This discussion shows signs of expanding out of control! Brief replies



1. Older the rocks the more complex the fossils. As predicted by the theory.



You say that we often find it the other way round. Sources please?



2.Extinctions and the theory of evolution.

If the the theory is correct, when there is a major change in the environment the species then existing would not be suited to the new conditions and would become extinct. They would be replaced by new species better fitted to the novel conditions.

The is what we do find in the fossil record.



3.Mammals all the have the same structure. Why? Evolution explains.

How? They all evolved from the same ancestors so have the same structure but adapted to their environmental niche. Thus whales and rhinos have the same mammalian structure.



Why did God make them similar? You give no explanation beyond saying he did. Evolution explains better than Creationism here.



5. Vestigial limbs

I have answered this below and, I think, it is your turn to reply.

Please, when you do, explain why some lizards have within their bodies useless leg bones. What possible reason would God have to create the lizard like this?

Again evolution explains simply.



6. Australian animals.

I did not explain well here and you miss my point. It is this. In Australia we find animals,that are similar to animals in the same environmental niche in other parts of the world yet they belong to very different species. Evolution would predict this phenomenon.



It is not a question of agreeing or not with evolution here -it is a fact that the theory does predict this phenomenon.



I claim it is good evidence for the theory then.



6. Genetics

I do not know enough about genetics to answer in detail but it seems that the genomes [is that the right word?] of animals fits the pattern you would expect from evolution. Humans and chimps that are supposed to have evolved from the same source have a very similar genetic structure. One example of hundreds.



7. Micoevolution and macroevolution

No need to get hung up on words here. What I call microevolution, which occurs e.g. in animal breeding, you accept. And the theory of evolution predicts that it would. One up to the theory of evolution.



Now, what I call macroevolution HAS THE SAME MECHANISM but needs more time. Micro is evidence for macro then. [Not conclusive but added to all the other evidence...]



8 The finches

You do not answer the point. The theory is that the same species of finch migrated to a number of different islands. Over time, on each island, they evolved into species which were adapted to the conditions on that island.



Exactly what Darwin found! The finches are very very similar except that each 'fits' the island it is on.



What the the Creationist's explanation of this phenomenon? God just thought it a good idea to make these finches all alike and similar to mainland finches. Very provocative of him!



9. Transitional fossils

I think we are discussing this below and it is your turn to reply. You had better give sources for the assertions you make.



10. Embryos

Please give me the sources again - sorry I have not followed it up.



General comment.

I have no great desire to accept evolution nor any other scientific theory. However if most scientist tell me something I'll go with it.



If you are right about evolution then most scientists are deluded/engaged in a gigantic cover up/don't know their job... You will need to provide me with VERY STRONG evidence that this is so. Something you have conspicously failed to do so far.



Best wishes



Laurie



PS I hope you noticed that I was simply reposting a summary of my original position which looks likely soon to fall off the bottom.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



And yet we find it the other way around also, please explain that?



2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So what? What do extinctions have to do with the theory of evolution?



3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.



Nope, God made them as they are, He explains it much better. Just because Mammals live in different environments doesn't prove they evolved to live there.



4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



I have covered this already, so won't repeat myself. It is NOT explained beautifully ao otherwise, as I challenged you before, show me fossils of limbs (structures) CHANGING. You cannot.



5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Huh? They were that way to start with, show me evidence of this changing you talk about.



6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, and? This shows how we stay the same, not that we change into something else.



7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



You have to understand the terminology you are using here. Micro evolution (so termed) is NOT evolution at all, not in the sense with which you are using it. There is NO proof to support your conclusion.



8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.



This shows that species DO NOT adapt, if they loose their environments MOST become EXTINCT. This to me just shows the opposite of what you are trying to postulate. Darwin has long been shot to pieces (on the whole), not only by creationists, but also by most serious scentists, I suggest you read some more up to date material.



9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.



No these are NOT links, any scientist will tell you, these are put in an order to show POSSIBLE connections, but are NOT links as demanded by good scientific practice.

Eg, The horse: Only one set of possible links is shown to you, I suggest you investigate in an unbised way, you will find so many that do NOT fit, but they are left out by those who want to present a slick tree, just not so Laurie. Then we find out that the earliest 'horse' was in fact a rodent!!!! Do check these things out for yourself Laurie, and stop trusting all your read by those who are biased.



10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



Did you ignore what I wrote on this? A serious scientist would laugh at you if you put this forward, this is really too much Laurie. I wonder now if you are actually checking the material I gave you, I would hate to think I wasted my efforts (?). Please refer to my study, I also recently saw an eminent scientist on TV say that similarity is NOT any proof of evolution, and he said that it is bad science to suggest this. Please do look at the facts Laurie, not what suits your predisposition. It becomes tiresome otherwise.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



There are NO link fossils as you term them, that is why the term MISSING LINK is used so often BY SCIENTISTS. They mearly have fossils that APPEAR to be similar, that is NO proof of a change from one species to another.

This new excuse of 'rapid' evolution is clutching at straws Laurie, most scientists would be embarressed by such nonsense. It is a case of because nothing has been found in all these years to substantiate the fallen theory, they have to come up with something else, in order to save face. My goodness, it gets more ridiculous as time goes on. Wham I have changed into a monkey, wham oh look now I am an ape, wham, now a whale.....or whatever....pure fanatasy.

Creation just DOES NOT have this capability to change in the way your are saying, and that is povable. When environment changes a species can either adapt (but stays as such the same species) or becomes extinct. You look at the loss of species over the past 300 years Laurie, and then show me some new ones, they do NOT rapidly (or slowly, or any other way)change, they DIE OUT, FACT!!!



You seem to be happy with your none scientific beliefs, I am happy with my scientific beliefs, that each is in its own order as created. Sorry you have done such a small amount of research, I feel a bit let down Laurie. You have not come up with ANYTHING substantial, and in fact you are perpetuating a modern myth, you obviously WANT to believe it.



Best reagrds, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Hi Laurie.

Sorry mate, but there is nothing you have said in this reply that adds any weight to your original post.

As I am running out of time to keep up with other projects at the moment, I will leave the discussion HERE on THIS subject for now. You have the link to my other forum, I will be posting on this subject THERE in the near future. That site has the advantage of archving posts (saves repeating oneself), and a place for larger studies (can upload word docs) and we can put links there as well.

When I get time, I will certainly go over all this again there, but for now I leave my comments as they are, they can be varified if you read enough material on the subject.

The only new comment I will make is about the finches. Longer beaks is not proof of 'evolution' Laurie, I have really covered this extremely well in my posts (though not this specific example). Having a finch with a longer beak on one island than one on another only shows the birds ability within it's genes to have either a shorter, or longer beak!!!

This is like we have shorter, taller, slimer, fatter people, depending on a) their genetic make up and b) their environment(lifestyle). This seems really simple and ovious to me. As I say, you go and ask the question of one of these 'many experts'. Ask them, "Does similarity between species prove they have evolved?" and "does the fact that a given species can adapt WITHIN a certain perameter prove they can change structure?" If you get a straight answer, I will be pleased to hear it.(I HAVE asked science PHDs, and I have NOT had a clear answer, and when pushed they say, "no, it does not, but.....")

Sorry Laurie, I have not got time to have circular argument, I will attempt to give you more info on my forum, but it will have to wait until I have time.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This discussion shows signs of expanding out of control! Brief replies



1. Older the rocks the more complex the fossils. As predicted by the theory.



You say that we often find it the other way round. Sources please?



2.Extinctions and the theory of evolution.

If the the theory is correct, when there is a major change in the environment the species then existing would not be suited to the new conditions and would become extinct. They would be replaced by new species better fitted to the novel conditions.

The is what we do find in the fossil record.



3.Mammals all the have the same structure. Why? Evolution explains.

How? They all evolved from the same ancestors so have the same structure but adapted to their environmental niche. Thus whales and rhinos have the same mammalian structure.



