how did man appear on earth

[Sunstone]

If you do the work yourself, you'll see that it doesn't add up. The fact is that the scientific community has dug itself into a whole to large to get out of, and if they admit they're wrong now, they'll lose all credibility.

So. Do you realize that you are, in effect, proposing that tens of thousands of scientists world wide are in a conspiracy to keep silent about "the flaws in evolution" for no other reason than to protect their credibility. You seem to have a very good imagination.

 

[Riverwolf]

Heck, just look at the ocean's salinity! Salt flows into the ocean on a regular basis at a stable rate. The fact is that if the earth were anything older than 10,000 years, the rates don't add up. The ocean would be too salty to support life. Look that one up.

Using that logic, the surface of the ocean must be higher than the planet because rivers and whatnot flow into it on a regular basis.

The salt that enters the ocean is absorbed by life. Indeed salt is one of the necessities for life, and like everything else, too much of it is fatal.

But too much water is fatal as well.

 

[painted wolf]

Heck, just look at the ocean's salinity! Salt flows into the ocean on a regular basis at a stable rate. The fact is that if the earth were anything older than 10,000 years, the rates don't add up. The ocean would be too salty to support life. Look that one up.

Such claims fail to account for the formations of rocks such as altered basalt, the formation of diatomaceous earth, or the numerous other ways that salt exits the oceans.
Notice what happens when a system is without these systems... Dead sea for example.

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

So. Do you realize that you are, in effect, proposing that tens of thousands of scientists world wide are in a conspiracy to keep silent about "the flaws in evolution" for no other reason than to protect their credibility. You seem to have a very good imagination.

Haha, no, that would be ridiculous indeed...I think I've dug myself into my own hole here lol :cover:. Lets see if I can dig myself out...

I think what I'm trying to say here is that whole principle of evolution was founded on faulty reasoning. Nevertheless, the theory has been accepted through the years to the point that scientists rarely consider looking deep enough into it; they just accept it as fact and move on.

Now, I can't say I know enough about evolution to give you a straight rundown on how its wrong and why, but I am skeptical of it (mainly because my belief system rejects it, as well as the fact that it has a few flaws, which is one reason its still a theory and not a law). Not even laws like the theory of gravity are truly proven, though a lot of evidence is in its favor. There is a lot of evidence in evolutions favor, but not enough to convince me.

I hope that sheds a little more light on what I'm trying to say...

 

[Sunstone]

Haha, no, that would be ridiculous indeed...I think I've dug myself into my own hole here lol :cover:. Lets see if I can dig myself out...

I think what I'm trying to say here is that whole principle of evolution was founded on faulty reasoning. Nevertheless, the theory has been accepted through the years to the point that scientists rarely consider looking deep enough into it; they just accept it as fact and move on.

Now, I can't say I know enough about evolution to give you a straight rundown on how its wrong and why, but I am skeptical of it (mainly because my belief system rejects it, as well as the fact that it has a few flaws, which is one reason its still a theory and not a law). Not even laws like the theory of gravity are truly proven, though a lot of evidence is in its favor. There is a lot of evidence in evolutions favor, but not enough to convince me.

I hope that sheds a little more light on what I'm trying to say...

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Using that logic, the surface of the ocean must be higher than the planet because rivers and whatnot flow into it on a regular basis.

The salt that enters the ocean is absorbed by life. Indeed salt is one of the necessities for life, and like everything else, too much of it is fatal.

But too much water is fatal as well.

I think your forgetting to take into account evaporation...

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Such claims fail to account for the formations of rocks such as altered basalt, the formation of diatomaceous earth, or the numerous other ways that salt exits the oceans.
Notice what happens when a system is without these systems... Dead sea for example.

wa:do

Hmmm...I'll have to do my research on that one...

 

[painted wolf]

I think what I'm trying to say here is that whole principle of evolution was founded on faulty reasoning. Nevertheless, the theory has been accepted through the years to the point that scientists rarely consider looking deep enough into it; they just accept it as fact and move on.

