The "theory" of Evolution is Dying

A sea urchin fossil, some 300 million years old, shows that these creatures, together with all their complex structures, have existed for hundreds of millions of years. Throughout that time, there has been no change in their structure and they have undergone no transitional stages

Why is that a problem? Evolution does not say "oops, it's Tuesday, time to evolve to a different form."

And it is only trivially true in any case, as even a species under no pressure shows genetic drift. It may look the same to you (or to me, for that matter), but then most modern cars look alike to me as well. Get someone who knows the details, and they'll show you a long history of subtle but definite changes.

Maybe you should look at this webpage:
[link to www.fossilmuseum.net]

As you can see there, the only pre-cambrian fossils that exist (which are few and far between by the way) are things we find on the bottom of the ocean. If you understand flood theory, you understand exactly why we find pretty much only ocean floor living organisms in the bottom layers such as Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian.

The reason I don't debate this in forums anymore is because usually people say they know the entire creation theory when they actually have only a small understanding of how it works. And unless you learn the entire theory and all of the facts behind it, you'll have no clue how it works, things won't fit together for you, and you'll think it's bogus. That's typically what I find with evolutionists. They're simply just ignorant of the actual theory in full. I mean no disrespect by that statement, though, of course.

Sometimes they know a lot of pieces of the theory, but can't cohesively assemble it into the big picture. They're too busy looking at the trees that they haven't stepped back and looked at the whole forest, in a manner of speaking. But if they had stepped back and looked at the entire forest, they'd realize the trees they were looking at were in the wrong place in the forest, and that's why it didn't make sense to them.

It would be similar to me learning a lot of words in spanish, but not learning their language structure. I would say words in sentences to people in the order I would if I were speaking Enlgish. But they wouldn't understand me, because they speak much more primitavely, and they put their adjectives after their nouns. They would hear me speak, but it would not make sense to me. And if I heard them speak to me, it wouldn't make sense to me, because their sentences would be all out of order.

Same goes for evolutionists who try to describe how Creation Theory and Creation model work. They try to explain it, but never can explain how it all fits together, because they haven't actually learned the theory in full and how it all fits together cohesively. And so they don't fully have an understanding of what they're trying to debate against. And so they hear Creationists say something, and they try to test it against evolution theory. But evolution theory is completely different than evolution theory, so of course it's going to sound wrong when compared and placed into evolution theory. The theories are completely different. While they use the same evidences and research data, the interpretation of how things got to where they are today are completely different, like night and day. That's why creationists and evolutionists have such a hard time debating each other. Debating is pointless. Unless someone puts themself in a learning mode and genuinly wants to learn the other theory fully and completely and wants to truly understand it, the debate will go no where.

The creationists that really do their homework will study evolution theory and they'll know how it works and how big bang works and all of that stuff. They'll know dating methods, etc. The creationists that do not learn this stuff will just know a few things an won't have a really good understanding of how evolution really works, nor how to refute it properly. I know both theories backwards and forwards, and the data on both as well.



I was not saying that a trilobite evolved into a human body or anything of that nature. Trilobites are clearly extinct and did not evolve into anything.

I also think I may have said fossils in the Cambrian period are in the same forms today. I meant to say the fossil record (not the Cambrian period) shows species in the same forms we find them today but with slight variations within species. Please excuse my mistake. I wish I had a graph to properly display this so I could show you the actual fossil record we see on earth today. You'd be surprized at how different it is than evolution's model of how things evolved.

I'll agree the trilobite was thrown in there to make a point. But you don't get backbones in the Cambrian. You don't even get internal skeletons per se. So how can you call it a "modern body plan?" About all you can say is that there are Cambrian organisms that are bilaterally symmetrical and have sense organs on one end. By that definition, I am identical in body plan to a flatworm.

The problem with Flood Geology, and the Creationism that it is but one part of, and the Scriptural teachings that Creationism is believed to fit into, is not that it isn't consistent within its own sphere.

