[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Problems with Evolution

First law of thermodynamics: matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Oh yes? Very believable! Who Created the Earth? God! How did He do it? From nothing – He just said, “Let there be…” and there was. So much for your science.

The dung doesn't accumulate because it the matter it is composed of is converted to different forms.

You have just said, “matter is neither created nor destroyed” Make up your mind.[…unbiblical stuff deleted]

[Elizabeth]

Re: Problems with Evolution

I'll show you some unbiblical evidence for Creation when you show me some unscientific evidence for evilution.

Okay.

Let's say you breed rabbits. Some are white, and some are spotted. Let's say you like the spotted ones the best, because they sell better or because they are prettier or whatever. Now, I'm sure you have noticed how children look like their parents. If you have ever seen a litter of puppies, you have probably noticed that most of them look like their parents. The same is true for rabbits and all living creatures. Let's assume you kept your male and female rabbits separated and had full control over their breeding. If you wanted to make more spotted rabbits, obviously the most effective way to do so would be to breed only the spotted rabbits. Wouldn't you agree that you would have more spotted rabbits after breeding only the spotted rabbits? Keep doing this for several years and soon you would have only spotted rabbits.

If you want to take humans out of the picture, imagine instead there are some wolves who eats the rabbits. Since the spotted rabbits are best camouflaged, the wolves will eat mostly white rabbits, and so the spotted ones will live longer and make more babies. In either instance, more spotted rabbits are produced.

That, my friend, is evolution. Now exactly what part of this scenario do you not believe?

[TheHolyOne]

Re: Problems with Evolution

How do you explain the blacks in your evilution theory?

[Nobar King]

Re: Problems with Evolution

How do you explain the blacks in your evilution theory?

You might want to read Where did the races come from? by Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Okay.

Let's say you breed rabbits. Some are white, and some are spotted. Let's say you like the spotted ones the best, because they sell better or because they are prettier or whatever. Now, I'm sure you have noticed how children look like their parents. If you have ever seen a litter of puppies, you have probably noticed that most of them look like their parents. The same is true for rabbits and all living creatures. Let's assume you kept your male and female rabbits separated and had full control over their breeding. If you wanted to make more spotted rabbits, obviously the most effective way to do so would be to breed only the spotted rabbits. Wouldn't you agree that you would have more spotted rabbits after breeding only the spotted rabbits? Keep doing this for several years and soon you would have only spotted rabbits.

If you want to take humans out of the picture, imagine instead there are some wolves who eats the rabbits. Since the spotted rabbits are best camouflaged, the wolves will eat mostly white rabbits, and so the spotted ones will live longer and make more babies. In either instance, more spotted rabbits are produced.

That, my friend, is evolution. Now exactly what part of this scenario do you not believe?

Which part here explains when the rabbit magically transforms into an orangutan, or the wolves turn into whales? Are you so brainwashed you actually believe this nonsense? I feel so sorry for you.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Problems with Evolution

First law of thermodynamics: matter is neither created nor destroyed. The dung doesn't accumulate because it the matter it is composed of is converted to different forms. Most of it decays and the organic matter is incorporated into other life forms. The small percentage that becomes fossilized turns into rock, which can be eroded by water, destroyed or changed by volcanic activity, buried under sediment, moved by plate tectonics, etc. The Earth is constantly changing, and stuff doesn't just pile up for millions of years. If that were the case, the amount of matter on Earth would be constantly increasing, and there would be a lot of shit even if the Earth were 6000 years old.

Also, corpolites would only be produced by relatively large land animals, which didn't evolve until much later than 3.5 billion years ago.

Creationist Scientists have taken corpolites into account have this subject well in hand. We don't wave a magical wand called "Thermodynamics" around and wish this dung away. Clearly the animal dung was washed away during The Flood when Jesus drowned the gay dinosaurs.

Checkmate atheist.

[Vavoline Johnson]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Creationists,

Tell me your problems with evolution. I want to argue against them.

I will not accept "Because it's not what's in the Bible" because I will ask how you know the Bible is correct and you will say because God wrote it and I will ask how you know God exists and you will say because it's in the Bible... and then you will call me a heathen and tell me I am going to Hell, and we won't get anywhere.

Show me the holes you find in the theory and I will show you why you are wrong.

Well, Aye ain't zactly an evoloutionary but face it gal, one look at any of us larger negro ladies and yous cain't tell me they aint connected to a gorilla! Hell's on fire, Miss Viola Robinsons gal look like she an ape, all hairy wif big lips! So, when our Lawd created Adam and Eve, why da hell did he make dem ugly nigras lookee like monkeys?

[Hieronymous Bosch]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Okay.

Let's say you breed rabbits. Some are white, and some are spotted. Let's say you like the spotted ones the best, because they sell better or because they are prettier or whatever. Now, I'm sure you have noticed how children look like their parents. If you have ever seen a litter of puppies, you have probably noticed that most of them look like their parents. The same is true for rabbits and all living creatures. Let's assume you kept your male and female rabbits separated and had full control over their breeding. If you wanted to make more spotted rabbits, obviously the most effective way to do so would be to breed only the spotted rabbits. Wouldn't you agree that you would have more spotted rabbits after breeding only the spotted rabbits? Keep doing this for several years and soon you would have only spotted rabbits.

If you want to take humans out of the picture, imagine instead there are some wolves who eats the rabbits. Since the spotted rabbits are best camouflaged, the wolves will eat mostly white rabbits, and so the spotted ones will live longer and make more babies. In either instance, more spotted rabbits are produced.

That, my friend, is evolution. Now exactly what part of this scenario do you not believe?

Ok, so I have a bunch of inorganic matter. I got carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and lithium; what the hey I got the first 80 elements in the periodic table. Well, I don't have lead cause I know you liberal scientists don't like that.
Now I am combining all of these to form a DNA chain, after I finish that I will start building cell walls and the other things the simplest cell has in it. So if I build this thing just like a cell why doesn't it live? It has no life. I know what you are thinking Lizzy: Why you are just a dumb christian conservative scientist you couldn't possibly create life from non-life. Ok, then how come no liberal, 4 eyed geek, atheist scientist has been able to do it either? Huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? Seems funny to me that the world's best scientists cannot duplicate what they claim happened by accident.
By the way your rabbit examples sucks, why? Because that is not evolution at all. That is just selection of predominant information already contained in the DNA. It doesn't explain how a rabbit turned into a horse.

[Elizabeth]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Which part here explains when the rabbit magically transforms into an orangutan, or the wolves turn into whales? Are you so brainwashed you actually believe this nonsense? I feel so sorry for you.

Rabbits never "magically transformed" into orangutans, nor wolves into whales. Orangutans didn't even evolve from rabbits. This example was simply to explain the process; change white and spotted to any trait, rabbits to any ancestral organism, and the wolves to any environmental factor that would select for a certain trait. I don't feel like explaining the entire evolutionary process for every creature alive, but if there's a certain animal or trait that you don't understand how it could have appeared, I will be happy to explain it to the best of my ability.

In orangutans for example, they have long arms because that allowed them to swing from branches in trees, thus allowing them to escape from predators/ get food better than their counterparts with slightly shorter arms. Thus long arms were selecting for. Same for every other trait present in orangutans.

Whales evolved because their ancestors started looking for food in the water. Those that could go deeper in the water could find more food. Thus traits that allowed for swimming appeared. It started as webbed paws, longer and more streamlined bodies, and those gradually turned into flippers and the hairless, torpedo-shaped bodies present in whales today. All this happened gradually over the course of millions of years, of course.

[Elizabeth]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Ok, so I have a bunch of inorganic matter. I got carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and lithium; what the hey I got the first 80 elements in the periodic table. Well, I don't have lead cause I know you liberal scientists don't like that.
Now I am combining all of these to form a DNA chain, after I finish that I will start building cell walls and the other things the simplest cell has in it. So if I build this thing just like a cell why doesn't it live? It has no life. I know what you are thinking Lizzy: Why you are just a dumb christian conservative scientist you couldn't possibly create life from non-life. Ok, then how come no liberal, 4 eyed geek, atheist scientist has been able to do it either? Huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? Seems funny to me that the world's best scientists cannot duplicate what they claim happened by accident.

Okay. So the chemical properties of these elements cause them to come together to form chemical compounds. Some of these chemical compounds are a compound similar to that of modern RNA. The structure of RNA is a chain of nucleotides, which have a nitrogenous bases that because of their structure bind to specific other bases. So nucleotides bind to the chain, creating a complement of the original molecule, which can then create a molecule identical to the original one. Since these RNA-like molecules can create replicas of themselves, the replicating molecules become more common. Some become enclosed in a phospho-lipid bilayer (similar to the cell membrane that exists today), which acted as a sort of barrier and protecting these molecules, so they became more successful at replicating, Other cellular features evolved in a similar manner.

The reasons scientists can't recreate this is because they don't have a young planet Earth to work on and millions of years to wait for this things to occur.

By the way your rabbit examples sucks, why? Because that is not evolution at all. That is just selection of predominant information already contained in the DNA. It doesn't explain how a rabbit turned into a horse.

Well that's pretty much what evolution is, along with the introduction of new information through mutations. And rabbits didn't turn into horses.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Rabbits never "magically transformed" into orangutans, nor wolves into whales. Orangutans didn't even evolve from rabbits. This example was simply to explain the process; change white and spotted to any trait, rabbits to any ancestral organism, and the wolves to any environmental factor that would select for a certain trait. I don't feel like explaining the entire evolutionary process for every creature alive, but if there's a certain animal or trait that you don't understand how it could have appeared, I will be happy to explain it to the best of my ability.

In orangutans for example, they have long arms because that allowed them to swing from branches in trees, thus allowing them to escape from predators/ get food better than their counterparts with slightly shorter arms. Thus long arms were selecting for. Same for every other trait present in orangutans.

Whales evolved because their ancestors started looking for food in the water. Those that could go deeper in the water could find more food. Thus traits that allowed for swimming appeared. It started as webbed paws, longer and more streamlined bodies, and those gradually turned into flippers and the hairless, torpedo-shaped bodies present in whales today. All this happened gradually over the course of millions of years, of course.

Uh huh, suuure...

[Elizabeth]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Uh huh, suuure...

Tell me what part of this doesn't make sense to you! The theory of evolution is so simple a 6-year-old could understand it. At least the basic premises behind it are.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Problems with Evolution

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

[JennyD]

Re: Problems with Evolution

That, my friend, is evolution. Now exactly what part of this scenario do you not believe?

Can you explain how evolution explains the origins of life, and where the universe came from? Or do you think it was "just always there"?

Tell me what part of this doesn't make sense to you! The theory of evolution is so simple a 6-year-old could understand it.

Exactly.

It takes a grownup's mind to fully comprehend God's majesty. Children lack the brainpower to handle the task.

Thank you for confirming that evolutionists are as intelligent as 6-year-olds.

[Elizabeth]

Re: Problems with Evolution

Can you explain how evolution explains the origins of life, and where the universe came from? Or do you think it was "just always there"?

Read my above post. I explain how the first cells could have come into being. But for evolution to be true doesn't necessarily mean that the first cells appeared by more or less chance. It could be possible that God created the first cells, and they continued to become more advanced through evolution. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. As for the beginning of the universe, that is outside the theory of evolution, and I admit I know less about it. But my understanding of the Big Bang is that matter present in the universe today was always present, in a infinitesimal point that expanded outward to create the universe. If you want a better explanation, ask a physicist. But what's not to say that God placed that speck there, and allowed it to expand to form the universe? Just because one believes in scientific theories like the Big Bang and evolution does not mean one cannot believe in God! My father for one is both a Christian and a scientist, born and raised a Baptist in Mississippi. He believes in God and Christ, but does not doubt that evolution is true. I'm just saying it's possible to believe both.