WELCOME! A place where iron can sharpen iron, where spiritual milk and strong meat may be shared and received by all, where scripture can be expounded, where truth and love may be seen by the world.
To post: email totw@truthonthewb.org from your email address and ask for the password. It will be changed from time-to-time as need arises. Thank you for posting here. God bless.
3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.
But again, if mammals came from "something lower than itself" we have the problem of why so much "dissimilarity". However, a "creator" explains this beautifully...
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.
So, if evironmental changes destroy the balance and all the lessor animals die of, there should be no lessor animals at all, in fact none to carry on the process of evolution. Unlike point #1; this would show us that nothing should exist that is alive.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.
If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.
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 does the fact that the mammals all came from something lower than themselves create a problem here? I just do not understand your logic? Nor do I follow what you mean by 'lower' in this context.
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.
But again, if mammals came from "something lower than itself" we have the problem of why so much "dissimilarity". However, a "creator" explains this beautifully...
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.
So, if evironmental changes destroy the balance and all the lessor animals die of, there should be no lessor animals at all, in fact none to carry on the process of evolution. Unlike point #1; this would show us that nothing should exist that is alive.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.
If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.
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 point you made is: animals come from lower forms which become less viable and so also become extinct (mentioned in another thread). Either we have a continuous flow of ALL intermediates (because they do NOT become less viable) or we have only man living on the planet. Since evolution depends on something becoming "better", we have a small problem. Survival of the fittest is inaccurate. There are "traits" which are self defeating, and indeed genocidically inclined, that are being inherited and more prevalent. (if you want specifics, I can look up a few) So, maybe we are going backwards now?
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Why does the fact that the mammals all came from something lower than themselves create a problem here? I just do not understand your logic? Nor do I follow what you mean by 'lower' in this context.
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.
But again, if mammals came from "something lower than itself" we have the problem of why so much "dissimilarity". However, a "creator" explains this beautifully...
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.
So, if evironmental changes destroy the balance and all the lessor animals die of, there should be no lessor animals at all, in fact none to carry on the process of evolution. Unlike point #1; this would show us that nothing should exist that is alive.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.
If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.
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
Sorry. Do not follow the 'either or' in the second sentence. You are going to have to spell it out for me.
Or how the 'better' point follows on.
Silly me.
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The point you made is: animals come from lower forms which become less viable and so also become extinct (mentioned in another thread). Either we have a continuous flow of ALL intermediates (because they do NOT become less viable) or we have only man living on the planet. Since evolution depends on something becoming "better", we have a small problem. Survival of the fittest is inaccurate. There are "traits" which are self defeating, and indeed genocidically inclined, that are being inherited and more prevalent. (if you want specifics, I can look up a few) So, maybe we are going backwards now?
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Why does the fact that the mammals all came from something lower than themselves create a problem here? I just do not understand your logic? Nor do I follow what you mean by 'lower' in this context.
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.
But again, if mammals came from "something lower than itself" we have the problem of why so much "dissimilarity". However, a "creator" explains this beautifully...
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.
So, if evironmental changes destroy the balance and all the lessor animals die of, there should be no lessor animals at all, in fact none to carry on the process of evolution. Unlike point #1; this would show us that nothing should exist that is alive.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.
If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.
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
ok, I thought one of them should have been simpler 
, anyway, my problem is two fold, I get some evolutionists saying "simple to complex" and others denying this. So, an argument on this point is hard to pin down.
Thanks. Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Hi Mike,
should say more complex in the YOUNGER ...
sorry
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Actually, I am trying to understand your statement:
Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.
Which seems self contradictory.
BUT, time order is not accurate (at least, this is the argument that the Evolutionists in the Biology forum gave me) as evidence for multiple starts and no "single line" biologically were the very things thrown at me by the biologists themselves. I realize this line could quickly get into genetics and quite possibly neuroanatomy, and etc. as evidence of a lack of time order in the lines.
Mike
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Each animal defeats the other animals in the same environmental niche. There are thousands of such niches.
Forgive me for being blunt but how can you criticise evolution when you fail to understand it in such a blatent way?
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.
If evolution states that things went from simple to complex, AND if it states that as things "improved" the lessor animals became extinct, as I have heard argued THEN, humans, supposedly the most advanced SHOULD be the ONLY animal to exist, all the lessor ones having already become extinct from natural selection.
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