proof against evolution

I saw a good documentary the other week, Sorry i can't recall the title.

Anyways in this doc they were cutting a window into a chickens egg and looking at its embryo, And what they were seeing was evidence of a long tail and even teeth in the embryo as it grew and developed inside the egg and implied it could be seen as evidence that some dinosaurs evolved into birds.

So surely for creationists if a chicken was created wouldn't you expect it to look like a chicken that was being formed in its egg and not a dinosaur or reptilian ancestor. ?


A good thread tho and i enjoy reading both sides of the argument.
Thanks for that.

Originally posted by ken10
The only answer i can give in response to your post is to look at Viruses and bacteria, They are able to evolve very quickly to become immune to anti-biotics
etc. So if evolution is true for those then why not all life.

And maybe in the case of the Coelacanth is it has never been put under any pressure to evolve.....Meaning it is able to efficiently survive today just as it did 65 million years ago, I think the same is true of the crocodillians.

Sorry i'm no expert and this is just my understanding of things.

viruses are different, as any doctor/biologist will tell you, they are a corruption of codes. Their changes to fight anti biotics are more akin to changes in preffered temperature for humans than actual evolution, they change to suit their environment. Last time i checked, walking into a warm room and having your body perspire isn't evolution.

Now, you all are saying that the coelacanth didn't evolve because it was at its pinnacle, well then if that is true, why would the amoeba evolve? It is the most simple, yet most effective form of life, and can preform a couple million functions per second. As you know, it was supposidly the first thing to live.

The type of life, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the computer senario. The point that it demonstrates is that something cannot come from nothing,(as any phyisicist will tell you, its known as conservation of mass), therefore, the codes in our dna cannot exist without a creator.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Bob Sholtz]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


you have honestly proved most of my points correct. Firstly, i agree carbon dating is accurate, which means that the dinosaur fossles that were tested was accurate. Which means that they lived rather recently.

Also, you bring up the point that the flood is remembered, whereas the asteroid isn't. Your logic again proves that im right. A couple thousand years ago would be around the time of the allosaurus that was tested. World wide flood+dinosaurs=extinction.

As for all thoes blind tests done, give me some links so that i can examin them.

THE REASON CARBON DATING ISN'T USED ON DINOSAURS DISPITE ITS ACCURACY IS BECAUSE WHEN THEY USE IT, IT DEFIES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Originally posted by selfisolated
I'm with JPhish on this one.
Why evolve if its doing just fine?

And BTW, 65MA is a geological estimate of when the dinosaurs died out. Rock is formed as layers of sediment build up, and based on known facts and figures (such as accumulation of sediment we can see in various parts of the world today -ie new rock forming), it is thought that the most recent layer of the Earth's crust where any evidence of dinosaurs is found is approximately 65 million years old.

And carbon dating is impossible on dinosaur bones, because they don't actually contain any organic carbon. It's been replaced, slowly, by various non-organic minerals.
I don't know if evolution is strictly true, but at the same time, would such a kind, loving God create a species where the most greedy come to dominate?

Carbon dating on dinosaurs is only possible because the carbon is decaying, thats how it works. The blind test on the prementioned dinosaur only worked because there was carbon.

How can anyone believe the approximation made about the earths crusts when the two ways they use to determin time frames usually disagree by +-100million years. Not very accurate.

Originally posted by Unsane
Undeniable proof against evolution will come when an 'advanced' or modern organism like a rabbit or poodle is found in the same era as a trilobite.

Unfortunately for creationists, having something which hasn't evolved actually favours evolution, so we can measure more accurately environmental adaptation - it will help with research and PROGRESS our understanding, something creationism will not.

But thats just my point, you have proved yourself wrong. The reason such creatures aren't found in that era is because the dna code inside the canines of that time had all the genetic information of every possible combination of dogs. The same is true of all other animals and humans.

Basically, you prove my point because this makes entropy true, the decay of a strong dna code into weaker sub species, which defies evolution. Because evolution is the simple becoming complex, not the other way around.

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by LannockYou CANNOT compare a shark to a coelacanth. It might be remotely possible for a shark to remain unchanged but a shark is a predator, coelacanths are targets for predators.

Some species are good at fighting.. others are good at fleeing. Maybe it could always swim and hide well.. no need to evolve.