Indeed, that sphere is extremely consistent. To summarize; "God did it." What ever the details, you can always look upwards to this Primium Mobile. And as for an evidentiary structure, the same is true "The Bible said it." Since the bible is inerrant, then the evidence is unquestionable. All that remains is details of interpretation.

No, the problem comes when you operate in an entirely different sphere; the scientific one, in which logic and evidence are the primary structure.

I have no problem with you saying "My belief is...." The problem lies when you attempt to distort science to make it agree with your belief.

It is a bit like looking through a secular work of fiction to find support for a particular biblical interpretation you want to make. Or finding support for your particular reading of a piece of Scripture by referencing a Hopi creation myth.

It is like using the rules of dramatic structure to critique the work of an auto mechanic. It is like using 1985 NEC electrical code to complain that the woodwind 1 book is wrong in an arrangement of Broadway show tunes.

If you want to play the science game, play the science game. No hand-waving allowed. No "....and then God steps in and fixes it and hides the evidence he was there."

You missed the point, the MSM, TPTB, called the experiment "Life in a Bottle" in their usual propaganda style, they used it to proclaim that evolution must be true. That was broadcast into living rooms across the country.

People cited that experiment when arguing for evolution for almost 20 years. Once it was discovered in the early 70s that the gases Urey and Miller had put in the bottle was not anything like early earth's would have been, it made the experiment completly moot.

But again, it was a victory for those promoting evolution. This was just one example I used in section 2 of my post to demonstrate the propaganda campaign that exalted evolution to such heights of acceptance.

I could have easily made section 2 about 4 times bigger than I did. The 100+ years of promoting evolution through the MSM to gain public acceptance was done with an incredible amount of fraud and misinterpitated evidence.

I appreciate your well thought out post, excuse me for only highlighting part of it.

I'll only speak for myself, as OP my post had nothing to with "creationism", but was instead about exposing the gaping holes in what evolution says, and the curious circumstances that surrounded it being instilled as unchallengable fact in people's minds for so long.

The problem I have is with science, or better said, TPTB, expecting people to accept evolution as fact when the evidence doesn't nearly support the level of acceptance they seem to want.

No, it is cited when _arguing_ with Creationists who insist on discussing abiogenesis -- which is not evolution, is not covered in evolutionary theory, and is not even _required_ by evolution.

Evolution is a mechanism that acts upon organisms. Give it organisms and it happens.

Arguing that abiogenesis is essential to evolution is like insisting that apple trees are essential to universal gravitation. Sorry, gravity exists and is understood completely outside of what object you chose to demonstrate it with.



Also, anyone with a cursory understanding of the subject knows there were flaws in Miller and Urey. And flaws in many of the other studies since. But it has still been shown, over and over again, that under conditions including -- but not restricted to -- those of primitive Earth, complex molecules of the form seen in life can form.

(In fact, in the years since Miller and Urey it has been seen that not only can this happen, it happens with such regularity that it can almost be described as an inevitable outcome. Apparently life chose to make use of what was most common and easily formed. Surprise, surprise.)

Honestly, it's a basic problem in science.

Science is an ever-evolving field of competing theories. Our knowledge always remains intangibly incomplete, and the best we can ever say is "True beyond any attempt made so far to disprove it."

But we can't make everyone a primatologist, a molecular biologist, a high energy physicist, a comparative linquist, a forensic entemologist...every specialized field just has too much going on, with new theories brought in, new ideas championed, new evidence uncovered. Too much depth and too much detail.

We simply have to boil it down. Take a snap shot and say "MOST cosmologist agree AT THE PRESENT TIME that SOMETHING LIKE (simplification of the actual science involved) this happened."



Any time you simplify, and any time you take a single slice of what is the best knowledge at that moment, you commit falsehoods. But there isn't any other way of bringing that science to all the people that need to use it (or that may simply be interested in it).

