I am a Christian with some Questions.

[Sophus]

Hi, i am a born and raised christian and I am very interrested in learning a little about what and why you believe in what you believe or maybe what you dont believe in. im by no means not here to condemn or be converted, just to learn and understand.
I would greatly appreciate a response.
thank you.

Correction: You were born atheist. Raised Christian.

Here's a very simple formula, only a small part of the equation for why I don't believe in God:


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Fossilization is not rare and is a quick process with the correct environment. In fact, less than one year is necessary to fossilize anything carbon based. As far as transitional species go, if there were in fact transitions, there should be billions. According to evolution, in the 3 billion year history of life on Earth, there should be numerous transitional species, clearly definable. However, over 200 years of intense study has revealed none, merely complete and unique species. If there were billions of years, mathematically and scientifically, there would be billions of fossils, no matter if the process was rare or not. We do not see this.

Actually no, fossilisation is a fairly rare process...

To allow for fossilisation the remains of a creature must be rapidly covered by (sometimes even killed by) sediments which often occurred when animals were washed into water or lived in lakes and seas as the remains would then have been rapidly covered by sediment at the bottom. This accounts for the higher frequency of fossilisation of sea-creatures and animals that may have lived close to such bodies of water. Once covered by sediment the flesh and skin of the cadaver almost always completely rotted away and, as more sediments began to build on the remaining bones over the following centuries, minerals from surrounding water began to percolate through the rock and into the porous bone structures altering the bone to a petrified state.

In some cases acidic water would dissolve the bone completely leaving a natural "mould" so that the original shape could be discerned by pouring rubber into the "mould" and extracting it and other times the "moulds" filled with natural sediments and became a perfect rock-like replica of the original skeleton. In very rare cases a carcass may have been covered in such a way that it naturally mummified  and even skin & folds in the flesh may have been preserved ... the colour, however, of these animals will likely always remain a mystery to us.

Unfortunately (for your argument) the conditions required for fossilisation are rather specific so that gaps in the record are to be fully expected and indeed are predicted by the theory of evolution.

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

I agree that holes in evolution are not evidence for Creation. But there are in fact, holes in evoultion. And it's not just unanswered questions that require more research. There are specific scientific examples that completely refute the theory. The inability for life to evolve from non-life as explained above for example. It is not 100% complete, and cannot possibly be 100% because we can never scientifically prove the big bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macro evolution. In contrast, Creation is 100% complete. The entire story is written, with no holes. Everything everywhere had to have come about in some fashion. Creation explains this just as easily. Of course, it cannot be proven scientifically either.

You understand, don't you, that evolution makes no claim whatsoever about how life arose, that it is entirely possible to believe in a creator god that started life, the universe and everything and STILL be an evolutionist? Please tell us you understand this very simple thing?

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

The fossil evidence for evolution would actually support Creation more.

Um, no ... it doesn't!

We only find conpletely identifiable species, but nothing in between. Evolution requires transitional species. Over a 4.6 billion year history, the amount of transitionary fossils would be staggering. Yet there are none. Everything we find we are able to classify into its own species - even if at first we think it's transitional. Lucy for example, or the archaeopteryx. We keep digging, but finding true and noticeable species. Where is everything in the middle?

Who do you think defines the species? God? Hardly! Scientists? Yes! And guess what ... whenever they discover a new fossil animal they name it, decide it is a new species so in actual fact ALL of the species diversity we see across time are transitional EXCEPT for first life and end-branch species (most of those alive today and examples from history in the fossil record). Indeed the whole "missing transitional" argument as mounted by fundies like you is, quite frankly, laughably stupid.

Kyu

[Asmodean]

Who do you think defines the species? God? Hardly! Scientists? Yes! And guess what ... whenever they discover a new fossil animal they name it, decide it is a new species so in actual fact ALL of the species diversity we see across time are transitional EXCEPT for first life and end-branch species (most of those alive today and examples from history in the fossil record). Indeed the whole "missing transitional" argument as mounted by fundies like you is, quite frankly, laughably stupid.

Yet another person on this site I would like to marry me  

[rlrose328]

Who do you think defines the species? God? Hardly! Scientists? Yes! And guess what ... whenever they discover a new fossil animal they name it, decide it is a new species so in actual fact ALL of the species diversity we see across time are transitional EXCEPT for first life and end-branch species (most of those alive today and examples from history in the fossil record). Indeed the whole "missing transitional" argument as mounted by fundies like you is, quite frankly, laughably stupid.

