his fall. And it is like that with men as well because of free will. There are good germs for the environment and what may be good there is not good for us.
sleanos 4 years ago
Scavengers for example. In his foresight with the problem of evil & death in the world brought about by man, scavengers serve the purpose to clean the earth. God warns us NOT to eat them. Yet we find people eating pigs, shrimp, catfish and we wonder why we have more disease in the world. America overall is an overweight country compared to the rest of the world. But people are starting to wise up to this at least.
sleanos 4 years ago
If God intended for those animals to clean the Earth, he should've told us, "Allow them to multiply. Do not hunt them, do not eat them, for they clean the Earth," or some such. Instead he told us don't eat them, which really only covers one base.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Um He did on both accounts. It's very plain to see, unfortunately the majority of the Christian world ignores or is unaware of the scripture on this. See Jewish people, muslims and Seventh-day Adventists who understand this issue. Please stick with your science, it's obvious you don't really know the Bible.
sleanos 4 years ago
Been a while since I've read it, I'll admit. It was also the King James Version, which is not known for it's accuracy.
Wanna point me to the passage that contradicts what I said? I do like to learn. :)
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Wow. KJV not the most accurate? You're citing from a small band of scholars or catholics friend.
Read the book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for starters. You seem bright, I'm sure U can find it.
sleanos 4 years ago
Been busy with classes and holiday shopping. I'll poke through at some point soon.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Get e-swords (eswords DOT com) It's free and you can get many bibles including the greek/hebrew etc. to quickly do searches and compare. Happy Holidays!
sleanos 4 years ago
I just have to ask what "created" germs and viruses, then.
Even if man unleashed them, what...left them there to be unleashed?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Germs, viruses and bacteria have their specific purposes friend. According to the Bible, man was never intended to eat animal flesh but instead a healthy vegetarian diet which right their alleviates TONS of germs and viruses that make us sick or worse. Of course because of sin, it was later permissible by God and only the clean animals and only a specific way, no fat, no blood, etc.
sleanos 4 years ago
...which doesn't really answer my question. God did put those bacteria, viruses, germs, and whatever else in place, even if he had another reason to, right?
He did know, through omnipresence, that people would disobey his laws, and end up sick, correct?
So you can see how I can blame God for this, yes?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Nope I can't see it. That's like blaming mommy and daddy for warning you not to touch the fire, even though it serves a purpose like warmth and cooking, but can also be used to burn things down and be destructive. You're like a 5 year old wanting to blame God. How old are you again sir? And look what man wants to do with it now. BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. mm hmm keep blaming God...right.
sleanos 4 years ago
It is much MORE plausible to believe we descended from HUMAN BEINGS than it is to say we descended from bacteria, singl-celled organisms and fish->reptiles->ape-like beings.
sleanos 4 years ago
But why? Why is it hard for you to believe?
You admit that small changes can occur. Is it implausible for many small changes to accumulate? Is it implausible for two groups to become seperated, and develop differently?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Because you have NO PROOF that we descended from anything other than a human being. Evolutionists speculate and draw some convoluted conclusions based on evidence. It is impossible the types of changes you believe in to occur.
sleanos 4 years ago
Evolutionary thinking is just a racists way of thinking. This is what justified the awful actions of people who thought they were more superior than black people because they resembled "apes" or "ape like ancestors". And practically all the hominids found were either hoaxes, fully human, or fully ape, with only a handful of disputed specimens today as our "ancestor".
sleanos 4 years ago
Evolutionary theory does not state that humans are better than apes. This is all in the minds of those misinterpreting the theory.
The fault is with those perpetrating the acts. Surely, you must agree with me on this point, given the numerous terrible things that those who have misinterpreted the Bible have done.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
I can agree in part. But then again you need to read Descent of Man and a more recent book, Race, Evolution and Behavior - which classifies Asians at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks at the bottom. For evolution is true, then this is to be expected and embraced as a part of the theory you adhere to.
sleanos 4 years ago
There are numerous issues with that book that I don't particularly feel like going into.
