Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Ziggy Stardust]

So Classical. I was going to make a large post, but instead I want to ask you a question.

Look at the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution you reject. Now look at the evidence you presented in favour of man and dinosaur living together.

If an 'evolutionist' would present the level of evidence you present for this case, you'd laugh at him, and I'd join you. What I just cannot grasp is the incredibly large gap between the scepticism you have towards anything that might conflict with the life-philosophy you happened to adopt, and the readiness to accept anything that supports it, however ridiculous it is.

Look at what you present as evidence for man and dinosaur living together. Now use that same criteria for man and minotaur living together, man and chimera living together, man and kraken living together, do I need to go on? Do paintings of centaurs or other mythical hybrid creatures mean that according to creation God dabbled with the idea of combining the perfect lifeforms it just created into different ones? You accept paintings as accurate representations of history, but reject tangible real-life, 3D, rockhard (for once not trying to upset mr. Dictator) evidence.

How do you justify that?

Ziggy, you are my hero

Wow. Way to much pressure Too bad some masked bastard already took the 'Z'

 

[emzie]

Creationists consider internal affirmation to be evidence, and it's not really something you can argue against. The smartest of them will say evolution is a logical possibility given the evidence, but will then go on to reject it due to their faith. I actually respect that, as long as they keep their unprovable ideas away from the class room.

 

[civ2]

Antilogic
I myself mentioned bacteria in post #516.
And also said it's a bad example cause you can't know whether they could it beforehand.
And I also asked about multicellular examples, with persistent mutations that carry over many generations and also are obviously discernible.
Provided we have millions of insect species - why there's no insect with 8 legs or 6 wings (or at least 4 legs, as easy as it could be)???
They "could" have gradually evolved by accumulating random mutations.

classical
Nice point about "fast fossilization".
Someone posted today that with it you can actually have dinos living just before the Flood, literally.
Also, it's a good point that there are millions of species in the world, yet none of them "macro evolved" during last 200+ years.
Even though it meant thousands of generations for some of them.

Truronian
I repeat again - NO.
Or if yes, then the entire idea of drastic changes is bs.
Why?
Cause you either have obvious changes or you don't.
Giraffes did NOT grew longer necks by reaching for higher leaves.
(I know this was "old story", but the example is good.)
What happened to all those numerous "short necked" giraffes???
Died out of hunger???
Oh, really???
No grass for them, or bushes???
You see, another problem with evolution that I didn't yet mention (not deeply at least) is "what happened to ALL those endless side branches".
There are quite many very "specific" animals that don't have too many close "relatives" if any.
So how come THEY survived and their neighbors did NOT???
Another point, yet.
Why don't we see ANY example of those "half-evolved" limbs anywhere???
Everything is ALREADY fully working.
We have such a huge variety of features in animals, but yet NO feature is "useless", but rather ALL animals are FULLY fit for survival.
IF evolution is true (and ongoing), there MUST be species dying out right now.
And without the "help" of humans.
I disagree that dodo was killed by evolution, it was purely human effort, though a bit indirectly.
I'm totally sure that if not for human invaders that brought with them rats and pigs, dodo could've lived happily until now.
So, do you know of ANY species NOT being hunted down to small numbers and YET extincting???
About Asia, moon, etc.
I have first-hand evidence that it is totally provable.
So even if I never saw a kiwi, but I saw someone who saw someone... who actually saw it.
Now, WHO saw a dinosaur???

contre
1. I already said I dismissed evolution way back in school, for the same reasons that I constantly repeat - unprovable, thus assumption.
2. I don't see any evidence of large-scale evolution, and I never denied the small-scale one.
3. And, no, Truronian, micro and macro are NOT the same. Micro is basically all about adaptation and breeding, while macro is about new classes.

 

[Tarquelne]

The smartest of them will say evolution is a logical possibility given the evidence, but will then go on to reject it due to their faith.

Heh. I did something vaguely similar in a big (as in, something like half the grade) political philosophy(ish) paper once. I got an A-----.

