Can Evolutionists Answer These??

[Fishteacher73]

A little late, but I've been buisy w/ the fry....

Originally Posted by Dima

I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. I bet you can't disprove even one.

Got a bookie?

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Morton has answered well on this one, but for more specific evolutionary examples, the evolution of cetations is VERY WELL defined in the fossil record.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

All I have to say is look around.

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Science seems to support these quite well. Perhaps you have some misunderstandings as to what science and the natural (I supposed to the supernatural world) world are.

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

The vagueness of hominid evolution will remain so in the fossil record. We are simply to close to the time period geologically to have a reasonble record in the fossils.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

Ther is a very big difference between a monkey and an ape. I will assure that any fossils atributed to hominid species will never be moved to the taxa of the monkeys.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

So are you saying that Homo sapiens have changed over time...OMG...that sounds like evolution to me.

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

When used in terms of social Darwinism yes, but that is just extrapolated from one theory to justify the maligned views of individuals.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

As opposed to religon? Such as what?

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

There is only one global strata and that is the KT boundry that marks the begining of the Tertiary.

God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think.

\
This is a large lack of evidence. I have thought and studied this quite a bit and made an informed decision, not an anthropocentric one with random forces working from one of literally thousands of creation myths.

[OpenMind5]

It seems that yes...we can answer them. If they are the answers u wanna hear? maybe not...But yes...we can.

Op5

[Little Bang]

Dima, have you ever heard anyone say, ( Don't confuse me with facts, I will believe what I want to believe. ) So regardless of what you are shown you will always find away to say it is wrong, What you think is your right in america, and I'm proud of it.

[OpenMind5]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

... What you think is your right in america...

Not true. I think I am wrong most of the time. And that doesn't bother me.
O well

Op5

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by OpenMind5

Bacteria and other single cell organisms didn't exactly leave behind fossils...
op5

But isn't that what "scientists" are using to say that life once existed on Mars. (from Martian rocks)

[Fishteacher73]

There are a great deal of micro-fossils...

Here's a basic description by an Prof at Berkeley..
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Lipps1.html


An extensive paper about them w/ images..
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/reference/ostra.../ostracods.pdf

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by MortenS

Humans resulted from animal, of course...look at yourself, then look at chimp. Do you not see the similarities? Nails? What other mammals have nails?

Surely you are joking, or are you the guy who previously admitted never taking zoology? Human's 'nails' are analogous to a horse's hooves or a cat's claws. THAT does not mean one came from the other.

The fact that animals which were created for this particular planet are similar is not so hard to believe. I think it is more hard to believe that there is the amount of diversity as there is in the animal and plant kingdoms.

[Fishteacher73]

Nails and claws are similar structures, but nails and claws are no the same. CLaws are rectactable and nails are not. Different in form and function.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Dima

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by OpenMind5

Like....what?
op5

"Charles Darwin described the eye as one of the greatest challenges to his theory. How could he explain it? The eye, after all, is simply incompatible with evolution. "To suppose," Darwin admitted, "that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" (On the Origin of Species, 1909, p. 190).

Jacob Bronowski wrote that, "if you compare a human being with even the most sharp-eyed of the great apes, say with a chimpanzee, our vision is incredibly more delicate ... Their ability to discriminate fine detail (which can be tested in a very simple way) is not comparable with that of human beings" (The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination, 1978, pp. 12-13).

The human eye possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light into chemical impulses. These signals travel at a rate of a billion per second to the brain.

The essential problem for Darwinists is how so many intricate components could have independently evolved to work together perfectly when, if a single component didn't function perfectly, nothing would work at all.

"Now it is quite evident," says scientist Francis Hitching, "that if the slightest thing goes wrong en route—if the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate, or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong—then a recognizable image is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all.

"So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements? Is it really possible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?

"Small wonder that it troubled Darwin. 'To this day the eye makes me shudder,' [Darwin] wrote to his botanist friend Asa Gray in February, 1860" (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 86).

The same can be said of the brain, nose, palate and dozens of other complex and highly developed organs in any human or animal. It would take a quantum leap of faith to think all this just evolved. Yet that is commonly taught and accepted.

After reviewing the improbability of such organs arising in nature from an evolutionary process, Professor H.S. Lipson, a member of the British Institute of Physics, wrote in 1980: "We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable alternative is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (Physics Bulletin, Vol. 30, p. 140). GN

-- Mario Seiglie

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Charles Darwin described the eye as one of the greatest challenges to his theory. How could he explain it? The eye, after all, is simply incompatible with evolution. "To suppose," Darwin admitted, "that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" (On the Origin of Species, 1909, p. 190).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp A refutation, and from creationists. Darwin himself, in On the Origin of Species proposes a mechanism for the eye to evolve. Picking quotes out of context like this like this is horribly dishonest.
-Will