(April 23, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Again, it almost sounds like "evolution" is like a football coach on the sidelines watching and deciding a different direction for the offense based on how the defense is adjusting. When and why did evolution decide to go from unicellular to multicellular? Does evolution have a will or reason? How does evolution get into "a rut?" Does gravity get into a rut? Evolution has "oomph?" Did it gulp down a 5 millennium energy drink? When did evolution decided to have an explosion of new species?

When we say evolution "does" something, Rev, we are speaking colloquially. We mean the processes by which evolution operates in a population. Evolution didn't 'decide' anything. A mutation happened that caused an organism to replicate in an odd way, and then there was a multicellular organism that was better in the environment than the unicellular one. There is actually great evidence that this happened multiple times, and there is actually a fantastic study showing the origin of multicellularity in a common green algae Volvox. So, no, evolution has no reason or will or any kind of consciousness. We tend to anthropomorphize things, and scientists do it with evolution a lot. It is nothing more that colloquial.

(April 23, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I am not trying to argue old earth vs. new earth. Most people on this board do not believe in God, I do. I am here to present God, many on here feel I am doing a terrible job at it. So I got some work to do. I feel like I am learning a lot of lessons and things on this board and am humbled to be here. I am very grateful for this opportunity.

This is good to hear, Rev. I couldn't care less that you believe in God, that is to say I don't care to try and change it. That's great for you---it works for you---and that's all well and good. Seriously. But you have come on here and seriously misrepresented demonstrable facts. The very least that could come from this is maybe that you approach these issues with an open mind, instead of a made up one. I can think of a thousand things that would prove to me that scientists were wrong about evolution. If the evidence were to come in, I'd jump off the ship as fast as any other person here. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is of the opinion that he can't be wrong.

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Gone five days and this is the first of your arguments I return to.

Disappointing but not surprising since anyone who holds Ken Ham in high esteem and provides links to AiG as "proof" of anything, other than the fact that Ken Ham and his cronies are frauds and liars, just has no understanding of evolution and should not argue against it until they have had the decency to study it.

Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

I'm sorry to hear that. Even the Russian Judge gave me a 3.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Thackerie Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: Gone five days and this is the first of your arguments I return to.

Disappointing but not surprising since anyone who holds Ken Ham in high esteem and provides links to AiG as "proof" of anything, other than the fact that Ken Ham and his cronies are frauds and liars, just has no understanding of evolution and should not argue against it until they have had the decency to study it.

Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

You're far too generous.

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

Rev, I suggest you leave now before you embarrass yourself further. We have heard and dealt with all these objections before.

(April 23, 2014 at 10:48 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: No, Rev, you're right. If a source is written by a Christian, even a Young Earth Creationist, it is worthy to be read, if they are looking at, testing, and interpreting the available evidence objectively.

If the source is starting out from the standpoint that no other viewpoint but the one they are espousing can possibly be correct, that is what makes it an unreliable source. The very mission statement from AiG is that evolution cannot be true, before they even look at the evidence.

How can you possibly think this is a reliable method for testing the evidence that we see around us?

ETA: If you see any of us post a source from a site with a mission statement along the lines of "Our mission is to disprove religious claims, because no matter what, there are no gods and we seek to prove that through our research and bring people to atheism. Atheism is inerrant truth, and everything we look at will be through that lens." Feel free to disregard that source. Just get in line.

"Molecule to Man" evolution can not be true because it goes against what Scripture teaches. That is probably why they take that stance.

Do you just not care to respond with something coherent? You literally just parroted back to me what I already stated. Taking that stance you are eschewing all science, Rev. It does not matter what the evidence says, it doesn't matter what you experience, it does not matter what reality dictates, it is wrong if it contradicts the Bible? You really are taking that stance?

(April 23, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: Gone five days and this is the first of your arguments I return to.

Disappointing but not surprising since anyone who holds Ken Ham in high esteem and provides links to AiG as "proof" of anything, other than the fact that Ken Ham and his cronies are frauds and liars, just has no understanding of evolution and should not argue against it until they have had the decency to study it.

Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

I'm sorry to hear that. Even the Russian Judge gave me a 3.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Thackerie Wrote: You're far too generous.

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

He would tell you we came from a dirt man and a rib woman.

They didn't have our level of knowledge back then.

(April 23, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

*would have* (you are spectacularly bad at that)

The same thing that would have happened if you asked him to watch a video on your iPad. He would babble to you in Aramaic and think you a sorcerer or necromancer.

(April 22, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Thackerie Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Beccs Wrote: Gone five days and this is the first of your arguments I return to.

Disappointing but not surprising since anyone who holds Ken Ham in high esteem and provides links to AiG as "proof" of anything, other than the fact that Ken Ham and his cronies are frauds and liars, just has no understanding of evolution and should not argue against it until they have had the decency to study it.

Thanks for playing, Rev. I give you 1 out of 10.

You're far too generous.

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

(April 23, 2014 at 11:00 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 23, 2014 at 10:48 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: "Molecule to Man" evolution can not be true because it goes against what Scripture teaches. That is probably why they take that stance.

??? Do you just not care to respond with something coherent? You literally just parroted back to me what I already stated. Taking that stance you are eschewing all science, Rev. It does not matter what the evidence says, it doesn't matter what you experience, it does not matter what reality dictates, it is wrong if it contradicts the Bible? You really are taking that stance?

Yes, creationists really do take that stance. They think that stupid book has magical powers, such that, it is always right no matter what. Even when it is obviously wrong -- it's still magically somehow right.

Completely irrational, illogical, preposterous, and just plain fucking stupid.

---

(April 23, 2014 at 11:07 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Thackerie Wrote: You're far too generous.

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

What do you think would have happened?

(April 22, 2014 at 1:05 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 10:35 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I believe this explains it better than I can. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...sil-record

AiG Wrote:That is a nice story, but that is not how fossils form, let alone a layer 50 feet thick. Organisms must be buried quickly in an environment that lacks oxygen in order to be fossilized. If they are not, scavengers and bacteria will quickly decompose the organisms.

Your source is wrong. Creationist sources lie.

TalkOrigins Wrote:

---

Claim CC363:

• Fossilization requires rapid burial, or the organism will decay. This suggests that a catastrophe is responsible for fossils.
  

Source:

• Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. <#The Genesis Flood#>. Philadephia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 128-129.

Response:

1. Bones can survive for over a year before being buried. Shells can last decades or even centuries. In fact, some fossils that have been eroded or encrusted or bored by other animals have been found, showing that long times passed before they were buried, and discrediting catastrophic burial. Only soft tissues need to be preserved quickly.
   
   
2. Rapid burial is not necessary for rapid preservation. Fossils can also be preserved by falling in a peat bog or on an anoxic lake bottom, areas where decay is slow or nonexistent. Other fossils are preserved in tree sap, which can become amber over time.
   
   
3. Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as
   
   • burial in sediments in a river delta
     
   • burial in sediments from a local river flood
     
   • burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
     
   • burial in ash from a volcano
     
   • burial in a blown sand dune
4. Patterns of fossilization are consistent with noncatastrophic processes such as those mentioned above. Fossilization occurs as a result of all those different processes, not as a result of a single catastrophe. And it occurs where we would expect on the basis of commonplace processes. Bison fossils, for example, are found in active floodplains, not in upland areas.

TalkOrigins: Creationist Claims

---

Perhaps that is supporting the flood account?

(April 23, 2014 at 11:09 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 1:05 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Your source is wrong. Creationist sources lie.

Perhaps that is supporting the flood account?

No, there's no scientific support for the biblical flood.