Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
a reply to: Moresby

I actually appreciate that answer.

That's nice to hear!

Hmm, where should I start? According to this website,

www.oldearth.org...

you can see that yom has several meanings, such as day, year, time and (for)ever. Let's assume for a moment that
for(ever) equals aeons or a very long time, or perhaps 1 day by God means 1 billion years, which is consistent with Time Dilation or the "Universal Observer Theory". Let's assume that the Age of the Earth is off by about half, i.e it's 8 billion years, not 4.

Now according to Genesis 1, God created Fishes and Birds on the 5th day or "ever," then Mammals and Mankind(prehistoric cavemen which probably include Cro-Magnons) on the 6th day. According to the Precambrian Explosion(an unexplained big hole in evolutionary theory), all the complex animals, i.e non-single-celled organisms, appeared 540 million years ago. Suppose the date is off by 4 times, then you can see that it's very consistent with Genesis 1, not only in the timeframe, but the order in which Fishes, Birds, Mammals and Mankind appeared.

As far as why you don't find all animals on the same strata, well, the Bible didn't say that God created all the animals in the "same hour" of each day. If each phyla of animal is separated by million or hundred million of years, then you can see why they are not found on the same strata.

On another note, google transitional fossils and you'll find nothing about it, except for skull size of humans. wiki is generally very reliable(harder to edit it than you think), and there is no evidence of any transitional fossils picture, between two species.


Finally, I must ask, where is the evidence that the Earth has went through 6 extinction periods? Even if she did, how can you be sure that all of them didn't get destroyed by the flood? In addition, the appearance of new species can be explained by UFOs, The Programmer decided to program and introduce new species. There are way way too many theories(most of which suggest that we were created) to say that evolution is entirely correct. Heck, even evolution suggests that we appeared magically, see Cambrian Explosion above, which makes very intuitive sense also. Truth is. single-cell organisms are probably the best how something can arise spontaneously).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your premise is flawed. Creationists don't believe that animals are "popping into existence" all the time. That animals are extinct only says they are extinct, not that different animals came along to replace them. It's more logical to state that there are simply fewer types now. That is what the evidence shows, after all. No one saw the species being created because they were created before Man. A quick reading of the first bit of Genesis would give you that information, which I suspect you already know. You are demanding that people prove something to you t hat they do not, in fact, believe. Flawed premise.

As for your claim that "someone should have seen this happen", well, that's what creationists have said to evolutionists for ages. No one has seen evolution happen, but you still claim it does. How does that shoe fit? Comfy?

The evidence claimed to show animals lived in different time periods is full of flaws. The dating systems only work well on close systems, which we do not see in nature, and dating fossils by the rock layer in which they are found is ridiculous, since the layers aren't the same everywhere, and since the layers are dated by the fossils found therein. Hardly sound evidence!

We don't ignore what is presented; we question it, as anyone looking at science should, and we find the flaws evolutionists ignore and/or cover up.

Can I prove creation? No, but you can't prove evolution, either. The difference is I know the proof isn't there, and I also don't have to falsify evidence to try and support what I believe, because what their is supports the theory I prefer.

If you had seen some of the tracks I have (and, no, not on the Paluxy River), you'd be more inclined to agree with me.

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Creationists would tell you that the dating is wrong and all the extinctions come from the flood.

Nope, not even close. All the animals alive then were represented on the ark. All that didn't swim, anyway. No one that accepts the Biblical story claims extinctions are from the flood.

originally posted by: Moresby
More sophisticated creationists will tell you that the evidence of evolution is a test of faith. That God specifically planted evidence, knowing scientists would interpret as signs of evolution, and only the truly faithful would be able to see through it to the truth.

Odd; never heard that one. "Evidence of evolution"? I have searched for decades, and have yet to see any that stands up to scrutiny.

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regarding physics I was referring to radioactive decay (and carbon dating) - a thorn in many a creationist's side.

