Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
577 online now:
EWolf, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Pollux, Tanypteryx (6 members, 571 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,258 Year: 4,370/6,534 Month: 584/900 Week: 108/182 Day: 15/27 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 121 of 254 (893927)
04-23-2022 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
04-23-2022 4:16 PM


Jar, from what I've noticed, each discipline
thinks that another discipline has the
proof of evolution.

Biologists think that paleontologists
have the proof.

Paleontologists think that geneticists
have the proof.

Geneticists think that archeologists
have the proof.

Archeologists think that geologists
have the proof.

Etc...

There is no way to prove evolution.

If it were provable, everyone would
accept it.

Gravity is provable and everyone accepts
it.

At sea level water boils at 212 degrees
Fahrenheit. It freezes at 32 degrees. It
can be replicated time and time again.
Everyone accepts it.

Evolutionists want people to disregard
their common sense, and believe in
something that none of us can witness
first hand.

There is not one thing about evolution
that seems plausible to me.

There are no transitional fossils. And, don't
try to say that there is. There isn't.

None of these fossils come with a tag on
them, stating how old they are.

It is left up to one's interpretation. Creationists
have the same evidence that evolutionists have.

And, what makes someone thinks that these
fossils were capable of doing what animals
today can't do.

And, that is to have offsprings who are of a
different "kind."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 04-23-2022 4:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-23-2022 5:19 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 123 by jar, posted 04-23-2022 5:26 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 124 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-23-2022 5:35 PM candle2 has replied
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 04-24-2022 2:32 PM candle2 has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 122 of 254 (893929)
04-23-2022 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by candle2
04-23-2022 5:04 PM


candy2 writes:

Jar, from what I've noticed, each discipline
thinks that another discipline has the
proof of evolution.
Biologists think that paleontologists
have the proof.

Paleontologists think that geneticists
have the proof.

Geneticists think that archeologists
have the proof.

Archeologists think that geologists
have the proof.

Etc...

Then you weren't paying attention!

All those scientists know that all those other branches of science have evidence that supports evolution,

Everyone knows everyone else has evidence!

And amazingly it all fits together seamlessly, all of it!

There is only one reason all that evidence supports the same conclusion, from all those different independent fields, and that is because it's true, evolution explains all life and its long history.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 5:04 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 123 of 254 (893930)
04-23-2022 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by candle2
04-23-2022 5:04 PM


Learn to read and stop listening to the Christian Cult of Ignorance Pastors, Priests, Apologists and other con-men.

Fact.

All independent fields of science show that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation.

All independent methods of measurement show that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation.

Creationism is simply lies to fool the rubes.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 5:04 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 124 of 254 (893931)
04-23-2022 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by candle2
04-23-2022 5:04 PM


candy2 writes:

And, what makes someone thinks that these
fossils were capable of doing what animals
today can't do.

And, that is to have offsprings who are of a
different "kind."

No one on the evolution side of the argument thinks that.

No one studying fossils says that.

No one studying animals says that.

No one studying evolution says that.

YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SAYING THIS.

No one else thinks this is how evolution works, only you!


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 5:04 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 7:17 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 125 of 254 (893933)
04-23-2022 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Tanypteryx
04-23-2022 5:35 PM


Tanyptery, I know how you think it works.
You think that small incremental changes
over long periods of time lead to differing
species.

Without even a tiny smidgen of transitional
fossils some evolutionists are now looking
at the possibility of punctuated equilibrium,
which is basically rapid change.

In all recorded history neither of these two
views has been observed.

No transitional fossils, and no punctuated
equilibrium.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-23-2022 5:35 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-23-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 126 of 254 (893934)
04-23-2022 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by candle2
04-23-2022 7:17 PM


Without even a tiny smidgen of transitional
fossils some evolutionists are now looking
at the possibility of punctuated equilibrium,
which is basically rapid change.

Nope, sorry but that is not true. The museums are full of thousands and thousands of transitional fossils. You guys just never, ever read the scientific journals where those fossils are reported and described and named.

Punctuated Equilibrium has been known to be part of the Theory of Evolution since Gould and Eldredge published the first paper formally describing it 50 years ago.

Punctuated Equilibrium has nothing to do with rapid change, but rather explains sudden appearance of specific fossils in the fossil record at specific locations.

Do you seriously think we are going to defend your strawman views of evolution, punctuated equilibrium, geological dating, or fossil formation?

candt2 writes:

In all recorded history neither of these two
views has been observed.

