A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.

Your argument on dinosaurs living with humans is based on a cave drawing... and one carving on a wall in Cambodia...

That's pretty solid...

So I'm giving you historical evidence of dinosaurs and you think someone just made them up. Same as in the Bible, someone just made them up right?

Really wouldn't matter what I showed you. Think we're done here. Whether you like it or not Dinosaurs existed with humans. You don't like this though because it disproves evolution!

Yeah we're done. Awaiting flame comments. Ignoring flame comments. Carrying on with my life in 3..2...

originally posted by: TechUnique
Would love to know what you guys think of this video. Many people have FLAMED me for saying that Evolution(Macro) is not a 'fact' backed by valid science.

Any scientist with any sense and integrity will agree with my notion whether they believe evolution to be true or not.

Belief is a key word here, lets break it down.
1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
-accept the statement of (someone) as true.
-have religious faith
-feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something.
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think.

Simply put, Macro Evolution is not factual science that should be taught it schools. You can argue with this all you want but if you are 'open minded' as most scientists claim to be, then you will watch the following video which breaks the issue down perfectly and better than I ever could.

I'm only going to respond to sensible comments. I am quite aware of the type of response this thread is going to get. People hate the truth. Especially when they have been living a lie the majority of their life. But know this..

John 8:32:- 'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'

Peace!

EDIT TO ADD: When I say evolution, I mean MACRO evolution, not 'Micro evolution' which is really just adaption.

The thing is, even if macro evolution is not real, and a higher power is real (which I believe that part), the Bible itself has immense problems, both factually and theologically.

It is a logical fallacy to move between the simplistic duality of Christianity versus Darwin.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.

Your argument on dinosaurs living with humans is based on a cave drawing... and one carving on a wall in Cambodia...

That's pretty solid...

So I'm giving you historical evidence of dinosaurs and you think someone just made them up. Same as in the Bible, someone just made them up right?

Really wouldn't matter what I showed you. Think we're done here. Whether you like it or not Dinosaurs existed with humans. You don't like this though because it disproves evolution!

Yeah we're done. Awaiting flame comments. Ignoring flame comments. Carrying on with my life in 3..2...

Even if dinosaurs existed with humans, that would not disprove evolution, it would just make us have to change timelines.

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.

If dinosaurs and humans coexisted, how did Noah fit them on the ark?

a reply to: TechUnique

Lol you made the thread and now you flee!!!!
Throwing a dummy out of the pram this is.
You have been given the evidence and like I said in my first post you ignore it.
Next time you think up something to attempt to diss science don't bother eh? also don't teach kids.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.

Your argument on dinosaurs living with humans is based on a cave drawing... and one carving on a wall in Cambodia...

That's pretty solid...

So I'm giving you historical evidence of dinosaurs and you think someone just made them up. Same as in the Bible, someone just made them up right?

Really wouldn't matter what I showed you. Think we're done here. Whether you like it or not Dinosaurs existed with humans. You don't like this though because it disproves evolution!

Yeah we're done. Awaiting flame comments. Ignoring flame comments. Carrying on with my life in 3..2...

sigh... You just don't get it do you...

Even IF those are authentic "drawings" of real "dinosaurs" it doesn't change the fact that dinosaurs lived "MILLIONS" of years ago... Not thousands... IF anything it shows that a particular species managed to survive throughout all this time... which is also highly unlikely...

You're not showing evidence at all... you're showing bias speculations based on your faith in the bible... which is based on another persons bias speculation based around their faith in the bible...

Meaning you prove nothing except your willingness to ignore anything that shows the bible to be incorrect... but will gladly accept absolutely anything that even remotely shows the bible to be true.... which is typical

Im not here to flame you man...

it just makes me sad when people stick their fingers in their ears and go.... "LALALALALALA Im not listening"

I honestly figured our species had "evolved" past that point...

you do not have to "see" something in order to observe it.

observe
əbˈzəːv/
verb
verb: observe; 3rd person present: observes; past tense: observed; past participle: observed; gerund or present participle: observing

1.
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
"she observed that all the chairs were already occupied"
synonyms: notice, see, note, perceive, discern, remark, spot, detect, discover, distinguish, make out;

The video so far is a rather transparent play on words designed to elicit the response preferred. He asks the questions fairly sure that most people wont challenge his definition, and in order to guide the subject he offers a leading phrase. many times he asks, "can you tell me something I can observe, something i can see". This is a leading statement. The fossil record can be observed, but you cant watch fossilization.