*snip*)

Carbon dating? A thorn in whose side? Not ours!

Carbon dating only works for objects up to 50,000 years old, first off, not millions. It's also useless for inorganic objects. There are also flaws with this method, which make it unreliable.

1. You cannot prove a constant rate of decay. We have no solid proof that this changes, but we also have inadequate testing for that. It's possible that accelerated decay rates have happened int he past, for at least the uranium-lead method.
2. You cannot show a closed system, and prove no loss of either the parent or daughter elements.
3. You cannot know with certainty, for things dug up in the ground, the exact amounts present for the parent and daughter elements from the beginning of the sample. There can be, and are, variations on this.

There are cases, as well, with known false results, or different results from different tests.

So, I don't see carbon dating as a "thorn" in the side of creationists. Perhaps for evolutionists......

originally posted by: jjkenobi
*snip* But there is one case we can study: According to Genesis God created one man and one woman. How many different races of homo sapiens are there today? At least three, right? Caucasian, Mongolian, Negroid. Where did they come from? I have my own speculations but am curious what others think.

I believe that Aborigines are considered another race. I recall reading something about that some time back. Not sure it it was 200% certain or not, but it would make sense. I am curious about your speculations on the races, if you don't mind sharing them.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Also to answer some other generic questions - the thought process that because someone who believes in Creationism doesn't have the answer for some minute detail on planet Earth should give up their belief is childish. There are many answers Evolutionists do not have. Specifically the most important question of all (to me), which is abiogenesis. How did life begin?

Excellent points. The simple fact is that BOTH beliefs are based as much on faith as anything else.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
We must have evolved from something not as complex and much simpler than ourselves, the arrogant Created man said.
The arrogant Created man went on to explain that there could not have been anything greater than himself because he feels himself to be so great and powerful and it would be impossible for him to be Created by Something more intelligent, more powerful than himself.
Quad

These are for you.



Well earned, with that one! Right on target!

Good display of the truth that the side belittling the opposition for faith relies on it at least as much, too.

a reply to: FinalCountdown

You make some good points, but I have a question for you. Where did the ones come from you claim created us? Can't ignore that element in your theory.

Why some alien race, and not God?

a reply to: Krazysh0t


You have as much chance of that happening as the religious brain washing academy's etc providing proof of god.

originally posted by: works4dhs
*snip*
Dino footprints & human footprints, for example; are they all fake, or are some of them real?

I have seen an example of that, and not the famous one, either. Human print, about half a size to a size smaller than my feet, in the same rock layer as verified dino prints, and several mammalian prints as well. Fascinating thing to see. Every time the land owners asked for anyone to come verify the print, they were refused. No surprise there, and these people were NOT lying. I have a very good BS detector. Never expected to see such a thing. We were not told what the print was, either. it was much more shallow than the heavier animals, as you'd expect, and we were simply asked what we thought it might be. I looked, and about fell over when I saw.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: uncommitted

Then your arguement is with Theory of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

I haven't got an argument with anything. The title of this thread is - Animals appearing whole - ie anti evolution - so given a single celled lifeform is still an animal, and it appears to have appeared whole, then it's relevant to the thread?

don't you see, that doesn't count.

for some reason, a bunch of stuff evolving into a living cell is a whole different matter.

or maybe that is really called creation? hmmmmm

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM
I don't see a dividing line between Creationism and Evolution. Why must they be mutually exclusive concepts? I think that most rational people will concede the fact that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and because of it's age has undergone many creation/extinction events. In that line of thought, why can't creationists believe in evolution? The bible certainly isn't specific about the mechanism in which life was created, but if we follow the "7 Days of Creation" timeline, it certainly seems to fit nicely with standing theories.

Creationists seemed to get ragged on by people who want to be seen as progressive, forward thinkers. But one thing I don't see getting addressed much in these types of threads are the problems presented by the lack of transitional fossils.