Bob Sholtz.. what is the conspiracy? You've only posted creationist propoganda.. and it's not even good propoganda. The site you mention even talks about carbon dating live penguins and snails.. :shk:



..hang on a sec:

www.angelfire.com...
1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind

[edit on 1-7-2008 by riley]

i thought the conspiracy would be obvious, so i didn't mention it. Basically, evolution is taught in public schools because it is supposed to be the "scientific way, the correct undeniable way" where the evidence doesn't actually support the theory of evolution. Why can't evolution be taught as a THEORY and not as fact, when there is so much information to the contrary.

"Whoa! You are comparing a static form to a dynamic one. Not only will a computer not improve its code, it will not replicate. In the scheme of a dynamic Universe, one might expect improvements with each generation - with each generation of computers we create, there ARE improvements in code and function..."


Once again, you prove my point better than i could have myself. There are improvements in code and function because WE CAUSE THEM. The same is true of our dna, it was created by an external source.

THE COMPUTER CODE TO HUMAN DNA IS AN ANALOGY. It proves that the code cannot come from nothing, you assume a creator when computers are concerned, so does it not logically follow that our code came about the same way?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


The ID/creationist conspiracy theory, is that the very brightest minds spend years studying the most difficult subjects, then devote the rest of their lives only trying to deceive the whole world.
They documented their own vast conspiracy movement at the very beginning with the Wedge document.

I had a divine revelation about the secret code of logic the creationists use -- in science, every failure counts as a negative proof!

Each one of the hundreds of failed experiments by Thomas Edison and his assistants in attempting to make a light bulb, only proved that light bulbs are a myth. Only the last one showed that it might be possible.
Therefore, there is overwhelming documented proof that light bulbs are a myth!

In over 6,000 years, no one has ever found the skeletons, much less fossils, of a race of giants. The region they are alleged to have lived in has the greatest density of archaeological sites in the world with abundant written records. One would expect something so unusual and of such great reverence to at least have been preserved in a prominent place somewhere.

Only when someone can produce the authentic bones of these alleged "Nephilim" giants that have no earthly origin, will there be any possible credibility for the Biblical creation myth.

Evolution is a process in motion. Its similar to a computer program in way.

So relatively evolution has principles that are real and make it work out its process.

however, above all that, time is an illusion , so evolution is an illusion too.

So highly evolved beings have sort of stepped outside evolution from our point of view. They can just pop into space/time and take the form of whatever. THey didnt need to grow for 20 yrs to become an adult human.

They know how to manipulate energy. Therefore they arent at the whims of energy evolutiion.

But its true that their state is still evolving. Its all relative and a different type of evolution

To the original poster...I am sorry but I dont agree with your theory at all...Evolution is not some event that suddenly happens...A mutant baby is born(which happens in babies enough to be noted...) and this baby is better equipped to survive in the wild...In the case of that fish you mentioned it simply had mutant babies sometimes but they survived no better or worse than the others so they didnt procreate...When you force a species to either evolve and survive or die out, it will evolve...Like someone said before look at viruses...Case closed...

Bleugh...

Why this again? Why don't people just do a little research rather than spout the stuff they read on unreliable creationist websites? It's tedious. Whenever you rread anything on those websites, your BS meter should be imploding.

The living coelecanths are not the same as the fossils. These species are not even found in the fossil record, others in their immediate family are but there are many other even less immediate coelecanth fossils.

Even wiki will tell you this.

Au revoir.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Look,, JPHISH said it once and now I am saying it again so listen up Darwinist's .

It doesn't matter that they micro evolved into two "sub species" jeez I would at least hope so but that in and of itself PROVES thewre were pressures so now we have Darwins Finchs for Coelacanths, we have proof they micro evolved due to the pressures damning Macro evolution to smithereens because they have had all the time and necessary environmetal pressures including evidence thereof but

what do we got as a new species??

JOHNSON!

they are still Coelacanths ! GET IT NOW???"

Definition of species: source

"1. Biology
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding"

Just because they are coelocanths means absolutely nothing if they cannot interbreed and continue circulating their respective genes through the population. You could have a hammerhead and great white sharks. Both are sharks but that doesn't make them the same species.

Also you say micro evolution should occur? Then you say evolution occurs. Macroevolution and micro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is the scale. By stating micro evolution works = macroevolution works.

I don't understand the creationists veiwpoint of microevolution works but we are designed. Small changes can amass to large changes and rather quickly at that due to a very large variety of natural, behavioral, and genetic variables that can alter a population. If you have micro evolution then you have evoultion period not design.

Edited to fix quotes

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Cyprus]