Forums → WEPR → Evolution

Thus, their belief, which is the only true belief, has it outlined in the Bible, which is the word of the almighty, only God, must be correct, and anything which contradicts must be wrong.

I'll have you know that I did not become a christian because family members or people around me cemented these beliefs into my head. A lot of the reason for me being a Christian is because of the gigantic, gaping holes in evolution

I'm getting tired of this for now, so I'm not going to link anything.

I dont read minds, so I am not going to say this is the only possibility, but it seems highly probable that the real reason you don't bother to look into the common ancestor of these species is because you know that there is no such ancestor. honestly, if you aren't familiar with the species, how hard would it be to google that name and have a nice long description of the animal pop up for you?

A lot of the reason for me being a Christian is because of the gigantic, gaping holes in evolution

You have not provided these "gigantic, gaping holes" in Evolution so far, so it would be interesting to see what you assume is so "gigantic" that the entire premise of Evolution would be so convoluted that even objective scientists would scoff.

Sturnella neglecta
Homo Sapiens
Crocodylus porosus
Balaenoptera musculus

So people don't have to look up the scientific names.

Sturnella neglecta: Meadowlark
Homo Sapiens: Human
Crocodylus porosus: Saltwater Crocodile
Balaenoptera musculus: Blue Whale

The common ancestor of them all would be some sort of reptile. The exact species I don't know.

I dont read minds, so I am not going to say this is the only possibility, but it seems highly probable that the real reason you don't bother to look into the common ancestor of these species is because you know that there is no such ancestor. honestly, if you aren't familiar with the species, how hard would it be to google that name and have a nice long description of the animal pop up for you?

He gave you an answer. The first cell. We can't trace every specie back infinitely, so you're asking ridiculous questions. If you want a never failing answer to "what are X and Y's common ancestor?" the first cell will always be the answer. If you want a more specific answer, either look it up, or it doesn't exist because we can't trace it far enough back.

A lot of the reason for me being a Christian is because of the gigantic, gaping holes in evolution

No offense, but that's not a very good reason.

1) Even if evolution as taught is wrong, that doesn't prove creation/religion.
2) Why Christianity? Why not some other religion?
3) What gaping holes? Would you care to give an example?

but it seems highly probable that the real reason you don't bother to look into the common ancestor of these species is because you know that there is no such ancestor

*Sighs* *grumbles about for a bit* Firstly, I really am just tired of this at the moment. Secondly, I frankly don't know where to look to find it, but as you're looking for a common ancestor of a bird, a whale, a human, and a crocodile, that's going to go back a long way. Perhaps Mage knows where to find a really good species timeline, I however do not.

As for you saying, "is because you know that there is no such ancestor" I know no such thing. We have vast amounts of empirical evidence for transitional forms, and just because I do not know one common ancestor or cannot find of a motley of species in no proves that it does not exist.

if you aren't familiar with the species, how hard would it be to google that name and have a nice long description of the animal pop up for you?

I did do that, obviously. I didn't previously because as I said, I was tired of this for now. I still am. Which is why I only spent like 3 minutes trying different searches to get a good species image/graph, and did not get one.

If someone else hasn't answered it by tomorrow afternoon I'll make sure to.

Now, can you give any evidence for Creationism? I think it'd be fair for someone -other- than the atheists to have to dredge up links for once...

You have not provided these "gigantic, gaping holes" in Evolution so far, so it would be interesting to see what you assume is so "gigantic" that the entire premise of Evolution would be so convoluted that even objective scientists would scoff.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i8f.htmThe Discontinuity Problem
The most basic problem with the theory of evolution is staring us right in the face, but it is so obvious that it is often overlooked.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact about nature is that it is discontinuous. When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups. When we look at a single wild cat, for example, we are immediately able to identify it as either a lion, a cougar, a snow leopard, and so on. All cats do not blur insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates. And although there is a variation among individuals within a cluster (as all lion researchers know, each lion looks different from every other), the clusters nevertheless remain discrete in "organism space." We see clusters in all organisms that reproduce sexually.

These discrete clusters are known as species. And at first sight, their existence looks like a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution is, after all, a continuous process, so how can it produce groups of animals and plants that are discrete and discontinuous, separated from others by gaps in appearance and behavior? How these groups arise is the problem of speciation��"or the origin of species.

