Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

quote:

---

Abiogenic life developed from premordal soup to simplest life which naturally increased simple genitic information which mutated additional information all the way from simplcity to all of the complex genetic information observed today in billions of life forms, void of any intelligent design.

---

There is absolutely no science in any of the above statement. This is what we are here to debate. Each and every point you just said is extremely generic, and most of them have no evidence to support it.There is no proof of macroevolution, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang.

quote:

---

Truly amazing!

---

Accidents are truly amazing? I hope you don't take the same route to work as me.

quote:

---

Take a square meter of your lawn and you could spend a dozen lifetimes studying the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the myriad of species located therein - and God had nothing at all to do with any of it.

---

This is up for debate. You personally BELIEVE that God had nothing to do with it.So I suppose if I threw a rock off a mountain, then hiked down, there would be a brand new Ford F-350 waiting for me at the bottom, based entirely on random occurances on the way down. I hope you are right, because I am in need of a new truck for work.

quote:

---

he thaught it would be fun to leave a remains of a tail in humans just to see if they can come up whit a silly argument like evolution to explain it.

---

Leaving out the spelling errors, your sentence is still of of them (errors that is).If you look at the tailbone from an evolutionary bias, you could conclude that it is a vestigal bone from our ancestors.OR, you could conclude that the coccyx actually is a fully functional bone, just ask someone who has had theirs removed what it's like to sit. On top of that, many muscles are attached to the tail bone, that are important for bowel and labor movements, supporting internal organs, and keeping the anus closed. The coccyx is just the end point for the back. All things come to an end you know.

Most of the radiocarbon dates were from a component about 5,300-5,800 years ago, with a few stretching back past 7,000 years ago.You`ll have to excuse my non quoting, my keyboard is acting weird, and certain buttons are acting up, but you know what you wrote.How big was the study (question mark). Or were the dates conflicting by a few thousand years (thats a question mark again).There was no evidence of a flood in the site deposit. So, based on this one site you either have to move the flood past 7,000 years or admit that it is a myth.Neither, since your dating methods argue against each other, I don`t have to argue them at all. Also, how would you know whether or not any layer of the earth were a flood layer (since if there were a global flood, almost all of the layers in the earth would have been caused by the flood, due to water erosion, and eventual settling).If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.This is a free-for-all thread, but I don`t intend to argue the dates, since the dates themselves argue each other (two of them at least, showing two different ages of 5200 to 7000 years, while the obsidian method you even admit is not accurate, so pointless to argue).

Throwing rocks off the mountain will only get you a chevy.Hahahahaha, hense the expression, Like A Rock. HAHahaha.

quote:

---

There's a substantial amount of evidence that your "God" is a fabrication, so it's impossible for "God" to have had anything to do with it; there's no such thing.

---

So because my christian God is wrong, there cannot be any higher being?

quote:

---

You would be the first theist in a long while who was truly prepared to honestly debate the existence of God - if you actually are. Like most theists, though, I suspect you're not prepared to become an atheist if atheist arguments are convincing. Won't the debate simply end with you saying "well, say what you like, but you can't shake my faith in God"? And if you're not even willing to consider the other side, how can you debate it?

---

I am more than willing to discuss the Biblical God if you like. I have debated this many times. Though this subject is very tough to debate, because the information in the Bible is not accepted by evolutionists. There is physical evidence of biblical stories however. If you are game, I am too. If the Bible is truely the written word of God, then 100% of it must be true. If it is not, then it was not God directed, and Christianity is not 100% true. Then the question is, why put your faith and trust in a God that is not perfect?Again, I'm game if you are.

quote:

---

Absurd, just-in-time coincidences are your position, theist, not mine.

---

If natural selection and macroevolution over time is true, then your entire belief system is based on just-in-time coincidences, hahahaha. Unless evolution was directed???

quote:

---

No one knows when the flood was. including the Biblical scholars whom you like to quote. So your insistence of selecting a date is only a red herring so you can go trot out & say that you found no evidence of a flood at that time.