Kyu

 :pop:    :banna:

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yet another person on this site I would like to marry me    

Kyu

[MikeyV]

Greetings all.

I'm posting this, not to dissuade thehunter325 from his beliefs, but to really ask: what is the point of arguing with him?

Every argument that I have seen from everyone involved, and there are some great, thought provoking, scientifically based arguments, have all been see before. Even thehunter325's arguments are nothing new. You can find every single one of them on the Answers in Genesis website.

There are better arguments in some of the things he says around his, I hesitate to use the word, scientific answers. I'd like to point some of them out now, and if thehunter325 would be so kind as to answer them?

From this post:

...what I mean is that if you are a Creationist, your scientific approaches will be based on Intelligent Design.

and this post:

Anyway, from a Creationist standpoint, God 'stretched out the heavens' referring to moving stars further away, (thus creating a red shift as well) and is explained in the Bible.

I will assume that you are referring to the passages in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah where nearly identical verbiage is used. In other words, the Judeo/Christian cannon (I would venture to further assume you are specifically quoting the 1611 King James Version, but I could be wrong. NIV perhaps?).

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Michael Behe, Dr. Steve Fuller, and other defense witnesses insisted that Intelligent Design was not religion. Given your above statements, are we to conclude that YECs/IDers/Creationists are now prepared to state, for the record, that Intelligent Design is indeed religion disguised as science? I will go the next logical step and state that ID is not only religion disguised as science, it is fundamental evangelical Christianity disguised as science, based on a strict, literal interpretation of the 1611 King James Version (or the NIV) of the Christian bible. Do you concede this point?

This statement

Not to be rude, but if you're an atheist, why are you praying at all? Yellow feathers or not, aren't you kind of defeating the purpose in the whole 'no higher power' belief?

misses jcm's point entirely. Jcm's point was that good and bad things happen at the same rate whether you pray to YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or to nothing at all. Not to sound snide, but maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension. I mean, you are extremely well spoken (well written) and you are a plethora of information, but sometimes, obvious points and sarcasm are lost on you.

In this statement, you say:

From my education in biology, Evolution is a 6-part theory - Universal Evolution (creation of the universe i.e. Big Bang), Cosmic Evolution (stars/planets), Elemental Evolution (Hydrogen thru Uranium and so on), Abiogenesis (Life from Non-Carbon based Life), Macro-Evolution (changing from one class to another i.e. reptile to bird), and Micro-Evolution (or Speciation). It is not scientific to explain Evolution without inculding all parts of it.

You have either been misinformed, or are intentionally spreading misinformation. Which is it? To say that the Big Bang, Cosmology, Geology, Abiogenesis and Evolutionary Biology are under the encompassing term "Evolution" is to build a straw man. You attack one of the fields (and yes, they are distinct and separate fields of study), and then claim that the other fields are invalid. You are really committing two fallacies here, straw man argumentation, and non sequitur (The Big Bang is impossible, ergo common ancestry is false).

From this statement:

If the Earth were smooth, water would cover the entire planet over 1.5 miles deep.

Are you arguing that God made the earth smooth to flood it? Could you point me to that passage, please? In my many readings of the bible, I must have somehow missed it. If you are saying that the earth was smooth before the flood, how do you explain

Genesis 1:9-10 - And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This blows not only your smooth earth hypothesis out of the water (pun unintentional), but Kent Hovind's "Vapor Canopy" hypothesis as well.

Along the same track, in order for a YEC model to work, the continents had to be in a Pangaea configuration in order for us to see the speciation we see. Which means that you not only believe in an accelerated (massively accelerated) continental drift model, but an accelerated (massively accelerated) evolution model as well, since there is no way for Noah to have placed all the species that we see today, plus the species that have gone extinct in the last 4 - 6 thousand years on a boat of the dimensions described in the bible. Which also gives rise to the age old question, how did kangaroos get to Australia? Please explain this.

