A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Umm, yeah, and if you want to know about the veracity of the first book of the bible, just read Titus (I love that name) 1:14-16, I will post the part that pertains to your foolishness "Not giving heed to Jewish fables".

You are silly to the core. Can't you ever be serious? For once post, stop joking. I dare you.

 

Those verses are referring to the Behemoth and the Leviathan, both mythical creatures. Dinosaurs did not spit fire nor breath smoke (10-11)
And if there were dinosaurs during the time of the bible, dont you think it would have been written about more than once throughout the whole bible? Maybe like, "and then a group of raptors came and whiped out the whole city of Jerusalem", or "three tyrannosaurus rex invaded and raped the city of Rome".

I just cant believe you would take the word of some mysteriously written, very unbelievable book over hard facts and dating performed by modern scientists with up to date knowledge on the matter.

 

So... Archaeopteryx has qualities of reptiles. It also has qualities of birds. And yet for some reason, it isn't transitional. Weird. So in your own little world on the other side of the moon, what makes any lineage of people related? Just because I look almost exactly like my brother doesn't prove we're siblings, but it's a pretty good indicator? What makes you think turtles are reptiles? Maybe they're just really weird birds that, by sheer coincidence, have all the characteristics of a reptile.

It's obvious that you have no interest in participating in a logical and reasonable debate. You ignore points made, and you continue to spout your totally illogical gleanings. You should stop listening to what people thousands of years ago (when they thought the moon was smooth and shiny and objects of different sizes fell at different rates, and didn't even have a number zero), and use that magnificent organ that is being stored inside your cranium. You should really read and seriously consider what is posted before dismissing it, 'cause what you're doing now gives an impression of stupidity.

 

So the Behemoth and the Leviathan were mythical creatures. And who told you that? Was it the same Evolutionist that claim that no person living between 60 million years ago and 1780 AD could possibly have known what a Dinosaur look liked. There is a wealth of evidence to show that dinosaurs coexisted with people (although they were not yet named dinosaurs, of course.) If you ever happen to travel to England, you might want to visit Carlisle Cathedral. It is one of the smallest Cathedrals in England. In the Cathedral you will find the tomb of Bishop Bell, who was buried there in 1496.
What you might find of some interest is the engravings on the brass works of his tomb. Depicted on his tomb ingraved in the brass are two Brachiosaurus. And the clear images we have of them are not skeletal, but of two living Brachiosaurus that are inner acting with each other. And this was engraved 280 years before anyone was suppose to know what a dinosaur looked like. Evolutionest donot want to see these engravings. And any time evidence comes forth that would refute their belief system, they quickly dismiss it.
Is it possible for a creature to breath out fire or smoke from it's nostrils? The Bombardier Beetle is only a centimetre long and it can explode a jet of 212 deg. noxious fumes at it's enemies. This is made possible by a mixture of chemicals that can be reacted at will. The rate of reaction between these chemicals is increased to explosive speed by the addition of two enzymes which act as catalysts. We now have to ask ourselves if there are any dinosaurs so far discovered that have suitable cavities in their skulls with a similar pattern to the Bombardier Beetle? As it turns out, Corythosaurus, Lambbeosaurus, and Parasaurolophus, all have this cavity and could have been able to fire hot gases from their nostrils. The Bible is not an unbelievable Book at all. The fact is the Bible writes history before it happens. The Jews are not back in Israel by accident, and the sealed East Gate is also part of a much bigger plan. The Bible is a Book that is telling the world what is going to happen and the description of those events are already happening in detail. Yet know one is listening.

 

Well let me use your logic. Some fish have teeth, humans have teeth as well. And most fish have eyes, and humans also have eyes. Fish have mouths and human have mouths. So humans have qualities of a fish. And now I'm suppose to believe I'm a transitional. Oh and I see, a logical and reasonable debate is only when someone agrees with you. I ignore points you have made? No I don't. But I am waiting for you to make your first one. And the point I keep driving home, is where are the abundances of transitionals? If evolution were true and took millions and millions of years to bring us to this point. Then the fossile record should be packed with billions of transitionals. The fossil record is empty. We have collected hundreds of thousands of fossils if not millions of them, and the only fossils we can't find are the billions of transitional. So we can find fossils from every time period but darn we just cant find the billions of transitionals. And I'm the one giving the impression of stupidity? I fully agree with Darwin, if his theory were true the transitionals would be there in abudance. You apperentaly do not agree with Darwin.