---

One, many people know when the flood was, if they read their Bible, including myself. If you bothered to look at the bible for even 30 minutes, you notice that every man written about gives their age.And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth... Genesis 5:3And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos
Genesis 5:6And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan
Genesis 5:9And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel
Genesis 5:12And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared
Genesis 5:15And so on...using these dates, we work forward. I could list all the ages, but it would take ages, no pun intended, but the biblical flood took place 1656 years from Creation. 600 of Noahs years before the flood as 6000 (1 = 1000 as written in Genesis) is the year 10990 + 23 years of judgement is 11013 bc.(23 years are sidenote, but relevent). Noah lived 350 years after the flood. Again adding 3500 years to 4990 comes to 1490 bc. that is important because in 1447 bc The exodus from Egypt started and in 1447 that would put Moses at 40 years old and Aaron his brother at 43. 1490 minus 43 is 1447 bc. , the year of the exodus. Now take 1490 bc and add 2011 ad you will get 300, back to Noah (its 3501 but minus 1 for the 0 year between bc and ad) there it is 110013 bc to 2011 ad.I win.

quote:

---

Also it is easy to notice that you try to place people in a double bind by the way you present your replies when there could other answers. Why is it easy to notice? because you do that in almost every answer you give.

---

Is that a question? So the answer above was a redirect. You win. Because you are evolutionist, you must win.

quote:

---

By the way the topic of this thread is or was 'problems with evolution' not anything to do with the flood.

---

No, this topic is listed under free-for-all, giving way to many different subjects. And I have a problem with evolution, so I should be allowed to post, and you should not.

quote:

---

That is due to uplifting. It is a phenomenon that is well understood.

---

Due to uplifting? Not by me. Do you have a reference so I can read up on it?Talk.origins has a claim number for everything. So now talk.origins is your source for information, but 'creos' websites are not valid. You are allowed to use information from websites that have a evolutionist bias, but 'creos' websites are full of lies. Hmm. You got me.Also, my point was that sea shells are found worldwide, not just on mountain tops. The eqyptian stones carved and used for the pyramids have sea shells in them. How did sea shells get in the desert?

quote:

---

no they got there trough the uplifting of the continents, those places where once the sea flor, then some
continental plates pressed together and slowly rose those places above water.

---

Hmm. Some plates? Pressed together?I'm going to assume that you are talking about the Arabian and African techtonic plates, since these are the only two that meet anywhere near egypt. Heres my problem with your answer. You didn't give any resources or references supporting your claim. And the plates aren't 'pushing' anything up...because they are moving away from each other every year:

quote:

---

Along its northeast margin, the African Plate is bounded by the Red Sea Rift where the Arabian Plate is moving away from the African Plate.
African Plate - Wikipedia

---

The african plate moves north-east at around 2.15 cm (+/-)/year, while the arabian plate moves north at about 4.65 cm (+/-)/year. The arabian plate is moving away at more than twice the speed.So, again, how did sea shells end up in the desert?

quote:

---

The African Plate comprises several continental blocks or cratons, stable continental blocks of old rocks, which came together to form the African continent during the assembly of the supercontinent Gondwana around 550 million years ago.

---

And??

quote:

---

For example, X-ray diffraction and other analysis shows that the fossils are ‘largely undamaged’ and distributed throughout the stone ‘in accordance with their typical distribution at sea floors’.
Pyramids seashells - creation.com

---

Continental uplifting does NOT occur in Egypt. If uplifting does not occur, sea shells should not be found in the desert. Subsidance occurs on almost all edges of most techtonic plates. The exact opposite of uplift. The rates of subsidance depend on the deepth of the surrounding water and the thermal regime of the mantle beneath. There is no evidence that in my link that suggests 'uplift' or 'sea shells' in the crusts of either plate.