Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: Char-Lee

I guess that could happen, but first we need to see the animals being created don't we?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Char-Lee

I guess that could happen, but first we need to see the animals being created don't we?

An interesting thing I remember, many years ago a science magazine published and article about a new lake that was formed in some mountains, scientists were studying this interesting new lake and were stunned when a few months went by and there was suddenly fish in the lake.

They ascertained that there was no water inlet into the high mountain lake which had no way but helicopter to reach, and no way for the fish to start appearing, they had no explanation.

It makes me think of all the oddities like the rocks that rained down in Chico Ca for about a month in one location witnessed by hundreds and reporters from all over the place that came to see. Maybe creation is a process like a computer program and ongoing process and sometimes mistakes and changes are made by design or randomly.

a reply to: Char-Lee

It would be helpful to post a link to the article that you are talking about. Have you followed up on this story since then? Maybe new research has been conducted that explains where the fish came from. The thing about science is that you cannot base your opinions on old data. You have to first make sure there isn't new data available that may give a different conclusion.

OMG but the Cambrian explosion was so suddenly sudden that it suddenly happened. Did I mention it was sudden?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I will see if i can find it, the main amazement was that the lake had fish full grown soon after the lake was formed and they started studying it. Now just a couple fish either.

Also reports show viable mating populations in these high lakes so one getting dropped there would not be an answer.

here is a little part of the Chico story.

On March 12, 1922, it was reported in the New York Times that rocks fell from the sky in Chico, CA. They were reported to be "large smooth stones" that fell from the clouds and were warm to the touch.
In the San Francisco Chronicle, it was reported in issues dated March 12th to the 18th that there were accounts of the stones falling for four months on and off. The stoning seemed to center on a warehouse located in Chico, CA. The stones fell with enough force to break windows, crack boards and collapse roof shingles.

www.examiner.com...

a reply to: Char-Lee

Go dig a large enough hole in your garden. Fill it with water. After a while, you'll have fish. This isn't some mystical creation, it's a very well understood phenomenon.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Char-Lee

Go dig a large enough hole in your garden. Fill it with water. After a while, you'll have fish. This isn't some mystical creation, it's a very well understood phenomenon.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

a reply to: Char-Lee

An interesting thing I remember, many years ago a science magazine published and article about a new lake that was formed in some mountains, scientists were studying this interesting new lake and were stunned when a few months went by and there was suddenly fish in the lake.

They ascertained that there was no water inlet into the high mountain lake which had no way but helicopter to reach, and no way for the fish to start appearing, they had no explanation.

Birds have been one of the understood ways on how fish populations have reached such areas. I don't think the scientist were stunned as you claim. Fish eggs arrive on duck's feet, feathers and even from their mouths into new ponds and lakes.

A pond that forms near other ponds may receive new fish from passing birds of prey dropping their catch. Similarly, fish roe that remains damp enough during a trip between ponds may wash off of the fur and feet of local animals as they move from pond to pond.

Read more : www.ehow.com...

I have even heard that undigested eggs can pass through birds to new bodies of water.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Birds have been one of the understood ways on how fish populations have reached such areas. I don't think the scientist were stunned as you claim.

Yes well since I am a lier I guess I can understand that.
The time period that the lake had formed left the populating by your suggested means impossible.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Char-Lee

Go dig a large enough hole in your garden. Fill it with water. After a while, you'll have fish. This isn't some mystical creation, it's a very well understood phenomenon.

What's bringing the fish in? Curious. Birds?

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi

Birds have been one of the understood ways on how fish populations have reached such areas. I don't think the scientist were stunned as you claim.

Yes well since I am a lier I guess I can understand that.
The time period that the lake had formed left the populating by your suggested means impossible.

Impossible!!!! Really do you have a source that backs up that claim?

Did the body of water fill overnight? BTW was there once a smaller body of water there?

Basically do you have a source?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi

Birds have been one of the understood ways on how fish populations have reached such areas. I don't think the scientist were stunned as you claim.

Yes well since I am a lier I guess I can understand that.
The time period that the lake had formed left the populating by your suggested means impossible.

Impossible!!!! Really do you have a source that backs up that claim?

Did the body of water fill overnight? BTW was there once a smaller body of water there?

Basically do you have a source?

Well if you had read my posts you would know I have been searching for it! No I believe it was a volcano which formed a very high mountain lake, the scientists were excited to watch it form and develop from day one...the fish appeared full grown and numerous within a short time, to short to have developed in the usually suggested ways.
Why do I even bother...

a reply to: Char-Lee


So I take it you are going by memory.

Well if you can find the article that makes those claims it will be interesting. BTW sorry I missed your post explaining you didn't have anything to back up the claim, but there is so much nonsense going on in this thread I have skipped over much of it.

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

where are the man-bear-pigs?