That, of course, is the title of Darwinâs most famous book, a title implying that he had a lot to say about speciation. ⦠Yet Darwinâs magnum opus was largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries." And what little he did say on this topic is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled. 13 [italics his]

If the theory of evolution were true, then plants and animals really would blur together without clear distinctions. It really is a problem for which Coyne has no good answer.

No Excuse for Sex
The origin of sex is one of the hardest things for evolutionists to explain. Coyne doesnât have an answer. As usual, he just punts.

The question of the number of sexes is a messy theoretical issue that neednât detain us, except to note that theory shows that two sexes will evolutionarily replace mating systems involving three or more sexes: two sexes is the most robust and stable strategy.

The theory of why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy. This condition presumably evolved from that in earlier sexually reproducing species in which the two sexes had gametes of equal size. 14

the first cell will always be the answer.

what, then is the origin of this cell? space rocks bumping together and suddenly there is a such thing as DNA?

Notice that he intentionally excludes the origin of life.

Yeah, done reading that. Evolution doesn't cover how life began and I don't want to wade through piles of crap produced by people who don't even understand that much.

As you can tell from my previous post's grammatical issues and my short temper for this one, I am tired and will now be taking my leave for the night. See you all tomorrow.

Even if evolution as taught is wrong, that doesn't prove creation/religion

that is just one thing that helped me into christianity

Why Christianity? Why not some other religion?

Christianity made the most sense to me

Now, can you give any evidence for Creationism? I think it'd be fair for someone -other- than the atheists to have to dredge up links for once...

i'm not positive but I think a already posted a link or two on previous pages. if not, my last post included a link

produced by people who don't even understand that much.

even though ur gone now, perhaps you will read this tommorrow

who are you to say how much we do or do not understand? I understand very much, thank you

what, then is the origin of this cell?

That has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to read theories, go right ahead but nobody has an answer.

space rocks bumping together and suddenly there is a such thing as DNA?

DNA didn't exist until complex organisms did.

i'm not positive but I think a already posted a link or two on previous pages. if not, my last post included a link

Disproving evolution still isn't proving creationism.

who are you to say how much we do or do not understand? I understand very much, thank you

Either you're taking his statement completely out of context, or you just said you know what created the first cell that fits into the theory of evolution.

what, then is the origin of this cell?

A different theory that is not part of evolution.

Disproving evolution still isn't proving creationism.

at the moment, I am not attepting to prove creationism. I do believe(tell me if i'm wrong) that the topic for this discussion is evolution

Either you're taking his statement completely out of context, or you just said you know what created the first cell that fits into the theory of evolution.

If you feel i'm taking the statement out of context, you can scroll up and look at it in context. it's still the same statement, i'm still saying the same thing about it.

I said I know very much. I did not say I know the answer to what created the first cell in a belief system that is not my own

If you feel i'm taking the statement out of context, you can scroll up and look at it in context. it's still the same statement, i'm still saying the same thing about it.

I said I know very much.

I think Kasic was talking about whoever wrote the article in the website you linked not knowing very much.

I did not say I know the answer to what created the first cell in a belief system that is not my own

However that first cell came into existence is not part of evolution.

at the moment, I am not attepting to prove creationism. I do believe(tell me if i'm wrong) that the topic for this discussion is evolution

You said you posted a link proving creationism. So far all i've seen you post is links disproving evolution.

If you feel i'm taking the statement out of context, you can scroll up and look at it in context. it's still the same statement, i'm still saying the same thing about it.

He said he didn't feel like looking through pages of theories, made by people who don't understand that much, about how the first cell was formed, and you said that you understood very much.

I said I know very much.

Kasic said this in the context of knowledge of how the first cell was formed, and you don't know very much about this.

This may just be one of us misinterpreting what Kasic said.

When we look at a single wild cat, for example, we are immediately able to identify it as either a lion, a cougar, a snow leopard, and so on. All cats do not blur insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates.

You follow the lineages back yes they do. This statement clearly does not look further back than modern cats. But we can still find an example there.
Felis catus and it's close relative Felis silvestris lybica