The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......it CAN be embarassing when it contradicts ALL of their previous pronouncements........

.......and completely invalidates their belief system!!!!!

The important point here being that in this case it neither contradicted ALL previous pronouncements (only one really - that the fishy fiend in question was extinct. Hardly the cornerstone, or even a relevant stone, of evolutionary biology! :pac:) nor invalidated the theory of evolution.

Lots of things aren't extinct and are rare. How does it impact the science of evolution?? :pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

The important point here being that in this case it neither contradicted ALL previous pronouncements (only one really - that the fishy fiend in question was extinct. Hardly the cornerstone, or even a relevant stone, of evolutionary biology! :pac:) nor invalidated the theory of evolution.

Lots of things aren't extinct and are rare. How does it impact the science of evolution?? :pac:

.......because the 'Evolutionary processes' that supposedly evolved a 'glorified Rat' into a Human over 100 million years ......left the Coelacanth Fish ......and the Crocodile......and the Turtle.......and the Lizard........completely unchanged over supposedly hundreds of millions of years.........kinda 'stuck in Evolutionist gear' so to speak.......

........leading to the distinct suspicion that these creatures' fossils are NOT hundreds of millions of years old.......and Evolution ISN'T capable of turning a frog into a prince!!!!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......because the 'Evolutionary processes' that supposedly evolved a 'glorified Rat' into a Human over 100 million years ......left the Coelacanth Fish ......and the Crocodile......and the Turtle.......and the Lizard........completely unchanged over supposedly hundreds of millions of years.........kinda 'stuck in Evolutionist gear' so to speak.......

........leading to the distinct suspicion that these creatures' fossils are NOT hundreds of millions of years old.......and Evolution ISN'T capable of turning a frog into a prince!!!!!!!:pac::):D

So, you believe that natural selection works in the absence of selection pressure? :pac:

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....so while Humans were 'magically' Evolving from something that supposedly looked like a Rat.......the Coelacanth Fish became "slightly different from those that lived (hundreds of) millions of years ago"

......and the Evolutionists explanation for this strange situation is that "the coelacanth have more or less occupied the same niche all this time"!!!

.....and as far as I can see, the Rat has ALSO more or less occupied the same niche, since the Fall!!!:D

When you say 'the Fall' do you mean of the dinosaurs? (just wondering, some of your terminology can be a bit open to interpretation)

There were no rats during the time of the dinosaurs. There were however creatures which as you say 'looked like a rat' and most likely acted like rats too. As I've discussed with you a few times before convergent evolution can create species which are superficially similar to other animals which occupy similar ecological niches, despite not necessarily being closely related to each other.

As for our friend the coelacanth; did you know there are currently two known species of coelacanth alive and well today (there could be others out there waiting to be discovered!)? There were also many more in times gone by but they are all alas extinct. The species alive today are not the same ones that lived millions of years ago alongside the dinosaurs. So to say they are the same animal is technically incorrect. They are descendants of the ancient coelacanths but not the same genus. The modern day genus of coelacanth is called Latimeria which as far as we can tell did not live at the same time as the giant dinosaurs and has only evolved recently enough.
When people say 'coelacanth' they are not in fact referring to an individual species, but rather a family containing many different species.

Hope my brief explanation helps shed some light on some of the misconceptions floating around about the animal kingdom.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

You may have had "a (coherent) discussion about it".......but I am STILL awaiting a reply from Killbot in relation to proof for his assertions above!!!:D

The link I provided provides all the proof you need. I'm sure Killbot hasn't posted it as I already have (he's not a parrot you know). :pac::pac::pac:

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

So, you believe that natural selection works in the absence of selection pressure? :pac:

Sounds distinctly like 'special pleading' to maintain that the 'selection pressures' were effectively ZERO in the swamps and seas for the Coelacanth Fish ......and the Crocodile......and the Turtle.......and the Lizard........and the rest of the 'living fossil zoo'!!!!!

.......while Rats, Apes and Humans had such extraordinary 'selection pressures' applied that they 'morphed' into each other!!!!

