Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
71 online now:
vimesey (1 member, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 43 of 100 (351706)
09-23-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by anglagard
09-23-2006 4:09 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
You may want to reconsider using arguments for your position that AIG itself considers an embarassment.
From Archer Opterix: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=625&m=195#195

Like I have said, there are 3 possibilities to this, archaeopteryx could be a real bird, a real reptile, or a fraud, but NOT a transitional. I hold to the fraud part, but I have said it COULD be a real bird or a real reptile. But AIG is not the only source of info out there, I have read 'Darwin's Conspiracy' and have reason to say archaeopteryx is MOST LIKELY a fraud, yet I do not totally ignore that it could be a bird or reptile.

quote:
From u know who:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=108&m=10#10

Yes, I now know that I was mislead by my source, 'The Evolution Cruncher', and I now admit I used a wrong (most likely old) piece of information there about the moon dust thing. But this issue does not appear in my essay, only on these forums. You can make this post public on that topic if you would like so others know.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by anglagard, posted 09-23-2006 4:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 45 of 100 (352508)
09-26-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by anglagard
09-26-2006 1:27 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
It appears others on this forum disagree. See www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=1#1

I know RAZD likes to attack me in particular, but I don't really reply in other topics anymore but this one, so don't expect me to defend myself on that linked topic.

quote:
You may want to check it, your alias is even coming up more often than mine.

:) I think I know why... Because the evolutionists here are feeling attacked, so they try to look good by putting me down and saying all sorts of things about me. But I don't worry, I've got the truth on my side, and the truth will always win. I know that Creation is the truth, and I don't worry. I just want you to see this for yourself.

quote:
If you are unwilling to discuss the definition of transitional fossil in regard to your essay, well OK, just don't expect any of the opposition to take your essay seriously based on that very point.

I was willing to discuss this matter earlier, but you just ignored my post, take a look if you want to reply and continue debating about the definition of transitional fossils and how they relate to the evolution theory, and which one would be more meaninful and useful. I just figured if you ignored it, that you didn't have anything to say about it, so we continued debating other matter.

quote:
For the record, I completely agree with RAZD's detailed OP in the linked thread.

For the record, I disagree with much of what RAZD said there, especially the part where he says something like there are 4 facts, the earth being old, things evolving, etc. If RAZD would like, I could debate him one on one so that he would TRY proving these four points to be facts, because obviously they're not.

Oh, and, are you going to get to replying to all those points above? It took me a long time to reply, and I'm hoping for a reply back...

May God bless you Anglagard!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by anglagard, posted 09-26-2006 1:27 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 1:30 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 47 of 100 (353247)
09-29-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by anglagard
09-27-2006 1:30 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
For one thing, neither RAZD, myself, or anyone else around here who does not agree with your position is attacking your person. We simply disagree with your position, want to clarify ours, and dispell any false assertions.

But I feel he likes to attack me/my words in particular. Could be that it's just his way of posting, but he always likes to attack me/my words when I post. Like when I came back here for round two of debating, RAZD was suspended. Right after my post, he was de-suspended and already replying to me. I feel something strange in this. I don't know how the suspending/de-suspending process works, but it seems to me like he de-suspended himself just to reply to me or something.

quote:
See above. Also If truth is on your side in the particular, why are you revising the essay as we go?

The truth of Creation is on my side, Creation is the truth. But my(imperfect person's) arguments against evolution using sources with outdated pieces of information is not infallible. It can be wrong, or outdated, because we are fallible humans. But the Creation truth will never fail, that fact that God created everything and you and me will never go wrong. And since I revised my essay as I learned more, this shows that I am in search of the truth about the evolution matter as well, not just ignorant.

quote:
I think it would be best if this matter was deferred, lest the rest of the essay goes unexamined. Don't worry, much of your essay is dependent upon the definition of transitional fossils, if there is room for posts left, I personally guarantee it will be addressed again.

(I think you meant - NOT "much of your essay is...")

I also think we should finish debating the majority of the essay, I understand this. But you gave a link to RAZD's post where he was attacking my words when I said that we can't properly debate the matter of transitionals because we didn't come to an agreement on the definition, so I wanted to point out that I tried to debate this matter, but you ignored it. This was the point. I completely understand why it would be best to debate the rest of the essay first, I encouraged it myself earlier, but that post in the link against me is why I replied.

quote:
I'm sure that in the future, your desires can be accommodated.

