Skip to comments.The Problem With Evolution
Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
Unfortunately the nature of these things gets many to places far from where most would rather be.
Calcim carbonate is formed from carbonic acids leaching minerals from soil and rocks, underground there is also sulfuric acids combined with a slurry of other materials.
With all these possible interactions millions of years are not required for petrification, On Mt Evans there are bristlecone pines that are half petrified and some completely petrified and some are still growing they are well above the treeline( elevation at which trees grow )
so I still insist that stone can form rapidly, by my own
observation, and Ive seen seashells stuck in half granite half quartz rocks way above 9000ft which suggests tremendous geologic activity which would render layer dating useless yet thats how most supposed fossils are dated.
If weeding out is such a preferable occurance why on earth the hue and cry to "save " endangered species?
Only because it is man who is doing the weeding?
Why dont the endangered species adapt and variants
occur to overcome their specific threat?
For example : gorillas why are they stuck being lousy gorillas they are rapidly dying off, no variant, no sub-species to replace them. Where is the evolution why arent they becoming smarter they have had billions and billions of years why the heck are they stuck as gorillas?
Do you really think that being a slanderous liar is helping your case?
Kind of circular it is isn't it huh ?
No, it isn't, but I suppose it may look that way to the grossly ignorant.
You guys are doing conservatism no favor with this sort of childishness. If you don't have any actual insights into the subject, ridiculing things you don't understand only reinforces the most ugly stereotypes of conservatives.
Really? Name them, and point me to their individual accounts.
There is more evidence for a real Jesus than for any evolutionary process.
You're not really clear on what the word "evidence" means, nor the nature and volume of the evidence for evolution, are you?
None of the deities you have mentioned have that reach.
Because their peak popularity took place before the invention of the printing press.
I made my journey by adopting a disabled child from SE Asia after seeing hell first hand I can never retun to your world of mocking superority and smug complacency,
EXCUSE ME? All of your posts on this thread have utterly reaked of "mocking superiority and smug complacency".
and you would not envy me my world but Im not counting on just the here and now for happiness sadly thats all you have.
You haven't a clue what I actually believe, son, but I see that that doesn't stop you from mistaking your fantasies about me for solid fact. The world is not as simple as your little black-and-white presumptions about it, and neither am I.
No they aren't.
Ostensibly your gang has names too, they are called cosmology, evolution, et-al. Your gang wants to replace the names of Shiva and the rest these with your names.
Your complete failure to actually understand the first thing about "my gang" is obvious.
I heard a talk show host explain intelligent design like this: if you see a painting of the Monalisa you know that some artist had to create it. No matter how many years are given, the painting couldn't materialize by itself. So how much more must there be an artist that made the real Monalisa.
Evolution should be kept a closely guarded secret, among
the enlightened practioners of your sect or cult what have you. Evolution means and individual can look forward to eternity in the tar pits of time, all your happy memories will be in the rearview mirror, and nothingness awaits
your eventual arrival.
Hooray, you can use a dictionary.
In Colorado there is a place called Cave of the Winds I have been there many times and they can form quite rapidly, blocking out whole sections of open areas.
Nice try, but iron oxide sediments deposited by recent floods are hardly the same as rapidly growing calcium carbonate stalagmites/stalactites. For an in-depth analysis of the processes taking place at Cave of the Winds (to correct your faulty presumptions about them), see GENESIS OF CAVE OF THE WINDS, MANITOU SPRINGS, COLORADO. Also see this webpage about the cave, which clearly (albeit ungrammatically) states that, "Once the cave became dry and all formations ceased growing, which means all the damages will stay as they are now.", and this confirms the findings of the linked paper (and further contradicts your claims).
The abundance or redeposited minerals should suggest the transitory nature of geological formations, if earthquakes dont do it for you.
What are you rambling about here? No one disputes that geologic formations can and do change over time. Duh. But none of this helps support your original assertions about fossils.
Speaking of which, you have failed to answer 16 of the 17 questions put to you concerning your assertions. Please remedy that oversight now. Pay special attention to the question which asks you what in the heck your claims about cave formations -- even if true, which they are not -- would have to do with fossil evidence being, in your words, "tripe". And please attempt to remain coherent, and don't wander any further afield from your attempted point.
I am just taking material from right here on these boards from 'your side'
I see. And where do you hallucinate that you took the following from "these boards from my side"?
All your observations will be bogus and rejected by the peer review board (80% of them) unless it points to a preordained conclusion (that comes from the high council of the peer review board)This is a slanderous misrepresentation of our actual position. It's a lie. Don't pretend that you're just quoting *us* when you write this slander, it's your own creation.
If no favor is being done to conservatism no favor with this childishness, then by the totality of the material here on these boards, we are all in the same club, (well I cant include you account I have not read all of your material). If your are honest you will own that for your 'side'.
