Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: Toothache

Evolution = long term adaptation. Nice try. Changing the meaning of the word doesn't negate the theory, that's the oldest fallacy in the book, dude. Seriously.....

How many definitions for the word "evolution" are there now? I've ran into many. I was once told that evolution = change over time. So when an organism dies, then decays, that's change over time, so under that rather broad definition, apparently that's "evolution". I don't think anyone who debates evolutionary philosophies and unverified stories concerning the topic of common ancestry has an issue with the statement that many things change over time (there are some things that haven't changed since the beginning of the universe though, or at least there is no evidence that they have).

originally posted by: cooperton
If its fact then show a clear example. If it's fact there should be plenty of examples of it actually happening. You can't just say generic insufficient extrapolation and then say it's fsct

Ditto. I'm going to throw your quote right back at ya, buddy. Show me your god.

a reply to: whereislogic

You have to translate and read the actual paleo Hebrew Bible yourself to get an understanding of what the Bible means. The Bible that is given out and passed around is trash. It’s worded and referenced completely wrong. It’s an obviously mistranslated on purpose to form a narrative to be used as a control over a group of people. I get that the stories are used to teach people to be good and to scare them into it. The original Bible has no mention of being sent to a hell of fire. For one thing they believed hell was a place of bitter cold. A frozen wasteland. Plus there are hundreds of other made up things put into the Bible.
But back to your point of God not making himself known or being an individual entity. Think of it this way if you were God and wanted to experience your creation from a virgin perspective wouldn’t you remove your memory of everything before you did that so that you could truly be engaged with the experience? We are made in his image and a part of him so would it not be the purpose of coming into this dimension to experience it as anew? Even then we are all still apart of each other and him. He’s in everything around us. There is no punishment for this experience. How could their be since God made everything? There are only different types of experiences:whether Good or Bad. We have no understanding of anything until we experience it first hand. And I can tell you I’ve had some terrible, horrible things done to me, that I never speak of but would I take away those experiences? No. Because without them I couldn’t understand how impossibly great things are at times. And I wouldn’t get the full appreciation of those events. It gives you an ability to be struck with awe at the smallest of things, but also of the grandest. That’s the purpose of eating from the tree of Good and Evil because without doing that Adam had no appreciation for God and couldn’t comprehend how Great his love was because he had never been without it. Love can’t be described or told to someone, you have to feel it and then know what it’s like when it’s gone. If not you take it for granted. God loves you so much he had to take his love away so you could truly understand how Great it is.

a reply to: TerraLiga said:
Einstein would say when asked if he believed in God:

God would say:

Stop praying.

What I want you to do is go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I’ve made for you.

Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That’s where I live and there I express my love for you.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
We are beings born with amnesia. You dig deep enough and search far enough inside you will remember.

a reply to: xandback
You decide if it’s madness or if it’s the best time you ever had. We decide what we feel. Thinking of it all brings calm to me. It’s then I can relax and see how minor and trivial things I worry about are.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Then ask yourself this: Is God an impossibility?

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

Fair point but as a ginger, about 20 minutes on a high UV day and I'm going to start getting cooked lol.

Did you know that Mars has no ozone layer? Nor does any other planet that we have been able to study (i.e. in our solar system). So Earth is the only planet in the universe with an ozone layer as far as we know (not considering speculations about the atmosphere of planets in other solar systems, made to sound as convincing as they can by those who promote such unverified philosophies under the marketingbanner "science").

Vanishing Ozone—Are We Destroying Our Own Shield? (Awake!—1989)

Imagine that you have to walk through a deadly, burning rain every day. Your only protection is an umbrella, one perfectly designed to repel the lethal raindrops. Can you just picture how precious that umbrella would be to you? Can you imagine the sheer folly of damaging the umbrella, perhaps even cutting holes in it? Yet, mankind is in a similar situation on a global scale.

OUR planet is bathed in a steady rain of the sun’s rays. While most of these rays are beneficial, bringing heat and light to our world, a small percentage are quite deadly. They are called ultraviolet-B, or UV-B, rays, and if all were to reach earth’s surface, they would kill everything living there. Happily, our planet was designed with an “umbrella” shielding us from these rays, an umbrella called the ozone layer. Unhappily, mankind is destroying that umbrella!

What is the ozone layer? How does it work, and how are we destroying it? Well, ozone is an unstable form of oxygen. It has three atoms of oxygen (O3) instead of the usual two (O2). Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere, absorbing the dangerous UV-B rays while allowing the needed and safe light to pass through. Furthermore, while ozone is easily broken down by other gases, in the stratosphere it is constantly being created by the sun’s rays. So it is a self-repairing shield. Quite a design!