Yes, I would like it, but RAZD didn't seem to want to debate me one on one when I proposed it, so I don't think he wants to now. But if he does, let me know, because I don't check up on those topics anymore, and any posts here other than your's and mine would be deleted.

quote:
I'm thinking of just going through the entire essay including your replies, before responding to such replies. Will see how this evolves.

We'll see what we will create here in a while... :)

quote:
And may God bless you as well S1WC!

Thank you. And I just want to let you know I don't hold any harsh feelings against you and hope you don't hold any against me. Peace. :)

"If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." (Rom. 12:18)


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 1:30 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2006 12:29 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 53 of 100 (354901)
10-06-2006 7:59 PM


Real Busy
I would just like to warn you that I'm now going to be more busy than before, so I really don't know when and if I'll have time to reply any time soon. I have warned before that this may happen, and it looks like this debate will really slow down and maybe hault. I will try to get here and reply to this, I appreciate you actually debating me, but I've just got another load added to my back, so I don't know when I'll get a moment of free time to respond... Be patient, even if it may take a month for me to reply. I haven't forgot about this debate. :)


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by anglagard, posted 10-17-2006 1:31 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 54 of 100 (354944)
10-07-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by anglagard
10-01-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Hominid Evolution
quote:
Let us now look at the major hominid finds, and test their validity, since many evolutionists still believe that they are true transitional forms between apes and man. But some evolutionists have already acknowledged the fact that some of them are false finds.

I think you should say false interpretations instead of false finds. Using the term false finds implies you believe all the fossils are faked. Is that what you are saying?


Yes, thank you, I have updated the essay to be more precise there. Just want to let you know I wrote the majority of my essay while on vacation... So you get the idea of my circumstances.

Point 10: Ok, this may not be the most proper thing to do, but I just use the term "monkey" to refer to apes, monkeys, chimps, and the like. I didn't go technical on this matter, but do you think I really should? I'm just referring to those hairy creatures in the trees and on land, kind of like one kind.

As for the term hominid, it's probably an older definition, but I found one on Google that works: "human ancestor" from www.sensesofwildness.com/africa/GLOSSARY.HTM

If I were to write a new essay, I would use a different term to refer to the supposed "human ancestors" to be more modern. (By the way, I have started thinking about possibly writing a better, more definitive, more detailed essay on evolution with my newly gained knowledge, like a whole new one.)

Point 11: MOST paleontologists believed he was ape human for 45 years, probably the evolutionist ones. And I'm only citing my source, I didn't make this up off the top of my head.

About the number of books written on it, there are actually 2 sources I know of which document this number "500 books" - Early Man and Bones of Contention. 2 sources is a pretty good backup for this.

Point 12: I don't know who's right about this, but I used this info from the websites in the Bibliography section of my essay. And your source for the quote there is AOL Members? What's that, can we trust it?

Point 13: If they debated it for 10 years, how can you be so sure that Duane Gish's statement is false?

Point 14: Lucy is part of the australopithecines group, and computer x-ray scans of their inner ear structures show them to be chimplike because man's inner ear structure is different.

Point 15: I was citing Duane Gish. I am not a paleontologist and I was not there to witness it. But I researched and used Duane Gish's statement.

Point 16: Boisei was an ape, man was not.

Point 17: Maybe not all, but probably a lot of them. They are human, just with a larger brain capacity and a few other characteristics. When he was put on display or something, he was put together improperly, with head way forward and a few other things to make him look more ape like, but this was noticed.

As for the quote on DNA, I saw the words "almost" and "probably," which are words of uncertainty, this means that it could be wrong.

Point 18: I used the word "like," yes I know that Neanderthal had slightly bigger brain capacity, but it's not like it's way out of the ball park of the human brains. And Homo erectus brain capacities are about like the brain capacities of the Europeans in size.

Point 19: But tell me about the ages they give to Neanderthals and humans.

Point 20: Ok, my source may have been wrong, I changed my essay to make it more precise.

Point 21: I stated I would like to see pictures of actual fossil finds. But in my essay I was referring to the artist drawings of ape humans from just looking at a skull or something to the sort.

Point 22: I saw another statement that said Homo Erectus had brain sizes varying from 800 to 1300 cc, and there is a statement that says average European person's brain capacity corrected to brain size is 1297cc. http://christianparty.net/rushton.htm

And I myself am European. I do not mean to insult myself. It's just the truth on averages.

Point 23: I was using the term "hominid" as in ape-human.