While I'm at it, could you please give a brief (just a sentence or two, not a thesis) explanation on why Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, ancient Greek religions, ancient Babylonian religions, Zoroastrianism, and all other forms of Christianity (besides your own, of course!) are wrong? Seriously, I would like to know more about what makes an evangelical YEC mind work. It's obvious that your mind works differently than the vast majority of Earth inhabitants, as your beliefs are a very small minority. This is not a dig, and you have to acknowledge the truth  of it, as your thought processes differ from the other 99.9% of us. What is it that you see that nobody else does?

Actually, feel free not to answer any of these questions. It will just delve into another intellectually vapid field: Christian Apologetics. We will just see the construction of fields of straw men that you can tilt at, and I'm out of Extra Strength Tylenol at the moment.

[Stoicheion]

Actually, feel free not to answer any of these questions. It will just delve into another intellectually vapid field: Christian Apologetics. We will just see the construction of fields of straw men that you can tilt at, and I'm out of Extra Strength Tylenol at the moment.

[curiosityandthecat]

I'm posting this, not to dissuade thehunter325 from his beliefs, but to really ask: what is the point of arguing with him?

[thehunter325]

Understandably, you can't expect a person admitting to being a Christian to be taken seriously on an atheist website.  I didn't write anything in here in the hopes of converting or be converted or just to randomly argue.  Instead of interpreting or being opinionated, I'll just type out some of the facts from my research with a couple questions to think about. Feel free to judge me as you wish - but I would challenge you to try and actually focus on the information rather than attacking the person presenting it.  I've done this research not to prove/disprove evolution, but because I was tired of being spoonfed information without taking the time to find out for myself.  Whether you believe it is by chance, or granted by God, open-mindedness and the ability to think freely are a privilege.  Here is an opportunity to practice both:

Guide to logical reasoning and pure investigative thought (taken from Carl Sagan):
- Selective Use of Evidence: important to keep a debate open to dissenting points of view: one side shouldn't be allowed to ignore evidence it finds inconvenient
- Appeals to Authority: nothing is true because 'leading authorities' say it is true - a really good experiment can call anyone's bluff
- Ad Hominem Aruguments: attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself
- Straw Man Argument: distorting someone's position to make it easier to attack
- Begging the Question: assuming the answer to the very point that is in dispute (circular reasoning)
- Lack of Testability: theories that can't be shown to be either true or false with verifyable experimentation
- Vague Terms and Shifting Definitions: leading someone to agree with a harmless definition, but using the term in a very different sense

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Accomplished through five basic steps:
-Make Observations
-Formulate Hypothesis
-Design an Experiment
-Test the Hypothesis
-Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

Scientific Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. A hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Scientific Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Scientific Law: A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Evolutionary Theory: comprised of 6 parts explaining the origin of life on Earth:
     - Cosmic Evolution - explanation of the origination of matter and energy
     - Stellar Evolution - explanation of the vast amounts of heavenly bodies in our own galaxy, as well as the thousands of other galaxies
     - Chemical Evolution - explanation of the periodic table of elements from the lightest to heaviest elements
     - Abiogenesis - explanation of life originating from non-life (aka spontaneous generation)
     - Macroevolution - explanation of classes of animals changing from one class to another (i.e. reptile to mammal)
     - Microevolution - explaination of the speciation of animals
--The theory requires each section in succession - the presence of one does not prove any others.  For example, there can be no macroevolution without abiogenesis. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
-- Each section may be a separate scientific branch, but each is required to fully encompass the theory. You cannot have any form of evolution without a beginning and middle.
---(Which parts of the evolutionary theory have been observed? Can any of those observations be tested? If science is based on experimentation, can any parts have any experiments performed? Are these parts inherently true/false based on the lack of testability?  Can this even be considered a hypothesis, much less a theory without observation - the first step in the Scientific Method?)

1st Law of Thermodynamics - Matter cannot be created or destroyed (Does this law apply to the Big Bang? Do we determine when and where laws apply or are they inherently law? Did the laws evolve?)

