Some Evidence Against Evolution

Your response was outstanding, you literally dropped a safe on my head - checkmate. Straight out, I cannot refute the evidence you presented only the conclusions.Whether you believe it or not I think responses of this magnitude are truly brilliant, I am just glad that there are people in this world that care about science and related subjects instead of the commmon dunces of this present generation that are entertainment mush heads.
If the common creationist had the dedication that you emit we would be much stronger.As I said early on I cannot and do not contest the evidence you posted - only the conclusions. Richard Milton says ape to human transitional bones do not exist WHY does he say this ?I reject evolution on the basis that it does not make sense BECAUSE it refuses to seat God as a possibilty at the creation table. The Bible says that God created in such a way that His invisible attributes can be DEDUCED from what is made. Science makes deducements all the time but it WILL not deduce the hand of God as being the initiator. To be continued.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the long list that you posted is evidence of a fish evolving from humans, that is what you said if not implied.

---

Other way around. Humans evolving from jawless fish. The fossil record gets to spotty after that to be much use at establishing a direct or close sister-species based lineage.

quote:

---

Technically, I do not dispute the existence of the evidence you posted, I marvel over the fact that people , smart people have taken the time to discover and itemize these things.

---

I think you have no clue just how many fossils have been uncovered and examined. The number is truly staggering. They don't just name and date them, they study every plate, every ridge, every part of the fossil that can be recovered. It's very painstaking work. Its been going on for centuries now across the planet, and there are hundreds of thousands of people involved, so there is a massive body of evidence to look at.

quote:

---

Yes this is science, but the simple issue is what does it mean and the leap of your final conclusion is what I and many others dispute. Being a creationist I credit a Creator initiating the process due to the sole fact that such creation could not be so amazing unless there was an intelligent Being behind it.

---

That view is known as "theistic evolution", and, at the last poll I checked, 43% of Americans believe in it. It is also reasonably common in the scientific community also.

quote:

---

I was vague, I meant evidence of the missing links that transition apes to humans.

---

Yes, that is commonly asserted, but not true. In fact, it's been asserted since darwin's time; and yet, the rate we've been finding fossil hominids has been steadily increasing, and now there's quite a nice collection out there. Most of the current debate focuses on what is directly ancestral, and what is a sister line. For example, if you were an archaeologist from the future, and in the future there was a large number of species of aquatic iguanas - and you wanted to know where they came from, and started digging - odds are if you found an iguana, it wouldn't be *the* ancestor of aquatic iguanas. In fact, it'd probably be a different species of iguana - a sister species to the one that went on to diversify in the future. But it is still close enough that you can see what iguanas in general looked like in this time period. Do you understand?

quote:

---

According to Richard Milton very little if any of these evidences actually exist and he is not a creationist.

---

Richard Milton is not a creationist, but he's not an evolutionist either. He keeps using the term "missing link", and keeps failing to define where he thinks this "missing link" is supposed to go. [quote]Lets assume there is SOME, and lets assume they are missing link transitional types. Why not a LOT ?[quote] Why not the same amount - tons and tons - of fossils from all time periods? Back to the aquatic iguana example, let's say that the iguanas that diversified in the future came from today's aquatic lizards in the Galapagos Islands. 50 million years from now, what are the odds that a person would just happen to pick the Galapagos Islands and dig to the right layer? What are the odds that such an iguana would be lucky enough to be preserved, or that the soil in that area would even be suitable for preservation? What are the odds that the Galapagos layers being deposited now will even exist in the future (i.e., not having been eroded away, undergone metamorphisis, etc), or not be buried under half a mile of sediment? If a species is widespread, it is very easy to find. If a species lives in a confined region, you get less fossils from it. But current fossil lineages are quite adequate. I personally would like to see more bones from Sahelanthropus tchadensis and some of the fossils for the next several Ma older, but the lineage is still quite clear. There used to be (i.e., early 1900s) some significant gaps in the more recent hominid lineages, but fossils have been found that filled it in, and dated to just the right time periods.BTW, Willowtree, thank you for taking the time to be more polite on these boards. I really appreciate it. If I'm ever impolite, please point it out to me, and I'll try and do better ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

How do creationists account for cross-purpose designs? If they had no a priori commitment to the hypothesis of a single creator of life, then they could easily conclude that there had been more than one. Here's an example: lions vs. zebrasJust today, I saw a recent National Geographic in a doctor's office, and looked at its article on zebras. It has a picture of a female lion chasing some zebras. One has to marvel at:How marvelously adapted lions are for catching zebras
How marvelously adapted zebras are for escaping lionsDoes this look like the work of a single designer or of more than one designer, one of lions and one of zebras? Or do the lions and zebras do their own "designing"?Also, male lions are known to kill the cubs of other male lions, notably the cubs of prides that they have just taken over. There's some video of such infanticide over at Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network SolutionsWhat does such fratricidal conduct do for the "good of the species"? Which is what one would expect from some designer of lions. However, it fits very naturally into the "selfish gene" concept -- a male lion who kills other male lions' cubs will more likely become a father than one who does not, because the female lions then go into heat and "volunteer" to be his cubs' mothers. But if lions acted according to the "good of the species", males would help raise other males' cubs instead of trying to kill them.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-01-2003][This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-01-2003]

http://EvC Forum: Message of the BibleYou never did finish up in this topic. I am still waiting for a good answer.sorry to interupt

Here are some reasons not to trust Richard Milton:
1) He is heavily opposed to science
2) While he denies being a creationist he uncritically repeats creationist arguments (because he's on the same 'side').
3) He has no relevant qualificiations, he has done no serious scientific work in he area
4) Anything he says is necessarily out of date since new discoveries are still being found. Even if he *did* read the latest sources available at the time he wrote.Again don't waste our time with the opinions of people with an axe to grind and no special claim to knowledge. Let's have the evidence you claimed to have instead.