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

This problem is so prevalent, that other evolutionary theories have been established to sidestep it entirely!
For this reason, I see evolution as much of a faith-based notion as creationism.

Again I ask, is it too much to believe in both?

and one would think there would be thousands of transitional form running around, even now.

where are the man-bear-pigs?

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
We must have been created by something greater than ourselves, the arrogant little shaved ape said.

The arrogant little shaved ape went on to explain that it had to be something greater than himself because he feels himself to be so great and powerful and it would be impossible for him to rise from something he ignorantly considers to be lesser than himself....

....

naw, arrogant little shaved ape thinks he is the end all of the universe.

besides the aliens that made him, of course.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please don't think I have something against men. I am not.

But I think human consciousness does not come from this planet.


www.evawaseerst.be...
some chapters are translated

There is no such thing as a "whole" or complete species.

Why? Because evolution is an on-going process, there is no start at A and an end at B where a species is "complete".

Dinosaurs were as "complete" (or un-complete, if you will) as we humans are today. It's about perfect adaption to a specific and unique environment, NOT about the illusory idea there is a goal at the end where a species is "complete".

200,000 years ago we had different characteristics, smaller brain, bigger forehead etc... and IN 200,000 years rest assured we will also look different than what we do today since we will have evolved/adapted another bit. So..what is the "complete" human supposed to be that was "created" by zeus/god/shiva? The human of NOW? The one in 200,000 years? Or the one in 1,000,000 years? Or the one in 5,000,000 years? This alone shows that the idea that "complete" species were designed and put on Earth is silly.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
There is no such thing as a "whole" or complete species.

Why? Because evolution is an on-going process, there is no start at A and an end at B where a species is "complete".

Dinosaurs were as "complete" (or un-complete, if you will) as we humans are today. It's about perfect adaption to a specific and unique environment, NOT about the illusory idea there is a goal at the end where a species is "complete".

200,000 years ago we had different characteristics, smaller brain, bigger forehead etc... and IN 200,000 years rest assured we will also look different than what we do today since we will have evolved/adapted another bit. So..what is the "complete" human supposed to be that was "created" by zeus/god/shiva? The human of NOW? The one in 200,000 years? Or the one in 1,000,000 years? Or the one in 5,000,000 years? This alone shows that the idea that "complete" species were designed and put on Earth is silly.

Basically, yes. But significant evolutionary change in species is not mandated. Many species go on for millions of years. Humans have a ways to go before we even reach the success of some of our close relatives.

The hominid, whose name makes all little boys snicker, Homo Erectus lived on earth for about 1.7 million years. Much more impressive than our paltry 200,000 years. Homo Erectus even shared the planet with us for about 60,000 years.

And, of course, there are species that are substantially more successful than this. The modern cockroach has been around for well over 100 million years. And frogs may stretch back as far as 245 million years.

How much humans will or can change is a debated issue. Some suggest substantial morphological changes are unlikely because of the speed of cultural evolution. Or put another way, we can make a new tool in a much shorter time than nature can select an adaptation. And the creation of a new human species seems unlikely, absent some situation which creates isolated human populations in very different environments.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your premise is flawed. Creationists don't believe that animals are "popping into existence" all the time. That animals are extinct only says they are extinct, not that different animals came along to replace them. It's more logical to state that there are simply fewer types now. That is what the evidence shows, after all. No one saw the species being created because they were created before Man. A quick reading of the first bit of Genesis would give you that information, which I suspect you already know. You are demanding that people prove something to you t hat they do not, in fact, believe. Flawed premise.

If that was the case then the deeper you dig in the ground, the more fossils you'd find. You'd also find fossils of bears and dinosaurs side by side. Neither of these things is the case. This implies that new species have appeared on the planet at different points in time. These facts are irrefutable.

As for your claim that "someone should have seen this happen", well, that's what creationists have said to evolutionists for ages. No one has seen evolution happen, but you still claim it does. How does that shoe fit? Comfy?