 

[Arakhor]

You know, I'm sure you meant "Now, WHO saw a dinosaur???" to be a massive tour de force for your "team", but I'm not seeing its relevance at all.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Dinosaurs living right before the flood? What? Aren't you yourself arguing for a literal interpretation of the bible, which states that Noah took 2 (or possibly 7, or possibly both, depending on which contradictory passage you choose you cite) of every animal onto his ark? I don't recall a passage that said "he took 2 of every animal, except this huge group over here, which God decided to wipe out for no apparent reason." There's no getting around this, you either have a literal interpretation of the bible, which doesn't mention extinct species AT ALL, or you have a non literal interpretation, in which case dinosaurs could very well have been alive long before God created Adam. You don't get to pick and choose which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Look at what you present as evidence for man and dinosaur living together. Now use that same criteria for man and minotaur living together, man and chimera living together, man and kraken living together

Or better yet, let's look at the evidence of Dinosaurs and man still living together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe
There is more credible evidence of man co-existing with Dinosaurs now then there is of man co-existing with dinosaurs 5,000 years ago.
Second, the drawings of 'dinosaurs' on the Bishop's tomb does not aid the story of Genesis much at all. In fact it would discredit it, because this would seem to suggest there is a non-biblical source of knowledge dating to the age of dinosaurs that survived the flood, which would mean that one engraver in the entire world discovered and translated a text that Noah had on his ship, or that the flood did not happen as it did in Genesis.
The Egyptian Mossaic raises similar problems. Even if we accept that a crocodile-leopard is a dinosaur (and not a crocodile-leopard) then this means the Egyptian had a more accurate understanding of the past then the Isrealites, and to an entirely extra-biblical source of this knowledge, as it's unlikely they'd be accepting anything from Noah.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also, it's a good point that there are millions of species in the world, yet none of them "macro evolved" during last 200+ years.

I am Ziggy's grinning gazely stare.

Creationists consider internal affirmation to be evidence, and it's not really something you can argue against. The smartest of them will say evolution is a logical possibility given the evidence, but will then go on to reject it due to their faith. I actually respect that, as long as they keep their unprovable ideas away from the class room.

Absolutely. It's worth noting that those guys who keep their personal believes to themselves and probably are hesitant in expressing them are completely disregarded due to the nature of having a discussion.

@Park, good point.

 

[Truronian]

civ2,

There are only so many times I can explain that what you are saying about evolution is self-contradicting and incorrect in its use of terminology. You don't seem particularly interested in learning about evolution, nor do you seem to understand it at a basic level. If you ever want to talk about evolution and are willing to listen to what's presented to you, let me know as I find it fascinating. As it stands I don't think what I'm saying seems to be getting through in any particular way, which is why I'm done with this thread for now.

Cheers.

 

[timtofly]

Dinosaurs living right before the flood? What? Aren't you yourself arguing for a literal interpretation of the bible, which states that Noah took 2 (or possibly 7, or possibly both, depending on which contradictory passage you choose you cite) of every animal onto his ark? I don't recall a passage that said "he took 2 of every animal, except this huge group over here, which God decided to wipe out for no apparent reason." There's no getting around this, you either have a literal interpretation of the bible, which doesn't mention extinct species AT ALL, or you have a non literal interpretation, in which case dinosaurs could very well have been alive long before God created Adam. You don't get to pick and choose which parts are to be taken literally and which aren't.

He did not say that the flood wiped them out. He just said they were in "abundance" when the flood occured. Noah literally took in every creature that a. God commanded. b. God sent him. or c. he was able to find. The ark did contain all three possibilities. Noah did not disobey God and left an animal behind. Noah could not intentionally forget some animals if God sent all of them. All the animals Noah found were in the ark.

Seems to me that when people hear of Noah, that he was selective and that every creature that was in the ark is the exact same creature that we can account for today. Noah did not keep a record in the ark of every animal that lived before, during, or that did not survive in the 350 years after they were saved. The potential for salvation was there, but the actual account was not written down as to exactly what happened after the flood. Actually no where does the Bible say that mankind was not allowed to wipe out whole groups of animals to preserve their history for all time. Extinction does happen. He did allow for 2 of all and 7 of some (Noah and his family had to eat) to replenish the earth at that point. It was by no means a guarantee that extinction would not happen.

Or better yet, let's look at the evidence of Dinosaurs and man still living together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe
There is more credible evidence of man co-existing with Dinosaurs now then there is of man co-existing with dinosaurs 5,000 years ago.
Second, the drawings of 'dinosaurs' on the Bishop's tomb does not aid the story of Genesis much at all. In fact it would discredit it, because this would seem to suggest there is a non-biblical source of knowledge dating to the age of dinosaurs that survived the flood, which would mean that one engraver in the entire world discovered and translated a text that Noah had on his ship, or that the flood did not happen as it did in Genesis.
The Egyptian Mossaic raises similar problems. Even if we accept that a crocodile-leopard is a dinosaur (and not a crocodile-leopard) then this means the Egyptian had a more accurate understanding of the past then the Isrealites, and to an entirely extra-biblical source of this knowledge, as it's unlikely they'd be accepting anything from Noah.

It seems that the Egyptian Mossaic was not a record of history, but what happened during a normal day of hunting. Would interpreting it as something that actually happened on any given day, be more logical than that it was a representation of Egyptian history? Has man's attention span decreased that much? Humans live in the here and now, and generally make "records" of the here and now.