But, let's suppose Rushton's whole idea is true. What, under evolutionary theory, and the guidance of this book's findings, are we supposed to do?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
U tell me. I don't believe in the conclusions set forthy by darwinian evolution and believe in the Bible that states God made us in the beginning and we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, age, not some species evolved from lesser forms of life with some "races" move evolved than others. Ask white/black supremacists what they think.
sleanos 4 years ago
Couple things, now that you've set the stage.
1, Eugenics is not evolution, so we can't really do anything, other than let nature take its course.
2, no race of people is lower, or less evolved than any other, because we ARE one species.
3, it's not about being the best. It's about fitting a niche.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
1) Agreed. Eugenics is a social philosophy.
2) Agreed. That's not what evolution teaches. When/if the next superior race of humans evolved, they will be more evolved that U or I, according to the theory. What is the difference between the classification of homo-sapien & homo-sapien-sapien according to your theory.
3) Yes yes, survival of the fit, not necessarily the fittest. I understand the stance.
sleanos 4 years ago
"fully human, or fully ape"
You know, certain creationist groups who label these remains as humans or apes don't always agree with each other. I find that amusing. :)
And we have quite a few more than a "handful".
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
U know, the same thing happens amongst evolutionists and paleontologists. Catch up on your history and look at how many times science has been fooled by bones. 40 years with Piltdown man. Yes, you have a lot of bones, but I meant a handful of speciman types. And i've seen the photos of many of the findings compared to dreamt up artist renditions. Not very convincing.
sleanos 4 years ago
Oh, I know it does. And I think it should show that even the best trained people in the fields can't agree on what exactly this specimen is. If a specimen was fully ape, or fully human, wouldn't people agree on it?
I know scientists were fooled by Piltdown and other hoaxes. I'm not all that worried, because science has advanced since then, and it was, you know, scientists who exposed it as a fraud.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Yup, but the point is, these hoaxes were touted as PROOF of evolution for a LONG time before being exposed as false. Thank goodness science has advanced since then, which is why more scientists don't believe in evolutionary theory as the only means to explain life, hence the complexity of DNA & the cell. ID theory which fits fine in the creation model.
sleanos 4 years ago
...so? If Piltdown was our only evidence, I'd be shaking, but it isn't.
ID theory isn't a scienfitic theory. It hardly qualifies as a hypothesis. Please, make one falsifiable claim using ID theory.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Friend, there are SO many hoaxes or fully ape or fully human bones that the fossil record clearly doesn't support human ancestry from some primate/hominid. And the bones you are probably claiming to prove evolution are highly contended and disputed amongst paleontologists.
sleanos 4 years ago
Scientists draw conclusions based on evidence? Those are the only conclusions that hold any water.
Which evolutionary changes are impossible? What are the limits?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Friend. You, like evolutionists only speculate on unitarianism principles in part that what happens today is what happened in the past. U assume that changes experienced by mutations (the vast majority ALL bad) can somehow with the few beneficial ones (still due to lost genetic information) can somehow accommodate for all the vast life we have today.
sleanos 4 years ago
Pure speculation of what we do know. (gene duplication with point mutations is dreamed up concept to explain origins of ANYTHING or COMMON Ancestry of ALL life.
sleanos 4 years ago
I see you say "vast majority" which I'm going to assume means you acknowledge that beneficial mutations can and do occur.
Gene duplication is a mutation that can result in new "information". Further point mutations, either in that creature, or a descendant, can lead to new traits.
To suggest that all beneficial mutations come from a loss of DNA is, well, wrong.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Yes. Beneficial mutations do occur. However, they are extremely RARE and NOT one mutation (good or bad) ever adds ANYTHING to DNA for life to evolve in an upwards fashion. Which is why the theory has evolved once again to now tout gene duplication as an added mechanism because mutations and natural selection can't help Darwin Evo. out by itself.
sleanos 4 years ago
Cite one beneficial mutation experiment (NOT A CONCLUSION) online and we'll see if it ever added DNA, lost DNA, or stayed neutral. If it stayed neutral we know no evo can take place. If it lost DNA, that doesn't help either.
sleanos 4 years ago
Science! tinyurl DOT com/yvcv2x
A few quick Google searches will bring up anything else you'd like.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
It states "partial gene duplication is suggested" and that it is still a hypothesis. Ok no problem there, it hasn't been proven yet. And if you have a duplicated gene, where is the upwards evolution? A duplicated gene doesn't give you ANYTHING that it didn't have before.
sleanos 4 years ago
"Which is why the theory has evolved once again..."