 

Points you've COMPLETELY ignored:

1. Fossilization is not a common occurance. If fossils were caused by huge flood, then there should be plenty of human fossils too. It requires the animal to die and be preserved, usually in a muddy streambed or ocean floor. Very few animals that die actually fossilize.

2. Plenty of transitional fossils have been found. There is reptiles to birds, the horse lineage, bivalve lineage, HUMAN lineage, just about any one you can think of. Except, of course, whatever one it is that will prove evolution.

3. Evolution does not need fossils to be proved. Any time a child is different from a parent, that is evolution. In a lab, new forms of animals have been genetically altered to express new characteristics. If GM corn pollinates a normal corn population, that's evolution. Square melons. Glow-in-the-dark monkeys. That's evolution, albeit man-powered. Expose a bunch of fruit flies to X-Rays, which occur naturally, and you'll come up with ones with different colored eyes, shriveled wings, legs on their head, different sizes, and all kinds of other mutations. Mutations are the driving force of evolution.

4. Archaeopteryx is transitional. It has qualities that are specific to reptiles and qualities that are specific to birds. If that doesn't show transition, then what does? Look at the velociraptor. The oviraptor. Do you know what raptor means? Bird of prey. Yet they are dinosaurs. They have scales, clawed hands and feet, a long bony tail, reptilian jaws and teeth, and a reptilian breastbone. Archaeopteryx has all of those except for scales. Birds do not. If you can find a robin with a long bony tail, come find me. If you can find a robin with a long bony tail, reptilian jaws and teeth, clawed hands and feet, and a reptilian breastbone, go find the president or something.

And agreeing with Darwin just presses the stupid point. If he actually said that, I disagree. That doesn't discount his argument for evolution. That like saying that if you disagree with jesus on one point you must be the antichrist. I agree with Plato's thoughts on the soul, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he said.

Those are the points you've ignored, and why your explanation makes just as much sense as saying the human race was started by aliens. There's just as much "evidence" to support that as there is to support yours.

 

I dont understand how humans could have lived at the same time as dinosaurs when every species of dinosaur became extinct while humans continued to thrive.

 

Fossilization is not common?
Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences. Neal L. Larson
Fossils are abundant, common, and so extensive, they are found all over the earth.

Plenty of Transitional Fossils found.
"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet the optimism had died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."-*David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," in Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289.

"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school.. The missing link between man and the apes..is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the ruel..The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."-Newsweek, November 3, 1980.

Evolution does not need fossils.
It's not that Evolution needs fossils, it's that Evolution can't use fossils, because the fossil record is an embarrassment to the theory itself.

Archaeopteryx is Transitional
"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to 'gaps' in the fossil records, gaps that proponets of gradualism (gradual evolutionary change from species to species) confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.. There is a growing conviction among many scientist that these transitional forms never existed.''- Niles Elredge, quoted in ''Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered,'' in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

I haven't ignored any of your points, I only believe in facts.

 

Dinosaurs were big but humans were smarter. In early America the buffalo roamed the plains in the millions. These Buffalo were reported to be much larger than the one's we have today, yet when the white men began to slaughter them, there numbers dropped very quickly from the millions, to fifty. If it were not for Teddy Rosevelt, there would be no buffalos left today.

 

Seems like the fourth commandment just slipped mister George Deophile Bush's mind then, huh? War IS murder, you know.

I believe in evolution, to me its existence is a proven fact (me studying archaeology and all). I don't care what others think about this subject, and I don't feel the need to push my views unto them.

I don't think you should prove the fact that god exists, I think that's god's own duty. And in a substantial, not-to-be-perceived-wrongly way, like, just appearing in the sky with lots of trumpets and stuff. In a way that everybody sees him and stuff. Until that day I think there isn't anything that can convince me.

 

Just to chime in here:

I know that it isn't entirely pertinent to the above quote, but it is worth mentioning.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

The following are all quotes from recognized scientists in good standing among their peers that are all affirmed evolutionists. Note that Gould is in agreement with the others.

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]

Let's look at a general evolutionist definition of evolution:

a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world

Change does not necessarily equal evolution per se. The expression of new characteristics is not evolution in the classical sense because you are only expressing information that was already there. However, there has never been any instance of less complex information giving rise to new, more complex information. What you have mentioned above is variation, not evolution.

