Originally posted by dj2beckerSince you asked:
[b]There are no transitional fossils. that's simply false.
Would you mind showing me a few?[/b]
Cladoselache , Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax. Acanthodians,Canobius, Aeduella , Parasemionotus, Oreochima , Leptolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion ,
Panderichthys, Elpistostege , Eusthenopteron, Obruchevichthys Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega , Pholidogaster, Pteroplax, Acanthostega gunnari , Ichthyostega , Dendrerpeton acadianum , Archegosaurus decheni , Eryops megacephalus , Amphibamus lyelli , Doleserpeton annectens , Schoenfelderpeton, triadobatrachus. Vieraella, Karaurus......
and Im not outta the ocean yet. but you get the drift dontcha?
2 questions that I have yet to have answered:
1) certain physical traits are of advantage to creature from different families but similar lifestyles. For example, the super optic lobe (SOL) is the bulge of bone above your eye where your eyebrow is - it's found in a lot of animals who's eyes face forwards to allow depth perception, such as eagles, humans, chimps, crocs and lions, because loss of 1 eye is a major disadvantage to survival.
Here's the bit that supports Theory of Evolution (ToE). Long before we could identify the individual gene groups responsible for certain physical traits ToE had mapped out where species were though to have diverged. It stands to reason that if species B & C diverged from A, and A already had a SOL, then the gene group responsible for the SOL in A would remain the same in both B & C. Likewise, if species D did not have a SOL but species E & F both do then the SOL must have evolved after the division of species and therefore the gene group must be different. Although ToE predicted where species diverged and what from decades before gene technology this has now been shown to be true countless times - where ToE predicted that B & C evolved from A, and A already possessed a certain trait, that the genes responsible for this trait are still the same in B & C, and visa versa with E & F having different gene groups from each other because D didn't have those genes to give. Going back to the previous example, Lions and crocs were predicted to have diverged long before they had SOLs, and their gene groups for SOL have been shown to be different, whereas chimps and humans have the same gene group for SOL which fits the prediction that we come from a common ancestor who already has SOLs. How is this prediction by using ToE possible if not because ToE is correct?
2) Genetic diversity - we see it all around us and there's way too many gene varients to have come from 2 people (who could hold a maximum only 2 varients for each group each). So, without accepting that new gene groups have been created since Adam & Eve, or since Noah & family if you wish, where have all the extra gene groups come from?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMiller's famous experiment (and those of others since) shows how the early molecules of life could have come into being.
Here's a rough answer for the question in the Lewis quote - how can we trust our logic if it's the result of random motions of matter?
In the early universe, sub atomic particles moved randomly. However, there were forces at work in the early universe which were identical to the forces at work today. The subatomic particles fell into local mini ...[text shortened]... mises are used is a separate thing independent of the logic that gets applied to those premises.
Making the building blocks of life is easy--amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28).
No one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation.
Furthermore, research has documented that "unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine" because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).
http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
Originally posted by dj2beckercan you document that " research " for me.
[b] Miller's famous experiment (and those of others since) shows how the early molecules of life could have come into being.
Making the building blocks of life is easy--amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make lif ...[text shortened]... amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).
http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html[/b]
and maybe I'll tell you where the forces that hold an atom come from. and also give you a few more examples of transitional fossils.
btw get your biggest math book ready , cause you will need it.
Originally posted by dj2beckeryou forgot to add the one that you that you think a transitional fossil is..
Spare yourself the trouble...
Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain (Shapiro, 1986). The first links -- actually the first hundreds of thousands ...[text shortened]... ations that rule out most substitutions.
http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
A complete fossil of a Homo-Erectus and a Homo Sapien connected at the top of the head. and connected at the hips wouldnt do it for you .
