Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha 69 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • truth about the last days
    truth about the last days

    It does not matter if past animails had sharp teeth or not. Today man eats meat with molars, and tigers eat meat with sharp teeth. If dinosours have been dug up with sharp teeth or molars, it does not matter how their teeth were as long as they could eat the "vegetation of the earth". How about deep sea creatures such as certern fishes where they dont have teeth at all, and yet they live. There is plantlife in deep oceans that classify as a living creature, and yet they dont even have a mouth! Yet all has been created "according to its kind". Noah brought two of each animal and seven of each kind- clean and unclean animails and creatures into the Ark. Therefore it would be impossable to carry EVERY species of animial or mammel ect into the ark. It has been suggested that the elephant was brought into the ark as it was one of the SMALLEST of the dinosaur family- due to the height of the Ark. And here is one thought, maby God will create new T-rexs and raptures in his new order of things- wouldent that be something!! So, all those who believe in Jehovahs new order of things, keep on believing! Of course, that they will be domesticated and not ferocious as evolutionists claim that they were. Keith

  • Satanus


    Ok, for a minute, let's say it is hardwired into humans. Is that all that is necessary for it to be fact? Does that extinguish the need for further evidence? What about other hard or semihard wired facets: slefishness, fear, sin?. Are they also ideals for christians?

    Anyways, there are a lot of atheists around, people who never believed in god, even as kids. Growing up against the grain like that in a christian society means that there would be more if society was neutral about theism. This trait is posessed by the majority of people, but not all. Morally, i don't think that atheists are misfits, any more than are theists. Therefore, i would conclude that it may have been a benefit in the evolutionay fight for survival, but it is niether good, nor bad. It's just another human, animal characteristic. It's the need for a super duper uber protector of the tribe.


  • tetrapod.sapien
    Today man eats meat with molars, and tigers eat meat with sharp teeth.

    man eats meat with a knife and a fork that he made with his brain... come on...


  • funkyderek

    truth about the last days:

    It has been suggested that the elephant was brought into the ark as it was one of the SMALLEST of the dinosaur family- due to the height of the Ark.

    That's magnificent. I don't think I've ever seen such a sublimely ridiculous sentence. Ever. It's quite beautiful the way such a short sentence can manage to convey such a vast amount of ignorance. I doff my hat to you, sir. Truly, you have lowered the bar.

  • Abaddon


    You insist it's not random and not blind.

    Because it isn't.

    Ok I'll have to read up more and either give more precise meaning or change/remove those two words altogether from my argument.


    You are of the opinion that God is a sentiment of a few goatherders from the land of Canaan. My feeling is that human need to believe in God is an integral part of the human psyche. It's hardwired into us for some reason.

    Oh there is sound proof of a 'god spot' in our brains that reacts to experiences of a supernatural nature. You can even stimulate it and GIVE people experiences of a religious nature. Of course, the existence of such a 'spot' is not proof of anything; what we have labelled 'religious experiences' might just had a supernatural origin stuck onto them by blind supersticion. We did it with lightening and dreams, LOL.

    Near death experiences for me provide the data needed to dismiss any supernatural claim as to the origin of the god spot. A NDE will be in line with the beliefs of the person experienecing it. This shows that such experiences of the supernatural are based in our bodies, and given a veneer based upon our enculturation.

    But having admitted that a sentiment for god is universal, why are you shakling the beliefs of an entire planet to the Creation myth of one small cultural group? Go back to that question (which is more likely?) and actualy answer it using common sense not preconception.

    Now regarding your RNA. I'm still not quite sure what it proves. I'll tell you what I understand and you can tell me where I'm going wrong.

    You've start with some complex polymer RNA, don't no where it came from, perhaps a virus,

    Yup, the one in question is comes from a virus called Q(Beta). The RNA is stripped out of its protein coat and stuck in water with raw materials for RNA and Q(Beta) replicase. It then makes copies of itself - not proteins as would normally be the case.

    you then change it's(RNA) environment and it hydrolyses(if that's the reaction type) in a consistent manner to a 500 unit long polymer. OK so this molecule breaks down in a test tube environment.

    The infecting part is lost, so what?

    The 'so what' is evolution.

    There is no selection pressure for RNA chains with coding for infecting bacteria. They are in an environment with no bacteria.

    There is selection pressure benefiting those RNA chains with characteristics best suited for survival and popagation in a test tube (RNA duplication is not particulary free from error).

    This is not a simple chemical reaction. It is a self-replicating organic entity changing due to environmental pressure. If you add a toxin to the environment, the end product of the test will be resistent to that toxin, further indicating RNA evolves due to environmental pressure.

    In a process of many many generations (each test tube would contain lots of generations) this selection pressure means the RNA evolves in a predictable fashion, so much so that seperate runs of the experiment have more-or-less the same result. A perfect example of parrallel evolution, where organisms subjected to the same selection pressure will "develop" similar solutions to exploiting their environment.

