Evolution vs Creation

Dear Erik,There is a reason none of the evolutionists could give you a straight answer. It is because there isn’t one. Defending evolution requires telling stories. It takes a fairytale to defend a fairytale.

quote:

---

I was hoping someone could help explain more on the origin of species and how it might have evolved through macroevolution. I read the talk origin thread on misconceptions of macro, but wish someone could be patient with me and explain in simple English.

---

Evolutionists attempt to redefine the definition of evolution to be true by default. I wrote a short article illuminating this equivocation: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

I often get the comment that evolution can’t be proven and if I believe in it, it must be only a faith.

---

Evolution can’t be proven because it is set up to not be falsifiable. And yes, it requires incredible faith to believe we evolved by mud naturalistically. I can’t say it better than Lord Kelvin, who wrote The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.

quote:

---

Personally, I would rather listen to scientists with empirical data and testing of evidence to draw conclusions over any propaganda about an invisible man in the sky.

---

Your statement is *precisely* why evolutionists believe in evolution — not because of evidence, but because they want to. They willfully suppress the truth (see Romans 1).

quote:

---

Could someone help with the items below in common language?
1. Abiogenesis — How did it start and evolve?

---

Evolutionist answer: [insert fairytale story here]
Creationist answer: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

quote:

---

2. Evolution — How did animals get upright, how did we go from the seas to land, how and why did we deviate into humans and chimps?

---

Evolutionist answer: [insert fairytale story here]
Creationist answer: See my article on mutation rates and explain to me how it could have happened: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

3. Evidence of an older earth - How can I contradict creationists and what formula is correct in determining it.

---

Evolutionist answer: Radiometric dating
Creationist answer: Evolutionist answer is built upon unprovable assumptions. That is why 20 year old rocks from Mt St Helens can yield dates in the millions of years. Also, 90% of all chronometers contradict evolutionist answer, such as not enough helium in atmosphere, comets should not exist, etc.

quote:

---

4. How do I know Radio carbon dating is accurate in its dating techniques?

---

Evolutionist answer: I want my mommy.
Creationist answer: Carbon dating does not work much past 50K years, so it isn’t a tool of the evolutionists in supporting their low-grade hypothesis. Creationists note that C-14 is often found in Carboniforous layers, yet there should be no detectable carbon in rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old.

quote:

---

5. How can I prove evolution?

---

By clicking your shoes together 3 times and praying to the good witch of the west. Then start telling stories, like how the fossils support evolution *despite* what the evidence clearly says: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

I am asking help from all of you. I thank you for your time.

---

I was more than glad to help! May the storytelling begin!

LOL! Erik, you asked some good questions to start this thread, and here we are a month later and all the evolutionists here *still* have not provided the evidence you requested. Like I said earlier, it is quite difficult to defend a fairytale, it requires years of practice! I'm surprised they did not at least try their just-so stories. Now that I have pointed out that they still have not answered your questions, I'm sure the stories will start to flow!Erik, if you are still around you need to ask yourself if you want to believe in evolution because of evidence, or because you just want to. You've already admitted you want to believe in evolution. It's your choice now whether you will because you are honestly compelled to do so based on the "evidence".

[comments to Mark and Randy]Randy fondly points out Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. This has always amused me, that evolutionists truly think their theory is falsifiable. Randy, what is the number one test that would falsify evolution for you?I noticed this jewel in the fossil thread that evolutionists proudly cheer as a worthy refutation of my article:Mark: Despite your strawman, Fred, namely, that the current theory of evolution only allows gradualism, The current theory allows rapid evolution, as well as stasis.Oh yes, I forgot! The theory accommodates everything! The fossils are such a wonderful test for the theory. No matter how they appear, they fit within the evolutionary framework, and the test passes! Here is a great example of the adaptability of the evolutionary theory. The truth is, a theory that is set up to explain everything (ie not testable), explains nothing.The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record. Clear-cut lineages showing large-scale evolution would falsify creation. But honest scientists know this has not happened:One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions [gradualism]. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. — Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution - Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150BTW, notice that Mark goes off on a story about how increased oxygen is the key to the rapid evolution of body plans! Stories are not science (hence evolution is not science). Besides, his story does not consider the mathematics. Mark should refer to footnote 19 in my article: Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10 -9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. - Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.I guess Mark thinks increased oxygen elevates the mutation rate? [Note: Ohmo’ s evaluation was made before more recent fossils shrank the Cambriam explosion to below 3 million years! Ohno goes on to explain the problem with his own story, one that approaches theistic evolution because he basically assumes the information is already available in the genes. All this does is push the problem back in time. Where did all this information come from? Will Ohno join the Crick-esque panspermia it came from space aliens story?].