Originally posted by belgianfreakvery good points
2 questions that I have yet to have answered:
1) certain physical traits are of advantage to creature from different families but similar lifestyles. For example, the super optic lobe (SOL) is the bulge of bone above your eye where your eyebrow is - it's found in a lot of animals who's eyes face forwards to allow depth perception, such as eagles, h ...[text shortened]... Adam & Eve, or since Noah & family if you wish, where have all the extra gene groups come from?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, I don't know where the particles nor the forces came from. This is the same old tired conversation you're starting...
[b]In early universe, sub atomic particles moved randomly. However, there were forces at work in the early universe which were identical to the forces at work today.
Would you venture to suggest where the particles came from and i ...[text shortened]... u know where the forces come from that hold the atom together?
[/b]
ATY Do you know where they came from?
Dj God.
ATY Where did God come from?
Dj God didn't have to come from anywhere. He always has existed.
ATY Why couldn't the elementary particles and forces have always existed?
Dj Because everything except God had to have a cause.
ATY Why is God special in that respect?
Dj Because He just is ok?!
Originally posted by dj2beckerDidn't read and will ignore because it's a copy-paste job.
[b] Miller's famous experiment (and those of others since) shows how the early molecules of life could have come into being.
Making the building blocks of life is easy--amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make lif ...[text shortened]... amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).
http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompStrange that many evolutionists tend to disagree with you:
Since you asked:
Cladoselache , Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax. Acanthodians,Canobius, Aeduella , Parasemionotus, Oreochima , Leptolepis, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion ,
Panderichthys, Elpistostege , Eusthenopteron, Obruchevichthys Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega , Pholidogaster, Pteropla ...[text shortened]... a, Karaurus......
and Im not outta the ocean yet. but you get the drift dontcha?
"Contrary to what scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. BY doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports the theory,"
[b] Ronald R. West, Ph.D (paleocology and goelogy)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWow it took long for me to let you realise this...
No, I don't know where the particles nor the forces came from. This is the same old tired conversation you're starting...
[b]ATY Do you know where they came from?
Dj God.
ATY Where did God come from?
Dj God didn't have to come from anywhere. He always has existed.
ATY Why couldn't the elementary particles an ...[text shortened]... have a cause.
ATY Why is God special in that respect?
Dj Because He just is ok?![/b]
I believe that in the Beginnig was God. You believe that in the beginning were some particles. I cant tell you where God came from and you can't tell me where the particles came from. So you realise that both are a matter of faith.
The only difference is that you require a million times more faith than I do.
Here's why: I am quoting Ernst Chan, a world famous biochemist.
"I have said for years that speculations about origin of life lead to no purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."
As to the question about where the forces come from that hold the atoms together science can give no answer.
I find the answer in Colosians 1: 16, 17
" 16 For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Originally posted by dj2beckerLet me? LOL.
Wow it took long for me to let you realise this...
I believe that in the Beginnig was God. You believe that in the beginning were some particles. I cant tell you where God came from and you can't tell me where the particles came from. So you realise that both are a matter of faith.
The only difference is that you require a million times more faith t ...[text shortened]... hrough him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
My opinion is not a matter of faith because I am perfectly willing to say "I don't know." The only basis for my not assuming there's some prior creator of these particles and forces is Occam's Razor. I don't have "faith" in any particular origin of these particles. I don't know. Unless I see some evidence otherwise, I'll assume the simplest explanation is correct, not out of faith, but out of convenience. There's an infinite number of possibilities of gods and creators and creators of creators...I don't know which one is right if any so I'll assume the simplest one is. That's all I go by...this is hardly "faith".
Faith is when you say you are certain something is true without evidence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFIC?
Let me? LOL.
My opinion is not a matter of faith because I am perfectly willing to say "I don't know." The only basis for my not assuming there's some prior creator of these particles and forces is Occam's Razor. I don't have "faith" in any particular origin of these particles. I don't know. Unless I see some evidence otherwise, I'll ...[text shortened]... s hardly "faith".
Faith is when you say you are certain something is true without evidence.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Universtiy of Manchester, UK)
IS IT A FACT OR A FAITH
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true nut neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species.
If you don't have "faith" in evolution, then why do you defend it?