Its a psychology trick that I use everyday in my work to lead people to the conclusion that I need them to reach.

Anyway, paused the vid' to make the point while fresh and haven't read the rest of the comments yet, so will persevere and comment as needed.

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief


Even in humans it is wrapped around the heart, totally inefficient. I can see why the survival of the fittest model is being phased out to survival of whoever survives

What exactly is inefficient about the 4 chambered mammalian heart? Its the most efficient muscle in your body without a doubt.

My interest in the idea of evolution is the 'how' from the beginning. I mean the very beginning. There are so many functions that need to happen together to keep an organism alive that I cannot fathome how evolution would have just begun. This takes away from all other aspects.

What your attempting to do is conflate a chemical process...abiogenesis or panspermia with a biological process...Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. While tied to each other in a way, they are completely seperate areas of study by completely differing scientific disciplines. In simplistic terms, evolution began whith the first eukaryotic organisms coming into existsnce from their predecessors, prokaryotic organisms.its the resl defining steps of the beginning of life, photosynthetic cells amd respiration. When i say respiration, im not inferring the advent of lungs or breathing. It just means thst eukaryotes were utilizing 02. Its a process that took hundreds of millions of years to go from simgle celled eukaryotes(~2.1 Bya) to the Cambrian explosion(540-550MYA).

I see that evolutionists take an existing animal and work out how it may have reached the point it's at. Such as a giraffe. Was a horse, had a longer neck, slightly. Continue the line and you have a giraffe. Okay. But let's go way back. When the heart was being created. Was it pumping blood? Was the blood falling out because it didn't evolve to close all the ports. How did theanimal survive during that phase? If it was already alive and well while the heart was being created why did it need to create a heart (not that it chose too)?

Its a little more complicated than a heart just happening to form in an organism via trial and error. You really have to go back through evolutionary history to see how long of a process this is. I will try to come back and add some links to this but Im not on my PC right now so I don't have them handy right this minute. The complex, 4 chambered heart we see in mammals today isnt just a random act of luck. Its been hundreds of millions of years in the making. A good comparison would be our 4 chambered heart (2 atria, 2 ventricles)and the 3 chambered heart of many amphibians like frogs for example(2 atria and 1 ventricle). The intermediary between the 2 would be that of a turtle. The turtle has the 2 atria and 1 ventricle like a frog but it also has a wall or septum beginning to form in the single ventricle. This gives the turtle a more oxygen rich supply of blood than the frog. We see this occur in 1-2% of human babies as well where the septum can be fixed to create 2 seperate ventricles for a proper and functional 4 chambered human heart. To go further back in time, we can go back to the beginning of the Cambrian where the first arthropods appear. One of the more popular and well known Cambrian arthropods is the trilobite. Modern examples of arthropods that were around during the cambrian would be shrimp. The first land creatures were arthropods and appeared approximately 419 MYA. Arthropods today are all insects, spiders, scorpions, shrimp... You get the idea. The physiology hasnt really changed much in the last 400+ MYA and they don't have a circulatory system as we do. In insects, there is one single blood vessel thst runs from the head to tge abdomen. In the abdomen, the vessel divides into chambers and functions as a defacto heart. Perforations in this heart called ostia allow the hemolymph to enter the chambers from the body. Muscle comtrsctions push the hemolymph into the various chambers amd towards tge head amd thorax Insect blood, the hemolymph, doesnt carry O2 so there are no red blood cells making it a yellowish or green color. Its only about 10% hemocytes(blood cells). I think its fairly easy to draw the parallels between arthropod circulatory systems, to more modern chambered hearts especaially when we can see the differemce between older amphibian lines with a 3 chambered hesrt, newer reptiles like turtles that are demonstrating a transition to a 4 chambered heart and modern birds and mammals with a four chambered heart. Its especially telling that there are still a very small percentsge of human babies born with jesrt drfects(1-2%) and a large chunk of that is Ventricular Septum Defect. The regulatory end aslect on the genetic end of things is called Tbx5. In cold blooded animals, it is found uniformly through the entire heart of embryos, in warm blooded animal embryoss it is found only on the left side. Its this restriction that allows for diferemtiation between a right and left ventricle or a single ventricle. In the turtle, an anatomically transitional animal, a higher concentration of Tbx5 is found on the left side amd gradually dissipates to the right in decreasing amounts. This gives an interesting demonstration of how proteins like Tbx5 are critical to heart formation as well as the formation of defects in utero as a result of the impairment of the protein.

