Originally posted by Brimon1) This is simply not true.
I'm not an expert in either theology or science, but I have read a fair bit around this issue, and it seems to me that the evidence for evolution is questionable. To give just a couple of examples.
1) Genetics - Isn't it true that as animals 'evolve' in the short term, genetic information is actually being lost? How can evolution explain creatures developing ...[text shortened]... boratory. For myself, I'm happy to accept that, "The heavens declare the glory of God."
2) All the components of the eye do not need to be in place for the eye to be useful. The retina alone would confer an advantage as it allows animals to detect light.
Originally posted by CreepySlashThe earth has been radiodated many times. It is 4.53 billion years old. I can provide a huge amount on experimental evidence for this if you'd like.
How is the earth millions of years old?It is just an assumption and evolution bases itself on this assumption.So all evolution could be very easily wrong.
Creation is based on faith in God and His Word(the Bible).
Originally posted by CreepySlashGo read any book by Dawkins.
Ok the big bang theory and evolution are different.I have investigated others,but none make sense to me.Please then eplai the basics of evolutin to me then...
The basic premise of evolutionary theory is that the world is a non-uniform environment with various niches available. Diversification of organisms has happened for the course of hundreds of millions of years by genetic mutation.
Which part do you have a problem with?
Originally posted by Brimon1) No. What garbage. How would you explain MRSA then, if not evolution?
I'm not an expert in either theology or science, but I have read a fair bit around this issue, and it seems to me that the evidence for evolution is questionable. To give just a couple of examples.
1) Genetics - Isn't it true that as animals 'evolve' in the short term, genetic information is actually being lost? How can evolution explain creatures developing ...[text shortened]... boratory. For myself, I'm happy to accept that, "The heavens declare the glory of God."
2) Strangely, platyhelminth worms do just fine with their "half eye". The half eye argument has been shown falacious heaps of times. Many organisms have poor eyes, but as long as they are better than no eyes evolution will favour them. Good eyes like ours are simply a refinement of a very ubiquitous organ in nature.
Originally posted by BrimonGood points there,I agree!
I'm not an expert in either theology or science, but I have read a fair bit around this issue, and it seems to me that the evidence for evolution is questionable. To give just a couple of examples.
1) Genetics - Isn't it true that as animals 'evolve' in the short term, genetic information is actually being lost? How can evolution explain creatures developing ...[text shortened]... boratory. For myself, I'm happy to accept that, "The heavens declare the glory of God."
Originally posted by scottishinnzThank you for your respectful response to my question about genetics. So, with MRSA, is new genetic information actually being added? Is the organism actually more complex than it was before? I told you I am not an expert! I am willing to learn, if you could clarify for me.
1) No. What garbage. How would you explain MRSA then, if not evolution?
2) Strangely, platyhelminth worms do just fine with their "half eye". The half eye argument has been shown falacious heaps of times. Many organisms have poor eyes, but as long as they are better than no eyes evolution will favour them. Good eyes like ours are simply a refinement of a very ubiquitous organ in nature.
Sorry to come back to these eyes again! I read that the trilobite fossil (I think evolutionists consider the trilobite to be one of the earliest forms of life) shows a compound eye with many separate lenses, each one of them shaped just right. Even this organ suggests to me a designer! Platyhelminth worms! You've got me there! Never heard of them! If I ever have a more coherent response than that, I'll get back to you!
Originally posted by Conrau K1)Could you expand on this? Are you saying that you could give examples of lifeforms which are becoming more compex genetically?
1) This is simply not true.
2) All the components of the eye do not need to be in place for the eye to be useful. The retina alone would confer an advantage as it allows animals to detect light.
2)OK, but doesn't even the retina on the human eye have millions of light detectors and precisely engineered nerve fibres? A retina doesn't just appear one day does it?
I'm not putting forward my own very incomplete knowledge as proof of creation, but I think these are reasonable questions.
1 edit
Originally posted by Brimon1) Define "genetically complex". Also, see this thread:
1)Could you expand on this? Are you saying that you could give examples of lifeforms which are becoming more compex genetically?
2)OK, but doesn't even the retina on the human eye have millions of light detectors and precisely engineered nerve fibres? A retina doesn't just appear one day does it?
I'm not putting forward my own very incomplete knowledge as proof of creation, but I think these are reasonable questions.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1
2) The original eyespots which evolved on flatworms are very similar to taste and smell receptors. It's not much of a change to get from the one to the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Evolution_of_eyes
1 edit
Originally posted by Brimon1) You asserted that evolution results in a loss of genetic information, and thus no genetic complexity can develop. This is not true....
1)Could you expand on this? Are you saying that you could give examples of lifeforms which are becoming more compex genetically?
2)OK, but doesn't even the retina on the human eye have millions of light detectors and precisely engineered nerve fibres? A retina doesn't just appear one day does it?
I'm not putting forward my own very incomplete knowledge as proof of creation, but I think these are reasonable questions.
Unless all scientists are deranged lunatics or are engaging in a massive cover-up.
2) The retina would take many generations to develop (depending on the species this might be between hundreds of years or a few days). But has it occured to you that it might have evolved from something else, which also had a function?
EDIT: You cannot say that the eye is complex and thus cannot have evolved. The main tenets of Intelligent Design is that the eye is irreducibly complex. Which means your objections must entail a proof that the components of the eye could not have had earlier functions - and hence could not have evolved.
Originally posted by BrimonYou said it! You're certainly not an expert other wise you wouldn't be using the term 'complexity' with gay abandon
I'm not an expert in either theology or science, but I have read a fair bit around this issue, and it seems to me that the evidence for evolution is questionable. To give just a couple of examples.
1) Genetics - Isn't it true that as animals 'evolve' in the short term, genetic information is actually being lost? How can evolution explain creatures developing ...[text shortened]... boratory. For myself, I'm happy to accept that, "The heavens declare the glory of God."
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, to the best of my understanding it is true. What I mean is this. DNA carries information doesn't it? A one-celled organism would not have the DNA information to manufacture everything needed for, for example, a horse. So new information must have been added over the years for evolution to be true?
[b]1) You asserted that evolution results in a loss of genetic information, and thus no genetic complexity can develop. This is not true....
Unless all scientists are deranged lunatics or are engaging in a massive cover-up.
As creatures diversify the gene pools become increasingly thinned out - carrying around a smaller fraction of the DNA information for their kind. This is what I was getting at when I talked about genetic complexity. (Perhaps it was the wrong term)
Now, if I have got this wrong, please explain how it does work! I've seen even Richard Dawkins struggle to answer a question on this topic! Your assertion that this is not true unless all scientists are deranged lunatics etc is, well, simply not true. For a start, not all scientists are evolutionists, and, secondly, scientists can get it wrong without being deranged.