I am honest when I state that no, I will not "own that", because it's not true. And I stand by my assessment of how bad it make conservatives look when some of them grossly misrepresent science and those who practice it. It only reinforces the common stereotype of conservatives as being know-nothing, anti-science, anti-intellectual yahoos. Do you think that helps attract more people to the conservative movement? Quite the contrary. I personally know quite a few people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservatism, but who are unwilling to associate with the movement because they see too many conservatives who do actually act that way. It's the same as how many people are driven away from liberalism by the antics of the hate-America-first crowd among the liberals.
And no one is one my side but me.
That's pretty funny coming from the guy who insists on replying to my individual responses to another individual by making pronouncements about "your gang" and "your side"...
That's nice. Are you going to get around to actually making a point?
With all these possible interactions millions of years are not required for petrification,
No one said it was. Are you going to get around to actually making a point?
On Mt Evans there are bristlecone pines that are half petrified and some completely petrified and some are still growing they are well above the treeline( elevation at which trees grow )
so I still insist that stone can form rapidly, by my own observation, and Ive seen seashells stuck in half granite half quartz rocks way above 9000ft which suggests tremendous geologic activity
which would render layer dating useless
No it wouldn't. Nice try. I'm sorry, but flinging in a "conclusion" after a batch of disconnected and irrelevant statements does not constitute an actual argument, or support for your strange beliefs.
yet thats how most supposed fossils are dated.
No, actually, it isn't. Where did you "learn" this stuff, a creationist pamphlet?
Because humanity's goals are different from nature's processes. Floods are natural too, but that doesn't mean *we* need to appreciate New Orleans being underwater. Plagues are natural, but we fight against them. Forest fires rejuvenate forests (in the long run), but we still don't like fires burning up our houses.
Was this *really* so hard for you to figure out on your own?
Only because it is man who is doing the weeding?
We generally don't like natural extinctions either, so no.
Why dont the endangered species adapt and variants occur to overcome their specific threat?
Some do manage to, some don't. It's a matter of the nature and speed of the particular threats to survival.
For example : gorillas why are they stuck being lousy gorillas
Gorillas are not "lousy". They are highly adapted to their ecological niche.
they are rapidly dying off, no variant, no sub-species to replace them.
There *are* variants and subspecies of gorilla. *New* subspecies, however, take more time to arise than gorillas are likely to have, given the speed at which we are destroying their habitats, not to mention directly killing them (via poaching, etc.)
Where is the evolution
It's occurring all the time, even now.
why arent they becoming smarter
What makes you think they aren't? And what makes you think that "becoming smarter" is the only effective adaptation to loss of habitat? Your "thinking" on this subject is very simplistic.
they have had billions and billions of years why the heck are they stuck as gorillas?
They've only been gorillas for around 0.1% of that "billions and billions of years" timespan. They haven't always *been* gorillas, and thus they're not "stuck".
Any other silly questions?
Thats wrong, I don't see that there, thats Your misinterpretation.
Uh huh... So you don't see the following as mocking superiority?
no feeling thinking entity could have created such a faithful creature following the edicts of select group of humanoids blest with knowledge far superior to any bible thumping pew warmer.Or:
Why not postulate your junk science to mind numbed robots of the leftist communists who desire not God but are determined to be gods to themselves.Or:
Im not counting on just the here and now for happiness sadly thats all you have.So you don't see "smug complacency" in the following?
Face it the earth and sky cry out the existence of God, you and the evo-fools just seek to deny God the honor and worship only he deserves.Or:
Besides fossil evidence is tripe stalagtites can form in as little time as fourteen years and petrify.And do you agree that RightWingProfessor's bemusement makes him akin to Hitler?
That may be,
but all I have to go on is what your gang puts up here.
...then perhaps you would be wise to discuss what we actually "put up here", and stop flying off into your fantasies about what we might think or what our goals might be, based on your presumptions and not things we've actually written.
BTW if you don't like 'gang' give me a term you do like.
How about addressing me as an individual, instead of as part of some imaginary "gang"?
...because humans are known to produce oil paintings. Thus when you find a painting, it is reasonable to presume that a human produced it.
Living things, meanwhile, are produced by nature without human intervention or design. Getting a clue yet?
No matter how many years are given, the painting couldn't materialize by itself.
Because paintings are not the sort of thing that nature tends to produce. Living things *are*.
So how much more must there be an artist that made the real Monalisa.
Faulty conclusion, based on faulty reasoning. How many living things have you seen produced by artists? None.
How many living things have been produced naturally, even within human observation? Billions.
If you want to use inductive reasoning, and obviously you do, then the conclusion is obvious -- it's just the opposite of the one you arrived at.
Furthermore, evolutionary processes provably increase complexity, so the whole ID "gosh, that's really complex, it must have been designed" argument goes right out the window as well. And it doubly falls flat when you realize that the complexity of life is *beyond* human design capacity. This doesn't argue *for* a designer, it argues *against* one, especially since evolutionary processes routinely produce results that are *beyond* human design capabilities (and often even beyond human understanding). See for example this discussion of the creativity of genetic algorithms.