These are the questions that science fails to answer as I see it. This is where evolutionists need to have a little faith that that's the way it happened, now we move on.

Lack of understanding does not make a theory incorrect. It is incumbent upon the dissemter to counter the prevailing theory of the day. Your lack of understanding does not prove something untrue. It simply demomstrates thst hou arent engaging in due dilligence.

I'm not saying God put us here or aliens etc. Don't care. I like answers. If all scientists have is speculation on the above then it is not science, it is faith until it can be proven and duplicated.

But they dont have just speculation on the above. The information is out there for those who actually care to educate themselves.

I hate that anyone that questions evolution is attacked or insulted quote often. Is that due to a fear on the part of the evolutionist that their world may be turned on its head?

Perhaps its not that evolutionary theory is simply questioned, its that the vast majority of those who claim to be "questioning" it ate in fact attacking it with no rational basis, no counter theory and nothing to support their version of events aside from scripture. Their default position, which ironically they attempt to impart upon purveyors of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is willful ignorance and a lack of desire to engage in due dilligence. They attack the Theories because those theories threaten their religious world view, not because the theories lack evidence. For the most part, it ends up being a banter between someone who has taken the time to understand MES and someone who refuses to understand even the most bssic aspects of it. A frequent example is referring to it as Darwinism, an 156 year old anachronism.

BTW is it telling what kind of person Iam by using the word "flee" in my last post...according to the OP it is...any guesses anyone?.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Answer

Dating techniques are based on assumptions. The main assumption is the constancy of process rates used to calculate ages. Seeing as that assumption is used in all the dating techniques of geology, then if the assumption is wrong, then so are all the dates.

You guys are going on a whim with the dating thing, you have faith that your dates are correct when they could be(and are in fact) completely out of sync.

Historical records of any human civilization before 4000 B.C. are completely absent. You could say that 'We hadn't evolved yet enough to write history', sure you could say that. But evidence points not only towards us having a creator, but towards a flood wiping everything out and towards supernatural influence on earth and its civilizations.

When you get into it the Bible makes a lot of sense and matches up historically with what we know for sure. Your dating methods are FAR from a certainty. They require faith to believe that they are correct.

I'm sure you will disagree though.

Absolutely I disagree because everything you said is untrue or a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of fact.

Dating techniques are not based on assumptions. Dating techniques are based on repeatable, verifiable data. Just because you do not understand the science behind the techniques, does not make them invalid. You also seem to make the common creationist mistake of thinking there are only 1 or 2 methods for dating. There are many: Educate yourself.

There is no "whim" or faith involved in dating methods. You've read too many creationist propaganda sites that try to invalidate dating methods by presenting made-up cases and anomalies to discredit proven methods.

You're incorrectly assuming that "written history" has anything to do with the age of the earth. Just because humans had not yet invented a system of writing does not mean they weren't around. There are many cultures with a flood story but if the Biblical flood story is true, how were those cultures alive to write about it? Scientists have found that a period of flooding likely occurred but it certainly wasn't anything like the Bible claims. There is no evidence of a creator. There are stories about a creator, but there is certainly no evidence.

When you get into the Bible, it does not make sense. There are huge gaping holes of logic and it requires massive leaps of faith to believe that the Bible is offering a historical account of the earth. The Bible is not a scientific document, it is a religious text written by men. Just because it coincides with some historical events does not make it an infallible account of the history of Earth.

The problem is, you apparently do not have a complete grasp on scientific methods. You don't fully understand the Theory of Evolution because you choose not to. You dismiss out of hand that which you do not understand because it conflicts with your personal views.

No one is trying to force you to accept the Theory of Evolution. We only ask that you understand what you're denying. You clearly don't.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
BTW is it telling what kind of person Iam by using the word "flee" in my last post...according to the OP it is...any guesses anyone?.