That is an excellent question. Even in jest, we find truth.

a reply to: Char-Lee

I believe this is one of those memory issues...

People build ponds all the time. If this phenomena were of "natural creationism" then it would be easily reproducible. Such is not the case. The birds populating new bodies of water with fish eggs is well documented but they do not haul the fish in full grown.

a reply to LuXiferGriM

If we really start asking questions about evolution, if we demand specific mechanisms that evolution promises, what answers are we met with. Vague generalities, like, "that's the way evolution works", or, "it's bound to be in the fossil record, it just hasn't been discovered yet."

This suggests you're not very familiar with the science you're trying to debunk. The specific mechanisms are exhaustively observed and documented. The scientific community is much more rigorous in its demands for evidence and intellectual consistency than any creationist has ever been.

There are bound to be certain transitional phases that supposedly develop in SPITE of natural selection. Why would transitional lungs be selected? What possible use could they be? Could early fish have used air sacs to supplement low O2 levels? Sure, but that only defers the problem as that would introduce an entirely separate mechanism. Even so, If Low 02 systems existed for billions of years to necessitate a transition to a lung system, why do gills still exist? Is there fossil evidence to corroborate this?

Again, this shows that you have learned your evolution from creationist sources. Of what use is half a lung? Of what use is half an eye? A hell of a lot more than none is the answer in both cases. You also fail to take into account the adaptation of organs to perform other functions than those they originally evolved as. Fins become legs (and vice versa); legs become wings.

When do these changes get initiated before being passed to offspring?

They are initiated as mutations in the sex cells of the parents. If you find this explanation improbable, it is because you imagine evolution as purposive and goal-directed. It isn't; it's semi-random and opportunistic.

*

a reply to: Char-Lee

An interesting thing I remember, many years ago a science magazine published and article about a new lake that was formed in some mountains, scientists were studying this interesting new lake and were stunned when a few months went by and there was suddenly fish in the lake.

They ascertained that there was no water inlet into the high mountain lake which had no way but helicopter to reach, and no way for the fish to start appearing, they had no explanation.

I'm not sure why these scientists were 'stunned'. Small fish often have very short lifespans, and their attainment of maturity is correspondingly rapid. Betta splendens, the Siamese fighting fish, only lives about two years. I kept tropical fish as a boy, and have watched platyfish grow to adulthood in weeks, not months.

Where did they come from? Why, anywhere. Fish have been found in temporary pools of water in the Sahara. Darwin himself provided the explanation of how they got there, later proven true by observation: fish eggs contained in pond mud that had dried on the claws of migratory waterfowl.

It makes me think of all the oddities like the rocks that rained down in Chico Ca for about a month in one location witnessed by hundreds and reporters from all over the place that came to see. Maybe creation is a process like a computer program and ongoing process and sometimes mistakes and changes are made by design or randomly.

That's the first time I've heard of Fortean occurrences being used as an apologia for creationism! But rains of fish are actually quite common, and very well documented. Yes, maybe God creates fish ab nihilo... and drops them on to dry land for them to live three agonizing minutes and then die.

a reply to: Astyanax

You have to inspect the foundation before saying the tower is sound, did those very early scientists ever truly act in such absolute rigor or is the atheist approach to science (not science itself) actually merely a belief system and agenda that have taken over the establishment, you have heard that several top cosmologists and quantum physisicists became relgious after finding too much what they termed design in the universe.
Science is unique in that it is constantly shifing it's own foundation's as new theory displaces old theory but as you also know theory is not fact no matter how well it works and all theory's are essentially temporary until a grand unified theory can be established, but of course every important answer provides a fractal branching offshoot of questions because of limitations of the previous theorem upon which it was achieved which then accumulate meaning that the grand unfied theorem is no closer than it was when man was painting in the caves and therefore ultimately SCIENCE does not have the answer, it works better than shamanism and I am typing on a scientific consumer item but it fails at as much as it answer's if not more.
The truth is some of it's adherants have replaced also there faith (and you can be religious and a scientists as there is no confict unless you decide yourself there is or put certain theory's above your belief system) with faith in science.
Science is methodology not a deism but when you ask people you will hear oh science will explain that one day, no it wont it will provide a theory for it not an actual explanation and that is were science is twisted by people without a religion to fill there spiritual need for something to hold onto.

a reply to: LABTECH767

did those very early scientists ever truly act in such absolute rigor

Yes. Read Darwin's works. And read a good biography of him while you're at it. He studied and thought for more than twenty years before publishing The Origin of Species.

Is the atheist approach to science (not science itself) actually merely a belief system and agenda that have taken over the establishment

There is no 'atheistic approach' to science. Science demands that we approach nature without presuppositions.

You have heard that several top cosmologists and quantum physisicists became relgious after finding too much what they termed design in the universe.

You hear that in creationist propaganda, true. Not so much in the real world.

