Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ready When Made
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 73 (61093)
10-15-2003 9:43 PM


Extinction would certainly support a deteriorating world. We hear of animals becoming extinct, but we don't hear of animals evolving and improving. Indeed, if we do need to evolve something, time becomes our enemy. What if we need something desperatly quick? millions of years isn't exactly a quick fix. I think there would be no possibility of survival. Getting 'lucky' just doesn't suffice for me. We see a lot of extinction in the fossil record, aswell as extinction before our eyes.
This kind of makes problems when dating the earth 'millions of years'old. I mean we are equipped with a lot of stuff to help us survive. But what about millions of supposed years ago when we needed this stuff. All this, to me, indicates we came equipped rather than, we came to get equipped.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-15-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 10-15-2003 9:48 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 6 by Rei, posted 10-15-2003 10:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 3:51 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 3 of 73 (61096)
10-15-2003 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by sidelined
10-15-2003 9:48 PM


Lol, good point, I guess I'll leave this topic for people to ponder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 10-15-2003 9:48 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 10-15-2003 9:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 73 (61102)
10-15-2003 10:06 PM


Listen we've only got room for one genius per argument - and thats Brad
You guys are missing my main point. When we need to evolve urgently, is millions of years urgent?
Remember , we SEE extinction, do we see improvement?
Simple questions deserve simple answers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 10-15-2003 10:12 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 9 by Rei, posted 10-15-2003 10:19 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 73 (61110)
10-15-2003 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rei
10-15-2003 10:19 PM


'You're not understanding the most basic elements of the evolutionist viewpoint. When a species dies out, it is replaced by other species living at the same time'
What if all species NEED to quickly evolve?- alternative - extinction
Does millions of years solve this, or, wouldn't they become extinct before evolution happens?
So if humans died out, what would replace us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rei, posted 10-15-2003 10:19 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 10-15-2003 10:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 1:43 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 73 (61111)
10-15-2003 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by JonF
10-15-2003 10:12 PM


'Species that "need to evolve urgently" don't. They go extinct.'
Which is my point entirely. I do not think we would have survived millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 10-15-2003 10:12 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 10-16-2003 8:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2003 10:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 73 (61169)
10-16-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
10-16-2003 3:51 AM


'To sum it up the "deteriorating world" explanation of extinction is quite clearly false.'
Why ? Because you say so?
'Even without the paleontological record it is to be expected form evolution that extinctions will happen'
However, my argument is evolution would not have time to happen, because .......time is the enemy(extinction). That is message 1. Nothing said so far has disproven it.
'That's the second piece of "evidence for creation you've produced where the real evidence contradicts your claims.'
Not really, unless you can get rid of the fossils, and extinction.All I have mentioned is these simple facts, I'm hardly going against evidence, however I KNOW I am going against the evolutionists view on this. These are simple observations about FACTS - FOSSILS - EXTINCTION. I am suggesting that time is the enemy, based on the geologist's argument - John Mackay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 3:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:21 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 35 by Loudmouth, posted 10-16-2003 7:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 73 (61181)
10-16-2003 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:21 AM


'And just what is it that our hominid ancestors *needed* millions of years ago that they didn't have ?'
If they didn't need anything why did they evolve?
Remember, I am talking according to the claims of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:29 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 21 of 73 (61186)
10-16-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:29 AM


No, my argument is, evolution is not possible because millions of years is too long a time to evolve. Extinction would more likely occur. you say what would our relatives have needed? Does this mean you don't believe we evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:38 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 10-16-2003 1:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 73 (61189)
10-16-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:38 AM


Gotcha
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:38 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 73 (61190)
10-16-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-16-2003 11:29 AM


'Species either change very slowly over time (with no great selective pressure) or remain more or less the same '
Seriously though, I do get your drift.
What if they require change rapidly, millions of years??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2003 1:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 73 (61217)
10-16-2003 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brad McFall
10-16-2003 1:55 PM


Thankyou Brad, the simple answer to a simple question.
Millions of years may indeed have been too long. That is my main point. I don't think a human would be the result of an extinction/takeover/degeneration, as they too would have the same problem when 'needs' arose.Millions of years wont solve an urgent problem. Any evolutionary way it is looked at cannot change the fact that we observe extinction but not evolution. Degeneration rather than improvement, can be indicated by this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 10-16-2003 1:55 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 10-16-2003 2:34 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 33 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 3:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 34 by JustinC, posted 10-16-2003 3:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 73 (61222)
10-16-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brian
10-16-2003 2:34 PM


Hello there Brian.
I think we have deteriorated since sin (first). I think we are more vulnerable to diseases and such. However I am ofcourse referring to the supposed 'millions of years' spoken of on your side. But I think mainly we are designed , or READY WHEN MADE.
Later guys.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 10-16-2003 2:34 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 10-16-2003 2:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024