Point 24: I meant "together" as in same time periods for some of them. Contemporaries.

Point 25: The 3 cited statements numbered 11, 12, 13 are from Early Man. Number 14 is from Brain Dance. Check out Works Cited for details.

No, I think there are probably more than Taung Child.

Humans are not apes. Humans are humans. Apes are apes. Period. That's the way God made it.

Point 26: As I mentioned before, I used the definition in the "ape-human" sense, probably an older definition.

Point 27: I was citing. I don't know of any "primitive men" who had tooth decay, do you?

And to top it off, I read in Bones of Contention, he was found in a zinc and lead mine. That just totally debunks him as anything but humans.

Point 28: I was not aware of this at the time, thank you. I have deleted that sentence.

Point 29: I explained above the European average brain capacity.

Point 30: No, I meant that the class "Homo Habilis" is a combo of two other taxons, it's not a separate taxon. It's invalid to use since it's a combo.

Point 31: I slightly skimmed it, but really. Some of the rocks that are claimed the tools of ape-men could be just plain rocks. It's possible, right?

Point 32: We don't need to change our conclusions on the main topic - God created the heavens and the earth, no proof goes against that, though some interpretations of evolutionists may seem to do so. But we, at least you've seen me, can change some of the data we use against evolution as we learn more. How many times have I updated my essay already? See?

Point 33: Remind me a bit later. I will try to dig up my notes and look up my sources to see about this.

I have to go. To be continued.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 2:02 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 55 of 100 (356965)
10-16-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by anglagard
10-01-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Hominid Evolution
Ok, I have a little bit of time, will answer what I can, probably won't be able to reply to all right now.

Continuing where I left off:

Point 33: I have found the source for this, here it is: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

A dating method isn't specified, but it does point out the contemporariness of modern humans and Australopithecines.

Point 34: What is the point of that quote? I don't see how it falsifies what I wrote there.

Point 35: As I have stated, I use the term "hominid" to refer to ape-humans. Do you have any other problems with this piece of information?

Point 36: Yes, this does pose a problem. If the "not so fit" human lived with the "better" fit human, they would not live long before the "better" fit humans would eliminate the "not so fit" ones, because they supposedly have "more capability" and compete better to get the food sources and so on... When the "better" human exists, the "not so good" human is supposed to be gone, for the "better" one is "more fit for survival." Natural selection is "supposed" to eliminate the weaker species.

Homo Ergaster? Boy, if you don't keep up with them(evolutionists), you'll be behind, using the outdated info and definitions... :) That's the first time I hear of Homo Ergaster, maybe you could keep me "up to date" by telling me a bit more about this new group?

Point 37: Once again, I used the term "hominid" to...-you get the idea. And the word "monkey" to refer to all the...-you get the idea. I've stated this before.

Point 38: I am speaking of the frauds - Pildown man, Archaeoraptor, maybe Archaeopteryx, so on so forth... False as in "fraud."

Point 39: Yes, the "To contrast" part is what I mean. You know... The skull cap of a donkey, the pig's tooth, the Piltdown hoax, archaeoraptor(the piltdown bird), and possibly Archaeopteryx, etc...

Point 40: Must I repeat, I was using the term hominid to mean the "ape-humans." I think you could understand this if you read my essay and considered what I was saying in context.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 2:02 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DrJones*, posted 10-17-2006 1:42 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 56 of 100 (356966)
10-17-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by anglagard
10-01-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Genetic Relationships and Bad Sources
quote:
Your source indicates Duane Gish is the one responsible for this statement. Since humans are apes (no tail for one thing), what is this supposed to mean?
Skip that one as a point I say, do you disagree?

I, as well as most/all? Creationists believe that we are NOT apes. We believe God created humans in His image, having a soul, an excellent ability to think and reason, to comprehend, to speak, etc. The characteristics which separate us from the animals. So this statement, used by a Creationist, does have a point and reason.

Point 41: I repeat, I used the term "monkey" generally, to refer to the whole group of hairy creatures on land and in trees.

Donkey milk: Your quote says this, "We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry." But we have found a close comparison of donkey and human milk chemistry. So this statement holds.

Chicken tear enzyme: Let's do some math: 51 out of 130 amino acids differ. That leaves 79 amino acids same/similar. 79 is greater than 51, correct? So the chicken tear enzyme is more similar than not when compared to human enzyme. Thus this statement holds.