Why did God make them similar? You give no explanation beyond saying he did. Evolution explains better than Creationism here.



5. Vestigial limbs

I have answered this below and, I think, it is your turn to reply.

Please, when you do, explain why some lizards have within their bodies useless leg bones. What possible reason would God have to create the lizard like this?

Again evolution explains simply.



6. Australian animals.

I did not explain well here and you miss my point. It is this. In Australia we find animals,that are similar to animals in the same environmental niche in other parts of the world yet they belong to very different species. Evolution would predict this phenomenon.



It is not a question of agreeing or not with evolution here -it is a fact that the theory does predict this phenomenon.



I claim it is good evidence for the theory then.



6. Genetics

I do not know enough about genetics to answer in detail but it seems that the genomes [is that the right word?] of animals fits the pattern you would expect from evolution. Humans and chimps that are supposed to have evolved from the same source have a very similar genetic structure. One example of hundreds.



7. Micoevolution and macroevolution

No need to get hung up on words here. What I call microevolution, which occurs e.g. in animal breeding, you accept. And the theory of evolution predicts that it would. One up to the theory of evolution.



Now, what I call macroevolution HAS THE SAME MECHANISM but needs more time. Micro is evidence for macro then. [Not conclusive but added to all the other evidence...]



8 The finches

You do not answer the point. The theory is that the same species of finch migrated to a number of different islands. Over time, on each island, they evolved into species which were adapted to the conditions on that island.



Exactly what Darwin found! The finches are very very similar except that each 'fits' the island it is on.



What the the Creationist's explanation of this phenomenon? God just thought it a good idea to make these finches all alike and similar to mainland finches. Very provocative of him!



9. Transitional fossils

I think we are discussing this below and it is your turn to reply. You had better give sources for the assertions you make.



10. Embryos

Please give me the sources again - sorry I have not followed it up.



General comment.

I have no great desire to accept evolution nor any other scientific theory. However if most scientist tell me something I'll go with it.



If you are right about evolution then most scientists are deluded/engaged in a gigantic cover up/don't know their job... You will need to provide me with VERY STRONG evidence that this is so. Something you have conspicously failed to do so far.



Best wishes



Laurie



PS I hope you noticed that I was simply reposting a summary of my original position which looks likely soon to fall off the bottom.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



And yet we find it the other way around also, please explain that?



2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So what? What do extinctions have to do with the theory of evolution?



3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.



Nope, God made them as they are, He explains it much better. Just because Mammals live in different environments doesn't prove they evolved to live there.



4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



I have covered this already, so won't repeat myself. It is NOT explained beautifully ao otherwise, as I challenged you before, show me fossils of limbs (structures) CHANGING. You cannot.



5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Huh? They were that way to start with, show me evidence of this changing you talk about.



6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, and? This shows how we stay the same, not that we change into something else.



7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



You have to understand the terminology you are using here. Micro evolution (so termed) is NOT evolution at all, not in the sense with which you are using it. There is NO proof to support your conclusion.



8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.



This shows that species DO NOT adapt, if they loose their environments MOST become EXTINCT. This to me just shows the opposite of what you are trying to postulate. Darwin has long been shot to pieces (on the whole), not only by creationists, but also by most serious scentists, I suggest you read some more up to date material.



9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.



No these are NOT links, any scientist will tell you, these are put in an order to show POSSIBLE connections, but are NOT links as demanded by good scientific practice.

Eg, The horse: Only one set of possible links is shown to you, I suggest you investigate in an unbised way, you will find so many that do NOT fit, but they are left out by those who want to present a slick tree, just not so Laurie. Then we find out that the earliest 'horse' was in fact a rodent!!!! Do check these things out for yourself Laurie, and stop trusting all your read by those who are biased.



10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



Did you ignore what I wrote on this? A serious scientist would laugh at you if you put this forward, this is really too much Laurie. I wonder now if you are actually checking the material I gave you, I would hate to think I wasted my efforts (?). Please refer to my study, I also recently saw an eminent scientist on TV say that similarity is NOT any proof of evolution, and he said that it is bad science to suggest this. Please do look at the facts Laurie, not what suits your predisposition. It becomes tiresome otherwise.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



There are NO link fossils as you term them, that is why the term MISSING LINK is used so often BY SCIENTISTS. They mearly have fossils that APPEAR to be similar, that is NO proof of a change from one species to another.

This new excuse of 'rapid' evolution is clutching at straws Laurie, most scientists would be embarressed by such nonsense. It is a case of because nothing has been found in all these years to substantiate the fallen theory, they have to come up with something else, in order to save face. My goodness, it gets more ridiculous as time goes on. Wham I have changed into a monkey, wham oh look now I am an ape, wham, now a whale.....or whatever....pure fanatasy.

Creation just DOES NOT have this capability to change in the way your are saying, and that is povable. When environment changes a species can either adapt (but stays as such the same species) or becomes extinct. You look at the loss of species over the past 300 years Laurie, and then show me some new ones, they do NOT rapidly (or slowly, or any other way)change, they DIE OUT, FACT!!!



You seem to be happy with your none scientific beliefs, I am happy with my scientific beliefs, that each is in its own order as created. Sorry you have done such a small amount of research, I feel a bit let down Laurie. You have not come up with ANYTHING substantial, and in fact you are perpetuating a modern myth, you obviously WANT to believe it.



Best reagrds, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: kingdomsearcher@msn.com

Well I appreciate the time which you have given me.



You are right to note that now we have deployed our general cases the only way to continue would be to chase each point up in detail [sources and all!], and this is very time consuming. Obviously you must make your own choices about that!



I will deal with the points you make at the end.



'PROOF'

As I have been at pains to point out there is no 'proof' possible for evolution [or any scientific theory] if by that you mean a conclusive argument showing it is true. All you can expect for a successful theory is a lot of evidence which builds up until 99% of the practitioners in the field accept that it is probably true.



I, a layman, have reported to you the evidence that the scientists feel backs up evolution. However you, also a layman, have rejected it. Your technique, speaking generally, has been to make unsubstantiated assertions and then be 'too busy' to back them up OR to point out that a piece of evidence does not 'prove' evolution on its own [which, as I have just explained is not to the point.]



When I have tried to go into detail or asked for your sources you have, usually but not always, backed off. But I appreciate that this is due to other calls on your time.



SIMILARITY OF SPECIES

Now to deal with 'similarity of species'. Of course the similar features of finches on the islands does not prove they have evolved. I never said it did. The theory of evolution, if true, EXPLAINS the phenomenon. It might be that there are other explanations. We need then to do two things before we make a decision.

1. Look at the other things that evolution would explain if it is true.

2. Look at the alternative explanations and see how they cope explaining the phenomenon under investigation.

This is what I have done and evolution wins hands down.

[PS the one thing I am a minor expert in is the Philosophy of Science so I know what I am on about here!]



YOUR POSITION - AS I SEE IT

But, Julian, you do not want to believe this because, for reasons that are beyond me, you want to ignore two centuries of biblical scholarship and interpret the bible in an old-fashioned and unreasonable way. I do you a slight injustice here because youR intellectual honesty forced you to interpret the Genesis stories 'dramatically'! You have started on the path - why not continue?



Best wishes and thanks again,



Laurie



Best wishes and thanks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Hi Laurie.

Sorry mate, but there is nothing you have said in this reply that adds any weight to your original post.

As I am running out of time to keep up with other projects at the moment, I will leave the discussion HERE on THIS subject for now. You have the link to my other forum, I will be posting on this subject THERE in the near future. That site has the advantage of archving posts (saves repeating oneself), and a place for larger studies (can upload word docs) and we can put links there as well.

When I get time, I will certainly go over all this again there, but for now I leave my comments as they are, they can be varified if you read enough material on the subject.