Thank you for your kind words, Willowtree! And thanks for your frankness. It is a breath of fresh air in these sorts of discussions! Firstly, how does excluding the supernatural make it not make sense? Presumably you’d say that general relativity doesn’t make sense because it refuses to seat God at the gravity table? Chemistry similarly makes no sense because it doesn’t include God in the periodic table, yes?And secondly, God may well have been involved, and there’s plenty of people who see no contradiction, provided the ‘creation’ in question is not the Biblically literal variety. Such people are called theistic evolutionists, and there’s a lot of them, including many biologists. I would argue against them, for a number of reasons, but evolution does not mean that god was definitively not involved. Might he not have worked through the natural laws and mechanisms he himself set up? Does it? I’d be very grateful to know what passage(s) that’s in please. I’ve heard it said, but not come across it put bluntly. Oh dear. For once, I’m loathe to give out these links. But you’ve forced my hand. Personally, if I were you, I would wish to distance myself as far as possible from God being the ‘initiator’ of living organisms. Because the god we can deduce is an incompetent fool and a sadistic bastard.Here we have looked at the natural world, and noted some things about it. "God created in such a way that His invisible attributes can be DEDUCED from what is made", you say. Okay. Please could you tell me on what grounds we should not make these deductions about this God of yours?Cheers, DT

Personal pet peeve:

quote:

---

you literally dropped a safe on my head

---

No he didn't.I know I'm just being snarky pointing this out, but honestly... it's just something that gets up my craw. If he literally dropped a safe on your head, we would have to rush you to the hospital.And while I'm at it, nobody say "ATM Machine" or "very unique". I'm watching.

What about .... PIN number !?!

quote:

---

I reject evolution on the basis that it does not make sense BECAUSE it refuses to seat God as a possibilty at the creation table. The Bible says that God created in such a way that His invisible attributes can be DEDUCED from what is made. Science makes deducements all the time but it WILL not deduce the hand of God as being the initiator. To be continued.

---

Then reject no more ... there is nothing in the theory of evolution
that precludes the possibility of a creating God ... only
that his hand in the diversity of life was one of 'putting the
wheels in motion.'I don't think one can deduce the hand of God, though (unless
you are talking about a certain soccer travesty ).

quote:

---

I know I'm just being snarky pointing this out, but honestly... it's just something that gets up my craw. If he literally dropped a safe on your head, we would have to rush you to the hospital.

---

Not a new peeve. From Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary (1911):

quote:

---

Literally, adv. Figuratively, as: "The pond was literally full of fish"; "The ground was literally alive with snakes," etc.

---

This is a quicky, Romans 1:20 which said verse lays in the context of the 18th verse.

Willowtree is playing you guys. A few insincere compliments, and you are all eating out of his hand. It is not difficult to see where he is coming from:Forums like can often be the birthplace of questioning and critical thought which is a great threat to the belief of a fundamentalist Christian. Some Creationists, like Willowtree no doubt, merely surf the web reciting Creationst misinformation and nonsense to attempt to keep the flame burning. It's all about repeating the same nonsense without actually analysing or thinking about the issues.Willowtree doesn't want to learn: he wants to perpetuate the mantra to other Christians that may be reading and may be swayed by the evidence posted.Just check out Willowtree's latest response:- A few empty compliments to make out he is a nice guy
- Totally avoids addressing the evidence posted previously
- Questions your conclusions derived from the evidence without actually pointing out why
- Refers to Richard Milton yet again, despite what has been posted above
- Ends with a set on nonsensical statements, icluding my favourite: "I reject evolution on the basis that it does not make sense BECAUSE it refuses to seat God as a possibilty at the creation table". How does Evolution fail to make sense because it doesn't refer to God????You are not and never will score points against the likes of Willowtree: he is a lost cause and he is not even reading your posts.You actual cause are those Christians who read these forums also, who can observe the disparity between the rationality of contributors like Willowtree and almost all of the other posters. They are a very worthy cause.

Willowtree's last reply to Darwinsterrier, ignores every point raised and every question asked by Darwinsterrier except for the provision of a passage from the Bible.The guy is a crank.

Your venom seeks to provoke me but I decline.I do read the posts how could you say this ?I fully know and realize that nobody is going to listen to a person that ignores the input of others.True, I have not responded to the degree that the replies deserve but you make it sound like the one way street of Soviet detente.I have not been able to expand on the general posts and replies that I have generated because to do so would be vacating the subject of the topic too far.My quarrel is with scientism, and that branch of science readily admits that they have no use for God.Why don't you be specific and tell me what evidence I have ignored ?I have said that I only dispute the conclusions and these conclusions have yet to be debated in this discussion.For you to deduce that I do not want to learn is an opinion based only on a stereotype of christian fundementalism of which I am not.
A fundie has taken on the reportive meaning of a cultural slur equivalent to callng a black the N word. Fundies are the bad element in any given good and I can and will prove that they are not confined to religion.The elimination of God by scientism has a lot to do with what I want to ultmately debate about. And I WILL present the cutting edge arguments of creationism which said arguments is what you fear, you sensing this instantly brand me with the "this is nothing new " stain hoping for everyone to not even give me a chance.

I am preparing a respose to the Darwinmeister, I truly regret that I cannot respond with the speed that satisfies.