2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - In other words, all things continue toward disorder [Can a fully balanced and organized universe from an explosion (i.e. Big Bang) fall under this law? Can a planet's axis/rotation/revolution continue in balance over billions of years, overcoming entropy? Does entropy apply to the universe outside of Earth or only here? Can an enormously complex cell continue to become even more complex given that, over time, it must continue towards disorder? ]

Geologic Column - Published in the book "Principles of Geology" in 1830-1833 and authored by Charles Lyell. Strongly influenced Charles Darwin's theologic beliefs. Introduced uniformitarianism as opposed to catastrophism (i.e. global flood). Charles Lyell was widely known for not only his disbelief, but intense hatred for the Bible and "Mosaic teaching" (Lyell's term).  Dates for the different eras were exact to the year (i.e. 2,467,399,284 mya) Radioactivity was discovered in 1896.  The mass spectrometer was developed in the 1930's and radiometric dating techniques developed in the 1940's -- approx. 100 years later.  (Could Darwin or Lyell date rocks/fossils without radiometric dating?)(If so, where did they come up with the dates?) The geologic column is not found in its entire order on the planet as presented by Lyell and taught in schools.

Fossilization: replace organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Although originally believed to take thousands of years, fossilization can occur in as little as one year.

Organic material: noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

-Fossils do not contain any carbon. Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date any fossils.

Index Fossils - any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.

Rock Layers - Rock layers are also called strata, and stratigraphy is the science of strata. Stratigraphy deals with all the characteristics of layered rocks; it includes the study of how these rocks relate to time.  To tell the age of most layered rocks, scientists study the fossils these rocks contain.

-Index fossils are dated by rock layers and rock layers are dated by index fossils - circular reasoning is not science.

Fossilized trees are found extending through several strata of rocks as well as separate seams of coal. Trees have even been found coalified at the bottom, fossilized in the middle, and coalified at the top.
-If rock layers take millions of years to form, there are three possibilities:
--The tree stood for millions of years while the rock layers and coal layers formed around it.
--The tree grew into the coal, through the rock, and into the coal again, then fossilized and coalified.
--The coal layers and rock layers formed quickly, and the tree was fossilized in between the forming layers (evidence for a catastrophic event i.e. flood).

Following the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, Spirit Lake was clogged with hundreds of trees blown down from the blast.  Later divers noticed some trees at the bottom of the lake were vertical, and were stuck in the mud below. The trees have begun to fossilize and will be left standing vertically through several layers of coal and rock. This is a logical conclusion to the example above, given the scientific evidence (Catastrophism).

Following the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, radioisotope dating was used to confirm its accuracy in the late 1990's. K-Ar Dating put the newly formed rock flows at .35 to 2.8 million years.
-Radioisotope dating has been used on volcanic rock in Hawaii, Arizona, California and in Sicily. All eruption dates are known. All radioisotope measurements put the dates from .25 to 1.6 million years old.
-The samples were sent to laboratories with only the knowledge that the rocks came from volcanoes.
-(Are we assuming radioisotope dating works on rocks of unknown age, while it does not work on rocks of known age? Shouldn't dating rocks of known age be the method we actually use to confirm the accuracy of radioisotope dating?)

Radiometric dating: A method for determining the age of an object based on the concentration of a particular radioactive isotope contained within it. Examples include: Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating, Carbon 14 dating, Uranium-Lead dating and Samarium-Neodymium dating. These basic assumptions are inherent with radiometric dating:
-The decay rate of the radioisotopes has remained constant throughout time
-There has been no leaching of any of the isotopes-from the time of its formation to the present.
-There has not been any infusion of parent or daughter material-from the time of its formation to the present.
-There was no daughter material present at the formation of the specimen.
(Can we assume any dated specimens have scientifically proven all these assumptions to be true? Can we solve an equation with more than one variable?)

Fossils are assumed to be found in restricted ranges based on their geologic timing/evolution.  This is the basis for index fossils.  Stratigraphic-range extension is the scientific evidence showing fossils of a certain time period appearing in 'younger' rock strata.  Examples:
Lystrosaurus - Early Triassic -- found also in Permian
Neoguadalupia (sponge) - Permian -- found also in Triassic
Jawless Fishes - Ordovician -- found also in Cambrian
Pipiscids - Carboniferous -- found also in Cambrian
Camptochlamys - Cretaceous -- found also in Tertiary
Parafusus - Cretaceous -- found also in Tertiary

In a ten year period (1982-1992), over 500 fossils were recorded as extending their respective stratigraphic ranges.  Since the 1960's over 1000 different Families of animals (not just specific species) have extended their stratigraphic range. (If these animals evolved from one another, can we explain their appearance in several hundred million years of the geologic column?  Once the animal evolves into another life form, doesn't natural selection say the older, less evolved animal is snuffed out - not reappearing over hundreds of millions of years of generations in completely identifiable species?)

Cambrian explosion - supposedly, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum.  In other words, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each coexist in this layer.  The layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossils.  The number of fossilized species above the Cambrian layer decrease with later layers.  The most recent layers approximate 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct.  According to evolution, the world's speciation is accredited to a common ancestor derived from the primordial soup.  This ancestor eventually became more complex and divergent species occured. The paths then continued to branch and explain the great diversity of life present today. (Can evolution explain why the oldest layers of the geologic column hold the most complex diversity of life as opposed to what the theory actually teaches - the direct opposite?  Can we justify evolution presenting a tree-like progression of life - when the scientific evidence points directly toward an inverted cone as the 'tree' of life.)

Trilobites - a class of marine arthropods, with origins in the Cambrian explosion.  Most specimens are between 10 and 50 mm long, characterized by a rigid carapace divided into three lobes - hence the name. Most had eyes, others had none.  Within the family Phacopidae the eyes of the trilobite are of a fundamentally different nature - schizochroal (aggregate) eyes - the most complex eye in the history of life on earth. The trilobite eye is made of pure calcite (optically transparent calcium carbonate) which has a precisely aligned optical axis to eliminate any double image that would have formed.  It is also a “doublet” of two lenses affixed together in order to eliminate spherical aberrations, commonly found in ground glass lenses. Trilobite eyes are massively arrayed in semicircular banks and even almost circular banks of up to 30-60 lenses per row, each with its own individual retina.  Compounding this are the Ordovician trilobites.  The visual field of these trilobites is close to 360 degrees and are capable of seeing anteriorly, laterally, dorsally, downwards, and backwards.  Trilobite eyes have glasslike lenses corrected for spherical and chromatic abberations, the density of seawater and the function of bifocality. Within the last 500 years, most of the mathematical formulae responsible for the caliber of optics used today has been solved.  Trilobites had lenses much more complex on their bodies, but over 500 million years ago. (Can the most complex eye on the planet begin with the Cambrian explosion and get less complex?  Can subsequent generations of species, up to and including mankind, de-volve? Can we justify evolution teaching the simplest forms of life gradually becoming more complex - when the scientific evidence points directly to the opposite?)

Vestigial Organs - organs that represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.  The presence of an organ in one organism that resembles one found in another has led biologists to conclude that these two might have shared a common ancestor.  Some 180 body parts were considered vestigial as recently as the 1930s.  Modern science has revealed the function of the organs previously termed as vestigial.  A couple examples:
-Appendix - functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply. The submucosa (tissue layer) is thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lymphocytes.
-Coccyx (tailbone) - a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus
-Flightless bird wings - used as balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators, sheltering of chicks.  The wings have functional muscles allowing them to be moved to serve their purpose
-Male nipples - sensitive to touch and act as erogenous zones, contributing to the pleasure response during sex.
-Hip bones in whales - used in penis erection in males and vaginal contraction in females - essential in birthing.
-Claw like feet in pythons - used in copulation - the male uses these to hold the female - serpents are cyndrilical in shape and do not lay well on top of one another.
--(Can anything actually be vestigial, given the remarkable advances in modern science and medicine?)

Lamarckism - developed by Chevalier de Lamarck in his book, Philosophie zoologique, published in 1809.  Explains that acquired traits are inheritable, meaning that characteristics that an organism may develop during its lifetime can be passed on to its progeny. Biologists in the 1800-1900's (including Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Thomas Huxley) were unaware of the mechanisms of inheritance.  They believed that developmental contigencies of individual organisms were not fixed genetically, but they could somehow be passed on to subsequent generations so that evolution could occur.  For example, reptiles jumping higher and higher to reach trees for food/escape eventually just formed wings and became birds.  Giraffes kept on stretching their necks longer and longer until the modern long-necked giraffe evolved.  This was proven scientifically inaccurate first by August Weismann. He cut off the tails of 22 generations of mice - no subsequent generations of mice were tail-less.  Later science has affirmed through genetics how phenotypic traits are passed from parent to progeny.  (Darwin had no idea of genetics. How did he believe organisms passed on traits to their young?  Is it possible that even our study of genetics today has been so influenced by Darwin, that instead of asking if evolution actually occured, we are asking how can we prove evolution occured?  Instead of blindly trying to prove the theory based on initial bias, should science be purely science and just take the evidence we gain and use it to learn more -- even if it involves creating a new theory?)

Irreducible complexity - a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.  An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  Basically, all of the systems must be present at the same time in order for the organism to function as a whole. (Can the body function without any of its basic systems?  Can we assume that all of the systems evolved together? Can we assume birds developed wings, feathers, hollow bones, a new heart, new muscles, new nerves attaching to all the new systems, a new brain -- all at the same time from reptiles?  Did these reptile to bird evolutionary changes happen in an instant?  Could the new organism survive without all the necessary components of either a bird or reptile - not an in-between organism?  If it was an in-between organism without the full functions of a bird or reptile, wouldn't natural selection snuff it out instantly and stop any future generations of a weaker animal?  At a cellular level, can a cell live without a membrane, nucleus, nuclear membrane, mitochondria, etc.? Can all of these separate remarkable systems evolve simultaneously, at the same place, at the same time, on the same cell -- and then develop the ability to reproduce the same types of systems with the newly evolved DNA/RNA and the structures to decode that DNA/RNA to pass on? Can two separate cells spark to life at the same time, in the same place, with the same features, with separate sexual organs, develop the ability to reproduce, then reproduce successfully with a mutation that is beneficial to successive generations - then those generations find a mate in the primordial soup and restart the cycle trillions of times? What did the first cell eat?)

Ernst Haeckel developed the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in 1866. This described his embryological observation, which says basically that the development of the individual retraces the evolutionary steps of the species from its conception to its birth. It was proved to be a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His, Sr. Haeckel personally admitted to falsifying his illustrations in 1909.  American textbooks as recent as 1998 continue to display Haeckels drawings as scientific fact and proof for evolution.

Piltdown Man was discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson. In 1953, it was finally revealed to be an elaborate hoax - purposely filed teeth and iron dyed for aged appearance.  This was used as evidence for evolution and taught to an entire generation of students for over 40 years.

Java Man was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois.  After many evolutionists accepted this specimen as manlike, Dubois admitted finding modern human skulls in the same rock formations in which the bones of his specimen were found. Later he changed his opinion about Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus), and considered the skull cap that of an ape or gibbon. Some textbooks still refer to this find as an example of man's evolution from apes.

Nebraska Man was found in 1922. The specimen consisted of one molar tooth. An artist created the entire apeman-like creature from this find, which was then used as evidence in the Scopes Monkey Trial. In 1928, science revealed the specimen belonged to an extinct pig.

Neanderthal Man was discovered in 1856. The arching back and bowed legs were alleged to be the precurser to modern humans slowly straightening their vertebrae in order to stand upright. Later, science revealed that Neanderthal Man was an ordinary man suffering from rickets/arthritis. His arching back was slowly moving down instead of up. In 1908, a typical  Neanderthal fossil was discovered wearing a full sets of chain armor that had not rusted completely. Another Neanderthal skeleton was found in 1910 in the Phillippines. Due to the extreme moisture of the area, it would have been impossible for the skeleton to have been more than a century old. Neanderthals are still depicted in textbooks as hairy, grunting cavemen living eons ago, while scientific evidence proves their existence within the last couple hundred years.

Cro-Magnon Man was discovered in 1868. Science has revealed that Cro-Magnons were excellent artists, kept records of astronomy, usually over six feet tall and some had a slightly larger cranial capacity than any modern skull.  Cro-Magnon Man is still depicted in textbooks as being a separate species, although no anatomical differences can support this claim.

Rhodesian Man was discovered in 1921.  Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape/half-human sort of creature. Following an anatomist's examination, it was found that this was just a normal human being.

Peking Man was discovered in 1927 by Davidson Black, less than two months before his grant money expired. Following Black's death in 1934, the Jesuits responsible for Piltdown Man took over digging at the Peking Site. The site turned out to be a town garbage dump. Thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, with only a few human skulls found. The animal bones in the pit were over 150 feet deep. The human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires. Peking Man was lost during World War II. The fossils were found mixed with hundreds of animal fossils - textbooks today list Peking Man as evolving from the very same animals that were buried along side him.