You think so? So what do you call bacterial strains evolving to be resistant to different anti-biotics in hospitals? Actually, let's go further. Modern medicine is LITERALLY based on evolutionary science. If evolution wasn't real, we wouldn't have the advanced medicine that we have now.

The evidence claimed to show animals lived in different time periods is full of flaws. The dating systems only work well on close systems, which we do not see in nature, and dating fossils by the rock layer in which they are found is ridiculous, since the layers aren't the same everywhere, and since the layers are dated by the fossils found therein. Hardly sound evidence!

You still cannot argue with the simple fact that if animals all appeared at once on the planet, the deeper you dig, the more fossils you would uncover. This is because more animals would have been on the planet and therefore more fossils. The diversity or life would be higher as well. Show me a picture of a bear fossil next to a dinosaur fossil.

We don't ignore what is presented; we question it, as anyone looking at science should, and we find the flaws evolutionists ignore and/or cover up.

No you don't. That's a lie. If you had uncovered flaws in evolution, you'd have a nobel prize. Everything that you think is a flaw actually has sound science behind it, you either just don't understand it correctly or are purposely distorting things to make it sound like it isn't true. Quick question, what do you think about the second law of thermodynamics and evolution? Depending on your answer will confirm or deny what I just said before this question.

Can I prove creation? No, but you can't prove evolution, either. The difference is I know the proof isn't there, and I also don't have to falsify evidence to try and support what I believe, because what their is supports the theory I prefer.

Who is falsifying evidence? Name some names and don't give me any hoaxes that are decades old. I want examples of recent falsified evidence.

If you had seen some of the tracks I have (and, no, not on the Paluxy River), you'd be more inclined to agree with me.

Why? I don't know what this has to do with the topic at all.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ObservingTheWorld

Oh Krazysh0t, it was creationism, not that it can ever be proven.

Stopped reading there because if it can't ever be proven, it's probably not true.

Alas, then you know not about the God game. Unless you follow Zeus, then I do apologize (don't hurt me). Or Odin, I like him, he has/had a sense of humor. He just needs a better PR book and to not care about anything his followers say, no matter how crazy. Anywho, did you know popcorn was created (yes, I said it) because of the divine games? What else would the gods snack on while laughing at our antics (which is why it works so well at movie theaters too)? But there you have, if not for divine egos, Earth would not be. And that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't you need to change the Op to add the possibility that animals are created with the ability to there after evolve?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your premise is flawed. Creationists don't believe that animals are "popping into existence" all the time. That animals are extinct only says they are extinct, not that different animals came along to replace them. It's more logical to state that there are simply fewer types now. That is what the evidence shows, after all. No one saw the species being created because they were created before Man. A quick reading of the first bit of Genesis would give you that information, which I suspect you already know. You are demanding that people prove something to you t hat they do not, in fact, believe. Flawed premise.

As for your claim that "someone should have seen this happen", well, that's what creationists have said to evolutionists for ages. No one has seen evolution happen, but you still claim it does. How does that shoe fit? Comfy?

Did you or anyone else see the Bible being written? Were there witnesses?

The evidence claimed to show animals lived in different time periods is full of flaws. The dating systems only work well on close systems, which we do not see in nature, and dating fossils by the rock layer in which they are found is ridiculous, since the layers aren't the same everywhere, and since the layers are dated by the fossils found therein. Hardly sound evidence!

We don't ignore what is presented; we question it, as anyone looking at science should, and we find the flaws evolutionists ignore and/or cover up.

Can I prove creation? No, but you can't prove evolution, either. The difference is I know the proof isn't there, and I also don't have to falsify evidence to try and support what I believe, because what their is supports the theory I prefer.

Evolution was been PROVEN by science. That you don't acknowledge the proof is your problem.

If you had seen some of the tracks I have (and, no, not on the Paluxy River), you'd be more inclined to agree with me