You are incorrect again. That's because you are looking for the wrong things because you don't know what Punctuated Equilibrium is.

Once again, you never, ever even look at the journals where observations of evolution are reported, so you cannot support your false assertions.

You should be embarrassed at the level of your ignorance.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 7:17 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 8:33 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 127 of 254 (893935)
04-23-2022 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tanypteryx
04-23-2022 7:46 PM


I know what P-E is, and how long it has been
around. There was no need for me to go into
it in great detail. You understand what I was
saying.

I do occasionally look over fossils, but there
are no transitional fossils.

If evolution were true, there would by necessity
be hundreds of millions of transitional fossils.

If Darwin were alive today and was able to see
the complexity of the simple cell, he would feel
like a complete fool.

And, after all these decade and still no transitional
fossils, he would drop to his knees and beg God
for forgiveness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-23-2022 7:46 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 04-23-2022 8:43 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 129 by AZPaul3, posted 04-23-2022 9:19 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 130 by dwise1, posted 04-23-2022 9:28 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 131 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-23-2022 9:42 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 128 of 254 (893936)
04-23-2022 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by candle2
04-23-2022 8:33 PM


Why do you keep on lying?

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 8:33 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 129 of 254 (893937)
04-23-2022 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by candle2
04-23-2022 8:33 PM


I know what P-E is, and how long it has been
around.

I don't think so. PE explains some population movements with speciation we see in the record over evolutionary time. If you are crazily thinking (creationly thinking) that PE replaces evolution, then, as usual, you would be wrong. The evolution of those populations between their movements is the usual, boring process that characterizes most of genetic evolution.

If evolution were true, there would by necessity
be hundreds of millions of transitional fossils.

That's your proof then. We have them. Have you counted how many fossils we have with every school, museum, collector?

And another additional, though I’m highly skeptical of it happening, human evolution is not done. If we survive these next 300,000 years (highly doubtful) then Homo sapiens will have been replaced by Homo something else. That makes you a transitional species. You want to see a real living transitional fossil? Look in the mirror.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 8:33 PM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by dwise1, posted 04-23-2022 10:11 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 130 of 254 (893938)
04-23-2022 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by candle2
04-23-2022 8:33 PM


I know what P-E is, and how long it has been
around. There was no need for me to go into
it in great detail. You understand what I was
saying.

You also said the same about radiocarbon dating (Message 482), but it turned out that you don't even know jack-shit about radiocarbon dating.

It is obvious that you also don't even know jack-shit about punctuated equilibrium. For that matter, in every single subject that has been discussed here, your knowledge in each of the subjects has proven to be less that jack-shit deep.

Far worse than you knowing nothing is your sad condition of having been grossly disinformed by your creationist handlers. You are like the victims of FOX News who have been found to know far less about current events than jpeople who ignore the news altogether. When you end up knowing far less than the people who literally know nothing, then you've got yourself a very serious problem!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 8:33 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 131 of 254 (893939)
04-23-2022 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by candle2
04-23-2022 8:33 PM


candy2 writes:

I know what P-E is, and how long it has been
around. There was no need for me to go into
it in great detail. You understand what I was
saying.

Yes, I do understand what you said and I am saying that it is incorrect, because you mischaracterize what PE represents, and that shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

I do occasionally look over fossils, but there
are no transitional fossils.

That sounds like a porky. I bet you would not be able to identify a single fossil without a label, so how could you possibly know what a transitional fossil looks like?

candy2 writes:

If evolution were true, there would by necessity
be hundreds of millions of transitional fossils.

Well you can pull this kind of crap out of your ass as much as you want, but what makes you an authority on how many fossils there should be?

If Darwin were alive today and was able to see
the complexity of the simple cell, he would feel
like a complete fool.

Your reasoning on everything else has been shown to be flawed so I wouldn't expect your prediction have any validity either.

First off, I imagine he would be quite surprised and feel lucky to have lived so long and learned so much. And he would be amazed and proud of the progress we have made in understanding biology and confirming evolution.

candy2 writes:

And, after all these decade and still no transitional
fossils, he would drop to his knees and beg God
for forgiveness.

Naw, he would be like a kid in a candy store and he would be saddened to see the childish lengths you creationists will go to, to continue deluding yourselves.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 8:33 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 132 of 254 (893941)
04-23-2022 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by AZPaul3
04-23-2022 9:19 PM


One of the distinguishing characteristics of creationists is their intense dishonesty. However, I did once meet one honest creationist. That was on CompuServe, maybe in the early 90's.