Garter snake cholesterol: Typical of the evolutionists, just put down the statement by saying it's useless... Hmmm... Statement still holds, no proof was brought forth to disprove it.

Butter bean to blood chemistry: The discussion is of "chemistry", not antigens. Thus the statement holds, for this statement was speaking of chemistry, and by chemistry it is true.

quote:
Don’t you feel a bit silly quoting the crackpot Morris as a source?

No, and it is not polite to call people names just because they point out facts which displease you. Do you see Creationists calling evolutionists bad names?

Isn't what was used above by the evolutionist a strawman? Attacking a point that was not said that way?

Point 42: You just said that ethical values and morality are subjective, but then say having power over others is not ethical? Using your own statement, this matter is subjective, to you, so this can't be used.

How does it disprove evolution? Well, evolutionists have yet to account for the "evolution" of the soul.

Yes, there is variation among humans in those points. But the ape doesn't have any! Can you account for this? Grunting into speaking, picking fleas to writing great literary works, breaking branches to playing wonderful pieces in concerts on man-made instruments???

Science does not conflict with my religion, IT ONLY SUPPORTS IT WHEN SEEN THROUGH THE CREATIONIST'S GLASSES AND USING CREATIONISTS' INTERPRETATIONS!!! If all the "proof" for evolution were to be based on a Creation model, there would be PERFECT harmony! THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO SEE! Please! Put on the Creationist glasses and examine the evidence, there is a PERFECT harmony! TRY IT!

Point 43: Well, just how much do those chromosomes do for us? Our 23 pairs of chromosomes carry all our hereditary information! They carry the genetic information from one generation to the next! They determine whether you were born a male or female! All of your features of your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother, the chromosomes carried it! They do a BIG part in making you what YOU are! How you learn, what you look like, how your sock drawer looks! (Mine organized because my grandfather was like that, also, my grandfather liked keeping himself busy - I find this in me, my mom likes to do the work before the play/rest, I find this in me, so on and so forth. You can probably relate yourselve to your parents and grandparents as well!) Those chromosomes are very important! 2 of them can carry much important hereditary information!

And I am not amazed to learn that some similarities can occur between humans' and chimps' chromosomes, because they had ONE Creator!

Enough damage? I didn't take that as damage... I thank you for helping me revise my essay and make it more correct in a couple of points, but that wasn't damage. I like to explain myself and defend myself and correct my writing when someone calmly shows me my mistakes (unlike some of my other experiences). I didn't feel damage, I felt a need to clarify myself and point out a few things to you, and I hope you think about them!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 7:28 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 57 of 100 (356967)
10-17-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by anglagard
10-02-2006 12:29 AM


Re: Message Concerning RAZD GD
Ok, thank you for that information regarding de-suspension, I didn't know about it (haven't been suspended :) ). But it does feel fishy when I come, and then he gets de-suspended and replies to me. Or when I come, sign in, and then a few moments/minutes later, I see a few names go on or off the "online now" list, as if some members are hiding, not wanting to reply, or getting signed in JUST to reply to me... Weird. Maybe it's just me.

Thank you for delivering the message. But I believe, and you can post this where RAZD usually posts, that a good debater will debate me without setting circumstances, or first debate the issue of hindrance (currently Lucy), and then debating other matter. But right now, it takes me about a week to find enough free time and will power to reply, so I probably won't participate very often in debates. But I will try to respond to this one and try to finish it. One step at a time.

Peace be with you. May God help you see that HE is your Creator, and that HE made you in HIS image. Once more, peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2006 12:29 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 60 of 100 (357607)
10-19-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by anglagard
10-17-2006 1:31 AM


Re: Real Busy
I can see why you would want to go through the entire essay first-because otherwise we would still be sitting on the first few topics. :) And that wouldn't be good.

quote:
I believe it is quite honorable of you to admit making some mistakes. Perhaps the next revision of your essay will see significant improvement as a result of this process. In the future, I intend to provide an essay concerning my theological beliefs in which all will be welcome to correct.

Thank you.

Actually, I was kind of thinking about writing a whole new essay,with different, more precise discussions, longer essay as a whole, more detailed, more "up to date", etc. Because I have gained much new knowledge since I first wrote this essay, which is my first essay on the subject by the way.

I would hope that others like RAZD can see that I truly can "debate in good faith" by counting the times I confessed to error and updated my essay.