The problems arise when man starts to inject his own industrial gases into this delicate system. Then ozone is destroyed faster than the sun’s rays can produce it. ...

The Living Planet

Life on earth could never exist were it not for a series of very fortunate “coincidences,” some of which were unknown or poorly understood until the 20th century. Those coincidences include the following:

- Earth’s location in the Milky Way galaxy and the solar system, as well as the planet’s orbit, tilt, rotational speed, and unusual moon

- A magnetic field and an atmosphere that serve as a dual shield

- Natural cycles that replenish and cleanse the planet’s air and water supply

As you consider each of these topics, ask yourself, ‘Are earth’s features a product of blind chance or of purposeful design?’

Earth’s Perfect “Address”

...

The ideal “street”: ...

The perfect “neighbor”: ...

Earth’s perfect tilt and spin: ...

Earth’s Protective Shields

Space is a dangerous place where lethal radiation is common and meteoroids are an ever-present danger. Yet, our blue planet seems to fly through this galactic “shooting gallery” with relative impunity. Why? Because earth is protected by amazing armor—a powerful magnetic field and a custom-made atmosphere.

Earth’s magnetic field:

Earth’s atmosphere: This blanket of gases not only keeps us breathing but also provides additional protection. An outer layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, contains a form of oxygen called ozone, which absorbs up to 99 percent of incoming ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Thus, the ozone layer helps to protect many forms of life—including humans and the plankton we depend on to produce much of our oxygen—from dangerous radiation. The amount of stratospheric ozone is not fixed. Rather, it changes, growing as the intensity of UV radiation rises. So the ozone layer is a dynamic, efficient shield.

The atmosphere also protects us from a daily barrage of debris from space—millions of objects ranging in size from tiny particles to boulders. By far the majority of these burn up in the atmosphere, becoming bright flashes of light called meteors. However, earth’s shields do not block radiation that is essential to life, such as heat and visible light. The atmosphere even helps to distribute the heat around the globe, and at night the atmosphere acts as a blanket, slowing the escape of heat.

Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field truly are marvels of design that are still not fully understood. The same could be said of the cycles that sustain life on this planet.

Is it only a coincidence that our planet is protected by two dynamic shields?

Natural Cycles for Life

...

Perfect Recycling!

...

Did you notice that line about "absorbs up to 99 percent of incoming ultraviolet (UV) radiation." You don't have that kind of protection on Mars. So ginger or not, I wouldn't quite move to Mars just yet.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Now, imagine us on Mars, where the Sun wouldn't have as much of an impact.

And now imagine us on Mars with the information above in mind. Are you still under the same impression?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Ditto. I'm going to throw your quote right back at ya, buddy. Show me your god.

What would qualify as evidence for you?

a reply to: cooperton

I answered that question last time you asked it...

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Toothache

One can be observed, proven.
One can not, it is taken on Faith.

Yes, evolution can be proved. ID is taken on faith. We know this. Renaming evolution to adaptation does not change a thing about it. You know better.

Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

a reply to: whereislogic
The sad part is that many don't understand the role philosophy plays in understanding science. They are no longer taught.

Also many of the ATS evolution "experts" don't realize they are religious.
Their god: Time.
Their savior: Evolution.
Their bible: TalkOrigins

They really are some of the most religious folks I have ever encountered.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Toothache

I can't believe he just doubled down on one of the dumbest arguments of all time. Like seriously. WTF.

Lol no. You guys are the proponents of unintelligent design. I am a proponent of intelligent design. Your theory is literally the most unintelligent theory ever posited by humankind.

And yet somehow evolution is backed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of credible peer reviewed research papers, while ID is backed by none.

You didn't seem to define the terms I asked you to define, so your argument is meaningless if we can't even establish that common ground. Again you use a vague terms like "something else" and "remarkably different." What exactly does that mean in terms of biology and genetics? Please give an example of something you think would qualify.

originally posted by: whereislogic
And what would be the situation when the chance for this to happen by purely natural causation (causes, or processes) is 0, or nonexistent? As would be the case if you start with nothing for example as in Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing.

Something from nothing is a farce and in physics "nothing" is defined differently. There is no need for something from nothing in order for earth to be in its current configuration in our solar system. Nobody knows the origin of the big bang, but it could easily come from something, so there is no requirement of things just popping into existence from nothing.