    Not sure if this lashes out at my accusation of blindness and randomness.

    It's stable at 3600 units in one environment and breaks down to 500 in another. Most reactions are predictable.

    This is beyond the laws of stociometric reactions Spectrum!

    It is the selection of random variation in a self-replicating organism by environmental pressure so the best random variation for the environment surivives to reproduce more often than those without that random variation, and thus that random variation (or even better surviving versions of that random variation) come to demoniate the population over time.

    If evolution were random, then the results would not end up more-or-less the same. In this example the variation comes from random processes, but imprtant bit the survival of a variation is not BLIND or RANDOM.

    This is evolution. The start 'species' of RNA cannot make the end 'species' of RNA or vice-verca.

    Back to abiogenesis and sea water.

    As I point out, you were repeating a hacknied old Creationist saw that does not represent modern thinking in any way. I try to say 'golly, I made a mistake there' when it's called for. Try it sometime, it'll make for a better debate.

    I get tired of Creationists ignoring the number of points they have had to ignore or concede. Ignoring the fact you've been wrong will hinder your ability to become right. Look at prime examples on this board in the goddidit leauge. They never prove anything, get their postulations whupped, and come back for more like nothing happened (you may have noticed I have to keep reminding one such poster about bristle cone pines... ).

    I don't want you to acknowledge error for me, understand. I want you to do it for you. As a JW, we were constitutionally incapable of admitting doctrinal error in an honest and open fashion even when it was pushed in our face. It's a bad habit, try to control it. We both benefit if we don't blind their eyes to our errors and thereby end up repeating themselves.

  • Abaddon


    What environmental pressures produced the eukoryotic's nuclear membrane?

    Probably something like the environmental pressures that gave rise to the protazoan Mixotricha paradoxa. In addition to the bacteria inside it (100,000's) which help it help the termites break down cellulose it lives in a termites gut), parts of it are not parts of it. Bits 'we' though were it are OTHER bacteria. The outershell of Mixotricha has got 'mounting plates' for little spirochates (these guys are like little wirggly hairs and are used to propel the protazoa), and another bacteria called the 'basal body' which we're not sure of the fuction of.

    Over the course of time an organism has developed such a close symbiotic relationship with three other organsisms (all with seperate heridity and lineages) that effectively they are one thing. An ancestral protazoa (with big flagella for propulsion) had a random varient to its shell shape trhat facilitated the attachment of bacteria. The big flagella the protazoa still retains to this day (now for steering) are pretty poor method of locomotion; they give jerky, uncontrolled, irregular movement. The spirobacteria act as cillia, and provide a smooth impulse in one direction.

    Maybe the protazoa with the random shell mutation benefitted by better propulsive apparatus, and the bacteria acting as it's new propulsive apparatus benefitted by being more mobile than they were individually, and thus beter able to exploit resources. The 'basal bodies' joined in for similarly explicable reasons.

    Eukoryotic cells must have followed a similar path; we know that mitochondria are genetically distinct, just like the three types of bacteria that live in/on Mixotricha are genetically distinct from 'it'. Plant cells played the same trick with chloroplasts; the chloroplasts are not genetically the same as their host plant.

    Thus the nuclear membrane of eucharyots was probably a prokaryotes nuclear membrane, and other prokaryotes invaded it. It had already evolved, and simply became the outer wall for a collection of genomes co-operting to survive as distinct from a outer wall for a single genome.

    And here's an example of what the transitionals might have been like;

    The methanogenic archaeon, Metanococcus jannaschii:

    Have you noticed yet how logical everything is? How patterns get repeated endlessly? How one set of logical rules can explain many different things? How seeming complexity ceases to be as complex if looked at the right way?

  • Abaddon

    Looking forward, as ever, to the responses from Creationists et. al.

    This is fun, it's all about the Dover court case;

    Some highlights;

    Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

    Isn't it great that one of the leading lights of ID is such a $ucking muppet in a court case over whether ID is a religious belief, he agrees that ID's belivability varies according to whether one believes in god. LOL, with 'friends like that... '

    Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that is was not “good enough.”

    Nice display of a Creationist disregarding inconvenient evidence; no refutation of a decade of research, just a smug empty statement. Must make Creationist's very proud!

    Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

    ID is based on lies, but some of us knew that...

    The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy.

    Nice to see that moral scruples will not stand in the way of Creationists wishing to misinform children.

    Why people beliece sucj rubbish I don't know... it is really sad...

  • stevenyc

    If all animals were veggies, then I guess fish ate those deep ocean turnips that are abundant across the seas.


  • tetrapod.sapien

    and spiders ate spider grass with their handy spider grass incisors.... heh heh

  • stevenyc

    TS, I guess the real downfall of man was terrible veggie farts!


Share this