Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Reforged]

I'm annoyed now, not because of the questions but how easily you could answer them just by googling them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

The 20 total 'transitional fossils' listed on wikipedia are given no proof they are actually transitional. There is nothing to show they weren't their own organism created by God and gone extinct. You appear to have a lot of faith in evolutionists. Examine their motives for a second. Their goal is to show how life could develop by natural means (without God). To do this, they know they need to find transitional fossils. But they've only found 20 vaguely close, and those are yet to be confirmed. Scientists can't tell everything about an organism by its fossil. They used to think the platypus was transitional, and it looked that way by its fossils, but testing on the living creature revealed it wasn't even close. In fact, it was so far from everything else they put it on its own branch. I admire evolutionists' effort, but there simply isn't any conclusive evidence. Do we know if these 'adapted' organisms could breed with the source species? Maybe they could, and that would confine the observation back to microevolution. Other previous transitionals were erased too. The Archaeopteryx has recently been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. So I'm shocked (actually I'm not) that wikipedia still has it on its list-- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10288.html
The Tiktaalik, thought to be the first legged-organism, has also been debunked. One year after its pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.

When you look at evolution you picture an amoebae suddenly sprouting legs, lung, eyes, a suitcase and all other kinds of extremities. That is not the case.

Agreed. My point is that a leg needs hundreds or thousands of mutations all to happen at once to even get an extrusion that is useful in a similar way to a leg. Meanwhile, scientists have yet to find one of the multitude of transitional fossils showing its development. I'm not endeavoring to disprove evolution with this one fact-- I'm only demonstrating what little evolutionists have to go on, how one wouldn't believe on so little unless they were predicated to a naturalistic solution already, and how it is quite possible for the whole theory to have been manufactured. We're not looking for how species could have fit together or how they could have evolved. We're looking for a conclusive proof that they did evolve... over the divine alternative.

As for similarities between species, just because a scientist says two species are similar and share similar properties doesn't mean that a dolphin mounted a shark at some point, it means that they are similar. That they survive in a similar way. How does this statement translate into being "selective"?

It is selective because scientists are arranging the fossil record based on similarities. They put a group of organisms together because they are similar-- and ignore other similar organisms because they can't have the fossil tree overlap a hundred times. They have to be selective and choose which similar organisms are similar because of relation and which are similar just by their environment. To make that decision they appeal to what makes the most sense for their theory: namely, that lower-complexity organisms go first. But it is circular logic to use your theory to ultimately support your theory. The same goes for dating. You claim we have too few fossils to see 99.9% of all the organisms ever existent, yet at the same time claim that the .1% we do have reveal the dates of their arrival (fossils only showing deaths due to cataclysmic events). If fossils are so scarce, how can you be sure the trilobite didn't live a billion years earlier? You aren't sure, but you hope it didn't because it would destroy the evolution theory.

Evolution has no conclusive facts. It is a theory built in response to the evidence, rather than confirmed by it, and is based on the assumption that life has a naturalistic cause. If you base any theory on an assumption and in response to evidence there is no way you can be proved wrong because your foundations are backward and circular. The source of life has no conclusive evidence from either side, as neither is observable. Both have to be taken on faith. If you have faith that all we can know is in the natural realm, then go ahead and believe that. There are three main parties: atheists or naturalists who believe they can know that a God does not exist; agnostics who believe they cannot know whether God exists; and theists who believe they can know God exists because they were created in his image and he left clues. Most people prefer not to be locked in the first bubble, since it is the more closed and arrogant of the three. But what fewer people understand is that evolution is firmly founded in it, and even uses it as one of its premises. If you use evolution as one of your reasons for atheism, rethink yourself. A premise cannot be both a support and a proof.

---

"The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ."

I wonder what he would say if a trilobite gave him a stony gaze with his calcite eyes? Since trilobites are extinct I guess that will never happen but a Brittlestar can give him the same stony gaze with it's calcite (rock) eyes.

Trilobite eyes are also examples of irreducible complexity. Much to evolutionists' dismay, they are not simple at all:

http://www.create.ab.ca/the-trilobite-ey...ex-design/
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-d...mechanisms

I'm not sure how to respond. Those were obviously examples on wikipedia and there are more. What you're looking for is a flickbook that shows *every* transitional form and thats impossible as that would require a fossil of *all* of the billions upon billions there would be and even then you probably wouldn't satisfied. I'm not sure what scientists would have to actually do to prove evolution to you because whatever evidence they present to you you'd dismiss based on nothing.

To most, the fact that we can follow the process in many existing organisms today, that we do have transitional forms regardless of how many were fossilized and that our current adaptations fit the bill, that it is an explanation backed up by genetics, I mean the amount of stuff supporting it is untrue, to most people would consider that conclusive to Evolution being true. Although it doesn't define the origins of how it ultimately began theres sufficent proof to say that Evolution is why we have emerged from all of this.
But hold on, Undecieved has a different theory based on his meticulous research and experience... God did it. God made man out of dust and instead of doing the same with woman decided to make her out of the poor sods rib. They then mated so much that we all emerged.

I mean wow. It really is amazing when you put it like that but thats the basic premise behind everything you're saying. And what do you do to back it up? Do you present proof of your theory? No. You bring up debunked stuff, well if its debunked that means they're no longer accepted by the scientific community thanks to fellow scientists exploring it further. If theres a sizable amount of perfectly legitimate evidence still backing up evolution then its still the most plausible and conclusive theory of how life emerged on this planet.
If I came up with the theory electricity gave me superpowers and that got debunked, would electricity be debunked as default? No, of course it wouldn't. That would be incredibly stupid but that is the essence of your entire argument.
Oh and nothing is "irreducibly complex", to imply there is would be to imply a knowledge that encompasses everything. You don't know if it can be reduced in complexity because you don't have the knowledge to do so. Fortunately science is all about gaining the knowledge.

The fact people have the intellectual courage to explore these things constantly is what makes us interesting as a species. I apologize if I don't have quite as much passion in defending the theory that an entity with alot of time on his hands made us and controls everything we do despite its impressive and complete lack of evidence but what can I say?
I guess I just evolved that way.