How many definitions for the word "evolution" are there now? I've ran into many. I was once told that evolution = change over time. So when an organism dies, then decays, that's change over time, so under that rather broad definition, apparently that's "evolution". I don't think anyone who debates evolutionary philosophies and unverified stories concerning the topic of common ancestry has an issue with the statement that many things change over time (there are some things that haven't changed since the beginning of the universe though, or at least there is no evidence that they have).

Hornswoggle. There is only 1 theory of evolution and that is the one that EVERYBODY is talking about in the thread. Equivocating the scientific theory to a layman's terms like "change over time" when we are talking about a scientific theory is disingenuous.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

Nope, you made that argument, not me. Equivocating the theory of evolution to the word "adaptation" is dishonest, and you know that. If I travel to Africa and stay there for 10 years, I adapt. That doesn't mean by body experiences evolutionary mutations, it just means I get used to the different environment and learn to deal with the challenges that arise from that. It's called evolution, your fallacy is dismissed.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.

Great point. Organisms and populations of organisms can adapt, but it's never been shown they can become something else. How about a rat becoming a mouse or vice versa? Or an E. Coli becoming a spirochete?? The thing is, it never happens. 73,000 generations of forcefully trying to induce evolution on an E. Coli strain and its still E. Coli

originally posted by: Toothache

You didn't seem to define the terms I asked you to define, so your argument is meaningless if we can't even establish that common ground. Again you use a vague terms like "something else" and "remarkably different." What exactly does that mean in terms of biology and genetics? Please give an example of something you think would qualify.

You were rejecting the definition of biological a couple pages ago. You refuse logic's involvement in biological organisms, so how can we even have a logical conversation about something that you suppose has no logic?

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

Nope, you made that argument, not me. Equivocating the theory of evolution to the word "adaptation" is dishonest, and you know that. If I travel to Africa and stay there for 10 years, I adapt. That doesn't mean by body experiences evolutionary mutations, it just means I get used to the different environment and learn to deal with the challenges that arise from that. It's called evolution, your fallacy is dismissed.

So you say but all we see, all we can prove is adaptation because it happens.

originally posted by: Toothache

Something from nothing is a farce and in physics "nothing" is defined differently.

Then maybe people like Lawrence Krauss should stop pretending that they can just re-define the word "nothing" so they can talk about A Universe from Nothing as per the title of his book. It's not physics that defines "nothing" differently than everyone else (or "in physics"). It's people like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking who do that. It has nothing to do with physics. It's a contradictory philosophy, when you re-define "nothing" to pretend it refers (or can refer) to "something" or that you can use the word "nothing" when you are actually talking about "something", and then pretend you're talking physics and then admit things like "by nothing I don't [actually] mean nothing" or claim that "nothing isn't nothing anymore, in physics" (quoting Lawrence Krauss from his book and speeches, see earlier linked video after 6:02).

Hornswoggle. There is only 1 theory of evolution and that is the one that EVERYBODY is talking about in the thread. Equivocating the scientific theory to a layman's terms like "change over time" when we are talking about a scientific theory is disingenuous.

Again, then maybe fans of evolutionary philosophies should stop doing that when debating the statement and mantra that "evolution is a fact", and then when pressed for evidence, equivocating "evolution" with or quickly switching to the meaning "change over time" or in your case "long term adaptation", so they can pretend that any evidence for "change over time" or "long term adaptation" is evidence for evolution (implying it is evidence for the evolutionary storylines involving the topic of common ancestry, which is neither evidenced by biological organisms changing slightly over time producing limited variations nor by long term adaptation producing limited variations as for example can be seen in the field of dog breeding, which produces a limited variation of dogs, but they remain dogs, just like polar bears are still bears and "Darwin's finches" are still finches*). *: see the term "medium position" as used by Pierre-Paul Grassé below (French zoologist, proponent of neo-Lamarckian evolution and "He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris", quoting from his wikipage.)

W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent variation)

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruit flies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories. [whereislogic: "higher categories" than "species" are things like "genus", "phylum", "family" and "kingdom"; see footnote in subsequent comment.]

Richard B. Goldschmidt

...

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

...

When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.

...

ON September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. His contention is that if evolution were taught in the public schools as the theory it is rather than as the fact it isn’t, there would not be the controversy that now rages between evolution and creationism. Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”

“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

The article touched a raw nerve in Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent defender of evolution as a fact, ...

In his protesting essay, Gould repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact. ...

...