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Please, stop lying and being so dishonest. [/QUOTE]ROTFL! Please, stop posting worthless comments and comments that have no value. LOL!

quote:

---

Edge: Yes! That is exactly what Mark said: 'evolution accomodates everything.' So perceptive of you Fred, to pick that out of what Mark wrote. I'm concerned that your logic circuits are devolving,

---

Funny, after your post the fossil record was the first test Randy invoked for evolution, and the first test he claims falsifies creation. He is reflecting the common evolutionist argument. So, what I picked out of Mark’s post is the most common test given for evolution. Methinks it is you who should examine his logic circuits. I must say I enjoy watching you guys step all over each other. [quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------See my article for reference. You can also search the web and find other sources.

quote:

---

Randy: How about mammalian fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata? I know you have seen that one before.

---

Of course I have, and it as bogus now as it was last time you are some other fairytale lover brought it up. It’s a toothless test, because such a discovery would be extremely unlikely. Take another look at the pie chart in my article. Mammalian fossils constitute a miniscule sliver of the fossil record. They are very rare, and most are represented by a bone or less. When one is found, the odds of it being buried with marine invertebrates is astronomically low. But feel free to go ahead and pound your fist that this is a test of evolution! BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away. So even by some incredible stroke of luck a mammallian fossil was found buried with marine invertebrates, evolutionists would invoke a just-so story of how it got there. Admit it, if one where found you would go along with the party-line explanation (story) that explains it away. I already have many evolutionists admit that finding living dinosaurs would not falsify evolution for them. You guys have a countless number of escape hatches. A theory with more escape hatches than evidence is really no better than a low-grade hypothesis.

quote:

---

1. The fossil record. All creationist attempts to explain fossil ordering degenerate into complete and utter nonsense. There are several posts on the Geology and the Flood forum and some others showing this clearly.

---

LOL! The very fact we even have fossils, trillions of them all over the world, the vast majority of which require deposition and rapid burial in mud, is a powerful testimony to some sort of global catastrophe involving water, wouldn’t you say? But ole Randy and his evolutionists dare not admit there was a disaster involving water some time in the past! Oh wait, there are now some evolutionists admitting that most of the fossils were buried by water catastrophes. But it couldn’t have been on a global nature (because that would be favorable to that Book they oppose) so they claim they’re a bunch of separate, localized events. Uh huh.Dream all you want, Randy. The fossil record is solid evidence for creation and powerful evidence against evolution. I again refer the common sense reader to my article which exposes the evolutionary minsinformation: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

2. Biogeography: This is another one that leaves YEC without a logical answer. See the Geology and the Flood forum.
3. Biodiversity: I have posted on insect biodiversity on the Flood forum but other organisms have diversity that falsifies the idea that they are descended from two of each kind coming off a boat in the Middle East onto a flood devastated earth.

---

Yada Yada. Point me to your post, or make what you think is the most powerful evidence against rapid divergence here.

quote:

---

4. Geology: There are many features in so-called flood deposited strata that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition.

---

Like Mt St Helens? Good thing we witnessed it, else evolutionists would have told us those 100-ft canyons carved out 20 years ago were the result of millions of years of erosion.

quote:

---

Of course none of this bothers Fairy Tale Fred in the least. He is totally confident that his myth is reality. However, anyone still capable of rational thought should see through Fred’s handwaving easily enough.