-Other examples are abundant in every textbook showing Darwin's evolutionary tree. The 'missing links' are still missing to connect them all together. Missing links are erroneously and purposely falsified to prove evolution with no definitive specimens found in over 150 years. (Can a scientist/archaeologist search for true scientific data -- especially if their sole purpose is to find missing links to prove evolution?  Can they begin their digging, find something, and classify it with no bias? Can you even get a grant to go dig for missing links without being an evolutionist? Would the pressure of finding a new specimen, getting front page recognition in National Geographic, and a possibility of a lifetime digging grant cause someone to stretch their assumption to fit into the evolutionary model - merely for fame/monetary gain? Why is there such a history of frauds and lies designed with one sole purpose -- to prove evolution? Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found --why not hundreds or thousands of them? Where are the billions of transitional forms that should completely blanket the underlying earth, instead of the distinct species? Shouldn't there be half fish/half amphibians? How would those overcome natural selection without the precise abilities of either a full fish or full amphibian?)


The full title of Charles Darwin's book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Worldviews attributed to the preservation of favoured races:
-Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin. It was right and moral for the strongest race to survive; to have pity for the weak was to defy nature’s laws.
-Socialism denies the existence of a Creator God and proclaims that the rational mind of man created everything we know and can therefore perfect humanity and human society.
-Marxism led to communism and sought to be scientific. It was anchored in a social and economic theory that was believed to mirror the true history of life. Central to that theory was the struggle between the class that owned the means of production (the capitalist ‘bourgeoisie’) and the working class (the ‘proletariat’) that did not.  Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.'
-Communism uses evolution to its logical conclusion. If everything just evolved from ‘natural law,’ then man’s opinion, not God’s Word, determines what is right and wrong. If the working class can take power by armed struggle, then this is ‘right,’ regardless of how many must die to bring in the socialist paradise.

Adolf Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. He referred to Jewish people as being ' mostly full-ape' and based all other cultures on how 'ape-like' they were (Pure Aryan being the master race with no ape features, black being 'predominately ape', etc). His goal was to create the supreme race based on eugenics -- an evolutionary concept developed by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.  The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?

The shootings in Columbine High School were on Adolf Hitler's birthday - on purpose. One of the perpetrator's shirts was emblazoned with the words: "Natural Selection".  Isaiah Shoels was killed for being black - his murderer reportedly saying "...He did not deserve the jaw evolution gave him.  Look for his jaw, it won't be on his body."

Josef Stalin studied at Tiflis Theological Seminary until age 19.  After reading 'On the Origin of Species', he became rebellious, atheisitic and was expelled.  It is estimated Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 10 million people.

Mao Zedong was the Chairman of China's Communist Party and was responsible of the deaths of tens of millions of people.  Mao listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favofrite authors.

Evolution became a state funded teaching in public schools in 1959 - 1960's.  Since then:
- Violent crime rates have increased 313%
- Abortion rates have increased over 500%
-Teen Pregnancy /out of wedlock rates have increased over 1000%
- One of Three babies born to teens are illegitimate
-Teen Suicide rates have increased over 300%
- Divorce rates have increased over 400%

There have been more abortions in the U.S. (approx. 45 million) than deaths from all U.S. military conflicts combined (largest estimate is less than 1 million).  There are more abortions per day (approx 5000) than people that died in 9/11 (approx 3000).  (Is the initial fertilized cell akin to the first cell sparked to life in the primordial soup? Would we ever had considered legalizing abortion without assuming Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?  Is our culture dehumanized to the point that life is not precious or long life and wisdom not honored - i.e. nursing homes?  Can evolution support our culture as acutally being 'humanized' and what evolutionary purpose does that serve? What is conceived in a human female - a human or a fish/amphibian/reptile with gills slits just waiting to evolve?)


The Human Mind - some things to consider:
-Are our thoughts nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain? Did our thinking abilities evolve for no reason other than their utility in allowing our DNA to reproduce itself?
-If our thoughts are the products of chemical reactions, then how can we know if any of our theories are true? Can one person's theory be the 'best'? Who determines the 'best'?
-Can science explain human consciousness? If science cannot explain the mind, then what else can we possibly explain?
-Can we know if we are actually conscious? Is consciousness merely an illusion programmed by our DNA to encourage our brains to make more DNA?
-Can we justify human emotions with evolution?  Can we evolve to feel morality/humanity/compassion/grief/joy and if so, would that be detrimental to natural selection?
-Can we justify morality with evolution? Is there actually a 'right' and 'wrong' experienced by so many human minds? Can we explain why we feel remorse or guilt from an evolutionary standpoint? Did morality evolve along with emotion?
-Did we learn morality from somewhere/something/someone? Is there an absolute standard? Are there any absolutes? Are you absolutely sure?