The only new comment I will make is about the finches. Longer beaks is not proof of 'evolution' Laurie, I have really covered this extremely well in my posts (though not this specific example). Having a finch with a longer beak on one island than one on another only shows the birds ability within it's genes to have either a shorter, or longer beak!!!

This is like we have shorter, taller, slimer, fatter people, depending on a) their genetic make up and b) their environment(lifestyle). This seems really simple and ovious to me. As I say, you go and ask the question of one of these 'many experts'. Ask them, "Does similarity between species prove they have evolved?" and "does the fact that a given species can adapt WITHIN a certain perameter prove they can change structure?" If you get a straight answer, I will be pleased to hear it.(I HAVE asked science PHDs, and I have NOT had a clear answer, and when pushed they say, "no, it does not, but.....")

Sorry Laurie, I have not got time to have circular argument, I will attempt to give you more info on my forum, but it will have to wait until I have time.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This discussion shows signs of expanding out of control! Brief replies



1. Older the rocks the more complex the fossils. As predicted by the theory.



You say that we often find it the other way round. Sources please?



2.Extinctions and the theory of evolution.

If the the theory is correct, when there is a major change in the environment the species then existing would not be suited to the new conditions and would become extinct. They would be replaced by new species better fitted to the novel conditions.

The is what we do find in the fossil record.



3.Mammals all the have the same structure. Why? Evolution explains.

How? They all evolved from the same ancestors so have the same structure but adapted to their environmental niche. Thus whales and rhinos have the same mammalian structure.



Why did God make them similar? You give no explanation beyond saying he did. Evolution explains better than Creationism here.



5. Vestigial limbs

I have answered this below and, I think, it is your turn to reply.

Please, when you do, explain why some lizards have within their bodies useless leg bones. What possible reason would God have to create the lizard like this?

Again evolution explains simply.



6. Australian animals.

I did not explain well here and you miss my point. It is this. In Australia we find animals,that are similar to animals in the same environmental niche in other parts of the world yet they belong to very different species. Evolution would predict this phenomenon.



It is not a question of agreeing or not with evolution here -it is a fact that the theory does predict this phenomenon.



I claim it is good evidence for the theory then.



6. Genetics

I do not know enough about genetics to answer in detail but it seems that the genomes [is that the right word?] of animals fits the pattern you would expect from evolution. Humans and chimps that are supposed to have evolved from the same source have a very similar genetic structure. One example of hundreds.



7. Micoevolution and macroevolution

No need to get hung up on words here. What I call microevolution, which occurs e.g. in animal breeding, you accept. And the theory of evolution predicts that it would. One up to the theory of evolution.



Now, what I call macroevolution HAS THE SAME MECHANISM but needs more time. Micro is evidence for macro then. [Not conclusive but added to all the other evidence...]



8 The finches

You do not answer the point. The theory is that the same species of finch migrated to a number of different islands. Over time, on each island, they evolved into species which were adapted to the conditions on that island.



Exactly what Darwin found! The finches are very very similar except that each 'fits' the island it is on.



What the the Creationist's explanation of this phenomenon? God just thought it a good idea to make these finches all alike and similar to mainland finches. Very provocative of him!



9. Transitional fossils

I think we are discussing this below and it is your turn to reply. You had better give sources for the assertions you make.



10. Embryos

Please give me the sources again - sorry I have not followed it up.



General comment.

I have no great desire to accept evolution nor any other scientific theory. However if most scientist tell me something I'll go with it.



If you are right about evolution then most scientists are deluded/engaged in a gigantic cover up/don't know their job... You will need to provide me with VERY STRONG evidence that this is so. Something you have conspicously failed to do so far.



Best wishes



Laurie



PS I hope you noticed that I was simply reposting a summary of my original position which looks likely soon to fall off the bottom.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



And yet we find it the other way around also, please explain that?



2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So what? What do extinctions have to do with the theory of evolution?



3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.



Nope, God made them as they are, He explains it much better. Just because Mammals live in different environments doesn't prove they evolved to live there.



4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



I have covered this already, so won't repeat myself. It is NOT explained beautifully ao otherwise, as I challenged you before, show me fossils of limbs (structures) CHANGING. You cannot.



5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Huh? They were that way to start with, show me evidence of this changing you talk about.



6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, and? This shows how we stay the same, not that we change into something else.



7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



You have to understand the terminology you are using here. Micro evolution (so termed) is NOT evolution at all, not in the sense with which you are using it. There is NO proof to support your conclusion.



8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.



This shows that species DO NOT adapt, if they loose their environments MOST become EXTINCT. This to me just shows the opposite of what you are trying to postulate. Darwin has long been shot to pieces (on the whole), not only by creationists, but also by most serious scentists, I suggest you read some more up to date material.



9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.



No these are NOT links, any scientist will tell you, these are put in an order to show POSSIBLE connections, but are NOT links as demanded by good scientific practice.

Eg, The horse: Only one set of possible links is shown to you, I suggest you investigate in an unbised way, you will find so many that do NOT fit, but they are left out by those who want to present a slick tree, just not so Laurie. Then we find out that the earliest 'horse' was in fact a rodent!!!! Do check these things out for yourself Laurie, and stop trusting all your read by those who are biased.



10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



Did you ignore what I wrote on this? A serious scientist would laugh at you if you put this forward, this is really too much Laurie. I wonder now if you are actually checking the material I gave you, I would hate to think I wasted my efforts (?). Please refer to my study, I also recently saw an eminent scientist on TV say that similarity is NOT any proof of evolution, and he said that it is bad science to suggest this. Please do look at the facts Laurie, not what suits your predisposition. It becomes tiresome otherwise.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



There are NO link fossils as you term them, that is why the term MISSING LINK is used so often BY SCIENTISTS. They mearly have fossils that APPEAR to be similar, that is NO proof of a change from one species to another.

This new excuse of 'rapid' evolution is clutching at straws Laurie, most scientists would be embarressed by such nonsense. It is a case of because nothing has been found in all these years to substantiate the fallen theory, they have to come up with something else, in order to save face. My goodness, it gets more ridiculous as time goes on. Wham I have changed into a monkey, wham oh look now I am an ape, wham, now a whale.....or whatever....pure fanatasy.

Creation just DOES NOT have this capability to change in the way your are saying, and that is povable. When environment changes a species can either adapt (but stays as such the same species) or becomes extinct. You look at the loss of species over the past 300 years Laurie, and then show me some new ones, they do NOT rapidly (or slowly, or any other way)change, they DIE OUT, FACT!!!



You seem to be happy with your none scientific beliefs, I am happy with my scientific beliefs, that each is in its own order as created. Sorry you have done such a small amount of research, I feel a bit let down Laurie. You have not come up with ANYTHING substantial, and in fact you are perpetuating a modern myth, you obviously WANT to believe it.



Best reagrds, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

I would accept anything if shown its validity. The theory of evolution aint got it, and I dont care how many 'experts' say they believe it is 'probable' (all they can say right now).

As for coming back on my sources, I will as and when I can....you of course have been challenged to take my comments and see if an 'expert' can find flaws in them, you have not! So it is as incumbant upon you to show me the error in my comments (from your experts) as it is for me to provide sources behind my comments (if you get my drift).

My comments in my study stand, unless I amshown to be in error.

Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well I appreciate the time which you have given me.



You are right to note that now we have deployed our general cases the only way to continue would be to chase each point up in detail [sources and all!], and this is very time consuming. Obviously you must make your own choices about that!



I will deal with the points you make at the end.



'PROOF'

As I have been at pains to point out there is no 'proof' possible for evolution [or any scientific theory] if by that you mean a conclusive argument showing it is true. All you can expect for a successful theory is a lot of evidence which builds up until 99% of the practitioners in the field accept that it is probably true.



I, a layman, have reported to you the evidence that the scientists feel backs up evolution. However you, also a layman, have rejected it. Your technique, speaking generally, has been to make unsubstantiated assertions and then be 'too busy' to back them up OR to point out that a piece of evidence does not 'prove' evolution on its own [which, as I have just explained is not to the point.]



