Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[YoursTrue]

I believe the significance of this claim of yours has been explained ad nauseum. No one expects that any organism will suddenly jump to a new classification. That's all the further I care to address this I think.

I don't know what to tell you. I've read a lot of books on the subject and even the books geared to a general audience go into detail that would provide you with some ideas and information about the subject.

Google is your friend.

I'm not sure how your comment relates to what I said. We were talking about the first cell(s). And how they supposedly came about. Although it's true that insofar as I see and know about, chimpanzees remain chimpanzees and no one really knows how the first cell came about. It's too amazing for me to think about ... but then, as the saying might go, I'm not a scientist in that field.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville By the way, thanks for mentioning Google Scholar. I didn't know such a thing existed and I will look into using it if possible. So thanks again.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If that is the teaching, how do you (or scientists) know this? I know you have said you accept the scientific viewpoint in many senses. I do not explain it except I believe what the Bible says about creation. Fish, humans, plants are separate categories. Quite frankly beyond that, I can't say except what I can understand. I do know that ==yup, gorillas are still remaining gorillas. Chimps are still chimps. And birds are staying as birds. So far as I see. (Or anyone sees.)

There is a very specific ear feature that only cetaceans have. The animal that first had it was a four legged land mammal. If you follow the fossils through time that had this ear formation, you see how they slowly evolved into whales and dolphins.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/whale_evo.jpg

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that is the teaching, how do you (or scientists) know this? I know you have said you accept the scientific viewpoint in many senses. I do not explain it except I believe what the Bible says about creation. Fish, humans, plants are separate categories. Quite frankly beyond that, I can't say except what I can understand. I do know that ==yup, gorillas are still remaining gorillas. Chimps are still chimps. And birds are staying as birds. So far as I see. (Or anyone sees.)

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong at the end of your post. Since you did that I will give you some answers.

Pakicetus was the first clear transitional fossil found in whale evolution since basilosaurus. But it was clearly a land dwelling mammal. What made it clear that it was related is that cetaceans have very distinctive inner ears. And this wee beastie had the same ear bones as other whales do. That set off a new search for whale and whale ancestor fossils and quite a few were found that filled that gaps. Again, not all of them, fossilization is still incredibly rare. But we could see that the nostrils were migrating up the head where they eventually became blowholes. We could observe the limbs changing usage and size. DNA helped too. It identified its closest land relative as the hippopatamus.

Here is a quick overview:

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a very specific ear feature that only cetaceans have. The animal that first had it was a four legged land mammal. If you follow the fossils through time that had this ear formation, you see how they slowly evolved into whales and dolphins.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/whale_evo.jpg

It may prove (be enough evidence, shall I say) for you, but it in no way confirms to me that means dolphins evolved from four legged land rovers. Regardless of ear similarities, again, to me that is not confirmation that dolphins and whales evolved from land rovers. Aside from what I consider as flabbergasting considering the pictures, I really do believe what the Bible says about creation. Ear similarities do not confirm the terms of evolution as proposed in the chart to my mind.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It may prove (be enough evidence, shall I say) for you, but it in no way confirms to me that means dolphins evolved from four legged land rovers. Regardless of ear similarities, again, to me that is not confirmation that dolphins and whales evolved from land rovers. Aside from what I consider as flabbergasting considering the pictures, I really do believe what the Bible says about creation. Ear similarities do not confirm the terms of evolution as proposed in the chart to my mind.

With all respect, I think it is very clear that when faced with a contradiction between actual evidence and the biblical account, you ignore the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

With all respect, I think it is very clear that when faced with a contradiction between actual evidence and the biblical account, you ignore the evidence.

Not at all. I do not see the drawings as evidence of the natural evolution as proposed by scientists (even though yes, I see the logic but not the evidence). So carry on as you will, I say this in good regard, these scientific endeavors and conjectures do not show/prove/evidence that land rovers evolved to become dolphins and whales. Shalom and erev tov. Looking forward to the fulfillment of God's promises, reminding me of Maimonides and the Articles of Faith.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong at the end of your post. Since you did that I will give you some answers.