.....and could I gently point out that 'selection pressure' isn't the prime problem with this whole evolutionist scenario.......it is the creation of the genetic information......upon which this selection pressure supposedly worked.......that is the primary problem that Evolutionists have failed to explain!!:):D

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote:

First of all God is insulted when we question His word - denying the historical accuracy of the Genesis account.

...And you know this how? Why is God insulted just because a part of the bible is not historical accuracy? Who are you to say what God feels on a particular topic. Just because it makes sense to you. Plenty of christians would say that it is insulting to God that you limit him. (eg. Kenneth Miller and other sophisticated people)

wolfsbane wrote:

Next, God could have used evolution to produce man, if He wanted to - I've no problem with that. Either way, it would be a magnificent work. I can't see how it would have been more magnificent than doing it in a moment from a handful of dirt. In fact, the more one thinks of it, evolution would seem to be a very inefficient means.

You have no problem with God using evolution? and yet you are bound by some ink on a page. Have you ever thought even once that the "truth" to found in Genesis might be more than page deep. After all when Jesus said he was the rock, that was clearly not literal.

wolfsbane wrote:

But one cannot have evolution if one accepts the perfect nature of the biosphere as given in Genesis 1. Evolution demands disease, suffering and death - none of these existed before the Fall, according to Genesis.

Now, would you not say a perfect creation - free of disease, suffering and death - is a more magnificient one than an evolutionary creation?

Is not this perfect utopia you are talking about the very definition of you heaven? Tell me, in an ecosystem where there is no death, there must have been a serious population problem. And I suppose all the viruses that can only survive by destroying hosts must have been a separate creation, after the fall? Or perhaps the evolved! And yes all those sharp teeth and claws are for eating fruit......

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

Killbot 2000
Neil Shubin of the University Of Chicago was investigating the water land transition. He noted that fossils around 380mya were unequivocally fish and strata dated around 360mya contained fully fledged terrestrial animals. Consequently he chose to explore sites around 370myr old to see if he could find transitional material.

……so on that basis the supposed transition from aquatic to terrestrial animals ONLY took 10 million years……a mere ‘blink’ of Evolutionary time!!!!
……so we are expected to believe that gills became lungs, scales became skin …….and fins became feet and legs …….in less than 0.1% of the time that life has supposedly been evolving on Earth ……
........and the Coelacanth Fish remained ‘manfully’ aloof and completely un-changed ……while all of this ‘Evolution’ was happening and the Coelacanth Fish has continued to remain un-changed over the 300 million years that has supposedly elapsed since then AS WELL!!!!!!!:eek::D

Well in 10 million years, humans have evolved from their ape ancestors to develop bipedalism, language, become self aware, develop technology, art, religion and science. A lot can happen if there is the necessary variation and the prerequisite selective pressure.

The coelacanth is a modern day species that is very similar to its ancestors. There are many examples of such species e.g. the horseshoe crab, stromatoloties, algae etc. Evolution typically works when a population of organisms is split allowing for different slective pressures to act on a novel gene pool.
Killbot 2000
Guess what, his team found Tiktaaik, an intermediate between sea and land! His site was in the Arctic circle so there was no element of blind luck here. He used his knowledge of stratigraphy palaeontology etc. to determine the best place to look and found exactly what he expected.
Where is the proof of these assertions???

He states so in his book, "Your Inner Fish". Available at all good bookshops nationwide. I'll give you some of the references if you want, but you still haven't answered my question, how was he able to pinpoint the location using theories that you believe to be false?

Killbot 2000
Now, one of the things that can determine the strength of a theory is its predictive power and this expedition proved that many of the aforementioned disciplines of geology do indeed have predictive power.
Please provide examples.
What about his use of the laws of sedimentary succession to determine the best place to look. He led his team to an area where such an animal was likely to habitate. All by studying geology.

Killbot 2000
What say you now my creationist foes, what say you now?
I am certainly not your ‘foe’……I am your friend……..
I'll agree with you on this, I'm sure you're a nice guy, apologies.