Unlike all the other creationists, Merle actually tried to engage in discussion. When someone asked him a question, he would answer it (instead of the dishonest crap that all other creationists, and most definitely wickless_candle here, will pull in order to avoid any discussion). If he didn't know the answer, he would research it and return to post the results of his research.

He suffered the fate of all honest creationists: the scales fell from his eyes, he could see what a crock creationism is, and he left creationism behind. That process took him only one year.

Here is what he wrote about that experience of the scales falling from his eyes when he found the university library stacks of paleontology journals detailing the vast wealth of transitional fossils that we have:

quote:
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

. . .

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.


That page of Merle's site is archived at https://www.oocities.org/questioningpage/Evolve2.html where you can read the rest of that part of his story.

The only way that wickless and his fellow benighted creationists can claim that there is no evidence is by deliberately refusing to look at it.

 
BTW, here is the part from that page that I had edited out before (ie, this fills in the ellipses in the quote above):

quote:
How can you explain those mysterious mammal-like reptiles? Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle. They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose in the place where later animals would have a new jaw joint--the mammalian joint. Then advanced pelycosaurs (270 Ma) like the Dimetrodon--those familiar sail-winged animals from your childhood dinosaur set--had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) had jawbones more similar to mammals, but they still had the reptile's jaw hinge. The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile's jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones. By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small. The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile's jaw. It's malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw. By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile's jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular were no longer part of the jaw. Instead they had become the malleus and incus, and are functioning as parts of the mammal's ear.

This is only the briefest of overviews of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.

Now what on earth was God doing? Why was he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why did he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals? Should I just shrug my shoulders and say that God moves in mysterious ways? No, I shall ask why. Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years. As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. It instantly become apparent that this would be a huge change in worldview. For if the first mammal evolved from reptiles, then where did the second mammal come from? If God used thousands of transitions to evolve the first mammal, did he then just copy that design to create the second and third mammals? That makes no sense. These mammals must have evolved also. In fact, we would need to conclude that all mammals have evolved from these mammal-like reptiles. Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know--elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?


 
Part of the links page of my web site (Creation/Evolution Links) is linking to other sites, usually of ex-creationists. One such was D. Jon Scott, a student activist for "creation science"; as I summarize on my page:

quote:
Genesis Panthesis by D. Jon Scott

At this framed site, click on the link to "What is the Inspiration for the Genesis Panthesis Website?".

Scott had been a very active creation science follower and propagator who used to run his own discussion board on the issue. Then one day he was finally confronted with the evidence that he had been taught could not possibly exist, a transitional form. Unable to explain it away and equally unable to ignore it, his faith completely unraveled, just as creation science had taught him must happen. Now he is strongly anti-Christian.

Ironically, that "transitional form", Archaeoraptor turned out to be a hoax. Yet it did the trick just as well as the real thing, triggering the booby trap installed by "creation science" to destroy his faith. The point is that creation science had wired his faith to self-destruct in the face of contradictory evidence, whether real, faked, or imagined.


In his "What is the Inspiration for the Genesis Panthesis Website?" he describes the experience of his deconversion process which describes as "being born again, again". The following is the entire text from that page just copy-and-pasted; for the original formatting and links you will have to visit that page yourself through the link I provided:

quote:
The first roots of Genesis Panthesis lie in late 1997 with a web site entitled the Talk.Science Archive. Talk.Science was originally created in order to present rebuttals to mainstream scientific thinking from a young-Earth creationist perspective, and mainly targeted the Talk.Origins Archive.
Talk.Science was my own creation, and was graciously hosted by MyTownNet.Com (the company has since been bought out and no longer exists) at the URL [ Search | com.com]. It received a healthy portion of both creationist and evolutionist readers, who avidly submitted feedback which I was happy to respond to on the web.

For a very long time I was content to explain away the mounds of evidence supporting evolutionary biology as well as mainstream geology and cosmology. Particularly the fossil record - which I feel I can safely say that I was much more well-versed in than the majority of prominent creationists (Gish et. al.), was rather easy for me to dispute in my deluded creationist mind.

After a while, I became very aware of the dishonest tactics used by creationists such as Gish and Morris, and developed a growing contempt for the majority of my fellow creationists/Christians. Though I was determined to help give creationism scientific respectability and aid in restoring the good name of the Christian religion.