There are many ideas contained within the idea of evolution.

Natural adaptation, survival of the fittest, etc is both logical and observable, no one has a problem with that.

It's the idea that a few species, as Darwin put it, turning into the multiple species we have today that is challenged.

Yes, a horse may grow bigger or smaller through breeding, enviroment, etc, may grow spots, stripes, etc, but it will always be a horse, it could only have come from a horse, and it can only produce a horse, no matter if it reproduces itself in multiple enviroments for a billion years.

The part of evolution that says the horse came from what was once a fox, or a rabbit, all the way back to a worm or whatever, is what is both illogical, and unobservable.

It's simply an idea. An idea that rubs against common sense, yet it might have survived if the fossil record we find was not so overwhelmingly stacked against it.

molecules that are contained in life, yes, but not life itself, not even the simpilest, not by a longshot.

There are many ideas contained within the idea of evolution.

Natural adaptation, survival of the fittest, etc is both logical and observable, no one has a problem with that.

It's the idea that a few species, as Darwin put it, turning into the multiple species we have today that is challenged.

Yes, a horse may grow bigger or smaller through breeding, enviroment, etc, may grow spots, stripes, etc, but it will always be a horse, it could only have come from a horse, and it can only produce a horse, no matter if it reproduces itself in multiple enviroments for a billion years.

The part of evolution that says the horse came from what was once a fox, or a rabbit, all the way back to a worm or whatever, is what is both illogical, and unobservable.

It's simply an idea. An idea that rubs against common sense, yet it might have survived if the fossil record we find was not so overwhelmingly stacked against it.

Again, I ask... Is it your contention that every animal species that is on Earth today has always been here? Or are you suggesting that every once in awhile, God pops in and gives us a new species just for kicks and giggles?

people pull the bait and switch tactic when they say, evolution has overwhelmingly been proven, the fossils records back it up, etc.

they are talking about natural adaptation, a fish adapting into a slightly different type of fish, etc.

There is zero evidence, in the fossil record or anywhere else of one species of animal turning into a different species of animal.

Don't be fooled.

To some people, it does make sense. And it appears supported by observation.

Follow the horse back along it's evolutionary track. At some point you will stop thinking of it as a horse. When depends on the person (and their background). For me, I'd stop thinking of it as a horse when it lost it's hooves, no matter how horse-like it otherwise might appear.

There is, last I looked, something like thirty distinquishable species of horse along that particular part of the journey. At least a dozen animals each of which is obviously not one of the others; that stands out as something unique and individual.

Is a wolf a dog? Dog-like, yes, but wolves are not dogs. Yet they were, and recently enough that they can still interbreed.

That's what evolution looks like in practice. Gradual changes over a very, very long time.

For an even better journey check out evolution of the whale. Again, a few dozen distinct organisms. Out of which, you can say definitely of some "this thing could not possibly dive to 80 fathoms." And of some "this thing could not possibly walk." Each, again, though unique is much like the organism that came before, and the organism that came after. But definably, there is something different between the land-walking mammal and the deep-swimming mammal; something that goes beyond a mere color change.

It's not my contention, it's what the fossil record shows.
I'm looking at what it shows me without any dogmatic veiw.

It does?

So there are fossilized tigers in the Burgess Shale?

So there are anatomically modern humans found in the Cretaceous?

And I still have to ask....where are the trilobites now?

You actually believe that the fossil record shows that every species we have on earth today has always been here... Wow.

So you're saying that Horses roamed the earth with T-Rex?

Sorry if it seems like I am asking the same question different ways. I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

But this journey you want me to follow would just be following someone's fantasy.

Show me the fossil of "when it stops becoming a horse" then we'll talk.

I don't think he disagrees that species can become extinct. He's just saying that we started with a certain number of animals, plants, etc., and that we never have any new species form. They can die out, but not form new ones.

I had never heard anyone put forth such a view before.

No, of course some have gone extinct, perhaps I didn't word it right, I'll try again.