When I have tried to go into detail or asked for your sources you have, usually but not always, backed off. But I appreciate that this is due to other calls on your time.



SIMILARITY OF SPECIES

Now to deal with 'similarity of species'. Of course the similar features of finches on the islands does not prove they have evolved. I never said it did. The theory of evolution, if true, EXPLAINS the phenomenon. It might be that there are other explanations. We need then to do two things before we make a decision.

1. Look at the other things that evolution would explain if it is true.

2. Look at the alternative explanations and see how they cope explaining the phenomenon under investigation.

This is what I have done and evolution wins hands down.

[PS the one thing I am a minor expert in is the Philosophy of Science so I know what I am on about here!]



YOUR POSITION - AS I SEE IT

But, Julian, you do not want to believe this because, for reasons that are beyond me, you want to ignore two centuries of biblical scholarship and interpret the bible in an old-fashioned and unreasonable way. I do you a slight injustice here because youR intellectual honesty forced you to interpret the Genesis stories 'dramatically'! You have started on the path - why not continue?



Best wishes and thanks again,



Laurie



Best wishes and thanks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Hi Laurie.

Sorry mate, but there is nothing you have said in this reply that adds any weight to your original post.

As I am running out of time to keep up with other projects at the moment, I will leave the discussion HERE on THIS subject for now. You have the link to my other forum, I will be posting on this subject THERE in the near future. That site has the advantage of archving posts (saves repeating oneself), and a place for larger studies (can upload word docs) and we can put links there as well.

When I get time, I will certainly go over all this again there, but for now I leave my comments as they are, they can be varified if you read enough material on the subject.

The only new comment I will make is about the finches. Longer beaks is not proof of 'evolution' Laurie, I have really covered this extremely well in my posts (though not this specific example). Having a finch with a longer beak on one island than one on another only shows the birds ability within it's genes to have either a shorter, or longer beak!!!

This is like we have shorter, taller, slimer, fatter people, depending on a) their genetic make up and b) their environment(lifestyle). This seems really simple and ovious to me. As I say, you go and ask the question of one of these 'many experts'. Ask them, "Does similarity between species prove they have evolved?" and "does the fact that a given species can adapt WITHIN a certain perameter prove they can change structure?" If you get a straight answer, I will be pleased to hear it.(I HAVE asked science PHDs, and I have NOT had a clear answer, and when pushed they say, "no, it does not, but.....")

Sorry Laurie, I have not got time to have circular argument, I will attempt to give you more info on my forum, but it will have to wait until I have time.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This discussion shows signs of expanding out of control! Brief replies



1. Older the rocks the more complex the fossils. As predicted by the theory.



You say that we often find it the other way round. Sources please?



2.Extinctions and the theory of evolution.

If the the theory is correct, when there is a major change in the environment the species then existing would not be suited to the new conditions and would become extinct. They would be replaced by new species better fitted to the novel conditions.

The is what we do find in the fossil record.



3.Mammals all the have the same structure. Why? Evolution explains.

How? They all evolved from the same ancestors so have the same structure but adapted to their environmental niche. Thus whales and rhinos have the same mammalian structure.



Why did God make them similar? You give no explanation beyond saying he did. Evolution explains better than Creationism here.



5. Vestigial limbs

I have answered this below and, I think, it is your turn to reply.

Please, when you do, explain why some lizards have within their bodies useless leg bones. What possible reason would God have to create the lizard like this?

Again evolution explains simply.



6. Australian animals.

I did not explain well here and you miss my point. It is this. In Australia we find animals,that are similar to animals in the same environmental niche in other parts of the world yet they belong to very different species. Evolution would predict this phenomenon.



It is not a question of agreeing or not with evolution here -it is a fact that the theory does predict this phenomenon.



I claim it is good evidence for the theory then.



6. Genetics

I do not know enough about genetics to answer in detail but it seems that the genomes [is that the right word?] of animals fits the pattern you would expect from evolution. Humans and chimps that are supposed to have evolved from the same source have a very similar genetic structure. One example of hundreds.



7. Micoevolution and macroevolution

No need to get hung up on words here. What I call microevolution, which occurs e.g. in animal breeding, you accept. And the theory of evolution predicts that it would. One up to the theory of evolution.



Now, what I call macroevolution HAS THE SAME MECHANISM but needs more time. Micro is evidence for macro then. [Not conclusive but added to all the other evidence...]



8 The finches

You do not answer the point. The theory is that the same species of finch migrated to a number of different islands. Over time, on each island, they evolved into species which were adapted to the conditions on that island.



Exactly what Darwin found! The finches are very very similar except that each 'fits' the island it is on.



What the the Creationist's explanation of this phenomenon? God just thought it a good idea to make these finches all alike and similar to mainland finches. Very provocative of him!



9. Transitional fossils

I think we are discussing this below and it is your turn to reply. You had better give sources for the assertions you make.



10. Embryos

Please give me the sources again - sorry I have not followed it up.



General comment.

I have no great desire to accept evolution nor any other scientific theory. However if most scientist tell me something I'll go with it.



If you are right about evolution then most scientists are deluded/engaged in a gigantic cover up/don't know their job... You will need to provide me with VERY STRONG evidence that this is so. Something you have conspicously failed to do so far.



Best wishes



Laurie



PS I hope you noticed that I was simply reposting a summary of my original position which looks likely soon to fall off the bottom.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



And yet we find it the other way around also, please explain that?



2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So what? What do extinctions have to do with the theory of evolution?



3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.



Nope, God made them as they are, He explains it much better. Just because Mammals live in different environments doesn't prove they evolved to live there.



4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



I have covered this already, so won't repeat myself. It is NOT explained beautifully ao otherwise, as I challenged you before, show me fossils of limbs (structures) CHANGING. You cannot.



5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Huh? They were that way to start with, show me evidence of this changing you talk about.



6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, and? This shows how we stay the same, not that we change into something else.



7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



You have to understand the terminology you are using here. Micro evolution (so termed) is NOT evolution at all, not in the sense with which you are using it. There is NO proof to support your conclusion.



8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.



This shows that species DO NOT adapt, if they loose their environments MOST become EXTINCT. This to me just shows the opposite of what you are trying to postulate. Darwin has long been shot to pieces (on the whole), not only by creationists, but also by most serious scentists, I suggest you read some more up to date material.



9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.



No these are NOT links, any scientist will tell you, these are put in an order to show POSSIBLE connections, but are NOT links as demanded by good scientific practice.

Eg, The horse: Only one set of possible links is shown to you, I suggest you investigate in an unbised way, you will find so many that do NOT fit, but they are left out by those who want to present a slick tree, just not so Laurie. Then we find out that the earliest 'horse' was in fact a rodent!!!! Do check these things out for yourself Laurie, and stop trusting all your read by those who are biased.



10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



Did you ignore what I wrote on this? A serious scientist would laugh at you if you put this forward, this is really too much Laurie. I wonder now if you are actually checking the material I gave you, I would hate to think I wasted my efforts (?). Please refer to my study, I also recently saw an eminent scientist on TV say that similarity is NOT any proof of evolution, and he said that it is bad science to suggest this. Please do look at the facts Laurie, not what suits your predisposition. It becomes tiresome otherwise.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



There are NO link fossils as you term them, that is why the term MISSING LINK is used so often BY SCIENTISTS. They mearly have fossils that APPEAR to be similar, that is NO proof of a change from one species to another.

This new excuse of 'rapid' evolution is clutching at straws Laurie, most scientists would be embarressed by such nonsense. It is a case of because nothing has been found in all these years to substantiate the fallen theory, they have to come up with something else, in order to save face. My goodness, it gets more ridiculous as time goes on. Wham I have changed into a monkey, wham oh look now I am an ape, wham, now a whale.....or whatever....pure fanatasy.

