Kansas finds sanity again

**Ice** · 08-08-2006, 00:49

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

And more specifically, this to counter the evolutionists, from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati a distinguished scientist and creationist.

I read about half of that then got sick because it really wasn't proving anything. All it was doing was saying how animals mutated and changed (AKA evolved) in current day creatures. All this is is microevolution.

To point one thing out towards the beginning. It says that non living chemicals organized themselves into a self reproducing being. It is very possible though, that an organic carrying comet smashed in primival earth and laid the spark that was necessary to jump the nucleotides, RNA, and amino acids present into a living organism. Another possible explanation is the Miller, Urel Experiment.

Conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey; the first experiment to test the Oparin-Haldane Theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth. A mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to simulate the version of Earth's primitive, reducing atmosphere proposed by Oparin, was introduced into a 5-liter flask and energized by an electrical discharge apparatus to represent ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The products were allowed to condense and collect in a lower flask which modeled a body of water on the Earth's surface. Heat supplied to this flask recycled the water vapor just as water evaporates from lakes and seas, before moving into the atmosphere and condensing again as rain. After a day of continuous operation, Miller and Urey found a thin layer of hydrocarbons on the surface of the water. After about a week of operation, a dark brown scum had collected in the lower flask and was found to contain several types of amino acids, including glycine and alanine, together with sugars, tars, and various other unidentified organic chemicals.

Finally, I can not take anything seriously that has this written in it:

Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the biblical creation model. Critics doubt that all of today’s species could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.8 Darwin’s finches show that it need not take very long for new species to arise.9

**Ice** · 08-08-2006, 01:04

You guys have got me going now. I just fished, out of my closet, my college level biology notes from last semester.

EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION (Aka an ape turning into a human)

1. Fossil Record- Arrange oldest to most recent and see a progressive change.
Radioactive dating- Makes fossil record more accurate. Calculate age of fossil by the amount of a radioactive istope decayed.

2. Molecular Record- Study DNA sequences or protetin structures. More similarity means more closely related. Common Ancestry. Ex: Cytochrome C. Found in most organisms.

3. Homology- Structures derived from a common ancestor. Ex: Vertebrate Forelimbs.

4. Development- Similaries in enbro development imply common ancestry.

5. Vestigial Structures- Structures with no appremt function that resemble structures of a presumed ancestor.

6. Parellel Adaptation- Plants and animals, though far apart, evolve similar characterisics if in similar environments. EX: marsupial mammals vs north american mammals.

7. Patterns of distrubution- animals on neighboring isalnds similar to another, but have slight differences. (Adaptations to their environment) Ex: darwin's Finches.

**wolftrapper78** · 08-08-2006, 02:03

Ice,
None of this is evidence of MACROevolution.

1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here

2. and 3. These do not showevidence for macroevolution. They are most definitely up to interpretation because to the creationist, me, they show evidence of a common designer, mainly the God of the Bible.

4. Has been debunked for years. Yet it is still shown in textbooks as facts. See Here

5. Vestigal organs have uses. See here

6. and 7. Both are evidence of microevolution and as such are not evidence of macroevolution. Natural selection is observable and therefore no scientist would ever try to say that it doesn't happen. But even though this does happen it in no way proves 'goo to you' or 'fish to philosopher' or 'molecules to man' evolution.

These are the same old tired 'evidences' of evolution and don't prove macroevolution at all.

**Papewaio** · 08-08-2006, 02:10

Why are you guys even talking about MACROevolution? Its like saying MACROgravity? You are already playing into the mindset of the obtuse.

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Ice,

1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here

Evolution is not 'progressive' things can get bigger, smaller, faster, slower, smarter, dumber. Evolution is the change in the frequency of an organism, the vehicle for this change are genes.

So there is no reason that Neanderthals having a larger brain then humans disproves evolution anymore then men having a larger brain then women disproves that women can multitask better then men.

**Big_John** · 08-08-2006, 02:17

you have to admit, pape, macrogravity is pretty cool.

**wolftrapper78** · 08-08-2006, 02:25

Are you calling me obtuse, Papewaio?

Now, I sure am sorry. I thought about coming on as obtuse, but then I decided against it and, wouldn't you know it, I ended up coming on obtuse anyways. I hate it when that happens.

**Papewaio** · 08-08-2006, 02:48

Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.

It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.

**Ice** · 08-08-2006, 02:49

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Ice,
None of this is evidence of MACROevolution.

1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here

2. and 3. These do not showevidence for macroevolution. They are most definitely up to interpretation because to the creationist, me, they show evidence of a common designer, mainly the God of the Bible.

4. Has been debunked for years. Yet it is still shown in textbooks as facts. See Here

5. Vestigal organs have uses. See here

6. and 7. Both are evidence of microevolution and as such are not evidence of macroevolution. Natural selection is observable and therefore no scientist would ever try to say that it doesn't happen. But even though this does happen it in no way proves 'goo to you' or 'fish to philosopher' or 'molecules to man' evolution.

These are the same old tired 'evidences' of evolution and don't prove macroevolution at all.

1. How do you dismiss the progressive change than? Please I would like to hear. What happened to all the animals you see fossilized? Isn't it odd they resemble current ancestors? How do you "intrpret this"? What about radioactive dating? Also, see Papewaio's explanation about the Neaderthal.

2 and 3. If, according to the bible, we are truly superior to animals and made in God's image, why would he make such a unique special, creature so similar to other animals? That doesn't make much sense. Why is the DNA so different in some animals and so similar in other animals? Did God roll the dice to decide who gets to be like a human and who doesnt? Look, it even say it in one of your fantastic, bible thumping articles!

God created mankind in His image, not in the image of animals. Furthermore, man was to rule, have dominion, over the animals.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...arguments7.asp

Your argument lacks logic.

4. All of this information points to a man called Ernst Haeckel. Yes, true it is widely accept that he was a fraud, but this does not mean that embroyonic evidence doesn't exist. Here you go

Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory."

5. Here you go

6/7. It can be both macroevolution and microevolution. Two totally different mammals evolving into almost the same creature or evolving into two totally different species that cannot mate is macroevolution.

**Alexanderofmacedon** · 08-08-2006, 02:58

Navaros, I respect your love for god and your devotion to him, but this is not a battle you can win. This is, in fact a battle you have lost. I'm sorry.

www.navaros.justgotowned.com