As for your essay, it should be interesting. I hope that when you write your essay and post it on the world wide web you will understand how I felt writing mine and having others constantly attack it. I don't really mind debating material where I was really mistaken, it helps me learn, but I feel that some of the other more controversial debating where we can't get anywhere is excessive. Maybe you'll understand this when others take apart your essay, one possible member being me... To make it fair. :) :) :)


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by anglagard, posted 10-17-2006 1:31 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anglagard, posted 01-25-2007 12:18 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 61 of 100 (357608)
10-19-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by DrJones*
10-17-2006 1:42 AM


Re: Hominid Evolution
Just want to make a reply.

To me Homo Ergaster is a "new" group because I haven't heard of it and haven't seen it in the charts. I can believe that MANY different groups may be existing or trying to exist, but I presume that not everyone in the scientific community accepts them, so that is probably why I don't hear of them. But thank you for the information, even though it was intruding.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by DrJones*, posted 10-17-2006 1:42 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 65 of 100 (359743)
10-29-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by anglagard
10-29-2006 1:20 AM


Re: Correcting Some Odd Misconceptions
I don't mind late replying, I'll probably do that much myself.

Hopping right in:

Point 44:

Cold and warm blooded creatures: God created a lot of different animals in different conditions and climates and habitats. Some animals are cold blooded, others are warm blooded. These creatures are fit for their environment. If all creatures were either warm or cold blooded, then there would be serious deficiencies in the creatures, and many may not survive. My answer is God made His creation "good", and part of the "good" is to have some creatures warm blooded, while others cold blooded.

Marsupials/placentals: There are still many differences, but I'm saying, look at the limbs and eyes and lungs and noses and ears of many creatures, there are similarities. And ONE Designer would account for this(homology) better than common ancestry. Or at least the view is not limited to just evolution explaining it.

Different wings: I never claimed there is a "perfect wing." But for the certain creatures, the wings they HAVE are good for THEM. Feathers are light and have rotating shafts? that help the birds ascend high into the air and fly from place to place to find food and shelter and good weather. Bats have leathery wings, these work fine for them to survive. Insects need VERY light wings, they have membraneous wings that can hide under their shells when not in flight to protect them, this works to their advantage. My reply is God made the creatures "good", meaning whatever wing design would work best in a certain creature is what God made. Same with fish and shark bones vs cartilage.

As for the blind fish eye in embryo, could you show me where you got this information? It is interesting. But as for why it wouldn't have eyes at all, a simple mutation could have done it to the fish stuck in caves. These blind fish are so similar to other "eyed" fish that it has been proposed to call them one species. And the blind fish have an advantage over eyed ones for their particular environment, dark caves.

Animal extinction: First off, many species become extinct because of man's intervention and unwise actions of ruining the creatures habitats and over hunting, etc. Second, God created the creatures "good." But after the curse, many not so good things came about, this is probably where mutations began to happen and other harmful parasites came into existence, etc. Same with Ichthyosaur/killer whale thing, probably a result of the curse.

Similar environment: No, this doesn't have to be evolution. My point is this, God creating the universe and the creatures can better account for this. God created one rough basic environment, and the creatures that would live well in this environment of the planet earth.

Point 45:

The "we" is what I used to refer to most living creatures. Yes, insects do not have lungs, but they don't need lungs, their blood gets oxygen from the air holes in their bodies, another great feature that God made so that they would still get their oxygen. As for anaerobic bacteria, they don't need oxygen, so obviously they don't need lungs. But yes, there is variation, not all creatures have lungs, but look at the many that do.

Basic environment: I mean the earth's basic environment. Considering it on a univeral scale with the different planets with different environments, earth being the only one with life.

Have to go. Hope to get back later to finish points. May be a while.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anglagard, posted 10-29-2006 1:20 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 66 of 100 (360009)
10-30-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by anglagard
10-29-2006 1:20 AM


Re: Correcting Some Odd Misconceptions
Continued

Point 46: You have a problem with the human spine and knee structure? I give you one week to propose something better to perform the same functions and to equal or surpass the design we have. Go on. That's a challenge. :)

Point 47: My point is there is a clear work of our Creator visible in the food size to mouth ratios. Evolution is unguided and unplanned, I agree. But evolution cannot account for this wonderful matching. If evolution were true, this is what I would EXPECT to see, according to how you say it "happened"- randomly, unguided, uncontrolled, by mutations, etc. I would see bare trees with fruit on the tippity top where you couldn't get to it. I would see mice 3 times bigger than humans consuming all the food. I would see tails sticking out of heads, mouths out of feet, noses out of backs, turned upside down so that every time it rains the person's nose fills with water and he dies, no reproduction organs, or only males or females, the race would die off soon, no immune system would exist, one disease and you're gone, hands that are clubs, incapable of gripping anything, blood vessels on the outside of the skin, no such thing as joints, no absorption of vitamins before the food comes right out, we would die soon of malnutrition, no vitamins in food, death around the corner, mud instead of water, gas instead of oxygen, etc. But it would probably be even worse than this picture... If you try to imagine the product of chance.

As for watermelons: We have the brains and skills to make knives and the hands to grip the melons and a knife in the other hand to cut them up and eat them.

Most fruits, vegetables, and tree branches fit our hands precisely. God created our hands to grip these things, and these things for us to grip and hold and move and use to our advantage.

As for extinction: I repeat, this most likely started happening after the curse, as with all the deaths and diseases.

Point 48: Direct ancestor? That's what I meant. You don't claim that the octopus is our direct ancestor even though the eye structure is very similar, yet you claim that some monkey (term used loosely) was our direct ancestor since it has 2 arms and legs and whatever other similarities you see.

Point 49: And I suppose those scientists who make those claims are evolutionitsts with the belief that evolution happened, right? How can they make such almost dogmatic claims about which similarity shows which common ancestry? Can they prove that their methods are the most correct ones for coming about with the conclusions they do. And is there a method we could use to determine the validity of their claims?

And again, calling someone names who has a different view than you doesn't show respect and good sport. And Morris didn't say butter beans have blood, I believe this is discussed somewhere previously.

Variation: How would evolution make one cell into the MANY kinds of animals, plants, human races that we have today? What force would make evolution do this?

Adaptation/natural selection/drift: These items are not controlling forces which increase or decrease certain activities or push organisms to evolve certain organs, or regulate the amount of variation produced. These are merely features God made so that the animals can survive, adapt, etc. These are not like people behind switches controlling every aspect of a sound being projected. They do not have a mind of their own, they cannot plan, they cannot see ahead, they cannot improvise, etc.

Breathing involuntarily, heartbeating: God made this great feature in me so that I don't die when I sleep. Isn't it another great proof of Creation?

A tree doesn't "know" how to reproduce. God made the tree so that it will bear seeds and God made the wind so that the wind will blow the seeds to plant them in the ground and rain and sunshine and oxygen to make another tree grow from the seed. Another great proof of the Creator's Hand.

I have answered your questions, but you have yet to reply how a fish would know to evolve legs, or how to use them, etc.

Yes, you say humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancesor. Now tell me, what does this common ancestor look like?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anglagard, posted 10-29-2006 1:20 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2006 12:54 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 67 of 100 (360011)
10-31-2006 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
10-29-2006 3:27 PM


Re: Correcting Some Odd Misconceptions
Point 50: I know natural selection can do good things like keep a group of animals strong and healthy. But this is beside the point. The point is that natural selection with mutations and isolation cannot make an organism any more complex. It cannot add genetic information. It cannot make a fish start evolving legs or fin/legs when the code never existed in the fish for legs or fin/legs or to begin to evolve them or parts of them. Not possible. Natural selection can't do it, period.

Point 51: No, kind is not like species, so those examples are not evolution from one kind to the next. Kind would probably be higher, like what you could easily distinguish. A domestic cat and a tiger are one kind, but the dog doesn't belong there, a kid can tell you that one. To my knowledge, "species" hasn't been clearly defined either, to be completely correct and undebateable. There's the plain old definition, but it's not always the case so a better definition has yet to be made for "species."

Point 52: I know we have an immune system. But the immune system doesn't protect against everything and every mutation. Think of all the deaths from cancer, tumors, diseases, etc. And think of all the mutations that caused animals to grow extra body parts in wrong places.

Point 53: Reply to point 51 made above, thus rendering relying on point 51 hopeless.

Point 54: Look at your chart there, take any of the steps before the last one. What does it look like - a partially evolved eye! What use would this "evolving eye" be to a creature?

Have to go. To be continued.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 10-29-2006 3:27 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 69 of 100 (361663)
11-04-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anglagard
10-31-2006 12:54 AM


Re: A Few Housekeeping Matters Before Proceeding
I'll quickly respond to this now to prevent confusion.