Galvasean
What is it about creationists and lumping all scientists into one field? Just because someone is an expert in chemistry does not mean they are also experts in palaeontology. It would be like asking a dinosaur expert about the workings of black holes. It is simply not his field.
One of the strengths of some Creation Scientists is that they are polymaths…..and this gives them insights and overview that specialists sadly lack.:D


Wicknight
This is the type of thing that really pisses proper scientists off, this "well we are going to take this finding and apply it to something completely different and just say it also applies" attitude that Creationists take. And Creationists would be well to stop doing it if they want to be in any way taken seriously.

ALL of science is inter-linked…….and these linkages are often missed by specialist scientists……or sometime they will spend valuable time ‘reinventing a wheel’ that already has been discovered by another equally specialised scientific discipline.

BTW I fully accept that scientific specialisation is important, with our rapidly expanding knowledge base…….but overview is also essential …….and somewhat lacking in some areas of modern science.
The emergence of Philosophers of Science has addressed aspects of this deficiency……..but more 'cross-fertilisation' and information exchange across scientific boundaries is essential to avoid 'incestuous' or 'closed' thinking within individual disciplines.


Wicknight
This is like saying you can't get from Dublin to Holyhead in 4 hours driving a car, for the creationists to come back and say "Well I know someone who got from Dublin to Limerick in under 4 hours, and the distance is about the same, so that demonstrates that it is possible"

I recently took my car from Dublin to Holyhead……in about TWO hours!!!!!!
……so it is not only possible to take your car from Dublin to Holyhead…….it can be done in half the time that it (sometimes) takes to get to Limerick!!!!!

Wicknight
JC does this type of thing all the time (all Creationists do one imagines), take one thing and apply it to something without any care as to if they are even related.
Could I suggest that taking my car to Limerick or taking it to Holyhead IS related…….just like flying to Shannon or Birmingham and renting a car is also a valid alternative that gives the same travel freedom as taking your car to both places.

Killbot 2000
A bit of a random point but why did God choose to populate only a single planet in the entire universe? Talk about poor use of space.
God doesn’t worry about ‘waste’……..He Created the Universe to prove His omnipotence and His existence…….and because He WISHED to do so.........
......and such a magnanimous gesture also shows just how important people (and their eternal destinies) are to God.:D

I don't understand this, why would God create a universe for us if we will never see the vast majority of it? The universe is enormous.

Killbot 2000
Even on this planet there are only specific areas conducive to human life. It seems to me that the universe is quite poorly designed for humans.……..largely a result of the ‘Fall’ and the 'Flood’!!!!!!:)
Neil Shubin, among many others has disproved the Young Earth hypothesis including the Flood.

Killbot 2000
Although this point will be ignored by creationists, why did it take God around 13.7 billion years before he created humans?
……….a good question for the Theistic Evolutionists, actually!!!:eek::pac::)

I read another interesting point in the book. There are two types of olfactory genes, those suited to work in a medium of water and those that work in the air. The fishes have the former whereas most terrestrial animals have the latter. Here is the crux, cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have the air medium versions, but they also lack a sense of smell. There genome contains a plethora of olfactory genes that no longer work (this can be shown with comparative genomics). Now, this can be readily explained by evolution and palaeontology because the fossil record shows that cetaceans evolved from terrestrial animals, but I reckon this will ruffle the feathers of some of our creationist friends.

PS I have answered your points in the text, it just came out weird.

gerthewanker

I don't understand this, why would God create a universe for us if we will never see the vast majority of it? The universe is enormous.?




To keep all of us thinking about a question that no one will ever be able to answer:D

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

.....so while Humans were 'magically' Evolving from something that supposedly looked like a Rat.......the Coelacanth Fish became "slightly different from those that lived (hundreds of) millions of years ago"

......and the Evolutionists explanation for this strange situation is that "the coelacanth have more or less occupied the same niche all this time"!!!