Again, are you trying to say that the theory is bad, because it has changed over time, with new information?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
No, I'm not saying it is bad because of new information. I'm saying the evolutionists are wising up to the claims made against Darwin's theory by creationists and Intelligent Design advocates that they MUST change up the theory to make it more palatable to people.
sleanos 4 years ago
Even mathematicians crunching the numbers say it is IMPOSSIBLE based on the combinations within DNA nucleotide chains and requires astronomically MORE time than what science dates the universe at. You just don't have enough time for it to be possible.
sleanos 4 years ago
I love the probability argument.
Take 5 decks of cards. Hand one card to 260 different people. Make an alphabetical list of people, their card, and deck number.
Realize that the odds of getting that exact order of cards is improbably small. However, also realize that a result is always going to occur, and that the result is always going to be improbably small, even the one you've recieved.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Now increase the deck of cards to say 1000 and give one card to each person (52000 people). Calculate the possibility of getting a royal flush from 5 consecutive people. Not only is it extremely improbable, it just went into the realm of impossibility and there are grossly more changes that have to occur in DNA/genes to get human life from something other than itself. Can't believe you compared genetics/DNA changes to 5 decks of cards. LOL
sleanos 4 years ago
Grab a coin, and flip it. How many heads in a row can happen, before the next one is impossible?
It never becomes impossible, and it is exactly the same with 1,000 decks, or 1,000,000,000 decks.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Sorry friend. REALLY bad analogy when dealing with the complexity of DNA even in the case of bacteria.
sleanos 4 years ago
Fine, no analogy here. How many genes can attach before the chance of the next one attaching is impossible?
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Also also, you should realize that probability statements cannot make something impossible.
A really improbable event could happen any time. An event with a probability of 1/1,000,000 could happen on your 1st trial, your 1,000th, the 1,000,000th, or never.
Can you tell that I like numbers? :)
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.8 x 10(50 power). Anything beyond 10(50 power) statistically has a ZERO probability of occurance. And so you NEED infinitely MORE THAN 4.5 billions for it to even resemble being possible.
sleanos 4 years ago
8.0658 x 10^67. That's 1/(52!), which is the odds of one specific outcome with a single deck of cards.
What you're telling me here, is that I cannot deal 52 cards out in any order, because it is "has a ZERO probability of occurance"
Really improbable things are happening all the time. The odds of you even existing are improbably small. Think about all your ancestors that had to have sex at just the right moment for you to be born. It is far greater than 4.8 x 10^50.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
Question for you then since you seem to believe in the improbable. By your own admission, wouldn't it be possible for miracles to occur then as well? Do you believe in God? Isn't it possible for God to exist then as well? What is your stance as U don't strike me as a militant anti-thiest like most on here.
sleanos 4 years ago
Miracles are supposedly outside the laws of our universe. Incredibly unlikely events are within those laws. So no.
God's chances are improbably small. I acknowledge that a God could exist, in the same way that I acknowledge that all the molecules in my monitor could move towards me, crushing my head instantly. Yet I sit here, because I know the odds are incredibly small.
Your God though? No, for other reasons.
thumbsdownman 4 years ago
You are free to believe what you like of course. But there are many intelligent people who do acknowledge a creator God as described in the Judeo-Christian Bible. What you state is just an opinion and so I respect it as such even though I question how you could possibly calculate the probabilities of God existing as "small". Pretty arrogant statement, imo.
sleanos 4 years ago
Science is purely speculative on origins considering REAL written HISTORY only goes back to around 2200 bc - 3500 bc depending on where you site from which correlates just fine with the creation theory of a biblical world flood considering almost EVERY people group on the planet has some trace of this story in some form.
sleanos 4 years ago
I know there's archaeological evidence from China that dates back to 7000 BC.
I'd check if anything goes back further, but there are a lot of messages here. :)
thumbsdownman 4 years ago