Creation just DOES NOT have this capability to change in the way your are saying, and that is povable. When environment changes a species can either adapt (but stays as such the same species) or becomes extinct. You look at the loss of species over the past 300 years Laurie, and then show me some new ones, they do NOT rapidly (or slowly, or any other way)change, they DIE OUT, FACT!!!



You seem to be happy with your none scientific beliefs, I am happy with my scientific beliefs, that each is in its own order as created. Sorry you have done such a small amount of research, I feel a bit let down Laurie. You have not come up with ANYTHING substantial, and in fact you are perpetuating a modern myth, you obviously WANT to believe it.



Best reagrds, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

You are welcome to my time. thnk you for your courtesy also.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I would accept anything if shown its validity. The theory of evolution aint got it, and I dont care how many 'experts' say they believe it is 'probable' (all they can say right now).

As for coming back on my sources, I will as and when I can....you of course have been challenged to take my comments and see if an 'expert' can find flaws in them, you have not! So it is as incumbant upon you to show me the error in my comments (from your experts) as it is for me to provide sources behind my comments (if you get my drift).

My comments in my study stand, unless I amshown to be in error.

Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well I appreciate the time which you have given me.



You are right to note that now we have deployed our general cases the only way to continue would be to chase each point up in detail [sources and all!], and this is very time consuming. Obviously you must make your own choices about that!



I will deal with the points you make at the end.



'PROOF'

As I have been at pains to point out there is no 'proof' possible for evolution [or any scientific theory] if by that you mean a conclusive argument showing it is true. All you can expect for a successful theory is a lot of evidence which builds up until 99% of the practitioners in the field accept that it is probably true.



I, a layman, have reported to you the evidence that the scientists feel backs up evolution. However you, also a layman, have rejected it. Your technique, speaking generally, has been to make unsubstantiated assertions and then be 'too busy' to back them up OR to point out that a piece of evidence does not 'prove' evolution on its own [which, as I have just explained is not to the point.]



When I have tried to go into detail or asked for your sources you have, usually but not always, backed off. But I appreciate that this is due to other calls on your time.



SIMILARITY OF SPECIES

Now to deal with 'similarity of species'. Of course the similar features of finches on the islands does not prove they have evolved. I never said it did. The theory of evolution, if true, EXPLAINS the phenomenon. It might be that there are other explanations. We need then to do two things before we make a decision.

1. Look at the other things that evolution would explain if it is true.

2. Look at the alternative explanations and see how they cope explaining the phenomenon under investigation.

This is what I have done and evolution wins hands down.

[PS the one thing I am a minor expert in is the Philosophy of Science so I know what I am on about here!]



YOUR POSITION - AS I SEE IT

But, Julian, you do not want to believe this because, for reasons that are beyond me, you want to ignore two centuries of biblical scholarship and interpret the bible in an old-fashioned and unreasonable way. I do you a slight injustice here because youR intellectual honesty forced you to interpret the Genesis stories 'dramatically'! You have started on the path - why not continue?



Best wishes and thanks again,



Laurie



Best wishes and thanks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Hi Laurie.

Sorry mate, but there is nothing you have said in this reply that adds any weight to your original post.

As I am running out of time to keep up with other projects at the moment, I will leave the discussion HERE on THIS subject for now. You have the link to my other forum, I will be posting on this subject THERE in the near future. That site has the advantage of archving posts (saves repeating oneself), and a place for larger studies (can upload word docs) and we can put links there as well.

When I get time, I will certainly go over all this again there, but for now I leave my comments as they are, they can be varified if you read enough material on the subject.

The only new comment I will make is about the finches. Longer beaks is not proof of 'evolution' Laurie, I have really covered this extremely well in my posts (though not this specific example). Having a finch with a longer beak on one island than one on another only shows the birds ability within it's genes to have either a shorter, or longer beak!!!

This is like we have shorter, taller, slimer, fatter people, depending on a) their genetic make up and b) their environment(lifestyle). This seems really simple and ovious to me. As I say, you go and ask the question of one of these 'many experts'. Ask them, "Does similarity between species prove they have evolved?" and "does the fact that a given species can adapt WITHIN a certain perameter prove they can change structure?" If you get a straight answer, I will be pleased to hear it.(I HAVE asked science PHDs, and I have NOT had a clear answer, and when pushed they say, "no, it does not, but.....")

Sorry Laurie, I have not got time to have circular argument, I will attempt to give you more info on my forum, but it will have to wait until I have time.

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This discussion shows signs of expanding out of control! Brief replies



1. Older the rocks the more complex the fossils. As predicted by the theory.



You say that we often find it the other way round. Sources please?



2.Extinctions and the theory of evolution.

If the the theory is correct, when there is a major change in the environment the species then existing would not be suited to the new conditions and would become extinct. They would be replaced by new species better fitted to the novel conditions.

The is what we do find in the fossil record.



3.Mammals all the have the same structure. Why? Evolution explains.

How? They all evolved from the same ancestors so have the same structure but adapted to their environmental niche. Thus whales and rhinos have the same mammalian structure.



Why did God make them similar? You give no explanation beyond saying he did. Evolution explains better than Creationism here.



5. Vestigial limbs

I have answered this below and, I think, it is your turn to reply.

Please, when you do, explain why some lizards have within their bodies useless leg bones. What possible reason would God have to create the lizard like this?

Again evolution explains simply.



6. Australian animals.

I did not explain well here and you miss my point. It is this. In Australia we find animals,that are similar to animals in the same environmental niche in other parts of the world yet they belong to very different species. Evolution would predict this phenomenon.



It is not a question of agreeing or not with evolution here -it is a fact that the theory does predict this phenomenon.



I claim it is good evidence for the theory then.



6. Genetics

I do not know enough about genetics to answer in detail but it seems that the genomes [is that the right word?] of animals fits the pattern you would expect from evolution. Humans and chimps that are supposed to have evolved from the same source have a very similar genetic structure. One example of hundreds.



7. Micoevolution and macroevolution

No need to get hung up on words here. What I call microevolution, which occurs e.g. in animal breeding, you accept. And the theory of evolution predicts that it would. One up to the theory of evolution.



Now, what I call macroevolution HAS THE SAME MECHANISM but needs more time. Micro is evidence for macro then. [Not conclusive but added to all the other evidence...]



8 The finches

You do not answer the point. The theory is that the same species of finch migrated to a number of different islands. Over time, on each island, they evolved into species which were adapted to the conditions on that island.



Exactly what Darwin found! The finches are very very similar except that each 'fits' the island it is on.



What the the Creationist's explanation of this phenomenon? God just thought it a good idea to make these finches all alike and similar to mainland finches. Very provocative of him!



9. Transitional fossils

I think we are discussing this below and it is your turn to reply. You had better give sources for the assertions you make.



10. Embryos

Please give me the sources again - sorry I have not followed it up.



General comment.

I have no great desire to accept evolution nor any other scientific theory. However if most scientist tell me something I'll go with it.



If you are right about evolution then most scientists are deluded/engaged in a gigantic cover up/don't know their job... You will need to provide me with VERY STRONG evidence that this is so. Something you have conspicously failed to do so far.



Best wishes



Laurie



PS I hope you noticed that I was simply reposting a summary of my original position which looks likely soon to fall off the bottom.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



And yet we find it the other way around also, please explain that?



2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So what? What do extinctions have to do with the theory of evolution?



3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.



Nope, God made them as they are, He explains it much better. Just because Mammals live in different environments doesn't prove they evolved to live there.



4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



I have covered this already, so won't repeat myself. It is NOT explained beautifully ao otherwise, as I challenged you before, show me fossils of limbs (structures) CHANGING. You cannot.



5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Huh? They were that way to start with, show me evidence of this changing you talk about.



6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, and? This shows how we stay the same, not that we change into something else.