I am perfectly OK with you taking up the challenge a week after you finish going through my essay. That's fine. No rush. I'm sure you still won't come up with an answer for a better knee and spine structure anyway. :) I don't expect anything from that, just making a point. My knee works fine, and my spine works fine too, I like the flexibility I have, I think these designs are great, and I don't think you can propose anything better, no human can. God pronounced it "good", and that's still the way it is. (Note: you don't have to respond to this now, you can do this in round two. :)It's good to hold to your word.)

No, I didn't take any offense personally. I found it a bit wrong for you to call Henry Morris a clown, that's what my post was about. I don't hold any bad feelings to you that you are taking apart my essay and trying to reason with your "evolution happened" mindset. But I do hope you would look over some of the beliefs you hold and come to realize God as your Creator.

Following will be my replies continued.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2006 12:54 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4645 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 70 of 100 (361678)
11-04-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
10-29-2006 3:27 PM


Re: Correcting Some Odd Misconceptions
Point 55:

Yes, natural selection is a process, but those points are still true. If the strongest survived by natural selection, this would mean those strong memebers would be selfish so as to not lend a hand to the weaker members. If you say natural selection helped make those who are stonger survive, then that means the strong who stomp over the weak and destroy competition are "good", because they're the ones who survive and "proceed evolution." With natural selection, those who had morality and pity wouldn't survive, thus these features would be "lacking" in a "progressing population." By natural selection, those who take over the better food supplies by force are the "good" ones who survive and are fit to survive. See, even though we all agree natural selection is not an entity, these features still hold true according to what evolutionists say about natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Point 56: Well, if evolution is unplanned, then a creature wouldn't evolve both hands and feet with toes on one body. It wouldn't know, evolution is unplanned. But the complexities and interdependencies of certain body parts could NOT have come about merely by chance, mutations, and natural selection. This is the point. Evolution is unplanned, and to take it further, it doesn't NEED TO BE PLANNED, because it NEVER happened! Macroevolution NEVER happened, thus it doesn't matter what it does and doesn't need to be. The point is it couldn't have (and didn't) made everything like it is today.

Action of the laws of physics? Excuse me, but who or what would have made such "laws"? Who/what controls how the laws work? Does evolution have a reply to this? Of course not, evolution definitely cannot provide an answer to the orbiting of the planets and the gravitation which makes rain fall to water the earth to bring forth plants. But Creation has a reply, "God did it." God controls the laws of physics, and when neccessary, he can make the sun stop and make fire come down from Heaven and calm the seas and curse a fig tree. God's mighty power and infinite mind has nothing too hard for it, even to control the "laws" of physics, or possibly even to make each rain drop fall. There is no challenge for an Infinite Mind. The laws of physics are hopeless without a power source and control. "Laws" cannot do anything. God can do everything. This may be a bit off subject, but why do you capitalize Mother Nature? Simple, because it is not some mother of nature, it is God who controls nature. But people use the term "mother nature" to refer to this when they don't want to accept that it is God who does these things.

How I act? Sometimes I do say or think in my mind that God made it rain or stopped the rain, or sent the good weather. Yes, this is how I think. Jesus calmed the sea, this showed He has power over nature. As for providing, sometimes I get too carried away with life, and I pause and relax because I know God will provide for me and He won't leave me in need. God sends us blessings. I am blessed to be alive to this day. I thank God that He protected me during the day and helped me work. Without God, I am nothing. No, it doesn't mean I don't work and be lazy. It means I trust that God will not leave me in need. God gave me the ability and strength to work, so that I can live, and quite abundantly too! God helps in these matters, even when it's to provide work in a time of need. As for terrorism, do you know how many people prayed to God like they never did before during that time of 9/11? Sometimes tragedy is a reminder for us that we are hopeless without God. Sometimes tragedy helps us realize that God can give to us and take back whatever He wants, we are only here because He made us, His will was for us to exist, He created us. God allows for bad things to happen, remember Job? The devil asked God for permission to take away Job's health and riches and just about everything else except the soul. How do you counteract terrorism? By bombing innocent people in search for one target? Why not send out missionaries to them so that they would find the TRUE God and what HIS will is? Then they wouldn't do what they do because their religion told them to.

As for that chart, you put together some pictures and a drawing of a supposed intermediate form. I do not see evolution, I see specific hands designed for the creatures and their habitats, except the intermediate form. Does this "intermediate" form even exist? Again, homology is a good indicator of ONE Creator using similar patterns and designs, not evolution.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 10-29-2006 3:27 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021