Even Americans with their instant "gotta have it now" mentality spent almost 10 years in a mindless war. But to draw a mosaic of the last ten years would not include bows and arrows unless, bows and arrows had actually been used.

Why does the mention of dinosaur immediately conjure up the thought "millions of years ago", when the term itself is not even 200 years old? Art is either an imagination or an example of real life. Unfortunetely unless the artist "specifies" only they can tell which is which. Any other interpretation is assumption which is open to proof and human logic.

 

[emzie]

He did not say that the flood wiped them out. He just said they were in "abundance" when the flood occured. Noah literally took in every creature that a. God commanded. b. God sent him. or c. he was able to find. The ark did contain all three possibilities. Noah did not disobey God and left an animal behind. Noah could not intentionally forget some animals if God sent all of them. All the animals Noah found were in the ark.

Where were the parasitic animals kept? What about the ones who end up killing their host? What about the ones who go through a complicated life cycle in multiple different hosts?

 

[civ2]

Truronian
Dude, don't take it personally.
Yet, I disagree that it's me who doesn't understand terms.
The truth is, I disagree with the way they are used.
While I speak of changes in "quantity" (be it color or size or even small internal changes, but with the same general body structure; eg. dog breeds) which I call micro vs "quality" (totally new features or organs that were not present in the ancestor; eg. fish into frog) which I call macro (btw, such use reflects the names much more - big changes vs small changes).
So, actually I just consider the "scientific" way of using them to be a "loophole" for joining together real changes with the assumed ones.
Sorry, but it's how I see it.

 

[Akka]

Where were the parasitic animals kept? What about the ones who end up killing their host? What about the ones who go through a complicated life cycle in multiple different hosts?

Why are you even bothering about trying to explain how such a ridiculously laughable idiocy as the Noah's Ark is absurd ? If something doesn't get it by himself, it means he's just so dead-set WANTING to believe it that no amount of evidence will make him change his mind.

 

[emzie]

Why are you even bothering about trying to explain how such a ridiculously laughable idiocy as the Noah's Ark is absurd ? If something doesn't get it by himself, it means he's just so dead-set WANTING to believe it that no amount of evidence will make him change his mind.

I'm entertaining myself now.

 

[useless]

Truronian
Dude, don't take it personally.
Yet, I disagree that it's me who doesn't understand terms.
The truth is, I disagree with the way they are used.
While I speak of changes in "quantity" (be it color or size or even small internal changes, but with the same general body structure; eg. dog breeds) which I call micro vs "quality" (totally new features or organs that were not present in the ancestor; eg. fish into frog) which I call macro (btw, such use reflects the names much more - big changes vs small changes).
So, actually I just consider the "scientific" way of using them to be a "loophole" for joining together real changes with the assumed ones.
Sorry, but it's how I see it.

You continiously ask for more and more evidence, yet when given it you ignore it.

When you go to museums and see all the bones of the dinosaurs and other long-dead creatures, do you think they're fake or do you outright deny they exist?

I mean, bones, fossils, etc do exist of these creatures. They aren't conjured up.

 

[timtofly]

Where were the parasitic animals kept? What about the ones who end up killing their host? What about the ones who go through a complicated life cycle in multiple different hosts?

When was creation finished?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You continiously ask for more and more evidence, yet when given it you ignore it.

When you go to museums and see all the bones of the dinosaurs and other long-dead creatures, do you think they're fake or do you outright deny they exist?

I mean, bones, fossils, etc do exist of these creatures. They aren't conjured up.

no one thinks dinosaurs are fake.

 

[civ2]

Again, as useless as it can be.
I continuously ask for OUR DAYS examples, that were OBSERVED to take place.
Not some BONES that must be speculated on, as of what actually happened to them.
I already said before, how do you know they weren't victims of radiation or bone diseases, but rather healthy examples of new species???
I don't say there wasn't that specific animal - all I say is, how do you know you can rely on it???
Yet, scientists take these bones (usually rather incomplete skeletons too) for granted and then start making huge assumptions out of it.
Now, who's unrealistic - me or them???

 

[useless]

What you ask of is literally impossible.

These creatures are dead, they no longer live, they have snuffed it.

They are extint, they no longer exist.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I already said before, how do you know they weren't victims of radiation or bone diseases, but rather healthy examples of new species???

Occam's Razor. Such disfiguring bone conditions are EXTREMELY rare, occuring in a TINY percentage of individuals of a given species. If you want to argue that all of the fossils we have are such cases, you are the one that has to prove it, since your hypothesis is astronomically less likely than ours.