7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



You have to understand the terminology you are using here. Micro evolution (so termed) is NOT evolution at all, not in the sense with which you are using it. There is NO proof to support your conclusion.



8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.



This shows that species DO NOT adapt, if they loose their environments MOST become EXTINCT. This to me just shows the opposite of what you are trying to postulate. Darwin has long been shot to pieces (on the whole), not only by creationists, but also by most serious scentists, I suggest you read some more up to date material.



9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.



No these are NOT links, any scientist will tell you, these are put in an order to show POSSIBLE connections, but are NOT links as demanded by good scientific practice.

Eg, The horse: Only one set of possible links is shown to you, I suggest you investigate in an unbised way, you will find so many that do NOT fit, but they are left out by those who want to present a slick tree, just not so Laurie. Then we find out that the earliest 'horse' was in fact a rodent!!!! Do check these things out for yourself Laurie, and stop trusting all your read by those who are biased.



10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



Did you ignore what I wrote on this? A serious scientist would laugh at you if you put this forward, this is really too much Laurie. I wonder now if you are actually checking the material I gave you, I would hate to think I wasted my efforts (?). Please refer to my study, I also recently saw an eminent scientist on TV say that similarity is NOT any proof of evolution, and he said that it is bad science to suggest this. Please do look at the facts Laurie, not what suits your predisposition. It becomes tiresome otherwise.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



There are NO link fossils as you term them, that is why the term MISSING LINK is used so often BY SCIENTISTS. They mearly have fossils that APPEAR to be similar, that is NO proof of a change from one species to another.

This new excuse of 'rapid' evolution is clutching at straws Laurie, most scientists would be embarressed by such nonsense. It is a case of because nothing has been found in all these years to substantiate the fallen theory, they have to come up with something else, in order to save face. My goodness, it gets more ridiculous as time goes on. Wham I have changed into a monkey, wham oh look now I am an ape, wham, now a whale.....or whatever....pure fanatasy.

Creation just DOES NOT have this capability to change in the way your are saying, and that is povable. When environment changes a species can either adapt (but stays as such the same species) or becomes extinct. You look at the loss of species over the past 300 years Laurie, and then show me some new ones, they do NOT rapidly (or slowly, or any other way)change, they DIE OUT, FACT!!!



You seem to be happy with your none scientific beliefs, I am happy with my scientific beliefs, that each is in its own order as created. Sorry you have done such a small amount of research, I feel a bit let down Laurie. You have not come up with ANYTHING substantial, and in fact you are perpetuating a modern myth, you obviously WANT to believe it.



Best reagrds, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

You stated: 1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.





I am not sure how that shows anything. If the older rocks show "simpler" fossils, and yet, they are more complex in the "older rocks" AND they develope in "time order"; well, I am afraid I am a little confused by this statement. If you are saying that evolution progresses "from simple to complex" forms, then we do have a problem. For the opposite of this was used as an argument from one of the Science forums I visited, as evidence FOR evolution, that is, forms do not necessarily progress from simple to complex (I will have to get some references on this). In other words, no matter how it is viewed, they claim it is correct.

I will have to get back to you on the references though, I am about to get ready for work.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

This discussion shows signs of expanding out of control! Brief replies



1. Older the rocks the more complex the fossils. As predicted by the theory.



You say that we often find it the other way round. Sources please?



2.Extinctions and the theory of evolution.

If the the theory is correct, when there is a major change in the environment the species then existing would not be suited to the new conditions and would become extinct. They would be replaced by new species better fitted to the novel conditions.

The is what we do find in the fossil record.



3.Mammals all the have the same structure. Why? Evolution explains.

How? They all evolved from the same ancestors so have the same structure but adapted to their environmental niche. Thus whales and rhinos have the same mammalian structure.



Why did God make them similar? You give no explanation beyond saying he did. Evolution explains better than Creationism here.



5. Vestigial limbs

I have answered this below and, I think, it is your turn to reply.

Please, when you do, explain why some lizards have within their bodies useless leg bones. What possible reason would God have to create the lizard like this?

Again evolution explains simply.



6. Australian animals.

I did not explain well here and you miss my point. It is this. In Australia we find animals,that are similar to animals in the same environmental niche in other parts of the world yet they belong to very different species. Evolution would predict this phenomenon.



It is not a question of agreeing or not with evolution here -it is a fact that the theory does predict this phenomenon.



I claim it is good evidence for the theory then.



6. Genetics

I do not know enough about genetics to answer in detail but it seems that the genomes [is that the right word?] of animals fits the pattern you would expect from evolution. Humans and chimps that are supposed to have evolved from the same source have a very similar genetic structure. One example of hundreds.



7. Micoevolution and macroevolution

No need to get hung up on words here. What I call microevolution, which occurs e.g. in animal breeding, you accept. And the theory of evolution predicts that it would. One up to the theory of evolution.



Now, what I call macroevolution HAS THE SAME MECHANISM but needs more time. Micro is evidence for macro then. [Not conclusive but added to all the other evidence...]



8 The finches

You do not answer the point. The theory is that the same species of finch migrated to a number of different islands. Over time, on each island, they evolved into species which were adapted to the conditions on that island.



Exactly what Darwin found! The finches are very very similar except that each 'fits' the island it is on.



What the the Creationist's explanation of this phenomenon? God just thought it a good idea to make these finches all alike and similar to mainland finches. Very provocative of him!



9. Transitional fossils

I think we are discussing this below and it is your turn to reply. You had better give sources for the assertions you make.



10. Embryos

Please give me the sources again - sorry I have not followed it up.



General comment.

I have no great desire to accept evolution nor any other scientific theory. However if most scientist tell me something I'll go with it.



If you are right about evolution then most scientists are deluded/engaged in a gigantic cover up/don't know their job... You will need to provide me with VERY STRONG evidence that this is so. Something you have conspicously failed to do so far.



Best wishes



Laurie



PS I hope you noticed that I was simply reposting a summary of my original position which looks likely soon to fall off the bottom.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.



And yet we find it the other way around also, please explain that?



2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.



So what? What do extinctions have to do with the theory of evolution?



3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.



Nope, God made them as they are, He explains it much better. Just because Mammals live in different environments doesn't prove they evolved to live there.



4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



I have covered this already, so won't repeat myself. It is NOT explained beautifully ao otherwise, as I challenged you before, show me fossils of limbs (structures) CHANGING. You cannot.



5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Huh? They were that way to start with, show me evidence of this changing you talk about.



6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, and? This shows how we stay the same, not that we change into something else.



7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



You have to understand the terminology you are using here. Micro evolution (so termed) is NOT evolution at all, not in the sense with which you are using it. There is NO proof to support your conclusion.



8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.



This shows that species DO NOT adapt, if they loose their environments MOST become EXTINCT. This to me just shows the opposite of what you are trying to postulate. Darwin has long been shot to pieces (on the whole), not only by creationists, but also by most serious scentists, I suggest you read some more up to date material.



9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.



No these are NOT links, any scientist will tell you, these are put in an order to show POSSIBLE connections, but are NOT links as demanded by good scientific practice.

Eg, The horse: Only one set of possible links is shown to you, I suggest you investigate in an unbised way, you will find so many that do NOT fit, but they are left out by those who want to present a slick tree, just not so Laurie. Then we find out that the earliest 'horse' was in fact a rodent!!!! Do check these things out for yourself Laurie, and stop trusting all your read by those who are biased.



10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



Did you ignore what I wrote on this? A serious scientist would laugh at you if you put this forward, this is really too much Laurie. I wonder now if you are actually checking the material I gave you, I would hate to think I wasted my efforts (?). Please refer to my study, I also recently saw an eminent scientist on TV say that similarity is NOT any proof of evolution, and he said that it is bad science to suggest this. Please do look at the facts Laurie, not what suits your predisposition. It becomes tiresome otherwise.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



There are NO link fossils as you term them, that is why the term MISSING LINK is used so often BY SCIENTISTS. They mearly have fossils that APPEAR to be similar, that is NO proof of a change from one species to another.