I kept updating the archive and working on it straight through 1998, the year in which Caudipteryx zouii and Protarchaeopteryx robusta - two creatures which scientists described as obviously non-avian dinosaurs (which means they weren't birds), but which had feathers! I simply emphasized their avian qualities and either explained away or dismissed as unimportant their reptilian characteristics, and went on happily spreading the myth of creationism.

Yes - I had the evidence, the information, and the knowledge of how evolutionary biology works - yet I did not have the intellectual integrity to admit to the truthfulness of evolutionary theory and kept denying that this incredibly intricate law and set of 'trends' in nature could possibly have any validity.

Then, in september of 1999, the bomb dropped. I picked up my issue of the National Geographic and saw what else on a page advertising an upcoming issue; but Sinornithosaurus millenii! It had long steak-knife-shaped teeth like a T. rex, a long, muscular tail, hyper-extendable "switchblade" claws on the hind legs like Velociraptor mongoliensis, a narrow snout that looked almost like a bill, a bird-like pubic structure, and worst of all - feathers!

I simply stared at the page for a few moments, muttered "oh shit!" to myself a few times, and got up to check the N.G.News web site. This wasn't just some artistic depiction of what a reptile/bird might look like - and it was no hoax. It was a small dromaeosaurid ("raptor") with killing claws, razor-sharp teeth, and a pair of wing-like arms complete with plumage. My heart sank, and my gut churned. This was it - the one proof of evolution I had always asked for but never thought would come to light. In my mind, I was betting that even if evolution were true, the chances of finding such a beautiful example of transition would be slim enough to be dismissed as impossible. And yet here it was - proof.

I stepped outside to compose myself, and stood there looking at the world around me.

Weeks later, I began making plans to dismantle to the Talk.Science Archive, all the while researching the Christian religion. I soon came to the conclusion that since much of the first ten or twelve chapters of genesis had been plagiarized from Chaldean fairy tales and mythos, the truthfulness of the Bible must be strictly spiritual rather than spiritual and historical.

It wasn't very long before I began to realize that since the 'historical' sections of the Bible, particularly those stolen from Chaldean mythos, were intended to influence spiritual truth - that the early Israelites must have simply been making up their own "spiritual truths", trying to make the fairy tales of their Hebrew (Chaldean) ancestors match up. I was faced with the realization that the Bible could not even be taken as spiritually true...it was/is nothing more than a book of myths and fables from a time and place in which people had no scientific knowledge, and made up these stories to explain what was going on around them (though the people making up these fables probably thought that they were coming to revelations given by their God[s]).

Then that day in 1999 came back to me. I remembered standing outside on my porch, looking at the natural world of which I had always known myself to be an integral part - albeit created as such. On that day, however, I began to look at the world in a new light.

I looked at the trees, thinking about how they worked. Photosynthesis, receiving energy from the sun, these creatures had limbs which branched out in every direction, tipped with leaves made green with chlorophyl, drawing energy from the sunlight which they captured. As they fed on the radiant light, blocking the light from the ground below, I began to think of how they might exist without God. A tiny bacterium absorbs energy from both heat and chemicals. Plants are exposed to heat, feed on chemicals, and have chemicals that allow them to feed on heat more efficiently - on a much larger scale than primitive bacterial cell strands. I thought, perhaps, that since some algae is bacterial and other is plant-life, that some bacteria might have used chlorophyl to extract nutrients from the sun. Also, perhaps from this algae, primitive coats of slime would evolve and dwell on rocks near river beds. In a few million years, you'd have moss growing on moist soil. Millions of years could come and go, and plants which harness the power of the sun and extract more nutrients from the matter around them (whether it be water or dirt) would spread more abundantly and prosper over their contemporaries.

I looked at the trees again. They were large, tightly-packed groups of cells, which over millions of years grew larger and larger, growing green leaves which act as solar panels. They were cell-colonies trying to survive in an environment where new oportunities are as ample as the number of possible combinations of DNA. So here they were, beautiful, and majestic, and sitting there because of the opportunistic nature of living cells - not because God put them there. They were green because they had Chlorophyl to absorb sunlight - not because God thought that humans would think it an attractive color.

I looked down at my own hands, studying my finger prints. I pondered the reason God might have given them to me. I recalled to myself that only primates have finger prints, and that they used the blunt part of their fingers - rather than claws, to grip limbs and branches. They have traction-treds on their fingers and toes. This is probably why all primates also have flat nails.