---

This coming from someone who thinks all life evolved from a pile of dirt! Yes, I am totally confident by distant ancestor is not a piece of clod off my shoe. Life is so vastly complex it cannot possibly be the result of blind naturalistic mechanisms. But according to Randy this view is irrational. Yee Haw!

quote:

---

Did Mark say that evolution could explain anything or that it does explain what is actually seen in the fossil record? That’s a pretty big difference.

---

Mark, like all evolutionists, mold their theory to fit the evidence. Evolution clearly and undeniably predicted gradualism in the fossil record, and this prediction failed miserably.One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. — Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46So instead of questioning their dearly held theory, evolutionists instead invoked a just-so story to accommodate it (punk ek). The theory is a smorgasborg where testability is clandestinely hung out to dry.

quote:

---

I got the Ohno paper here.

---

I don’t’ think John was asking for the Ohno paper, but instead a reference supporting a 3 million year Cambrian. Here is mine: Chinese National Geography 467 ( Sept 1999): 6-25.

quote:

---

Hmm that’s funny our local museum has several complete or nearly complete skeletons of some very large fossil mammals including a spectacular Jefferson's ground sloth.

---

Strawman. Rare does not mean few. There are some 500,000 1909 S VDB pennies, yet they are very rare, particularly in comparison to other lincoln cents in that era. There are plenty of good fossils of mammals and dinosaurs, but they are few and far between, and when one is found the odds of it being buried in a fossil bed with marine creatures is extremely unlikely.

quote:

---

But I have a question for you. Were mammals only a tiny sliver of life on earth at the time of the flood?

---

Based on numbers today, I would imagine so. I’m surprised you ask this. Mammals are vastly outnumbered by marine life. It is also reasonable to assume that the vast majority of both groups probably did not fossilize. As an illustration of this point, assume 1 trillion mammals, and 1 million times more marine invertebrates. If say .001% fossilize, that leaves just 10 million mammal fossils scattered all over the face of the earth (most of which will never be discovered), compared to 10 trillion marine invertebrates. To find any fossil is still fairly rare, unless you already know where to look. If you find one, odds are overwhelming it’s a marine invertebrate. If you find a vertebrate, the odds of that same location bearing an invertebrate is remarkably low. That is why your test is bogus. Even if creation were true, we would not expect to ever make such a discovery, in a million years (let alone 6000 ).

quote:

---

Finding a living dinosaur would just mean the a dinosaur population had somehow survived until now. It seems very unlikely. But if all the dinosaur kinds were saved on the ark how is it that they all died out so fast right after the flood as to leave no record?

---

They did leave a record, they were called dragons. The word dinosaur, as I’m sure you know, was not even invented until the 1830s:The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past .They are much like the great reptiles which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."
Lindall, Carl, "Dragon," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 5 (1996), pp. 265-266.

quote:

---

Here are some threads showing the absurdity of creationist explanations of the fossil record
And one that you abandoned after getting your butt kicked.
http://EvC Forum: Information

---

TB did a fine job defending reality. As to my butt, I prevailed quite well, thank you. You guys love to hoot and holler and slap each other on the back, toast your success, giving the rouse that you kicked butt. LOL! I’m sure Joe Pesci’s character thought the same thing in the closing scene of ‘Casino’. But I disgress. Most of the posted rebuttals in the above thread were already dealt with in my article. You guys are too predictable.Snippets from your post from another thread you linked to:

quote:

---

Note that among the marsupials are blind marsupial mole like animals (of the Order Notoryctemorphia) that only live in sand.

---

This is insoluble? Are you serious? Single point mutations have been known to cause blindness in bats. In a relatively short period of time (given a small starting population, ie founder population), the entire mole population could easily become blind. When the rabbit was introduced to Australia, it took less than 50 years for the entire continent to become overrun! (now they’re a serious pest problem there).

quote:

---

The Kiwi, a flightless bird and the only monotremes (egg laying mammals) in world, the platypus and 2 species of echidna are found in the area and nowhere else.