This new excuse of 'rapid' evolution is clutching at straws Laurie, most scientists would be embarressed by such nonsense. It is a case of because nothing has been found in all these years to substantiate the fallen theory, they have to come up with something else, in order to save face. My goodness, it gets more ridiculous as time goes on. Wham I have changed into a monkey, wham oh look now I am an ape, wham, now a whale.....or whatever....pure fanatasy.

Creation just DOES NOT have this capability to change in the way your are saying, and that is povable. When environment changes a species can either adapt (but stays as such the same species) or becomes extinct. You look at the loss of species over the past 300 years Laurie, and then show me some new ones, they do NOT rapidly (or slowly, or any other way)change, they DIE OUT, FACT!!!



You seem to be happy with your none scientific beliefs, I am happy with my scientific beliefs, that each is in its own order as created. Sorry you have done such a small amount of research, I feel a bit let down Laurie. You have not come up with ANYTHING substantial, and in fact you are perpetuating a modern myth, you obviously WANT to believe it.



Best reagrds, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

I hadn't even started. If you need evidences I can supply them, how about models? I have in depth information on biological co-dependance that would freak most people out. Irreversible complexity, is another great subject we could go on and on about. I have the information, and have read most of the books.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Impressive!



But there are hundreds of books produced by Creationists. there is a whole industry out there. People want to accept the Bible as inerrant for some reason and are keen to be told that evolution is bunk. Some of the books are by charlatans others are sincere but misguided because...



The plain cold facts are these. The vast majority of those who are experts in the field, who are qualified [unlike you and me] and who are trained to evaluate evidence impartially, tell us that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Neither you nor Julian nor anyone has challenged this fact [ You have suggested that not ALL scientists agree and perhaps hinted the % might be less than I suggest but you cannot disagree that a high majority agree with evolution. Nor have you or Julian or anyone ever explained to me why these scientists are all so blind that they cannot realise the force of your objections.



This being the case, a poor mutt like me will go with the majority therefore.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I hadn't even started. If you need evidences I can supply them, how about models? I have in depth information on biological co-dependance that would freak most people out. Irreversible complexity, is another great subject we could go on and on about. I have the information, and have read most of the books.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Creationists? I read Gamow, Hawkins, Gould, Anderson, and etc. ad nausium. These are the guys I use for references. Ask Peter, ask Edward, they know whom I quote



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Impressive!



But there are hundreds of books produced by Creationists. there is a whole industry out there. People want to accept the Bible as inerrant for some reason and are keen to be told that evolution is bunk. Some of the books are by charlatans others are sincere but misguided because...



The plain cold facts are these. The vast majority of those who are experts in the field, who are qualified [unlike you and me] and who are trained to evaluate evidence impartially, tell us that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Neither you nor Julian nor anyone has challenged this fact [ You have suggested that not ALL scientists agree and perhaps hinted the % might be less than I suggest but you cannot disagree that a high majority agree with evolution. Nor have you or Julian or anyone ever explained to me why these scientists are all so blind that they cannot realise the force of your objections.



This being the case, a poor mutt like me will go with the majority therefore.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I hadn't even started. If you need evidences I can supply them, how about models? I have in depth information on biological co-dependance that would freak most people out. Irreversible complexity, is another great subject we could go on and on about. I have the information, and have read most of the books.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

I mentioned "polyWater" elsewhere; the "Vast majority of scientists" jumped at this "discovery" and for quite a few years, they held it in awe. Time does not allow me to go into some ideas held for very long periods of time that were so incorrect they actually caused physical harm to people. I have been trained to think: not like this group, nor that group. I have questioned most of the answers. I have been doing so for over 30 years. I will continue to do so as long as I have the strength.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Impressive!



But there are hundreds of books produced by Creationists. there is a whole industry out there. People want to accept the Bible as inerrant for some reason and are keen to be told that evolution is bunk. Some of the books are by charlatans others are sincere but misguided because...



The plain cold facts are these. The vast majority of those who are experts in the field, who are qualified [unlike you and me] and who are trained to evaluate evidence impartially, tell us that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Neither you nor Julian nor anyone has challenged this fact [ You have suggested that not ALL scientists agree and perhaps hinted the % might be less than I suggest but you cannot disagree that a high majority agree with evolution. Nor have you or Julian or anyone ever explained to me why these scientists are all so blind that they cannot realise the force of your objections.



This being the case, a poor mutt like me will go with the majority therefore.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I hadn't even started. If you need evidences I can supply them, how about models? I have in depth information on biological co-dependance that would freak most people out. Irreversible complexity, is another great subject we could go on and on about. I have the information, and have read most of the books.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Polywater, etc.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I mentioned "polyWater" elsewhere; the "Vast majority of scientists" jumped at this "discovery" and for quite a few years, they held it in awe. Time does not allow me to go into some ideas held for very long periods of time that were so incorrect they actually caused physical harm to people. I have been trained to think: not like this group, nor that group. I have questioned most of the answers. I have been doing so for over 30 years. I will continue to do so as long as I have the strength.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Impressive!



But there are hundreds of books produced by Creationists. there is a whole industry out there. People want to accept the Bible as inerrant for some reason and are keen to be told that evolution is bunk. Some of the books are by charlatans others are sincere but misguided because...



The plain cold facts are these. The vast majority of those who are experts in the field, who are qualified [unlike you and me] and who are trained to evaluate evidence impartially, tell us that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Neither you nor Julian nor anyone has challenged this fact [ You have suggested that not ALL scientists agree and perhaps hinted the % might be less than I suggest but you cannot disagree that a high majority agree with evolution. Nor have you or Julian or anyone ever explained to me why these scientists are all so blind that they cannot realise the force of your objections.



This being the case, a poor mutt like me will go with the majority therefore.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I hadn't even started. If you need evidences I can supply them, how about models? I have in depth information on biological co-dependance that would freak most people out. Irreversible complexity, is another great subject we could go on and on about. I have the information, and have read most of the books.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

What, those eyes that evolved?...lol.

Seems to me that my optimism that I would find an atheist with an open mind was a false one, oh well.

Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Well, Julian, feel assured that you found a FORMER atheist, with an open mind ( ). I did all of these studies and ran it by a lot of scientists before coming to my conclusions. But, I was a stubborn little kid of 17 or so too, 30 years ago.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

What, those eyes that evolved?...lol.

Seems to me that my optimism that I would find an atheist with an open mind was a false one, oh well.

Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

the last three statements have been handled to a degree in the above, however, it is obvious from even a casual reading, much less an involved study, that the two accounts are not "individual accounts". Each brings out important points the other does not. This is how Scripture is organized. And that last statement was shown false (or most probably false anyway) early in the argument.



Ontologically, cosmologically, logically, and even in many cases empirically, we can see the creator, unless we close our eyes really tight...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Not all biologists, and other scientists agree that evolution is fact. Some violently oppose what they call a violation of logical and scientific reasoning.



A start



some biology for you



And there is much more.



Mike



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

accept evolution. I am not going to get into a discussion about whether it is 98% or 99%!!!



Also most of those that disagree are Bible Christians who have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution.



You are a brave [or foolhardy] man to go with the majority - or you have considerable confidence in your biological ability.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Not all biologists, and other scientists agree that evolution is fact. Some violently oppose what they call a violation of logical and scientific reasoning.



A start



some biology for you



And there is much more.



Mike



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Well, when most "scientists" agreed on one thing or another, and someone discovered them wrong (which happens less and less to be sure) we have a "eureka" experience. Slowly all the minds locked into believing that the earth is flat, realize it is not. But, it normally takes a long time to make the conversion happen (in the case above, over 1,000 years).