There are not any animals we have here today, that weren't in their base form back then, (i.e, a bigger turtle then, smaller turtle now)

That is what the cambrea layer strongly suggests, and there is next to nothing before that layer.

Explain how this happened however you want, God, aliens, whatever, but it should be clear that much of what evolution says can't be part of the explaination.

I have.

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous; tigers in the Cambrian (they'd have to be swimming tigers.... [link to tigerhawk.blogspot.com]

Or the ones who think that the Cambrian organisms are basically to modern organisms as the first domesticated dog is to the pekinese and the doberman; only minor "micro" evolution required.

I mean, holi vermicelli! Just look at a diorama of the Cambrian! Look at a list of the identified species! Please show me the prototype kangaroo. Hell, even show me a prototype daisy!

I'm sorry, I temporarily got you confused with another poster.

Yes, that is basiclly what I'm saying.

Darwin had to believe it too, or else he wouldn't have said this:

“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” (The Origin of Species, p. 348)

Let me try this in one-syllable words.

There are no land animals in the Cambrian.



(There are also no flowering plants. No birds. Nothing with a backbone. No mammals. Nothing with fur or feathers. I mean, we are talking primitive; typical forms are something like a sea cucumber, something like a jellyfish, something a little bit like a beetle -- but with no defined thorax, et al, even.)

Also trying to put it as simply as I can;

Evolutionary Theory is not Darwin's theory, nor is it Darwin. It is a changing, adapting, multi-disciplinary understanding that even now is being modified to account for new theories and new evidence.

Our understanding of the behavior of gases did not stop with Boyle. Our understanding of thermodynamics did not stop with Kelvin, nor did our understanding of acoustics (he was a busy fellow!) Our understanding of solar processes has moved far beyond Eddington. Our mathematics continued to move long after Newton developed Calculus.

That Darwin saw difficulties in accounting for the Cambrian Radiation is to his credit, and to the credit of the theory which proved able to withstand that challenge.

(I've left off describing the great predator of the Cambrian because, well, the damned thing is near-undescribable. You really have to look at pictures of it to appreciate it!)


[link to www.trilobites.info]

you are right, I was confusing my layers. my bad

Worship a toaster? as oppose to a belief that you have evolved from the first molten rocks.

Maybe you should worship the rock, call it momma.

We came from our mothers (and dad), but we have rocks that were created by God, that is the base granites.

Science says the granites cooled down over 300 million years. If that is so they should be able to create granite in a lab,or even molten granite then recool it, which is all impossible, changing the stone structure into something completely different.

Dr. Gentry says polonium halos in the granite prove it was created instantly, not over long cooling periods. He has had for thirty years a standing cash offer for anyone who can reproduce granite in a lab, halos or not.
[link to www.halos.com]

All granite rock was created by God instantly at creation.

Sure, I'll do it. I'll heat some basalt up tomorrow. It will take a few days to cool, though. How's Monday for you......Monday, June 30th, 3000002008 ?

That's the problem with making it in a lab, you see. You don't re-create a rock that cooled over millions of years, or even hundreds of years, without, you know, letting it cool for that same time. Forced cooling does not give the same results, any more than cooking a pizza for 1 minute at 4,500 degrees is the same as cooking it for ten minutes at 450!

The cartoon doesn't lie. It will be a cold day in hell when creationism is taught in the classroom alongside science. Better get used to it, boys.

Actually, I don't mind at all if Creationism is taught in the classroom.

"Okay students, that concludes our introduction to molecular genetics and heredity. Now before we move on to discussion of genetic drift within populations, we will devote some class time to the major competing theory to evolutionary theory."

"God did it."

"This concludes our state-mandated presentation of the complete course and syllabus materials on Creationism. Now, to discuss genetic distributions within a population one must first understand the definition of species..."

plenty of links for what is being argued already. either way, you don't seem to care to do any research yourself so just walk away.