-Since we can think - and often do think - and even think about what we're thinking about, then there must be a reason ... can evolution explain it?
-Since we feel morality/humanity/compassion/grief/joy there had to be a reason ... can evolution explain it?

Again, none of this is a tool for conversion. I've never requested it, forced it, or planned for it. I merely presented you facts from my personal research (verifyable, not Wikipedia). You have the opportunity and the ability to think freely and openly. You can take all of this together and research more for yourself, or you can take one or two things you just want to be true and live on from there. You can attack me or what I write or what I believe or whatever, or you can take the time to question yourself and find out why you actually believe what you believe. You can base it on chance, blind luck, or something higher that you can think freely and that you live in a time and a place that encourages free thinking.  You can even base it on chance or luck or God that you happen to live in a place that some people wlllingly sacrifice themselves to ensure you continue to have the opportunity to think freely and be open-minded.  Take one or several points and convince yourself that is the only 'truth' or take them all and advance your own research for yourself.  We live in a world that either has a God or does not, but just know that both thoughts are terrifying.  Either way, thanks for the opportunity.

[rlrose328]

Your first paragraph belittles both of us.  I don't care what the topic is... science, biblical theory, whatever.

When a scientist says "please have an open mind," they mean "please put away your preconceptions and bible, listen to the facts, and then understand the facts outweigh fiction."  In my experience, when a believer says "please have an open mind," it actually means, "agree with me or I'll continue to think you're a heathen fruitcake who needs to be saved."

As for the 1st law of thermodynamics, the one thing that believers consistently miss is that it refers to a "closed system," which was not the case with the big bang and its environment.

Carbon-14 dating does work on fossils, just not those over 50,000 or so.  Fossils do have carbon.  Carbon is found in plants and as animals and humans eat plants, we get carbon 14.  Carbon 12 is also in our system so when we die, carbon 14 deteriorates but carbon 12 stays constant.  The measure of carbon 14 against carbon 12 is how things are dated.

These are just two issues with your diatribe.  I'm stopping there because I have to get back to work.

[MikeyV]

Feel free to judge me as you wish - but I would challenge you to try and actually focus on the information rather than attacking the person presenting it.

You haven't been attacked.

<snip>let me tell you how to critically think and reason,<snip>, I don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but AiG says it's a good argument, so I'll repeat it here,<snip>

You are using a common ID/YEC/Creationist/Christian Apologist tactic. Information Overload. That 's one of the problems of debating your type, the shifting goalposts.

"There are no transitional Fossils!"
Well, yeah there are, see?
"Oh yeah? Well what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"
You don't understand thermodynamics.
"Do so! Here's a course in logic for you!"
Now you're just being absurd.
"Am not! I thought you had an open mind!"
I do. I've looked at the scientific evidence. I would have looked at the YEC evidence, but there isn't any. Just weak, wanna be refutations of the scientific evidence.
"Your mind is not open, If it was, you'd see how obvious it is that God does exist! You'd think like I do."
Umm...O.K.
"Ad Hominem attack! I'll post the entire contents of AiG into this post!"
I'll go get my hip waders, the bullshit's gonna get deep.

You can even base it on chance or luck or God that you happen to live in a place that some people wlllingly sacrifice themselves to ensure you continue to have the opportunity to think freely and be open-minded.

Are you talking about the military? I am currently serving, so don't get all flag wavey on me. Nothing is worse than desperate appeals to mindless patriotism.

We live in a world that either has a God or does not, but just know that both thoughts are terrifying.  Either way, thanks for the opportunity.

And that is the heart of it, isn't it. Fear. The driving force behind most religion. You could have just posted that at the beginning and saved bandwidth.

[curiosityandthecat]

Must... not... post... own... graduate... research...

Must... not... show... religious... belief... makes... people... bad...

Strength... give me strength!

 

[Asmodean]

Must... not... post... own... graduate... research...

Must... not... show... religious... belief... makes... people... bad...

Strength... give me strength!

 :hide:

I knows you wants to! A nice, juicy, 4 hours of writing post... I KNOWS you wants to! [evil voice whispering in the background] Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it![/voice]