I have little "ability" as you mean it. I do seem to have a gift of grasping things I read rather quickly (and also in seeing the "if all A are blue and all B are yellow, then all A will eventually become B's" arguments for what they are). I think you might find the list of books I have read amusing; maybe I should list them *LOL*; nah, that would be bragging, and I am not that kind of guy.

I just have the information available, and I see a different "logistical horizon" then many. The newest event horizon is coming very soon.



And one more thing, as the one link I gave earlier says (it references another's comment), I am definitely not in the majority. I have had my share of being called a heretic, too.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

accept evolution. I am not going to get into a discussion about whether it is 98% or 99%!!!



Also most of those that disagree are Bible Christians who have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution.



You are a brave [or foolhardy] man to go with the majority - or you have considerable confidence in your biological ability.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Not all biologists, and other scientists agree that evolution is fact. Some violently oppose what they call a violation of logical and scientific reasoning.



A start



some biology for you



And there is much more.



Mike



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

is that 'most scientists' MAY be wrong not that they ARE wrong or are LIKELY to be wrong or PROBABLY wrong.



The mere possibility that the majority of experts are wrong is no reason to reject their judgement. [You would not do this re your doctor or motor mechanic so why do it here]



So I go with the vast majority of scientists.





Laurie



PS Once again you do not explain WHY they have all not seen what is so obvious to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well, when most "scientists" agreed on one thing or another, and someone discovered them wrong (which happens less and less to be sure) we have a "eureka" experience. Slowly all the minds locked into believing that the earth is flat, realize it is not. But, it normally takes a long time to make the conversion happen (in the case above, over 1,000 years).

I have little "ability" as you mean it. I do seem to have a gift of grasping things I read rather quickly (and also in seeing the "if all A are blue and all B are yellow, then all A will eventually become B's" arguments for what they are). I think you might find the list of books I have read amusing; maybe I should list them *LOL*; nah, that would be bragging, and I am not that kind of guy.

I just have the information available, and I see a different "logistical horizon" then many. The newest event horizon is coming very soon.



And one more thing, as the one link I gave earlier says (it references another's comment), I am definitely not in the majority. I have had my share of being called a heretic, too.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

accept evolution. I am not going to get into a discussion about whether it is 98% or 99%!!!



Also most of those that disagree are Bible Christians who have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution.



You are a brave [or foolhardy] man to go with the majority - or you have considerable confidence in your biological ability.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Not all biologists, and other scientists agree that evolution is fact. Some violently oppose what they call a violation of logical and scientific reasoning.



A start



some biology for you



And there is much more.



Mike



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

I certainly did not mean to indicate that "because someone COULD be wrong that they ARE wrong" , I was adding this to the mounds of physical, cosmological, logical, genomal, chemical, philosophical, psychological, and archeological evidences I have personally seen (as stated by those that Believe in evolution; in their own books) that can be interpreted in a broader sense and more in accordance with Ockham's razor .



>>>

[You would not do this re your doctor or motor mechanic so why do it here]

>>>



I would not do this to my doctor? On more than one occasion, I have found the MD incorrect in his "off the cuff" diagnosis. The Phd. meant nothing apparently. This, I have found with most of the doctors I have had the displeasure to be acquainted with. Only my proctologist seems to know what he is doing (and we need not go there).


And, I studied enough books on mechanics also, so that those that profess being auto mechanics could not fool me (as they thought they could on many occasions; some, if not many of them are professional thieves, too)


Why haven't they "all seen what is so obvious to me, and the professors I mention"? Why wasn't it obvious that PolyWater, and the rest of the list I gave earlier "incorrect" to those "professionals" that promoted their worth? You will have to tell me. I am not a certified "professional" so, although I have been exposed to the ideas of polywater, and other "magic" I tend to work inside the laws of physics to explain what has, to many, become the magic bullet of excuse for any need to be responsible, "it just happened. The dirt just started living" (I am over simplifying, I know; but there are many scientists that do not like "abiogenesis" as an explanation to "first cause" concerning life). I am sorry. I have found too many times that the majority tends to follow inaccurate ideas for centuries at a time. These that claim to be "unbiased" as brought out in a recent article in "The Scientist", "know" they can not be totally "unbiased"; and to say such means one is even more biased then one that can at least admit to the problem of being human.



Mike



Two posts ago you said "I" was in a majority (this threw me a little) and so I assumed you meant "majority of Christians" and so my response (my last post) of that I was not in that majority, might not have made sense. I am not in the minority either (some Christian Scientist do make some unfounded claims) and am referred to, as I mentioned, a heretic because I see conventional science proving the very same things that they try to, but in another arena. My use of heuristic, as well as already discovered evidences should not make my observations any less palatable. I know of a few (one that lives near me, in fact) atheists that are very intrigued by my point of view.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

is that 'most scientists' MAY be wrong not that they ARE wrong or are LIKELY to be wrong or PROBABLY wrong.



The mere possibility that the majority of experts are wrong is no reason to reject their judgement. [You would not do this re your doctor or motor mechanic so why do it here]



So I go with the vast majority of scientists.





Laurie



PS Once again you do not explain WHY they have all not seen what is so obvious to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well, when most "scientists" agreed on one thing or another, and someone discovered them wrong (which happens less and less to be sure) we have a "eureka" experience. Slowly all the minds locked into believing that the earth is flat, realize it is not. But, it normally takes a long time to make the conversion happen (in the case above, over 1,000 years).

I have little "ability" as you mean it. I do seem to have a gift of grasping things I read rather quickly (and also in seeing the "if all A are blue and all B are yellow, then all A will eventually become B's" arguments for what they are). I think you might find the list of books I have read amusing; maybe I should list them *LOL*; nah, that would be bragging, and I am not that kind of guy.

I just have the information available, and I see a different "logistical horizon" then many. The newest event horizon is coming very soon.



And one more thing, as the one link I gave earlier says (it references another's comment), I am definitely not in the majority. I have had my share of being called a heretic, too.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

accept evolution. I am not going to get into a discussion about whether it is 98% or 99%!!!



Also most of those that disagree are Bible Christians who have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution.



You are a brave [or foolhardy] man to go with the majority - or you have considerable confidence in your biological ability.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Not all biologists, and other scientists agree that evolution is fact. Some violently oppose what they call a violation of logical and scientific reasoning.



A start



some biology for you



And there is much more.



Mike



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

There is no assumption that the eye evolved all in one go. It would have happened slowly.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

Yet this is the very problem, how can you evolve an eye? You can't, ask a scientist to explain how this could be so, they cannot. Also, I would ask you to look at examples like the bombadeir beetle, how could such a system evolve? You try to figure that one out!

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There is no assumption that the eye evolved all in one go. It would have happened slowly.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

You assert that you cannot evolve an eye whereas scientists are sure you can. Who will I believe? You know my answer!!!



All the best,



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yet this is the very problem, how can you evolve an eye? You can't, ask a scientist to explain how this could be so, they cannot. Also, I would ask you to look at examples like the bombadeir beetle, how could such a system evolve? You try to figure that one out!

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There is no assumption that the eye evolved all in one go. It would have happened slowly.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

The Biologist I have referred to, Professor Behe, and several others assert we can NOT evolve an eye.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You assert that you cannot evolve an eye whereas scientists are sure you can. Who will I believe? You know my answer!!!



All the best,



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Yet this is the very problem, how can you evolve an eye? You can't, ask a scientist to explain how this could be so, they cannot. Also, I would ask you to look at examples like the bombadeir beetle, how could such a system evolve? You try to figure that one out!

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

There is no assumption that the eye evolved all in one go. It would have happened slowly.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

in the millions of years available to evolution there is time for that small minority that are viable and lead to speciation.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie

Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com

unfortunately, I see the trend working in the opposite direction. With my reading on "biological orientation" I found many references to "more and more destructive" forms of genetic material being produced, so much so, that if not interrupted, will move us into an entropic slush pile of sorts.



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

in the millions of years available to evolution there is time for that small minority that are viable and lead to speciation.



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie