Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[camanintx]

So although this is all guess work lets see what they have found.

Mmmmm so far plants that predate fish, the bible is correct.

Not so fast. Remember that your bible says plants were created plants and animals "after his kind". You cannot claim that seeded plants evolved from algae and other fern types to claim that they predate fish unless you accept evolution first. If seeded plants existed 700 million years ago, they would fossilize just as they did 400 million years ago and we would have evidence that they existed. No evidence, no claim.

Re Gen14...Let's not forget that your science shows the moon was created after the earth. The impact theory is your explanation as to how this can be explained.

Really? Genesis 1:16 says two lights were created on the fith day, "the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night." Unless you are seriously arguing that the Moon rules both the day and the night, you'll have to try harder.

 

[David M]

You mean your researchers guess what they think happened and what may have happened and how it happened and this is your evidence.

First land plants paved way for humans › News in Science (ABC Science)

Flowering plants may be considerably older than previously thought

One article puts plants on earth 700mya. You can only guess as to whether or not they were seed bearing. Spores can be seen as seeds also for the purpose of spreading and multiplying.

And none of those early plants match "seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds."

No trees at all until well after the first fish.

Additionally these dates derive from the use of genetic clocks, something that you deride as wholly unreliable remember. Or do you now accept that they are reliable?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Itinerant Lurker Quote"What should hold more weight, explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?"

Darls..if the evidence was clearer than mud you would not have much debate at all.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

We've gone over this so many times before in that other thread.....

No one but you think there is a problem. This is what is also said at the link you provided...

There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.


"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

So they still contend evolution at work and at the very least the bird and dinosaur stem from a common ancestor which branched off onto separate evolutionary paths. At least that's what is being expressed in the article. In another article Ruben posits dinosaurs from birds....but what is clear is that there is a relation between the two. It's also worth noting that it appears his study is dealing with morphology which in not the deciding factor in the ToE rather it "can be" a part of the process. Ruben's studies have been ongoing since the 90's so his hypotheses are nothing new nor are they surprising finds. As far as morphology, as you once indicated,...we share half our DNA with the banana and yet, morphologically, we look nothing like them.

Now, your link (story) appeared in Science Daily back in June 2009 then Ruben had another story in February 2010 then another report by a different researcher posted months later continues along those lines but still contending an ancestral connection....They're not bantering back and forth as though these finding are of some major concern. On the contrary. This is what is said.

Prehistoric birds were poor flyers, research shows

".........did the dinosaur-bird line branch off, giving rise to flying and flightless birds?"

He and Dr Dyke plan to analyse other fossilized feathers to find out when flapping flight evolved. However such specimens are rare.


"I don't mind," says Dr Nudds. "It makes it more exciting and all the more intriguing."


No mystery amongst scientist. They're eager to find out. Regardless where the evidence takes them.

 

[LuisDantas]

No Louis. I reckon that if you knew the ancestry of birds for sure there would be no debate about it.

What you reckon is of no consequence, unless and until you decide to actually read and learn about the subject matters that you so carelessly make statements about.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Louis Dantas Quote "And it turns out that it is exactly the case. Only the people who make a point of failing to recognize the existing evidence see any fit for debate on the general ideas of the ToE.

As even you illustrate time and again, by posting sources that ratify the ToE even while saying that those same sources somehow are challenging it.

No Louis. I reckon that if you knew the ancestry of birds for sure there would be no debate about it. The same goes for LUCA, that I spoke to. Evos jumped up and down with irrefuteable evidence that all life was connected to single organism, LUCA. With HGT that is now known to be nonsense. You say this and the like is evidence that only the stupid or ignorant cannot accept. Then you throw that same evidence away.

It is not just one or two things. It is many many things and even more maybe's and debates than I can speak to in 10,000 words.

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. The outcome has been predetermined, life evloved. This is not debated by evo researchers. The rest is free to roam and change.

An evo researcher will hit on the status quo and offer another evolutionary solution and this makes him all scientific and the TOE never in doubt.

However creationist researchers, eg John Sanford, who also hit on the status quo, but did not offer evolutionary alternatives are frowned on. Rather his work eg entrophy supports creation.

I can see the bias even if you pretend not to. Indeed I do not think you are that stupid, just stubborn and proud.

You have trouble classifying what you see today let alone attempting to provide solid evidence of how some sea creature became a hippo and a whale. I have provided sufficient links here and elsewhere that speak to phylogeny vs taxonomy including homoplasy. You should be informed by now.

Either your postulations for irrefuteable evidence are such or they are not. They are turned aside because the reasonings behind them, the basis for them, was erranous. Pretending to not understand this comparison will never make it go away.

Appendix 1: Common arguments for evolution that have been rejected

Hall of Shame for Evolution Fraud and Deceit

Creationists can make it all fit too!

It really is pick and choose what you want to believe and what you want to understand of the world.

No scientist has had the last word on "HOW". What hope have any of you.

See, what you are doing every single time you post your drivel, is insist that because evolution and science isn't already completely figured out that it must all be BS. Remember, your fairy tales have thousands of years of a headstart on evolution and modern science. Scientific research is long, ardous work. Faith, for most people, is easy. Read your Bible and you have all the answers. Fortunately not all people are ok with camp fire stories. Most religious people don't even spend the time to figure out why they have faith.

You cherry pick the sources you link, which just about every time promote evolution, misquote one small part of an article and then say " See! It's all BS!". And then when someone disgrees with you, you insult them while at the same time try to make it not sound like an insult. This is why your logic fails over and over, and why most people either skip your posts, or refute them with actual empirical evidence (which you just ignore anyways).

The only person on here that I've seen agree with your crazy views is pegg, and IMO she is alot more reasonable than you cause she doesn't act as if she is above anyone.

Perhaps if when you responded to people, you left out the shaded sarcasm, they may take you more seriously. Just a thought I suppose.

 

[Autodidact]

You mean your researchers guess what they think happened and what may have happened and how it happened and this is your evidence.

First land plants paved way for humans › News in Science (ABC Science)

Flowering plants may be considerably older than previously thought

One article puts plants on earth 700mya. You can only guess as to whether or not they were seed bearing. Spores can be seen as seeds also for the purpose of spreading and multiplying.

"Probably an algal scum formed on land 1,200 million years ago. In the Ordovician period, around 450 million years ago, the first land plants appeared.[1] These began to diversify in the late Silurian Period, around 420 million years ago, and the fruits of their diversification are displayed in remarkable detail in an early Devonian fossil assemblage from the Rhynie chert. This chert preserved early plants in cellular detail, petrified in volcanic springs. By the middle of the Devonian Period most of the features recognised in plants today are present, including roots, leaves and secondary wood, and by late Devonian times seeds had evolved.[2] Late Devonian plants had thereby reached a degree of sophistication that allowed them to form forests of tall trees. Evolutionary innovation continued after the Devonian period."

Evolutionary History of Plants Information (Cells) @ PlantsLand.com

So although this is all guess work lets see what they have found.

Mmmmm so far plants that predate fish, the bible is correct.

Re Gen14...Let's not forget that your science shows the moon was created after the earth. The impact theory is your explanation as to how this can be explained.

"The planets were originally believed to have formed in or near their current orbits. However, this view underwent radical change during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Currently, it is believed that the Solar System looked very different after its initial formation: several objects at least as massive as Mercury were present in the inner Solar System, the outer Solar System was much more compact than it is now, and the Kuiper belt was much closer to the Sun.[36]"

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Really all you have is speculation and changing theories to defend your stance.

Your big bang theory supposes all galaxies are moving away from each other yet Andromeda is heading straight for us.

I know the best either side can do is put theory against theory. Suffice to say that no theoretical research is robust enough to overturn anything the bible has to say.

Harvard Gazette: Earth's birth date turned back

In Genesis 1:6-8 God further explains:

"God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." [Genesis 1:6-8]
So God recreated the atmosphere by a water filtration system, lifting a sheath of water through the void of gases into the heaven above the waters on the planet, or, a planet surrounded by a canopy of water. Incidentally, Venus is a canopied planet. It is this canopy which collapsed when the flood of Noah began. Genesis 7:11 states:
"The six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." [Genesis 7:11]
Prior to this event, there is no mention of rain falling on Earth, but "a mist" watered the Earth. The full strength of the sun could not shine through to evaporate enough water to make Cumulus clouds:
"there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." [Genesis 2:6]
This is exactly what would take place on a canopied planet. The temperature change from day to night would create a dewy mist.
Rahab: 5th Planet from the Sun

This guy above has some ideas/theory.

So basically what I am saying is that current theoretical asumptions that constantly change with new data and are based on complicated modelling that cannot take all the confounding data into account are hardly a sufficient basis to say the biblical account is any less valid than any of your theoretical assumptions.

Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

The Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes

Flying fish glide as well as birds, researchers find

What flying fish tell us about evolution

In this post newhope demonstrates that she rejects and ridicules not just Biology, but all of science, including astronomy and geology.

 

[painted wolf]

In this post newhope demonstrates that she rejects and ridicules not just Biology, but all of science, including astronomy and geology.

Don't forget physics and chemistry.

wa:do

 

[waitasec]

See, what you are doing every single time you post your drivel, is insist that because evolution and science isn't already completely figured out that it must all be BS. Remember, your fairy tales have thousands of years of a headstart on evolution and modern science. Scientific research is long, ardous work. Faith, for most people, is easy. Read your Bible and you have all the answers. Fortunately not all people are ok with camp fire stories. Most religious people don't even spend the time to figure out why they have faith.

You cherry pick the sources you link, which just about every time promote evolution, misquote one small part of an article and then say " See! It's all BS!". And then when someone disgrees with you, you insult them while at the same time try to make it not sound like an insult. This is why your logic fails over and over, and why most people either skip your posts, or refute them with actual empirical evidence (which you just ignore anyways).

The only person on here that I've seen agree with your crazy views is pegg, and IMO she is alot more reasonable than you cause she doesn't act as if she is above anyone.

Perhaps if when you responded to people, you left out the shaded sarcasm, they may take you more seriously. Just a thought I suppose.

:clap:
:bow: