Hard Questions for Anti-Evolutionists

[Johnny Apollo]

This is a thread for those who deny Evolution to answer a few questions about the natural world and explaing a few things that Evolution could easily explain. This thread is being written by me and me alone so I expect the ANSWERS to be written by the posts. No copying and pasting christian websites. You can research on those sites if you want but you must answer the questions in your own words...No links allowed. If you can't answer them all then only answer those you can answer and don't address the one's you can't. Copy the question,Paste it in your reply and then post your answer below it.

Here are a few questions I expect all of you who deny evolution to answer.(When I refer to "Evolution" I mean Macro-Evolution. Evolution on or above the species level.)



1.How do you explain fossilized species such as the "Archaeopteryx" which is obviously a transitional fossil between ancient reptiles and modern birds?


2.The timeline of the bible puts the earth at about 6,000 years old. If this is true then this would mean Dinosaurs and Humans lived alongside eachother. Why don't we find fossils of dinosaurs with humans bones in their stomachs?

3.If the earth is indeed only about 6,000 years old, How do you explain radiometric dating? Where the decay rate of the sample is used to determine the age of the earth. If these things decayed as fast as they already have in just 6,000 years...The earth would of melted by now do to radioactivity.

4.Why is it that we don't usually find mammals on oceanic islands? Darwin reasoned that the only way life could get to islands such as the Galapagos was to get there by sea or by air.(The Galapagos are actually volcanic islands that never had a link to south america). This means that mammals could not of traveled there. Why is it that for instance on the islands we see different species of the south American mocking bird? This could only imply thousands of years ago the south american mocking bird traveled to the islands and then evolved into different species through diversification. How does a creationist explain that?

5.Why is the Biota(Flora,Fauna) of south America so very different than that of Africa? Why is the Biota of Australia so different from that of all of the other continents? Darwin explained this perfectly. The fact that these species vary is due to evolution. For instance in North America in the past 10,000 years there was a land bridge connecting it to Asia and Europe. Not so for Australia. The longer a population is seperated from the rest..The more it becomes different via evolution. This fits perfectly with evolution. How does a Creationist Explain it?

6.How do creationists explain Vestigial Structures? These are organs that are no longer in use by the species who has them. For instance the Flightless Cormorants of the Galapagos Islands. This bird has wings which it evolved into uselessness. It no longer had use for the wings so those individuals who's wings didn't work in the population weren't selected out. So in time the entire population's wings stopped working and became vestigial structures. This goes perfectly with Evolution. How does a creationist explain this? Not to mention the numerous other vestigial organs of other species including humans and their appendix and tail bones.



7.How do creationists explain DNA? Humans and Chimps are 98% similar on the genetic level. Why is this so? If a "God" made all life why did he make humans and chimps so similar genetically? This goes perfectly with evolution considering humans and chimps are related. How does a Creationist explin this?

8.How does a creationist explain Endogenous retroviruses? Endogenous retroviruses(ERV's) are genetic leftovers of past viral infections of an individual. The virus inserted some of it's genetics into the genome of the host and the host passed it down to it's offspring. Why do Humans and Chimps have the same ERV's? The ONLY explanation is they evolved from a common ancestor who had the same ERV in their genome. How does a creationist explain this?

9.How does a creationist explain Redundant pseudogenes? These are non-coding genes. Why is it that Humans and Chimps or Humans and other non primate mammals share the same pseudogenes? Why would a Bear and a Dog share the same Pseudogenes? Why would a human and a bear share the same pseudogenes? Pseudogenes are inhereted. The ONLY explanation of this is common descent. All life evolved from the same ancestors. How would a creationist explain this?

10.How do creationists explain observed events of speciation(Macro-evolution)? Since the 70's for instance we have in the lab speciated numerous new species of Drosophila(Fruit flies). We have observed mosquito speciation in london subway systems from the mosquito species above ground. How would a creationist explain this?

11.Mutation,Natural selection and Sex are all things that occur in everyday life among life. If these things can occur why can't evolution? These are all that are required for evolution. A population exists...A mutation occurs. This mutation is a benefit thus is selected in by natural selection. This happens over and over for millions of years. Bang, new species! How does a creationist explain the fact that these forces exist yet they deny what they result in? In short..What's stopping evolution from occuring when all of the required things for it to occur exist? Mutations,Natural selection,Sex.

12.How do creationists explain the fact that LIFE as a whole was completly different in the distant past? In the fossil record we have layers called "strata" each strata is a timeline of the past. Why is it that 100 million years ago no humans existed but 50,000 years ago they did? Where did humans come from? Where do ANY new species that appear in the fossil record come from? If dinosaurs and the rest of those extinct species existed 100 million years ago and none of the species that exist to day lived back then...Where did the modern species come from? How did they get here? Evolution explains this perfectly. They EVOLVED. How does a creationist explain the sudden dissappearing of species and the sudden reappearing of new species in the fossil record throughout the earths past?

[Mr. Intenseone]

Why is it you can reference from an non-Christian and athiest site and we can't use Christian sites? Some of their theories are from secular scientists!

BTW, don't tell us what we can and cannot do, I don't take orders from racist, communtists. Before I became a Christian I would regularly beat the crap out people like you.....skin heads!

[OzmO]

Why is it you can reference from an non-Christian and athiest site and we can't use Christian sites?

He can do that becuase he's white and from superior breeding. 

Also his brain power is only exceeded by the stars visible on a very clear night.  AND he's not weak because he doesn't believe in GOD.  He believes Aldolf.  He doesn't say his 20 Hail Marys at night, instead he says 20 Hiel Hitlers while he bathes in bleach cleansing his body with a bar of ivory snow.  He believes he descended from apes, white apes that is.  Yep he's man among men and 98% of his DNA makes him an albino ape among apes.  Too bad a flip owns him.  Otherwise when he dies the other men of superior breeding who descended from white apes might have just buried him next to Aldolf.  The shame he must feel when it's dark and he doubts his pure white-ness.


BTW, Herr Johnny,  Those facts on evolution don't mean jack to the run of the mill Christian unless you are a literalist and most of them are far from living it 100%.  Most Christians believe it's a "creation story" not a scientific creation fact based report.

The literal dogma worked fine in the dark and middle ages.  It was an easy sale backed up with torture.  Now we know a little better.  But hopefully not so much better that our intelligence becomes ignorance when we confuse the existence of GOD with the current follies man made church and man made religious dogma and replace with it hate.

[Johnny Apollo]

Why is it you can reference from an non-Christian and athiest site and we can't use Christian sites? Some of their theories are from secular scientists!

BTW, don't tell us what we can and cannot do, I don't take orders from racist, communtists. Before I became a Christian I would regularly beat the crap out people like you.....skin heads!

I haven't refrenced anything in this post. EVERYTHING I posted is in my own words and I expect answers to be in your own words.

Not that you can answer any of the questions to begin with.

[OzmO]

Yes you have referenced things in this post.  You reference other people's scientific conclusions.  Although some of theese scientist might have been white and feel therefore you can justify calling them your own.  Intenseone wasn't accusing you copying and pasting them.  You simply looked up "Facts" and asked question about them.

Refernce

Main Entry: reference
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -enced; -enc·ing
1 a : to supply with references b : to cite in or as a reference
2 : to put in a form (as a table) adapted to easy reference

Main Entry: 1ref·er·ence
Pronunciation: 're-f&rn(t)s, 're-f(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the act of referring or consulting
2 : a bearing on a matter : RELATION <in reference to your recent letter>
3 : something that refers : as a : ALLUSION, MENTION b : something (as a sign or indication) that refers a reader or consulter to another source of information (as a book or passage) c : consultation of sources of information

From Webster's inline dic

Saying you worote everything in your "own words" implies you, for example, peronsally examined 1000's fossill records and identified  "Archaeopteryx" as transitionary from reptiles to birds.

All you did was find some site or sites or book that refutted anit-evolutionist by backing it up with facts and you then asked a bunch of "how can questions."

Not very impressive.

And if was an anti-evolutionist i could just look up some site copy and paste the answers here, change and add some words, like you did with the "how can" and call it my own words!

[Mr. Intenseone]

I haven't refrenced anything in this post. EVERYTHING I posted is in my own words and I expect answers to be in your own words.

Not that you can answer any of the questions to begin with.

1. You did not put those paragraphs in "your own words" (did you take those pictures too?).

2. No, I cannot answer because I don't have the time to research, but I do know that scientists are still trying to figure out how things came about. Despite what you post or link, you cannot unravel millions of years of CREATION and find an answer, I said this before and I'll say it again......NO ONE will ever figure out God perfect plan, it's entirely too complex.

Now you answer my question. Why can you reference links and articals from non-Christian and athiests sites and you don't look at the Christan apologetics site? Like I said, some of those scientists are non-Christians. What makes your info credible and mine not......seems were at stalemate. True, I not very good at explaining BUT I have been studying for a long time. Like I said you're a test of my faith and my faith grows stronger with every post you write.

You know Johnny, the more I read your posts and threads and TRY to justify your actions and arguments the I realize that I really think you know there's something missing in your life. You are very distraught, angry and hateful individual! You know as well as I you cannot explain the complexities of this universe and how life came about, just like when scientists and Doctors cannot explain every detail of how the human body works!

[Johnny Apollo]

Yes you have referenced things in this post.  You reference other people's scientific conclusions.  Although some of theese scientist might have been white and feel therefore you can justify calling them your own.  Intenseone wasn't accusing you copying and pasting them.  You simply looked up "Facts" and asked question about them.

Refernce

Main Entry: reference
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -enced; -enc·ing
1 a : to supply with references b : to cite in or as a reference
2 : to put in a form (as a table) adapted to easy reference

Main Entry: 1ref·er·ence
Pronunciation: 're-f&rn(t)s, 're-f(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : the act of referring or consulting
2 : a bearing on a matter : RELATION <in reference to your recent letter>
3 : something that refers : as a : ALLUSION, MENTION b : something (as a sign or indication) that refers a reader or consulter to another source of information (as a book or passage) c : consultation of sources of information

From Webster's inline dic

Saying you worote everything in your "own words" implies you, for example, peronsally examined 1000's fossill records and identified  "Archaeopteryx" as transitionary from reptiles to birds.

All you did was find some site or sites or book that refutted anit-evolutionist by backing it up with facts and you then asked a bunch of "how can questions."

Not very impressive.

And if was an anti-evolutionist i could just look up some site copy and paste the answers here, change and add some words, like you did with the "how can" and call it my own words!

Fine...I refrenced scientific facts. What I was implying is that I composed the entire thing in my own words. Saying I did not "refrence" anything may be untrue but saying I wrote everything in my own words is absolutely true.

Not that this even matters. I said the one answering the questions must post the answer in their own words. I never said they can't "Reference" anything.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Fine...I refrenced scientific facts. What I was implying is that I composed the entire thing in my own words. Saying I did not "refrence" anything may be untrue but saying I wrote everything in my own words is absolutely true.

Not that this even matters. I said the one answering the questions must post the answer in their own words. I never said they can't "Reference" anything.

Seems to me he was pointing out your credibility which is about nil at this point!

[Johnny Apollo]

1. You did not put those paragraphs in "your own words" (did you take those pictures too?).

Actually i did put those paragraphs in my own words. EVERYTHING in that post was typed up by me.

2. No, I cannot answer because I don't have the time to research, but I do know that scientists are still trying to figure out how things came about. Despite what you post or link, you cannot unravel millions of years of CREATION and find an answer, I said this before and I'll say it again......NO ONE will ever figure out God perfect plan, it's entirely too complex.

You can't answer any of MY questions because you don't KNOW anything about evolution. That's the fact of the matter. You haven't done any research into biology so you have no basis of argument.


What I've posted are legit questions that I can answer with evolution but YOU can't answer with creationism. Pure and simple.

Now you answer my question. Why can you reference links and articals from non-Christian and athiests sites and you don't look at the Christan apologetics site? Like I said, some of those scientists are non-Christians. What makes your info credible and mine not......seems were at stalemate. True, I not very good at explaining BUT I have been studying for a long time. Like I said you're a test of my faith and my faith grows stronger with every post you write.

First of all..You expect me to answer your questions when you can't answer mine?  

Second of all..I never said you can't "Reference" sources. I said you can't copy-paste articles or links as responses. Referencing sources for claims you've made are totally different than what YOU do, Which is copy paste links you can't even explain as a reubttal. I've refuted SEVERAL of the articles you've posted and you never respond to them. That's why I insist on you putting arguments in your OWN WORDS.


I'm about done responding to your nonsense and evasions.

You know Johnny, the more I read your posts and threads and TRY to justify your actions and arguments the I realize that I really think you know there's something missing in your life. You are very distraught, angry and hateful individual! You know as well as I you cannot explain the complexities of this universe and how life came about, just like when scientists and Doctors cannot explain every detail of how the human body works!

Bla,Bla,Bla...More drug-store psychology from the guy who can't even answer a few simple questions about his beliefs.


Answer the questions or stop posting in my thread.

[Johnny Apollo]

I won't anyone bring this thread off-topic. I won't respond to anything else unless it pertains to the topic of the thread and answers my questions.

I know the creationists like Mr.Intenseone want to bring it off topic to avoid answering the questions but that isn't going to happen.



The sheer fact they can't even answer these questions as I've asked them in their own words PROVES they can't defend their illogical beliefs.


Watch.....The Anti-Evolutionists will post unrelated posts and avoid answering the questions throught this thread!

 They're so predictable!

[OzmO]

Not to be nit-picky again but.....

The sheer fact they can't even answer these questions as I've asked them in their own words PROVES they can't defend their illogical beliefs.

Based on the preceeding sentence to this quote, "they" is identifed as "creationists".  And becuase you used the word "the" before creationists then you would be talking about "all" the creationists.  And unitl all the creationists respond or do not respond in a lke manner you haven't proven anything.

But there is a point here outside of this nit-picky point.

All the facts of our origins have not been discovered yet.  And although i am not a creationist myself, it's careless and arrogantly irresponisble of us to draw firm conclusions when we don't have all the facts.

The logic here is simple. 

Here's are some far fetched examples that logically hold up:

#2 Just becuase we haven't found humans bones in dinasour's stomachs doesn't mean there aren't dinasours we haven't found yet with human bones in their stomachs.

#8 

The ONLY explanation is they evolved from a common ancestor who had the same ERV in their genome. How does a creationist explain this?

  Have we identified every speices and every ERV on earth yet?  NO. Until we do and see the complete picture of the their relationships we cannot say "ONLY" with 100% validity.

#12 From what i understand, they haven't found the missing link directly connecting  humans to apes.  Until they do we really can't say either way what happened.


Here are some logical examples that hold up if GOD really did what the creationists said GOD did.
RE:

#1  "Archaeopteryx"?  It's only obvious based on our interpretation or perhaps it was parts of God's creational development of species

#3  Perhaps radiometric dating is flawed.  Perhaps rediometric properties where something GOD created to test those of little faith, to seperate true believers from fake ones.  (If GOD is all powerful and knowing as he is said to be then he could do this)
#4  Maybe God decided he wanted a little contrast and similarity with the animls he placed everywhere.  (If GOD is all powerful and knowing as he is said to be then he could do this)
#5  Just becuase it fits perfectly with someone's else's conclusion doesn't 100% mean it is fact.  We weren't there when it happened.  BTW it also fits perfectly into the conclusion that a dark wizard did all of this.  Becuase he's got magic!  Or becuase GOD just did that on Saturdays.
#6  Perhaps when God made and developed these beings he didn't want to have to go back and redesign them so left them as is.
#7  God made the Ape first as a prototype and decided he didn't like all the hair and big nostrals.
#9  refer to #7
#10 God designed his creations to evolve from his/her point of creation forward.
#11 refer to #10

[Johnny Apollo]

All the facts of our origins have not been discovered yet.  And although i am not a creationist myself, it's careless and arrogantly irresponisble of us to draw firm conclusions when we don't have all the facts.

I'm not drawing conclusions on facts we don't know yet. I'm drawing conclusions on facts we DO know. I.E. evolution.

The logic here is simple. 

Here's are some far fetched examples that logically hold up:

#2 Just becuase we haven't found humans bones in dinasour's stomachs doesn't mean there aren't dinasours we haven't found yet with human bones in their stomachs.

True. But we have ZERO evidence showing humans lived alongside dinosaurs. This is a hard blow to the creationists. We should expect to find human bones in dinosaur stomachs. The claim wasn't "We don't so they didn't exist". The QUESTION is "Why don't we find them there?"
Pointing out bones not being found there so far doesn't prove they weren't there does not answer the question.

#8    Have we identified every speices and every ERV on earth yet?  NO. Until we do and see the complete picture of the their relationships we cannot say "ONLY" with 100% validity.

Identifying every species and ERV isn't required to prove common ancestory between to KNOWN species who have ERV codes in their genetics.

#12 From what i understand, they haven't found the missing link directly connecting  humans to apes.  Until they do we really can't say either way what happened.

What you understand is completly wrong.

Firstly humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans ARE apes.

Secondly there are plenty of links between humans and their non-human ancestors. Just ask for them and i'll provide them.

Here are some logical examples that hold up if GOD really did what the creationists said GOD did.
RE:

#1  "Archaeopteryx"?  It's only obvious based on our interpretation or perhaps it was parts of God's creational development of species.

This doesn't make sense. Unless creationists offer up another valid interpretation based on the facts it's useless to try to dismiss the one we have.

Archaeopteryx has what you call "homologus" traits between ancient reptiles and modern birds which no species alive today has. This implies it's a transitional fossil pure and simple.

#3  Perhaps radiometric dating is flawed.  Perhaps rediometric properties where something GOD created to test those of little faith, to seperate true believers from fake ones.  (If GOD is all powerful and knowing as he is said to be then he could do this)

Implying they are flawed without pointing out how doesn't prove anything. That's like saying "Perhaps 1+1=2 is flawed." Radio metric dating has proven it's accuracy over and over. Radio metric tests done on mummies where the ages were already known have yielded results showing the ages already known, Proving radiometric dating works just fine.

Implying God somehow rigged the process doesn't prove anything either. You need to PROVE he rigged radiometric dating. Unless you can the claims he did are what you call "baseless".

#4  Maybe God decided he wanted a little contrast and similarity with the animls he placed everywhere.  (If GOD is all powerful and knowing as he is said to be then he could do this)

This doesn't answer the question at all. The question was why don't we find mammals usually on oceanic islands? Saying "God wanted diversity" doesn't explain anything. Why no mammals on oceanic islands? Specifically?
Why is the Biota of Australia so different from the rest of the world while N.America so similar to asia and Africa(Fossil)?

#5  Just becuase it fits perfectly with someone's else's conclusion doesn't 100% mean it is fact.  We weren't there when it happened.  BTW it also fits perfectly into the conclusion that a dark wizard did all of this.  Becuase he's got magic!  Or becuase GOD just did that on Saturdays.

Ok...Learn a bit about science.

Not being there doesn't mean we can't figure out what happened. Do we need to be at a crime scene to know what happened there? Of course not. We have what's called "Evidence" left behind we can examine. The same goes for Evolution.

The fact it fits perfectly with evolution IS more proof for evolution. The fact creationism can't explain it is a blow to creationism.

Dark wizard? What dark wizard? how? When? Where? Why? Explain it all and give facts and evidence and tests supporting the explanations.

You can't..Evolution can!

#6  Perhaps when God made and developed these beings he didn't want to have to go back and redesign them so left them as is.

This makes no sense to me. How does this explain Vestigial structures?

Redesign them? Left them as is? According to Genesis God made all life at one instant and the life today is the same as the life during creation.

#7  God made the Ape first as a prototype and decided he didn't like all the hair and big nostrals.

This doesn't explain why humans have the same DNA makeup as chimps.

Similar DNA can only occur from ancestory. Only through relation.

#
#10 God designed his creations to evolve from his/her point of creation forward.

This makes no sense either. Designed his creations to evolve from the point he made them foward? So you're saying macro-evolution DOES occur?

[OzmO]

This reply will end up being too long.  I hope not. 

I'm not drawing conclusions on facts we don't know yet. I'm drawing conclusions on facts we DO know. I.E. evolution.

I have a ordinary plasitc Bic pen bought from a office supply store.  The reciept says i paid 29 cents for it.  Based on those facts that you DO know would you conclude the pen is worth $400?  Here are the facts you don't know.  It has 7 flawless 1 carat diamonds in it that are not stolen or belonging to anyone but whoever owns the pen.  Would you pay $400 for it now?   

That's the concept i'm talking about.  That's why often times true genius comes for the ablility to pursue something that's not apparently there;  i.e. a fact yet undiscovered.

True. But we have ZERO evidence showing humans lived alongside dinosaurs. This is a hard blow to the creationists. We should expect to find human bones in dinosaur stomachs. The claim wasn't "We don't so they didn't exist". The QUESTION is "Why don't we find them there?"
Pointing out bones not being found there so far doesn't prove they weren't there does not answer the question.

What is the percentage of bones and fossils we have found to TOTAL amount of dinasours that roamed the earth?  VERY SMALL i'm sure and certainly not enough to draw water tight conclusions from. 

But Johnny, the stomach thing is not the point, again it's the concept/assertion i'm talking about.

Secondly there are plenty of links between humans and their non-human ancestors. Just ask for them and i'll provide them

Are you talking about our reptilian past?

I'd like to see that for my own information.

Please remember Johnny, I'm not a creationist

This doesn't make sense. Unless creationists offer up another valid interpretation based on the facts it's useless to try to dismiss the one we have.

Archaeopteryx has what you call "homologus" traits between ancient reptiles and modern birds which no species alive today has. This implies it's a transitional fossil pure and simple.

Perhaps you may or may not agree that we think linier-ly and perhaps our concept of time is restricted only the capacity we can understand it.  this transition with Gods power could have been done in a blink of eye in the process of his creation and developement of this species.

Implying they are flawed without pointing out how doesn't prove anything. That's like saying "Perhaps 1+1=2 is flawed."

I was told once that a calculus major can prove 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2. 

What "it" is, is what "it" is whether we prove it or not.  Becuase haven't proven it yet does mean it's not a fact. 

Ok...Learn a bit about science.

Not being there doesn't mean we can't figure out what happened. Do we need to be at a crime scene to know what happened there? Of course not. We have what's called "Evidence" left behind we can examine. The same goes for Evolution.

The fact it fits perfectly with evolution IS more proof for evolution. The fact creationism can't explain it is a blow to creationism.

Dark wizard? What dark wizard? how? When? Where? Why? Explain it all and give facts and evidence and tests supporting the explanations.

You can't..Evolution can!

An explanation in it's self doesn't always guarantee the truth no matter how many facts back it up.  I'm sure in the last 100 years there have been many times they had to re-think conclusions that were seemly based on air-tight evidence forcing them to change their conclusions.  For example the DSR or DSM (i'm not sure that's the name, but it's the book they list and catagorize all the psychological conditions and behaviors in.  Aspergers Syndrome comes to mind as a recent discovery that was always considered, based on facts and conclusions, to be autism.  People who were suffering form A.S. were treated as if they had autism when now they have concluded based on further study and revelation of facts to be a seperatre condition.)  Evolution is not that air tight.

This doesn't explain why humans have the same DNA makeup as chimps.

How much different is a 2004 Honda Civic from a 2005 Honda Civic?

This makes no sense either. Designed his creations to evolve from the point he made them foward? Huh So you're saying macro-evolution DOES occur?

I'm only providing a creationist view based on the high possibility of drawing incorrect conclusions on incomplete evidence.

I personally believe in evolution.  But not man's evolution from apes...  or that we are apes.  although i've been called an ape before...lol

[Johnny Apollo]

This reply will end up being too long.  I hope not. 

I have a ordinary plasitc Bic pen bought from a office supply store.  The reciept says i paid 29 cents for it.  Based on those facts that you DO know would you conclude the pen is worth $400?  Here are the facts you don't know.  It has 7 flawless 1 carat diamonds in it that are not stolen or belonging to anyone but whoever owns the pen.  Would you pay $400 for it now?

That's a terrible compairson. How does this relate in anyway to our knowledge of evolution?   

You're insinuating we're missing some major aspect of our knowledge of evolution..What would that be?

ALL of the facts we have point directly to common descent.

Your compairson makes no sense.

That's the concept i'm talking about.  That's why often times true genius comes for the ablility to pursue something that's not apparently there;  i.e. a fact yet undiscovered.

What the hell does that mean?

What is the percentage of bones and fossils we have found to TOTAL amount of dinasours that roamed the earth?  VERY SMALL i'm sure and certainly not enough to draw water tight conclusions from. 

Very small. However we CAN draw many conclusions even with a small amount of fossils. Including evolution.

We can't construct every single phylogeny in history but we CAN conclude that life as it is today evolved from life as it was in the distant past.(Common descent)

Are you talking about our reptilian past?

I'd like to see that for my own information.

Please remember Johnny, I'm not a creationist

I'm talking about humans ancestors who are primates starting with ramidus to sapien.

Ardipithecus ramidus Start
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens End

Everything inbetween is a transitional fossil.

Perhaps you may or may not agree that we think linier-ly and perhaps our concept of time is restricted only the capacity we can understand it.  this transition with Gods power could have been done in a blink of eye in the process of his creation and developement of this species.

This makes no sense to me.

I was told once that a calculus major can prove 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2. 

You were told wrong.

A quantity of 1 and another quanity of 1 always makes a quantity of 2. Period.

What "it" is, is what "it" is whether we prove it or not.  Becuase haven't proven it yet does mean it's not a fact.

 
We've proven 1+1=2 and we've proven evolution.

An explanation in it's self doesn't always guarantee the truth no matter how many facts back it up.  I'm sure in the last 100 years there have been many times they had to re-think conclusions that were seemly based on air-tight evidence forcing them to change their conclusions.  For example the DSR or DSM (i'm not sure that's the name, but it's the book they list and catagorize all the psychological conditions and behaviors in.  Aspergers Syndrome comes to mind as a recent discovery that was always considered, based on facts and conclusions, to be autism.  People who were suffering form A.S. were treated as if they had autism when now they have concluded based on further study and revelation of facts to be a seperatre condition.)  Evolution is not that air tight.

I'm not simply explaing evolution..I'm PROVING it. Your lack of scientific education limits you from understanding my proofs. ERV's for instance PROVE common descent which PROVES evolution happened. Period. Point simple blank.

Pointing out scientists made mistakes about other areas of science doesn't say a thing about evolution.

No one said science is perfect. I never claimed that.

I also never claimed we know everything about how evolution occurs.

All I said was Evolution(common descent) is a fact. It happened.

How much different is a 2004 Honda Civic from a 2005 Honda Civic?

I have no idea. Humans aren't Honda's.

The fact that Humans and Chimps have 98% similar DNA proves they are RELATED which proves we came from the same ancestors. There is no other possibility for humans and chimps to have the same DNA unless we evolved from common ancestors.

Also no other possibility for us to have the same ERV's unless we evolved from the same ancestors.

I'm only providing a creationist view based on the high possibility of drawing incorrect conclusions on incomplete evidence.

Your view and the Creationist view is flawed. The evidence supporting evolution as a fact is compairable to the evidence supporting the Earth revolves around the Sun!

Do you question that too?

I personally believe in evolution.  But not man's evolution from apes...  or that we are apes.  although i've been called an ape before...lol

Humans didn't evolve from modern apes...I won't say it again.

Humans are apes scientifically speaking.

By scientific definition an "Ape" is any species that belongs to the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. HOMO SAPIENS belong to the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Humans=Apes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans.

[OzmO]

That's a terrible compairson. How does this relate in anyway to our knowledge of evolution?   

You're insinuating we're missing some major aspect of our knowledge of evolution..What would that be?

ALL of the facts we have point directly to common descent.

Your compairson makes no sense

It's a great comparison (Pen) .

The major aspect of evolution we might be missing could be GOD

And yes the facts point that way(evolution).  But NOT conclusively especially in man's case.

That's why often times true genius comes for the ablility to pursue something that's not apparently there;  i.e. a fact yet undiscovered.

Hunches, ever heard of them?  (pen)

also,

I'm pretty sure i'm right about the calculus thing.  But i can be mistaken (pen).

And the stomach thing is an example of flawed logic!  I'm not saying dinasours roamed the earth with humans!  that's dumb!  but it makes entertaining movies! 

I'm not simply explaing evolution..I'm PROVING it. Your lack of scientific education limits you from understanding my proofs.

Such an arrogant answer  hahaha.  The world is not as black and white as you'd like it to be or as plastic and predictable as a pen. 

All science is based on our 5 senses.  If we can't see it, hear it, feel it taste it or touch it, science tells us it doesn't exsist (pen).  Very limited.  very 1-deminsional, very white.  Sorry had to throw that last one in there     Johnny you are not proving anyting, you are just making a conclusion based on a limited amount of facts.  It's not a bad conclusion.  But it is NOT proof.

I believe much more exsist (pen).

I believe there is much more to the evolution story.

Pointing out scientists made mistakes about other areas of science doesn't say a thing about evolution.

That says everything about evolution and all of science.  It's faulty and ever changing.  When some scientist says it can't be done you can bet someday it will be done.  Much of what we thought with absolute certainty 100 years is bogus now.  What will be bogus 100 years from now? The commonly accpeted process of evolution, common descent, might be bogus (pen).  It's not air tight.  Something eles might have heppend.  As a "smart" person, for a minute, take your emotion out of this.  You know it's a possibility.


P.S.  How many design aspects are exactly the same on a 2004 vs a 2005 Honda.  probably 98%


 

[ToxicAvenger]

Why is it you can reference from an non-Christian and athiest site and we can't use Christian sites? Some of their theories are from secular scientists!

BTW, don't tell us what we can and cannot do, I don't take orders from racist, communtists. Before I became a Christian I would regularly beat the crap out people like you.....skin heads!

how is he racist and communist?

actually communism works pretty good on paper...fails in real life though

[Johnny Apollo]

It's a great comparison (Pen) .

The major aspect of evolution we might be missing could be GOD

And yes the facts point that way(evolution).  But NOT conclusively especially in man's case.

First of all. There is ZERO evidence that we're missing anything. Let alone a "God" in the picture of Evolution. OCcams razor. When an explanation already fits perfectly don't add new aspects to it. Adding "God" to the picture wouldn't logically make any sense.

Second of all...Evolution DOES point absolutely to mans case. It points to ALL life evolving. You can't just accept evolution without acceping humans evolved too. Doesn't work that way. I've already provided the transitional species of humans and you ignored them.

Hunches, ever heard of them?  (pen)

also,

I'm pretty sure i'm right about the calculus thing.  But i can be mistaken (pen).

And the stomach thing is an example of flawed logic!  I'm not saying dinasours roamed the earth with humans!  that's dumb!  but it makes entertaining movies!

My qustion was "IF dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans, WHY don't we find human bones in dinosaur stomachs?" I'm not making any claims here all i'm doing is asking a question which you couldn't answer.


 

Such an arrogant answer  hahaha.  The world is not as black and white as you'd like it to be or as plastic and predictable as a pen. 

All science is based on our 5 senses.  If we can't see it, hear it, feel it taste it or touch it, science tells us it doesn't exsist (pen).  Very limited.  very 1-deminsional, very white.  Sorry had to throw that last one in there     Johnny you are not proving anyting, you are just making a conclusion based on a limited amount of facts.  It's not a bad conclusion.  But it is NOT proof.

I believe much more exsist (pen).

I believe there is much more to the evolution story.

First of all...Science is NOT limited by our senses.

Can you "sense" radio waves with your 5 senses? Absolutely not! However with technology we can detect them. Can you sense X-rays? Gamma rays? Or any other parts of the non-visible electromagnetic spectrum? Absolutely not!
Saying our knowledge of science is limited to our 5 senses might of flied 300 years ago, But TODAY that's blatantly false.

Secondly..You CLAIM i'm making bad conclusions based on limited facts but you won't prove how. What facts are limited? How are my conclusions bad? Explain yourself.

That says everything about evolution and all of science.  It's faulty and ever changing.  When some scientist says it can't be done you can bet someday it will be done.  Much of what we thought with absolute certainty 100 years is bogus now.  What will be bogus 100 years from now? The commonly accpeted process of evolution, common descent, might be bogus (pen).  It's not air tight.  Something eles might have heppend.  As a "smart" person, for a minute, take your emotion out of this.  You know it's a possibility.

You aren't proving anything. CLAIMING evolution isn't "airtight" without providing evidence showing how it isn't airtight proves absolutely nothing.

The mountains of evidence which prove evolution can't be ignored. You obviously aren't even aware of how much evidence supports it so you keep claiming it isn't "airtight". That's like not knowing anything about math(Which you don't) and saying 1+1=2 isnt airtight(which you did). Which in and of itself is pretty funny.

As i've mentioned before..Evidence supporting evolution...More added.

Endogenous retroviruses

Redundant pseudogenes

DNA functionality

Genetic similarity

Molecular function

Molecular convergence

Transitional forms

Nested hierarchies

Anatomical vestiges

These are all observed facts of science. Nothing theoretical about them. The ONLY explanation that exists explaining these events is Evolution as proposed by Darwin. Not only is that the only explanation, It's the explanation supported by the observations(Observed speciation). It's the explanation that makes the predictions. It's the explanation all of the experiments support.

In short...Evolution being a fact is compairable to the Earth spinning around the Sun being a fact.

P.S.  How many design aspects are exactly the same on a 2004 vs a 2005 Honda.  probably 98%

So?

[Colossus_500]

1. You did not put those paragraphs in "your own words" (did you take those pictures too?).

2. No, I cannot answer because I don't have the time to research, but I do know that scientists are still trying to figure out how things came about. Despite what you post or link, you cannot unravel millions of years of CREATION and find an answer, I said this before and I'll say it again......NO ONE will ever figure out God perfect plan, it's entirely too complex.

Now you answer my question. Why can you reference links and articals from non-Christian and athiests sites and you don't look at the Christan apologetics site? Like I said, some of those scientists are non-Christians. What makes your info credible and mine not......seems were at stalemate. True, I not very good at explaining BUT I have been studying for a long time. Like I said you're a test of my faith and my faith grows stronger with every post you write.

You know Johnny, the more I read your posts and threads and TRY to justify your actions and arguments the I realize that I really think you know there's something missing in your life. You are very distraught, angry and hateful individual! You know as well as I you cannot explain the complexities of this universe and how life came about, just like when scientists and Doctors cannot explain every detail of how the human body works!

Good post.

[Johnny Apollo]

Good post.

If a "good post" is a completly false one that I refuted...Then sure..it was a great post!

[Mr. Intenseone]

If a "good post" is a completly false one that I refuted...Then sure..it was a great post!

Just because you think you can refute it does not mean it's false......Idiot (I use that in the Biblical term )!

[Colossus_500]

If a "good post" is a completly false one that I refuted...Then sure..it was a great post!

Johnny, just because you "say" you've refuted something, doesn't mean you've you actually done so.      Why do you claim to win these debates when they continue on?  Who has conceded anything to you about your beliefs?  At best, all you've done is disagree. 

[Johnny Apollo]

Johnny, just because you "say" you've refuted something, doesn't mean you've you actually done so.      Why do you claim to win these debates when they continue on?  Who has conceded anything to you about your beliefs?  At best, all you've done is disagree. 

More proof you have reading comprehension problems.


You didn't read or even address my post so you have NO GROUNDS to say I haven't proven anything. In short...Your claims are completly baseless.


An argument can be won without people agreeing i'm right. That's like someone proving that the earth revolves around the sun and someone else disagreeing. It doesn't matter if the one disagreeing agrees he's wrong or not.


Answer my questions.

[OzmO]

First of all. There is ZERO evidence that we're missing anything.

That's almost too funny to reply to!

If you missed something how would you know?  You don't, that's why you missed it!

I getting the idea that you really are very 1 dimensional.  Science tells me i may be wrong.  heheh

In many ways you are just like a creationist who will not let go of an old idea.  And the 14th century idea you juast sited: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."  The "God" idea seems much more simple than your claim of science. 

The reaction of baking soda mixed with vinegar is unreffutable.  The THEORY of evolution is very refuttable.

You still don't get the dinisour thing dude.  I'm beginning to think i might need to draw a picture for you.

First of all...Science is NOT limited by our senses.

Can you "sense" radio waves with your 5 senses? Absolutely not! However with technology we can detect them. Can you sense X-rays? Gamma rays? Or any other parts of the non-visible electromagnetic spectrum? Absolutely not!
Saying our knowledge of science is limited to our 5 senses might of flied 300 years ago, But TODAY that's blatantly false.

Secondly..You CLAIM i'm making bad conclusions based on limited facts but you won't prove how. What facts are limited? How are my conclusions bad? Explain yourself.

We have made machines to "see" these things.  Are there things we cannot see and cannot measure with our technology, present or future?  I think so.  Any good scientist would agree to the possibility and such understand the potential need to rethink past conclusions and NOT arrogantly hold on to them.

[Johnny Apollo]

That's almost too funny to reply to!

If you missed something how would you know?  You don't, that's why you missed it!

I getting the idea that you really are very 1 dimensional.  Science tells me i may be wrong.  heheh

 

We'd know we're missing something because of the gaps and inconsistencies in our explanations. There aren't any gaps or inconsistencies.

In many ways you are just like a creationist who will not let go of an old idea.  And the 14th century idea you juast sited: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."  The "God" idea seems much more simple than your claim of science.

Occam's razor doesn't say the "simplest" explanation is the best. It says the explanation that requires fewer ASSUMPTIONS is the best. "God did it" requires a ton of unproven assumptions. "Evolution" requires zero assumptions since everything is proven by experiments and evidence.

The reaction of baking soda mixed with vinegar is unreffutable.  The THEORY of evolution is very refuttable.

So refute it!!!! 

You still don't get the dinisour thing dude.  I'm beginning to think i might need to draw a picture for you.

I'm getting it perfectly clear. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Let ME make it clear for you.

1.I asked WHY there weren't any dinosaurs with human bones in their stomachs.

2.You said that the fact we didn't find any doesn't prove there weren't any.

3.I Responded by saying I never made that claim and was simply asking a question.

4.You've yet to answer it.

We have made machines to "see" these things.  Are there things we cannot see and cannot measure with our technology, present or future?  I think so.  Any good scientist would agree to the possibility and such understand the potential need to rethink past conclusions and NOT arrogantly hold on to them.

First of all..You made the claim that we're limited by our senses. This is false as i've pointed out. We can detected things WITHOUT our senses by using technology. I.E. radio waves.

Second of all. I NEVER said that there aren't things that we don't know about yet. Don't put words in my mouth.



And BTW....Stop skipping over all of my points I made. You're dancing around my refutations.

[Colossus_500]

More proof you have reading comprehension problems.


You didn't read or even address my post so you have NO GROUNDS to say I haven't proven anything. In short...Your claims are completly baseless.


An argument can be won without people agreeing i'm right. That's like someone proving that the earth revolves around the sun and someone else disagreeing. It doesn't matter if the one disagreeing agrees he's wrong or not.


Answer my questions.

I think you're the one that's not comprehending, bro.  No one seems to agree with you. You have not proved your arguments against God's existence.  Then you get upset and pout, "no one can prove that God exists or doesn't exist, but I've refuted....yadayadayada and on and on you go."  Yet you continuously claim that God doesn't exist or that Christianity is a hoax.  Christianity is not about religion.  Christianity=Relationship.  So, for all the scientific verbage you spew, you've not once touched the issues of the above equation (Christian=Relationship).  You have not answered my challenge in proving this to be untrue.  Nor can you.

Lastly, if you've refuted everything there is to argue, why are you still here?  Why do you continue to be so agitated in these debates?  It's my belief (and I think I can speak for quite a few others) that you are frustrated in your efforts.