For the first of these “three great classes” of “copious data,” Gould cites as “direct evidence” for evolution the small-scale changes within species of moths, fruit flies, and bacteria. But such variations within species are irrelevant to evolution. Evolution’s problem is to change one species into another species. [whereislogic: so what do we do? Just re-define another word, "species", so you can talk about a bunch of slightly different finches, as different "species" of finches, as Darwin did. And conveniently ignore when evidence comes out that they are interbreeding. As discussed in this article.] Gould extols Theodosius Dobzhansky as “the greatest evolutionist of our century,” but it is Dobzhansky himself who dismisses Gould’s argument above as irrelevant.

Concerning the fruit flies of Gould’s argument, Dobzhansky says mutations “usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. . . . Many mutations are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

For the second of his three classes, Gould offers big mutations: “We have direct evidence for large-scale changes, based upon sequences in the fossil record.” By saying the changes were large scale, one species changing into another in a few big jumps, he escapes the need for the nonexistent intermediate fossils. But in going from small changes to big jumps, he goes from the frying pan into the fire.

Kristol comments on this: “We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’ that create new species, since most genetic mutations work against the survival of the individual.” And Gould’s “greatest evolutionist of our century,” Theodosius Dobzhansky, agrees with Kristol. His statement about many mutations being lethal is especially true of large-scale, quantum-jump mutations; also significant are his words that ‘mutations that make big improvements are unknown.’ Lacking evidence for his large-scale changes, Gould falls back on the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.”

...

a reply to: Toothache

[continued from last comment]

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

...

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29 * [The biological term phyla (singular, phylum) refers to a large group of animals that have the same distinctive body plan. One way that scientists classify all living things is by a seven-step system in which each step is more specific than the one before it. Step one is kingdom, the broadest category. Then come the categories phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. For example, the horse is categorized in the following way: kingdom, Animalia; phylum, Chordata; class, Mammalia; order, Perissodactyla; family, Equidae; genus, Equus; species, Caballus.]

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”31 *

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

...

Kristol comments on this: “We just don’t know of any such ‘quantum jumps’ that create new species, since most genetic mutations work against the survival of the individual.” And Gould’s “greatest evolutionist of our century,” Theodosius Dobzhansky, agrees with Kristol. His statement about many mutations being lethal is especially true of large-scale, quantum-jump mutations; also significant are his words that ‘mutations that make big improvements are unknown.’ Lacking evidence for his large-scale changes, Gould falls back on the old timeworn dodge of evolutionists: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.”

...

Continuing with that subject and responding to that dodge and claim that presents a misleading picture for dodging purposes (the bolded part). First from the article I linked when I added a remark concerning "Darwin's finches" and the re-definition of the word "species" (you may have missed that remark and accompanying link cause I added it in the middle of the article from 1987, 2 paragraphs before the bolded paragraph):

Evolution—Myths and Facts

...

Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28

The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29

According to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

...

So much for the dodge and misleading claim: “Our fossil record is so imperfect.”

Is Evolution a Fact? (Awake!—2006)

...

Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes?

The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”

This confident statement is quite surprising. Why? In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

...

Pardon the redundancy in those articles, I bolded the differences, in particular those pertaining to my remark above the bottem article. And now continuing with the bolded quotation from National Geographic, returning to a previously quoted article:

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

...

WHAT DOES THE “FILM” REALLY SHOW?

An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”36 Consider the implications of that illustration.

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?

How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils​—the 95 frames of the movie—​showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”37

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas? * [See, for example, the box “ What About Human Evolution?”]

...

Time for the usual modus operandi on this subforum and by fans of evolutionary philosophies now? When responding at all, only responding to the things I said (that are based on what is and elaborated on in these articles), taking what I said out of context, twisting it, and then responding to the usual straw men or with the usual propagandistic mantras.* Only demonstrating 2 Timothy 4:3,4, that you don't want to hear it, don't want to think about it, and certainly don't want to talk about it unless it is to nitpick and quote mine. To then turn around and accuse the authors of these articles of quote mining as per Isaiah 5:20,21. “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4) “Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good, those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those wise in their own eyes and discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21) Possibly with a moderator coming in and removing large swaths of what I quoted from these articles, so that the crucial points are lost, as has happened before when people responded with some version of TLDR or complaints about me quoting too much from articles and not using my own words when the issues with evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines are already so nicely explained in these articles not requiring me changing it in my own words (even though my commentary and additional remarks within the articles can easily be seen as a summary of a much longer discussion or more extensive debate).*: or short comments that are basically summed up as: 'nuh-uh, yada yada, holy peer reviewed scripture says', "backed by hundreds of thousands if not millions of credible peer reviewed research papers", 'if you've got something, publish a paper', 'you just don't understand evolution', 'I only accept peer reviewed science, not your religious articles', etc.

edit on 11-1-2022 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)