“... Archaeopteryxwas, in a modern sense, a BIRD.”
[Allan Feduccia (evolutionist), Science 259:790-793 (1993) (emphasis added)]

Gould again:
“Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

And let's not forget that full-fledged crow-sized bird fossils have been found in strata believed by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (and as old as the oldest fossil dinosaur), making the “transitional” nature of Archaeopteryx (between dinosaurs and birds) less defensible than ever before. [Tim Beardsley (evolutionist), Nature 322:677 (1986); Richard Monastersky (evolutionist), Science News 140:104-105 (1991); Alan Anderson, Science 253:35 (1991)]

Well, now those points have been addressed by evolutionists. I am not going to dive into this debate, I just wanted to post this as evidence for my position:

Neither evolution nor creationism (nor any other hypotheses) are *fact* proven by irrefutable evidence. All the theories have problems and issues that have not been addressed or explained satisfactorily. So, for all of you who toe the line and think that anyone who doubts evolution is an idiot, please realize that the experts in evolution are not nearly so vehement in their certainty as you are. For those creationists out there, remember that there are still unanswered questions that creationism has not answered.

When it all is said and done, the issue revolves around faith. The same evolutionists that make fun of the "God of the gaps" feel no hint of hypocrisy when they call down the "evolution of the gaps" (we don't know exactly how non-living molecules formed cells, but it must have happened through evolution!) No matter how you slice it, it all comes down to faith.

 

Something that everyone has overlooked to this point is that you're all arguing over gradual evolution - many theorists believe that evolution happens in leaps and bounds, not as slowly as we are usually taught.

 

Even if that were true, over millions of years there would be some indication of that in the fossil record. If not in larger animals, certainly in simple life forms. Yet, the fossil record is empty, and shows no such activity.

 

What he's describing is the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. The theory states that evolution follows long periods of stasis and happens in quick bursts.

By the by, I checked up on the quotes being supplied to me, and they're bs. None of the ones I checked that were said to be by evolutionists were actually by evolutionists. And few were from after 1980. Not only that, but IF we're going to be using what other people have said, I'll bet I can get many times the volume as you can, so just talk to me, and stop sending me these snippets of what other people said.

 

Also, if fossils were made by a flood, which is not possible, since it takes way more that 3000 years for things to fossilize (or even 6000), there would be many fossilized species that are still around, right? They can't have all gone extinct because Noah forgot to put them on a big boat, right? Where are the people fossils of all those nasty people that god wanted dead? Monkeys? Whales? The modern ones, not the ones that are different from what's here now. Lions, horses, chickens, bullfrogs, penguins, sea lions, etc. There should be just as many of them as there should of the long-extinct ones.

RIDDLE ME THIS!

 

Here's something to ponder, if you will:

You can observe evolution for yourself in many things that man has created. Let's take the fashion industry for example.

I think we can all agree that we don't wear "Renaissance" clothes anymore, with the vents and stripes and stockings and funny hats and lacy bits and all that. Clearly, our current clothes (let's take a business suit for our example, for the sake of argument) are entirely different from what was worn back then. You might even call them different species of clothing.

But let's look a bit closer: Clearly the business suit didn't just spring out of nowhere. Think about it; Say that 500 years from now, we all wear silver unitards with a V-stripe across the chest. Even if someone were to mass-produce these nowadays, everyone wouldn't simply rush out and grab one, and commence wearing them on a daily basis.

On the contrary, little alterations were made to the old garb, bit by bit - lace ruffles at the chest went through many variations and became the necktie. Capes became half-capes, then collars. (NOTE, if you will, that capes did not gradually become shorter - were there a fossil record of capes, you wouldn't expect to find a 4' cape, a 3'11" cape, a 3'10" cape, a 3'9" cape, etc. etc. up to a 2' cape all owned by the same person. On the contrary, you would find a variety of 4' capes, and then a selection of 2' capes.)

Shirts with two rows of buttons are becoming extinct - you'll see them here and there, but nowhere near as ubiquitously as shirts with a single row of buttons. Probably because it's easier for people to button a single row rather than two, so they select the single-row shirts over the double-row shirts, and the production of double-row shirts declined. At some point we switched over from hose to pants for men.

I think you see my point by now (if not, you might as well go drown yourself in the toilet to help the gene pool). Evolution, whether we have given it a fully accurate description yet or not, is simply a part of life that is going on all the time, all around you, every day.

Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see....

 

well said, though your little "drown yourself in the toilet" bit lost you some credibility.

 

BTW, are you certain that the Laws of Fashion comply with the Laws of human evolution?