TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

he became convinced of evolution after a mere 5 weeks on the golapogas islands, that is not much time to truly research your subject. How much evidence did he have back then? very little if any.the Encyclopaedia Britannica basically says that what he observed was that living things on the Galapagos were similar to those in South American and therefore must not have being created on the Galapagos.also he noted that over the years, those animals changed from their mainland cousins. This reinforced his belief that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.

quote:

---

The World Book Encyclopedia states: Much evidence of evolution comes from plants and animals that live on islands far from continents. The Galapagos Islands, for example have 26 kinds of land birds, all resembling species found in western South America. But 23 of these species seem to have changed since they reached the islands, for the Galapagos birds are distinct species. Comparable differences are shown by lizards and tortoises, of which there were 11 species on as many different islands. They apparently developed there because of changes that took place after their ancestors drifted from the mainland of South America.

---

this is the theory he proposed in just 5 weeks!

he was most certainly saying it 'could' beIf he was 100% certain that it could NOT be, then he would not have made such a statment. Nor would he have said"Each plant and animal is exquisitely made."this is an acknowledgment of how well made things are, or appear, in nature. If he didnt view things as being well made, he would have had no need to ask this rhetorical question...."Should not a supremely competent designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start?" Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

he said it 'could be' because it looks as if its designedbut doesnt beleive its designed because he knows it had no designer and is nothing more then a product of evolution?can he prove that it wasnt designed?

so are you now saying that transitional fossils dont show evolutionary changes?isnt it the fossil record that is supposed to be the proof of change...are you saying translitionals dont show it??

thats right because the only testimony of the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animalsmuch of the fossil evidence is showing something completely different If the process of evolution describe the constant change of living things why are there innumerable fossils found in ancient strata that, like the lungfish, are identifiable with modern species?why are there hundreds of insect fossils found in Mesozoic rocks similar to species of the same insects we have today?Surely evolution cant apply to some fossils but not others. If the theory is accurate, then there should be no exceptions to the rule and yet there are many.

The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils....they call it a transitional to reptiles but it is not.

mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, auntyimmediate family.

thats right, i understand this perfectly and its what i've been debating about.most of the frames are missing and the picture of life on earth is incomplete. This creates reason to doubt because it is not possible to convey an accurate picture...You know that crimes can go unsolved for many years because the police do not have enough evidence. They dont draw their conclusions before they have all the evidence. at the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, in Turin, Italy a Paleontologist named Bernard Vandermeersch said that as far as man’s origins were concerned, what paleontology has shown contradicted the genetics data...genetics has shown that all people alive today come from 1 common ancestor and that one was 'human' not ape.this is in harmony with what other genetic researchers have shown and that is that the DNA of chimpanzees and orangutans, as well as of certain monkeys and macaques, is not as similar to man’s as scientists once thought. Kelly Frazer of Perlegen Sciences stated in an article in Britain’s New Scientist magazine (2003) that their research had shown large deletions and insertions sprinkled throughout the chromosomeSo i dont think everyone agrees that genetics has helped evolutions cause. it does, its a good metaphor and i understand it. But it doesnt convince me that life evolved.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Science is really divided. They are holding firm to the belief and teaching of evolution, yet from what i've read , every field of science produces evidence that discounts it.Geology for instance shows sudden appearances in the fossil record rather then a continual and progressive change from one species to another.Mutations fail evolution. Yes mutations do cause changes in the genetic material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. But the vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They contribute to the degeneration of animal and are responsible for many diseases and malformations. And after years of expriementation with mutations, scientists have not been able to change one species into another....the evidence shows that mutation doesnt drive evolution.Environmental changes dont cause species to change into new species. Just think of humans living in extremely cold areas, they havnt begun to produce children with fur...you would think that for a creature to adapt to very cold climates, they would need good coverage, yet humans are still hairless in those areas. And other animals choose to migrate when the climate changes rather then adapt.
In australia, our warming climate is killing frog populations in the tropical regions so some zoos are trying to breed frogs to save them from extinction. This goes to show that enviroment doesnt cause species to change hence evolution is not the result of environment.

Ralph Seelke is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin, his research shows that laborotory induced evolution is as much a failure as it is a success.
There is a great article where ID proponents were given the opportunity to present their evidence at the Kansas Evolution Hearings.
Kansas Evolution Hearings: Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Giuseppe Sermonti, and Ralph SeelkeAs a scientist, you should be willing to examine the full spectrum of evolution and not just report on when it actually works. From what his research shows, the bacteria are still bacteria. yes, and animals adapt to cold by growing thicker body hair. We are one of the animals, we are all linked, so why should we not be growing hair the same way as they do?evolution doesnt fit the facts in this regard. whats nonsense? that frogs are going extinct in australia because of climate change???http://www.news.com.au/...tory/0,23739,24228561-3044,00.htmlI dont speak nonsense, i only relay information that is put out by science.

quote:

---

In the past 20 years Australia has had eight frogs become extinct. Six of those were in Queensland," she said.

​

Ms Hill — who will talk about the topic at Gecko House, 139 Duringan St, Currumbin, at 6.30pm Wednesday — said Currumbin planned to build "mini Noah's arks" for frogs as part of a $50 million worldwide program to build high-quarantine safehouses across the planet.

---

seems to me that what you call 'creation' science is in fact 'evidence' leading scientists to that conclusion.did you look at this? Did you read about these scientits research and see why they are led to conclude that darwinian evolution is not factual?Kansas Evolution Hearings: Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Giuseppe Sermonti, and Ralph Seelkethe article is posted on talk origins and perhaps this makes you automatically dismiss it....is that the usual procedure in science? to dismiss something before you examine it???

so what you are saying is that a person who believes in God and chooses to study science, will never be a real scientist?Have you looked at his peer reviewed research?Or do you choose to ignore his research because of his belief in a creator?

Yes i think they would be able to and there are many who do.the three things you mention above all are evidence based.1. genesis presents a general order of creation which is very close to what is seen.2. the fossil record shows sudden appearances of fully formed creatures. No intermediaries or no large numbers of mutations have been left behind.3. the evidence for the flood is seen in how deserts are riddled with seashells, fissures and caves in high mountains have been found full of large varieties of animals, fossils mostly form under wet conditions by being burried suddenly such as in a time of a flood for instance.So in line with this thread, there are reasons to doubt evolution. If you want to start a new thread refuting such evidence then do so.

how do you suppose it does that?Do you really think that the theory you posed in paragraph 1 is an actual theory? (i've never heard of it hence why im not sure if you made it up for argumens sake). ok so are you trying to use this as way to measure/test christianity?

*edited*i'll put on my glasses and try to read twice before commenting in future Edited by Peg, : No reason given.