---

Hmm, in the early 90s three fossil Platypus teeth were found in Argentina.Surely, if rabbits can overrun the entire continent of Australia in 50 years, other animals can reach Australia in say, 400 years? How about 1000 to be safe? Yet you deem this as insoluble. It’s not only soluble, its quite plausible for marsupials, even "slow" ones, to make it there in 1000 years.

quote:

---

How could marsupial moles or other slow moving marsupials get from the Middle East and cross land bridges to Australia while faster moving placental mammals did not?

---

Placental mammals may have been there, but just did not take hold in the ecosystems. The continent did eventually become isolated. Thus, you had lots of founder populations, many of which probably died off. Why are there no fossils? The flood had already occurred! Doh! Very little fossilization goes on now. Bison are virtually extinct in the US, but you don’t find fossils of them lying around.This is all I have time for now. This was supposed to be your powerful evidence against rapid diversification? Nice try!PS. I see you reside in Cincinnati? Hopefully when AIG finishes their museum you can become tour guide.

quote:

---

You were asked probably dozens of times MORE THAN A YEAR AGO to provide citations - even one! - that supported your creationism fairy tale regarding "non-random mutation".

---

This is not true and a clear misrepresentation. I was asked far more than dozens of times. I have now been asked this by you 536 times. Dozens would be around 24-36, 48 tops. You're an order of magnitude off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

This coming from someone who thinks all life evolved from a pile of dirt! Yes, I am totally confident by distant ancestor is not a piece of clod off my shoe. Life is so vastly complex it cannot possibly be the result of blind naturalistic mechanisms. But according to Randy this view is irrational. Yee Haw!

​

I see that you still don't have a single clue of what evolution is. It has nothing to do with how life "got started". Besides we've never said anything about being from dirt, the bible makes that claim. It is organic and inorganic compounds. Everything on this planet is made from the same basic elements called CHON (All others are just trace elements), including dirt and us as well.

​

You are only hurting your "cause" by displaying your ignorance for all to see.

---

Dearest nausiating482,Please lose the evo-handbook with the "how to answer a cretionist" parrot phrases. We are interested in debate here, not evo-babble rhetoric from T.O. hacks. Please advise your pal Fedmahn to do the same. Thanks!Your pal,
Fred

quote:

---

Edge: So, since mudflows eroded steep canyons in soft pyroclastics, you think that this proves all canyons were cut in the same way?

---

Same way, every time? Now did I say that? No. Regardless, Mt St Helens showed canyon carving can be done in hours, not millions of years. Heck, there's even a little creek runnin' down that valley. A miniature grand canyon, cooked up in the matter of hours. Mt St Helens was also the reason evolutionists now admit the so-called fossilized forest in Yellowstone was not the result of millions of years of forests buried on top of each other, but instead a single event from a flood that transported them there some time in the past. To the credit of the Yellowstone Park crew, the sign that misled people for years of how this forest got there is now long gone.Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?

quote:

---

Fred: Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?
Edge: Probably.

---

Do you believe it is unreasonable for others, including evolutionists, to attribute the Grand Canyon to some catastrophic event in the past involving water?BTW, some time ago I heard the argument that the Grand Canyon elevation is higher at the exit point than the entry point of the Colorado river, and thus argues against the Colorado river as the canyon creator. I’m curious what the uniformitarian answer (story?) is to this.

quote:

---

Fred your attempted rebuttal of the biogeography problem is typical of many such creationist efforts. You make up fantasies, which fail to explain even the small part you do address while leaving the whole untouched.

---

Randy, only in your mind does the biogeography problem falsify YEC. There are explanations that are quite plausible, you just don’t want to listen to them. We know that1) Continents can be overrun in a very short period of time by a founder population, 2) rapid re-population of devastated areas. The island of Krakatoa provides a classic observed example of how a wide variety of life returned to a devastated area in a very short period of time. How did those worms get there, Randy, did they island hop? Perhaps you are disturbed because we can’t recreate the australian biogeography problem in a lab. Well, biogeography problems also exist for evolutionists and your stories are far less plausible. Are we to believe that many of the marsupials indigenous to Australia evolved down totally separate lines of decent from their placental counterparts in North & South America? Your excuse is called convergence, which by its very definition is an anti-evolutionary term since it describes a phenomenon that cannot be attributed to common decent. Yea, right, animals remarkably similar to each other all converged on the same pattern in totally different environments. To make matters worse, convergence is abundant in nature, contrary to what one would expect if evolution via common decent were true. What a fairytale!

quote:

---

But there are fossils of marsupials found in Australia and the fossils of living Australian marsupials are found nowhere else. Why did the marsupials just happen to go back where they came from and where no placental mammals lived before the flood?