Are you saying you have flees?

or that you're actually a monkey... which we already know

originally posted by: TechUnique
Would love to know what you guys think of this video. Many people have FLAMED me for saying that Evolution(Macro) is not a 'fact' backed by valid science.

Any scientist with any sense and integrity will agree with my notion whether they believe evolution to be true or not.

Belief is a key word here, lets break it down.
1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
-accept the statement of (someone) as true.
-have religious faith
-feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something.
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think.

Simply put, Macro Evolution is not factual science that should be taught it schools. You can argue with this all you want but if you are 'open minded' as most scientists claim to be, then you will watch the following video which breaks the issue down perfectly and better than I ever could.

I'm only going to respond to sensible comments. I am quite aware of the type of response this thread is going to get. People hate the truth. Especially when they have been living a lie the majority of their life. But know this..

John 8:32:- 'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'

Peace!

EDIT TO ADD: When I say evolution, I mean MACRO evolution, not 'Micro evolution' which is really just adaption.

We should question all scientific theories and ask the tough questions and look at the stuff that doesn't make sense to us...how else would we learn.

However, If not evolution, then what? The theory of evolution and all of the science surrounding it...that's the best we have right now. If you're going to "debunk" evolution, then what is your replacement?

a reply to: Akragon

Yeah but I get my evolutionary brothers and sisters to pick them out.
Great social bonding....

Funnily enough we do the same don't we...I love my back being scratched, head tickled etc.

I don't know If that is what he is saying but I don't see it seeing it is spellt differently

God made everything, i thaught everyone knew that come on guys get a grip hehe.

a reply to: AnuTyr

personally, i am really inerested by the point of view you espouse (a few pages back).. i am used to calling this the "interventionist" approach

although i really am in the interventionist camp... that idea really doesnt speak to creation VS evolution all the way.

meaning that JOE ALIEN landed, whipped out his Ronco Pocket DNA gadget, and turned Bigfoot into a Butler..

(small joke but thats basically the interventionist viewpoint)

the deal though is that life on earth could still have evolved premanipulation... or life on earth could have been created, either divinely or through science before the manipulation...

but this thread is about religious intolerance for a scientific concept..

oh PS, even if JOE ALIEN did land here...

was JOE created or did HE evolve? or did JANE ALIEN land on JOES planet eons ago and make a few changes?

it opens up a loop, and as such is less usefull for the all the way BIG questions, and more useful for looking at our EXACT situation.

to the science and religion folk, sorry for a little off topic drift, but we interventionists are OUT THERE...

i just like to keep an argument clean if possible.

PEACE

a reply to: TechUnique

Min 6 (ish)

Asking science to prove a biblical definition.

So he's been offered example of speciation (that is one species changing into anther) an dismissing it as not demonstrating a change of 2kind".

Kind is a biblical definition, yet he keeps insisting that the evidence for change of species is not " darwininan evolution of change of kind".

He may as well be stating (and sort've is) that science is failing showing the descent of man because is missed out Adam and Eve.

Back to it!

a reply to: Akragon

Oh and not just A monkey.....
I am THE Monkey the great sage of the trees, the keeper of the Holy bananas.

(darn it why didn't ATS allow me to make my monkey religion I would have owned all the bananas by now).

originally posted by: TechUnique
I suggest you guys read this page.
Source

Probably won't even read it. You'll probably see the website url and not even bother, yet still claim its bogus.

I read through it. I see the pic they are calling a stegosaurus, and yes, it does look like one. The problem with your argument here though is that you can't just pick one part of their carvings and say it is the only real one and discount the others. At the bottom of the carving of the claimed stegosaurus, is a devil with hooves....that would have to be real as well.

Have watched it all now! You owe me 16 minutes.

Q. "Do you believe everything is intelligently designed?"

A. "No"

"Make me a rose then!"

"I cant"

"Why not"

I have no idea where that conversation was supposed to head. I assume that if she did believe in ID, she would be able to make a rose.

I have an idea that the interviewer spent A LOT of time in the edit suite!

time to read the responses, will catch up with y'all shortly.

Ok...I have a serious question. Was it just earth that young earth creationists say was made 6000 or so years ago, or was it the entire universe?