.....and as far as I can see, the Rat has ALSO more or less occupied the same niche, since the Fall!!!:D

.....could I gently remind you that the Evolutionist explanation used be that the Coelacanth Fish was a 'primitive ancestor' of 'modern fishes' that became extinct along with the Dinosaurs........
.......and that was the position until, somewhat embarassingly, for this 'just so' Evolutionist story....... the Coelacanth Fish was found to be alive and well and swimming happily in the Indian Ocean!!!!:eek::pac::)


You may have had "a (coherent) discussion about it".......but I am STILL awaiting a reply from Killbot in relation to proof for his assertions above!!!:D

This is just ridiculous, there are millions of so called 'primitive' organisms around today, just look at the amount of bacteria, single celled organisms dominate the planet. There is no preordained path which evolution proceeds along, and it most certainly does not operate in that classical misunderstanding of the theory, the ladder.

Incidentally the coelacanth alive today is not the same species that is found in sedimentary rock.

Killbot2000

I would like to know why the geological straigraphy contains animals in the order seen today. I don't think I've had a satisfactory answer to this. The Flood cannot explain it, because hydrological sorting would give a completely different order, with the biggest, most dense fossils at the bottom.

Uh, I've thought of something else, the geological record should contain no fossils at all! 6000 years, or however long ago the Flood was, doesn't provide enough time for fossilization to occur.

There is also evidence of a atmosphere that varies in its oxygen conc. through time. At some early stages in the Earth's history it would be too low to support complex life.

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. The universe is to glorify God and to give man a sense of that splendour, as well as heat & light and to mark times and seasons. It is not for habitation.

2. Before the Fall, and probably before the Flood, more of the earth would have been habitable. But even so, habitation is not necessarily the function of every part of a perfect earth. The sea, for example, is meant for the fish to habitate and man to swim in or boat on. Mountains for goats to habitate and man to climb. Etc.

3. You should familiarise yourself with what creationists actually teach. God did not take around 13.7 billion years before he created humans - He took 6 days.

1. Why wasn't this splendour revealed to humans when they evolved 100,000 years ago? The only heat and light we get comes from the sun, one of billions of the stars in the universe.

2. I have posted many comments that disprove the Flood. Your comments about the reason for the seas and mountains are deeply depressing and anthropocentric. How you can say the reason for the mountains is for man to climb them is beyond me?

3. Again, I have posted detailed comments that describe how this cannot be the case.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

........and the Coelacanth Fish remained ‘manfully’ aloof and completely un-changed ……while all of this ‘Evolution’ was happening and the Coelacanth Fish has continued to remain un-changed over the 300 million years that has supposedly elapsed since then AS WELL!!!!!!!:eek::D

Nothing fails to evolve- natural selection can either drive change or enforce the status quo. When populations are separated and subjected to differing selective pressures, a new species may emerge. The progenitor species in this case remains largely unchanged. The coelocanth species that survive today found evolutionary niches that did not favour mutation. To remain so unchanged over the scale of hundreds of millions of years is indeed unlikely given the tendency of the physical environment to change on that timescale- but given the vast number of species that exist, we would fully expect to find quite a few that have remained stable.

Every species in existence today has traveled the same distance via different paths.

gerthewanker

According to the bible God created time so shouldn't the period before the earth was formed be immeasurable? 13 'billion' it may as well be 13 squillion kajillion for all we can prove it.

Has any one discussed the contrasting theories of macro and micro evoluton?

Ekancone

gerthewanker wrote: »

Has any one discussed the contrasting theories of macro and micro evoluton?

Macro evolution + Micro Evolution = Evolution

They are describing the same process. There is nothing to contrast, they are not separate theories.

gerthewanker

No, micro is the reason we have different kind of dog etc
macro argues the jellyfish to human idea

They are quite different.Anyway I dont want to discuss it because I dont know much about it.I was just curious as to whether anyone had raised the subject.

robindch

gerthewanker wrote: »

Has any one discussed the contrasting theories of macro and micro evoluton?

No. The terms "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" are quite similar to "operational science" and "historical science" -- terms which creationists have invented in order to create a distinction that does not exist in reality. Mostly, if not exclusively, so that they can admit that one exists and works, without appearing to have to concede that the other does too.

It's a short slide from buying into creationist terminology to being completely unable to think clearly, or even to think at all.

gerthewanker

Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."