But then why do humans have finger prints? For indentification? We've only had finger print identification for the past hundred years or so. Even if the world were only six thousand years old, that's less than a thirtieth of a percent of the time since humans were first created. Why give us this feature, why design such intricate patterns, if God knew it would be an absurdly short amount of time between the first use of finger print identification and the creation of DNA fingerprinting, which is much more accurate? And what how would this be any different from believing that the bridge of the nose were created for sunglasses, or the opposable thumb designed so that our hand could fit into gloves?

The only way these hands of mine made sense, with the gripping fingers, the traction-tredded finger tips, the flat nails, was if my distant ancestors - and the ancestors of all humans - were creatures who used their front limbs for climbing.

And why such low body hair? Wouldn't it be more effecient to not have body hair at all? We use resources to grow this hair which appearently serves no purpose. If we evolved from hairy creatures, it would make sense that we evolved to use our resources more effeciently and wasted less of our reserves on this useless feature. That way, the hair wouldn't have to be completely absent, since the industrial age - when we could produce many of our own resources from previousely unavailable sources - occured at a time which vary well might have been before we had the chance to evolve a completely bald body. Of course it must have been a bit more complex than that, but I had a feeling I was pretty much on-track with this line of reasoning.

I looked down at my hands again, and studied them for a few moments longer...

"This is it..." I spoke to myself softly, "Welcome to the real world."


 
I'll close with the story of Charles, a co-worker decades ago and the first creationist I could discuss any of this with. I've mentioned him before and that we attended a debate together between Drs. H. Morris & Gish versus Awbrey & Thwaites. That was where Charles, who had already learned of Gish's lies about the bombadier beetle, was dismayed to see every vendor table there selling books for children about "Bomby" (ie, books based on lies -- oddly, there was no vendor table selling millstones for those buying those books for their children).

As we were leaving at the end of the debate, Charles was in shock. He kept muttering: "We have mountains of evidence for creation that would have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't [Gish & Morris] use it? We have mountains of evidence for creation that would have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't they use it?"

Science has the evidence, whereas creationism has none. Therefore the creationist lie becomes, "We have mountains of evidence for creation!", while lying that science has none. A complete reversal of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AZPaul3, posted 04-23-2022 9:19 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 133 of 254 (893949)
04-24-2022 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by candle2
04-23-2022 5:04 PM


candle2 writes:

There is no way to prove evolution.

If it were provable, everyone would
accept it.


Everybody who uses their brain does accept it.

candle2 writes:

Evolutionists want people to disregard
their common sense....


Dirt is common; it isn't very valuable. By all means yes, do disregard your so-called common sense and look at the evidence.

candle2 writes:

There are no transitional fossils.


Liar.

(You also lied in Message 66 about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and I corrected you in Message 74 and Message 79. I.\'m still waiting for you to acknowledge that you were wrong.)

candle2 writes:

None of these fossils come with a tag on
them, stating how old they are.


They really do though.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by candle2, posted 04-23-2022 5:04 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 134 of 254 (893951)
04-24-2022 9:27 PM


Questions for candle2
Are you capable of reading the title of this topic?

Have you read Message 1?

Do you have answers for the questions raised in Message 1 and the actual topic of this thread?

Edited by jar, : fix link to OP


My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2022 11:06 AM jar has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 135 of 254 (893998)
04-28-2022 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
04-24-2022 9:27 PM


Re: Questions for candle2
Far more importantly, he needs to present some positive evidence FOR CREATION.

For decades from the beginning of "creation science" and even before that, creationists have proclaimed that they have "mountains of evidence for creation!"

OK, as per the Japanese: SoShoMi! SHOW US SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE!

I've been making that request since the mid-1980's. And no creationist has ever presented any positive evidence for creation. Not even one of the founders of "creation science", Dr. Henry Morris, who explicitly insisted on using "negative evidence against evolution", which just will not cut it.

Creationists never ever present any evidence for creation, but rather only attack their strawman misrepresentations of "evolution". They are relying on their "Two Model Approach", which is a false dichotomy (in a true dichotomy given the only possible mutually exclusive conclusions you can arrive at the correct one by eliminating all the others; in a false dichotomy you leave out most of the possible conclusions including the actual true one).

For that matter, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation. And creationists refuse to address that simple fact.

So even if by some unimaginable miracle creationists were to attack actual evolution, that would still do absolutely nothing to prove creation. And especially not their highly specific form of creation. Instead, the immensely more effective approach to proving creation would be to present actual positive evidence FOR creation!

So candle2 must present that evidence for creation! No creationist has ever done so, nor has ever even attempted it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 04-24-2022 9:27 PM jar has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-28-2022 11:39 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022