---

Randy, this is an illusion that is easily dissolved. The vast majority of fossils in Australia of living Australian marsupials fall within the last 2 million years, a mere blink of an eye in the evolutionary time scale. These fossils could easily be of post flood animals that were caught in sink holes. For example, see http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020731_61.htmlNow couple this with the fact that marsupial fossils older than 2 million years (as dated by evolutionists) are very rare in Australia. What a surprise! Yet Randy above implies that the pre-flood evidence suggests that these Marsupials only lived in Australia. His illusion is to use modern marsupial fossils to support this, fossils that evidence shows quite likely were not fossilized in the traditional rapid burial in mud from a flood scenario, but instead in a non-flood scenario consistent with a post-flood YEC framework. Randy has made a very weak case that Marsupials now indigenous to Australia were only indigenous to Australia pre-flood assuming the YEC framework.Finally, Randy then incorrectly states there were no pre-flood placentals. He is out-of-date:http://www.acn.net.au/articles/1998/07/fossils.htmRemember Randy, you claim to have falsified the YEC model. The above article supports placentals in Australia that are easily attributable to pre-flood within a YEC framework. What test of the YEC theory do you claim has incontrovertibly failed?I suggest you (and your coattail evolutionist wj) read the above article and explain why this is not a plausible scenario for the YEC framework, provided you shrink the time assumptions to within YEC timeframe. In fact it fits quite nicely within a YEC framework without the time factor. I hope you are aware that you cannot protest to assuming a YEC timeframe, because your argument is based on YEC falsification via biogeography, not radiometric dating.

quote:

---

No. It is now understood that some of the trees may have been transported but many must have grown in place in successive layers.

---

Randy, your source is out of date. I went to the National Park Service website and found this:The region may be properly described as an eroded deposit of petrified drift logs, or the buried, petrified, and resurrected remains of a forest that grew somewhere else millions of years ago.http://www.cr.nps.gov/...line_books/glimpses2/glimpses22.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonofasailor:
I think my original post is being forgotten. SOS

---

Good point. Like I said before, there is a good reason. It is very, very difficult to defend the fairlytale of evolution. You must believe and accept it on blind faith, not evidence. You are required to make your mind up despite the evidence. Soon, if you take this route, you'll begin to convince yourself that there is evidence for the theory. Stories from Dawkins, et al, will "evolve" from fantasy to reality. But all the while the evidence didn't change, just your perception of it.Someone want to post answers to each of Erik's 5 questions in this thread? Nothing like good story-telling before the weekend!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

No. It is now understood that some of the trees may have been transported but many must have grown in place in successive layers.

---

​

Randy, your source is out of date. I went to the National Park Service website and found this:

​

The region may be properly described as an eroded deposit of petrified drift logs, or the buried, petrified, and resurrected remains of a forest that grew somewhere else millions of years ago.

​

http://www.cr.nps.gov/...line_books/glimpses2/glimpses22.htm

---

​

Fred your source is talking about a different petrified forest.

quote:

---

Many persons having heard of the forests expect to see a large group of standing petrified trees, more or less intact, or at least standing trunks or stumps as they occur in the petrified forest of Yellowstone National Park. No standing petrified trees can be seen in the Petrified Forest National Monument, however.

---

​

Randy

​

---

You're right. my bad.I'll look in to this furhter.BTW, I recall that Austin showed that trees were buried in different sediment layers in Spirit lake, which emulates what is observed at the Yellowstone forest.

Randy, I've run out of time and will try to respond to this thread next week, provided I can find time (I no longer post on the weekends). If you can, try to find the paper that supposedly disputes the condylarth find. I'd be curious to see it. Thanks. Have a good weekend.