You don't seem to realize that evolution is one of the most tested and examined biological ideas of all time. If it was so faulty then the genetic revolution would have killed it... instead it only made it stronger.

There are no 'laws' in Biology... Theory is as high as you get. Math has 'laws' but that is it. Evolution is not math.

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

You don't seem to realize that evolution is one of the most tested and examined biological ideas of all time. If it was so faulty then the genetic revolution would have killed it... instead it only made it stronger.

Is evolution a repeatable test? Can you test that?

 

[painted wolf]

Yes you can.
From studying evolution as it happens in the field, to studying the genetics behind the process, there are dozens of ways evolution is being tested to this day.

check out this thread for examples: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html

which reminds me, I need to update that thread.

wa:do

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Yes you can.
From studying evolution as it happens in the field, to studying the genetics behind the process, there are dozens of ways evolution is being tested to this day.

check out this thread for examples: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html

which reminds me, I need to update that thread.

wa:do

Micro or macro evolution? If micro, then I would call that adaption. If you mean macro, then that has never happened across taxa.

I believe in "evolution"in the sense that life does indeed adapt, but evolution in the sense of "all life has come from a single-celled organism", that is absolutely preposterous. If you can show me speciation, you'll have a new convert.

 

[Draka]

If you admit to adaptation, then why do you have such a problem with the idea of millions upon millions of years of adaptations providing different species? And the development of different species has been accounted for within recorded history. It's not like it's just a guess that it happens. It has been seen.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

If you admit to adaptation, then why do you have such a problem with the idea of millions upon millions of years of adaptations providing different species? And the development of different species has been accounted for within recorded history. It's not like it's just a guess that it happens. It has been seen.

But adaptation is not speciation. It's one species getting stronger in one area or learning something, and thus changing, but its still the same species.

Speciation is changing from one species to another. It has never been shown to happen.

 

[Draka]

So Darwin's finches, which helped to provide the beginning evidence for his entire theory, don't show anything?

Again, I say, you have enough adaptations then somehting no longer is the same species anymore. Recipe: Take a group of one kind of dog and split in in half and put each half in a radically different environment to survive and let stew for a long time. Eventually they will not be the same thing anymore.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

So Darwin's finches, which helped to provide the beginning evidence for his entire theory, don't show anything?

No, Darwin's Finches proved that animals do adapt. Remember, even if they were all different in some manner, they were still all finches.

Again, I say, you have enough adaptations then somehting no longer is the same species anymore. Recipe: Take a group of one kind of dog and split in in half and put each half in a radically different environment to survive and let stew for a long time. Eventually they will not be the same thing anymore.

If that's the case, why haven't they done that sort of thing in the lab? Besides, on the genetic level, it would still be a dog.

P.S. It's funny how evolutionists scoff at the idea that all the different breeds of dog could have come from the two dogs on Noah's arc when they say that all life came from some primordial soup...

 

[Draka]

Well, of course people scoff at the idea of repopulating the earth with any species with just two of it. My goodness, have you never heard of the affects of inbreeding?

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

Well, of course people scoff at the idea of repopulating the earth with any species with just two of it. My goodness, have you never heard of the affects of inbreeding?

Then how ridiculous does it sound that all life came from a single celled organism that most likely reproduced asexually? Everything is inbred if you go off of that...

 

[Riverwolf]

I think your forgetting to take into account evaporation...

Exactly my point. I never forgot about evaporation.

Salt, while it doesn't evaporate, does change form.

 

[Riverwolf]

But adaptation is not speciation. It's one species getting stronger in one area or learning something, and thus changing, but its still the same species.

Speciation is changing from one species to another. It has never been shown to happen.

Why are there organs in the human body that no longer do anything?

I can pretty much guarantee that Jesus's appendix was functional.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then how ridiculous does it sound that all life came from a single celled organism that most likely reproduced asexually? Everything is inbred if you go off of that...

Not ridiculous at all.

Asexual reproduction is not inbreeding. It's the process of splitting in two. It's how cells continue to grow; right now the cells in your body are reproducing asexually while old cells are dying.