"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000 people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates mathematical probability.

We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all gradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect, and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants alleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution? They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation alone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species will ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments? Can we hope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epic equal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratorio surpassing Handel's Messiah?

Ekancone

gerthewanker wrote: »

No, micro is the reason we have different kind of dog etc macro argues the jellyfish to human idea

No, that is what creationists argue. They are describing essentially the same process. Like Micro and Macro Economics.

gerthewanker wrote: »

They are quite different.

No, they are not.

gerthewanker wrote: »

Anyway I dont want to discuss it because I dont know much about it.

I could have figured that.

gerthewanker wrote: »

I was just curious as to whether anyone had raised the subject.

Yes, and it has been continually shown to be built on a false premise.

Ekancone

gerthewanker wrote: »

Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said, "It is impossible for scientists longer to agree with Darwin's theory of the origin of species. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact that, after forty years, no evidence has been discovered to verify his genesis of species."


"Romanes, a disciple of Darwin, after collecting the manifestation of intelligent reasoning from every known species of the lower animals, found that they only equaled altogether the intelligence of a child 15 months old." Then man has easily 10,000,000 times as much power to reason as the animals, and easily 10,000,000,000 times as much conscience. Why have not many species filled the great gap between man and the brute? Out of 3,000,000 births, would we expect but one male? Or one female? Out of 3,000,000 deaths, would we expect all to be males but one? To be sure, all the skeletons and bones found by evolutionists belong to males except one. Strange, if 3,000,000 pennies were tossed into the air, would we expect them all to fall with heads up, save one? The Revolutionary war, out of 3,000,000 people, developed one great military chieftain, but many more approximating his ability; one or more great statesmen with all gradations down to the mediocre; scholars and writers, with others little inferior; but there was no overtowering genius 10,000,000 or l0,000,000,000 times as great as any other. We would be astonished beyond measure, if any great genius should rise in any nation as far ahead of all others, as the species of mankind is ahead of all other species. It is unthinkable that one species and only one reached the measureless distance between the monkey and man. It violates mathematical probability.

We have a right to expect, in many species and in large numbers, all gradations of animals between the monkey and man in size, intellect, and spirituality. Where are the anthropoids and their descendants alleged to have lived during the 2,000,000 years of man's evolution? They can not be found living or dead. They never existed. Creation alone explains the great gap. What signs have we that other species will ever approximate, equal or surpass man in attainments? Can we hope that, in the far distant future, a baboon will write an epic equal to Milton's Paradise Lost, or a bull-frog compose an oratorio surpassing Handel's Messiah?

You are quoting people from the 19th century. Things have moved on since then. Get with the freakin program.

gerthewanker

No need to be rude just because you have a weak argument ImGlad you got that of your chest .

robindch

gerthewanker wrote: »

Prof. William Bateson, the distinguished English biologist, said [...]

In your rush to plagiarize "The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved" by William A. Williams:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=16976&pageno=18
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=16976&pageno=19

...you forgot to notice that William Bateson died over 80 years ago, around the same time as this publication was released. Things have moved on since the 1920's, at least on one side of the argument anyway.

If you're going to steal somebody else's text and try to pass it off as your own, then this thread may not suit you as you will be caught (by two people in this case), as JC has found out to his cost.

Ekancone

gerthewanker wrote: »

No need to be rude just because you have a weak argument ImGlad you got that of your chest .

Sorry to break this to you, but your entire premise is incorrect when it comes to evolution. Macro and Microevolution are two different ways to perceiving the same process, not two different processes. That is what Macro and Micro actually mean, no matter what the context.

Irrespective of what argument you use, when your entire premise is wrong you really don't have a leg to stand on.

All the best,

Daithí

sdep

J C wrote: »

You may have had "a (coherent) discussion about it".......but I am STILL awaiting a reply from Killbot in relation to proof for his assertions above!!!:D

This link pointed out by Galvasean:

Galvasean wrote: »

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

explains how scientists used a knowledge of geology and evolution to find the Tiktaalik fish / tetrapod transitional fossil.

