A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

StonerBill

Great analogy with the multi-colored string. I shall remember that.

 

Actually, that point was discussed a while ago. It's not fake, and it's not a bird, but that's not what I was referring to.

POINTS TO REPLY TO:
1. Theory of punctuated equilibrium. This states that evolution happens not gradually, but in quick bursts. You can google it fairly easily.

2. Fossils can't be made in 4000 or even 6000 years. A flood 4000 years ago would not give us the fossils we have. Nor would any other happening since your idea of the beginning of the earth.

3. Even if it did, there would be modern-type fossils (fossils of modern species), too. There aren't.

4. The whale fossil recently found with significant vestigial leg bones. See PhantomOpus's post.

5. Then, off the topic of fossils, evolution is supported in living organisms. Diana's post shows the similarities of arm bones for 4 mammals, along with fetus devolopement. If those weren't labeled, you would not be able to pick out the human.

Your failure to address the topics at hand doesn't support your argument.

 

does anyone else get angry beyond words when campbell says things like "voodoo science" and "The Bible is not an unbelievable Book at all" ?

 

Thank you for the reply Cambell. I do not know of any faked fossil incidents. It is interesting that there is little report on these, and that is admittedly a fault in the science world, but because there have been some incidents, does not mean the entire idea of evolution seen through the fossil record is invalid. Last time I presented a picture of the evolution of the horse, but if you are actually looking for pictures of fossils, maybe this would be more helpful:

and if you do indeed refute this as evidence, could you provide an explanation of what would be real proof?

Also, you do deny the validity of the fossil record, yet you have yet to address the other evidence I mentioned in the post. I would appreciate it if you did so in your next reply. Here is an excerpt (hehe, I 'm too lazy to type it again)

And finally, I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but how can the world be only 6000 years old, if carbon dating can date things back on this earth much, much farther?

In love,

Diana

 

WOW.... even Evolutionist know this chart is bogus!

 

Keep in mind the difference of Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution.

Most Evolutionists will give Darwin's Finches as proof of Evolution but the Evolution that they are talking about is Macro (long term change) and Darwin's study on finches is Micro (short term change)...

 

Those are neat drawings! Now where is the real thing??

 

I am not really sure what you mean but, I am guessing you thought because I didnt post real photographs, my picture isn't valid. Haha, well that is indeed what these fetuses look like in the early stages, but I did search for a better picture. What I found, with the limited time I have right now, is a picture of two embryos of different species:


What species do you think these are?*

=)Thank you for the clarification, I was under the impression that both types of evolution were rejected.

Haha, sorry I apologize for choosing this picture rather than a photo but I was kinda of in a rush before, here are actual photographs (the closest I could readily find...I have some history homework I gotta get back to =/)


By the way, JesusDiedForU, no one has yet to answer my argument regarding homogenuous structures, do you therefore agree with this point?

In love,
Diana

*The first picture is of a cat embryo, the second of a human embryo.

 

Alas, I would have used smilies in my last post, but you can only fit 4 pictures to a post...and I LoVe smilies. Haha, I was going to put a few in, to lighten the tone of the thread 'n all, so i'm making up for it now. :sunglasse

In love,
Diana

 

okay... I'm in this now. Starting off with what might get me flayed alive.

this is my theory on this (in a way supports both Creation and evolution but the creationist aren't going to agree, and the evolutionists aren't going to agree)

Okay, so here's the world, all nice and pretty after it's five days (or 5,000 years whatever) and God goes, "You know, pretty place but it's just that." Closing his eyes he thinks for a little bit "We need something other than plants, keep the plants in order and then other things to keep the things keeping the plants in order, in order. But if too much made now, then too much will be taken away."

So, and here's where the singularity can come in, he makes something with a different gentic code then any of the other plants and leaves it for a while. This something, whatever it was developed into animals (I'm not going to say man and animals any where except in the paranthesis because, waits for the stones to eventually fly, humans are animals) over well thought out period of time. God already knew what will eventually develope and what would survive knowing how the whole world is gonna go and everything, and when he saw Adam he made the promise to him about always living in Paradise, God's image on Earth.

So yeah, God could have made animals on the 6th day... but the animals were in the singularity form. Not already fully developed.

 

The problem with that theory (along with creationism) is that there's no evidence for it. It's just what you believe.

 

But there isn't any evidence in Evolution as to what started the entire events. We don't have a solid piece of evidence that yes, this substance was the very first animal. My theory is saying that evolution exists, but this is probably what created animals in the first place. Do you have the only proof of what was the first dog, fish, lampry, earthworm, fluke, etc... and not the first showing of that was what the animal was, but that was what was all animals. I gave what is probably the only plausable idea and kept up with saying Evolution is true. Creationism in the way that Campbell is arguring is only a theory of insanity... but so is saying that there was no way that things came from one source if that one source isn't found.

Evidence of what I said not being true is non existant as well.

 

what are you saying?

we dont know where life stemmed from?

we have a list that trails all teh way back to fungus growing in sulfur pools. life started as single celled organisms.

they have been able to create cells even.

your only taking campbells route that since we dont have every single step, it means we cant make a link.

 

That doesn't mean there's anything to support your theory.

I think it was about 50 years ago that it was found that organic molecules could be easily created by the primative conditions on earth. Like way back, ~4 b.y.a.

 

And it was about 10 days ago that scientists discovered organic compounds on Titan.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1501&slug=Cassini Titan

Why don't you go put yourself in suspended animation, get woken up in 50,000 - 1 million years, and see the first animals frolicking on Titan? Oh wait, by that time species here on Earth will have evolved, too.

 

or died out

 

First of all I never said that. This post was made in the process to give another person in another thread an idea as to where life began. Everything that you just said about the fungus growths just verifies my point. I said we came from one thing and over time developed... but that you can consider everything to be created at once since that one thing eventually had the ability to become what we have today.

Maybe you should read posts before you get it in your mind that I'm trying to argue the same thing. Because you and Freaker have now shown how idiotic you are. God and I thought people on these forums were at least supposed to have the intelligence to read what is posted. Guess the 19 and 17 year olds that live around you never learned that.

FYI Phantom... if you directed that comment at me... you fit into the same category as them.

Maybe I should repost what I did earlier in terms you can understand.

Something is made that holds the possibility to evolve
It does
We have what is seen today.
All things can be tied to that one object which also can show evidence of creation because something, whether it be God or natural phenomenon mad it.

Thank you and if you are still lost I suggest you actually go find something else to do other than argue when you don't even know what you are aguring against.

 

sorry but you said you believe god created a life form which then turned into what we have now and i said that god did not create a life form which then turned into what we have now.

these are fundamentally different things

god did
god didnt

your the idiot of you equate them

 

concept is still the same. You might not believe in God and that's fine. I do. But still, the idea of what I said is very probable.

Also, yet again if you read, All things can be tied to that one object which also can show evidence of creation because something, whether it be God or natural phenomenon made it.

No where there did I say that God made it. I mean really, how dense are you people? You guys and Campbell only read what is placed before you to the extent you feel like it. You don't read to actually know what the person is saying. You assume (never assume it makes an ass out of me and you) what I will say and don't pay attention to what really is said.

*shakes head* and these are my peers. No wonder I don't hold much hope out for the world.

 

you dont have to try and appease both creation and evolution, your meant to find the truth