Science is unique in that it is constantly shifing it's own foundation's as new theory displaces old theory

We call this 'learning'. By the way, here's how to use apostrophes.

theory is not fact no matter how well it works

And creationists will keep on flogging this dead horse no matter how many times the difference between the scientific and lay usages of the word 'theory' is explained to them.

all theory's are essentially temporary until a grand unified theory can be established

And then we will have the understanding of gods, and we can dispense with God altogether. Who teaches people this poppycock, I wonder?

I've always regarded evolution as something that carries a lot of truth.

Every organism on this planet has a genetic code. We haven't found any other kind of inner mechanism a species uses other than it's genetic code (DNA.) If evolution is complete rubbish, then why have we not found a different process certain creations carry out separate from others? IE: find a organism that does not have or produce DNA.

As the OP was saying basically, nothing on this planet is truly and wholly it's own. Mostly because everything on this planet has been proven to be similar. You'd be surprised how close our DNA is to many different types of creatures in many different ecological categories.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Ever study how animals end up deposited after a flood? Interesting information in that.

I have seen mammal and dino tracks in the same layer of rock. Plus, mammals are found with dinosaurs on occasion:

DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT:JURASSIC PARK OR JURASSIC JUMBLE?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Antibiotics? Come on; show me examples of animals in between all those they line up in books, claiming they are evolutionary lines; animals that are x% one and y% the next, in stages. We don't have those.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

That isn't true at all. If the fossils settled in layers, instead of being put down over vast periods of time, we would see what we do see. Assuming there would be more isn't logical. Fossils don't form every time animals die, either. Camel tracks next to dino tracks, I have seen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No you don't. That's a lie. If you had uncovered flaws in evolution, you'd have a nobel prize.

That's funny! Lots of flaws in the theory of evolution have been presented, by scientists in virtually every field. They don't get prizes; they get ostracize
d for daring to challenge the BS.


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.

That simply isn't true. I understand science. I am no physicist, but things related to biology Plenty of study in school, including advanced courses, and plenty of study since then as well. I am not playing a "gotcha" game with you; state what YOU think about it, then we can discuss what I think. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts you are wrong, though, based upon how you phrased that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Peppered moths ring a bell?

How about the falsified model of Lucy?

All the hoaxes? And, no, you can't arbitrarily exclude those, simply because they have been exposed as falsified evidence. They ARE exactly that. You can't exclude them for age, either.

How about the archaeoraptor? That one is relatively recent.

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Java Man are all older, but Orce Man is a lot more recent, and admitted to be, most likely, from a donkey. Guess we know what that makes the ones presenting that falsified evidence, eh?

Maybe then you can read about the Yale DNA Hybridization scandal.

Haeckel's faked embryonic drawings are a great example, though not new. These, known to be utterly faked and false, can still be found in textbooks. I HAD books with those drawings, in school, and they are around today as well. Known fakes, still printed and shown as "real". Old frauds don't mean frauds that are gone. Darwin was influenced by those drawings.

Irritator challengerii was faked in the 1990's.

The Linxia Cheetah is even more recent.

Or, you could read about Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten's falsified "missing link" skull fragments, the age of which was grossly misrepresented. His actions were apparently bad enough that it was stated that entire portions of the assume history of Man would have to be rewritten. His Binshof-Speyer woman and Paderborn-Sande man were both given, by the evidence-falsifying professor, ages far older than were accurate. This fellow couldn't even open carbon dating equipment he had supposedly used. He simply LIED. His career spanned decades, and he should have been detected as a fraud much sooner, but being high profile meant no one looked too closely.

Maybe you want to hear about the "hobbit" bones, which are said now to be maybe 18,000 years old only, and are found in areas where modern pygmies actually still live.

You can read about Rotot and his controversial eolith theories, as well. Some of that is flat out scandalous.

Charles Dawson, the Piltdown forger, had other falsified "evidence" as well. Look it up.

Does the fact that the Miller-Urey amino acid experiments are invalid, because they didn't use the right gas mixtures, bother you? it should.

Try explaining the Cambrian explosion. It doesn't fit the theory at all. This is known, and ignored. Ignoring a huge amount of evidence is false.

Evidence from molecular biology is contradictory, and doesn't support the "evolutionary tree" ideas at all, but it's still claimed to by far too many people. The more molecules are compared, the more conflicting results are seen.

Darwin's finches are misrepresented. The changes in beak size, touted as "proof of evolution" don't last; after periods of drought, they return to the previous, smaller size. But, hey, why does that matter? Evolution supporters still use them as "evidence".

There is a lot of fraud in the supposed evolutionary line for horses.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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: Krazysh0t
Why? I don't know what this has to do with the topic at all.

You don't see? Evidence of animals evolutionists claim didn't live at anywhere near the same time period, all together, and you don't see what it has to do with the topic? Go figure. What can I do? You don't see.