Lobe-finned fish appeared 380 MYA (million years ago) and tetrapods 363 MYA. The scientists reasoned that, if tetrapods derive from lobe-finned fishes, there would be fish-tetrapod transitional species that showed a mosaic of fish / tetrapod features. Under evolution, such hypothetical species would have to have arisen after lobe-finned fishes and before tetrapods, narrowing the time interval to 17 MY between 380 MYA and 363 MYA. Scientists have also deduced that the first tetrapods were found in freshwater sediment sites on the Euramerican landmass that sat across the equator in Devonian times. Consequently, they chose to look in similar sites for the fish-tetrapod transitional species predicted by evolution. They identified one such unexplored site in the Canadian Arctic, and there they found the Tiktaalik fossils.

The website gives a brief overview of the mosaic of fish and tetrapod features seen in Tiktaalik: fish - scales, fins, gills; tetrapod - movable neck, ribs, flat head, tetrapod-like pectoral fin skeleton. More detailed information can be found in the two Nature papers of 2006 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html)

So there you have a very specific prediction made using evolutionary / geological theory that turned out to be correct.

Could anyone give a single instance where creation science has made a prediction that was similarly precise, counter to evolutionary theory, and that has turned out to be true?

Eschatologist

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Uh, I've thought of something else, the geological record should contain no fossils at all! 6000 years, or however long ago the Flood was, doesn't provide enough time for fossilization to occur.

The ice ages too: 6000 years isn't nearly long enough to account for all of them, considering what we know about how orbital cycles affect the climate. And let's not forget those ancient Huronian ice ages and the Proterozoic snowballs/slushballs. Looks like the Earth must have oscillated rapidly between the planet-melting runaway tectonics and the freezing ice sheets, and all in 6000 years...

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Sounds distinctly like 'special pleading' to maintain that the 'selection pressures' were effectively ZERO in the swamps and seas for the the Coelacanth Fish ......and the Crocodile......and the Turtle.......and the Lizard........and the rest of the 'living fossil zoo'!!!!!

.......while Rats, Apes and Humans had such extraordinary 'selection pressures' applied that they 'morphed' into each other!!!!

.....and could I gently point out that 'selection pressure' isn't the prime problem with this whole evolutionist scenario.......it is the creation of the genetic information......upon which this selection pressure supposedly worked.......that is the primary problem for Evolutionists!!:):D

So, we are in agreement that the discovery of the coelacanth is not a problem for evolutionary science. I'm glad we're on the same page... but why bring it up in the 1st place if only to change the subject as soon as you are challenged on the point?? :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

gerthewanker

:cool:In what way have the evolutionists ways moved on since the twenties ?
Are there more conclusive forms of evidence than mere speculation?No

Mendels theory proves evolutuon wrong.If we have evolved from apes shouldnt some of their traits exist as recessive genes in our makeup?


Daithi I love you too but we cant be together.I not that way inclined;)

Ekancone

gerthewanker wrote: »

:cool:In what way have the evolutionists ways moved on since the twenties ?
Are there more conclusive forms of evidence than mere speculation?No

Mendels theory proves evolutuon wrong.If we have evolved from apes shouldnt some of their traits exist as recessive genes in our makeup?


Daithi I love you too but we cant be together.I not that way inclined;)

Sigh, nothing can be proved wrong or right. Thats just not how science works. Thats just biblical mentality, sorry.

We also didn't evolve from apes, we just share a common ancestor with apes. I couldn't be bothered addressing your other questions until you at least get the basics right. Go and read a few books on evolution, I recommend The Blind Watchmaker.

Here is a video on the scientific method:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Its quite good.

Oh, and one more thing: Do you believe in the theory of gravity?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Both Young Earthers and Big Bangers have to speculate that something was faster than light today - light itself or the supposed inflation of the Big Bang. Maybe you know of a different solution?
How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

Here is a video explaining why this it total nonsense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSEBR_6lnT4

Ekancone

gerthewanker wrote: »

Mendels theory proves evolutuon wrong.

Could you expand on this?