Pakicetus was the first clear transitional fossil found in whale evolution since basilosaurus. But it was clearly a land dwelling mammal. What made it clear that it was related is that cetaceans have very distinctive inner ears. And this wee beastie had the same ear bones as other whales do. That set off a new search for whale and whale ancestor fossils and quite a few were found that filled that gaps. Again, not all of them, fossilization is still incredibly rare. But we could see that the nostrils were migrating up the head where they eventually became blowholes. We could observe the limbs changing usage and size. DNA helped too. It identified its closest land relative as the hippopatamus.

Here is a quick overview:

View attachment 86286

What a crock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a crock.

Too bad that you do not have any evidence. Your denial only tells everyone that you are just a science denier.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Too bad that you do not have any evidence. Your denial only tells everyone that you are just a science denier.

Evolutionists have lots of evidence that prove evolution and billions of years false.
They just ignore it.

 

[Esteban X]

Evolutionists have lots of evidence that prove evolution and billions of years false.
They just ignore it.

Evolutionist is a nonsense term, but regardless, could you list some of this "evidence", or is this just another baseless claim?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Evolutionist is a nonsense term, but regardless, could you list some of this "evidence", or is this just another baseless claim?

I already have in these many threads,
Can you refute any?

 

[metis]

Now consider mankind and our supposed closest cousin the chimpanzee. A careful examination between the two will show that people and chimps are not that similar. There is a multitude of differences. Chimps live in trees. Very few people live in trees. Chimps love to groom each other. Most people would not like someone else picking stuff off of them. Chimps like to eat leaves, termites, bark, resin, and ants, among other things. Most people would not want to eat these but chimps love these. Chimps’ arms are longer than their legs. For people, the opposite is true. People walk upright almost all the time. Chimps mostly don’t. Try walking like a chimp for a while; you will not like it very much. The reason is simple - their body structure is different from ours. Chimps are covered with rather thick hair over their whole bodies with the exception of parts of their face, ears, hands and feet. People have rather sparse hair. Even the hairiest person has hair sparser than the sparsest of chimps. Chimps can eat a lot of bananas and not get bored of them. Most people would not want to eat that many bananas. Chimps’ brains are quite small compared to those of mankind. The ears of chimps are noticeably different from those of mankind.

The hands of a chimp are different from those of people. Chimps’ fingers are longer. The feet of a chimp are very different from those of people. Chimp’s feet are more like hands. The big toe is like a very useful thumb. Their feet are much more flexible and bendable than the feet of mankind. Chimps can hang from trees by their feet or by their hands. They can swing while hanging from branches and even swing between branches. Here is something a chimp could do. A chimp can hang from a branch by one foot and one hand. Try hanging by your feet alone. That would be very hard. A chimp can hold a banana by its foot. If you eat enough bananas you probably would feel sick. Take a good, long look at a picture of a chimp. Look at the face closely. It doesn’t look like any person I know. The features are not like those of a person. The part of the face where the mouth is located looks like a snout. The shape of the head is more wide than tall. The nose is very different. The ears are very different. Also remember that there are at least 150,000,000 (possibly 420,000,000) differences (an inexplicable number) between the DNA code of people and the DNA code of chimps. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, people only 46 and mammals do not change their chromosome count to become a species. It leads to sterile offspring or reduced fertility of offspring.

Chimps do not write books, make airplanes that fly, cook with fire, or shop at malls. Chimps did not invent the Internet, build ships, build telescopes, invent calculus, or stamp coins. They have never built pyramids, superhighways, supermarkets, TVs or bridges over large rivers and bays. They do not make calendars. Chimps are not good chess players. They have never built a rocket. They have not invented games like hockey, baseball, football, tennis, pinochle, poker, or bowling. In fact mankind, of all living things, does all these and many more. Mankind’s intelligence stands completely apart from all animals. People have written millions of books and innumerable newspapers, letters, magazines and notes. The animal kingdom has written none. People have read billions of books. Animals have read none. People have produced hundreds of millions of gas-powered engines. Animals have produced none. Mankind has invented telephones, cell phones, computers, TV and radio. These have been produced by the billions and used many billions of times. Animals have invented and made none. It would take many books to document all the differences between people and animals in the area of intelligence.

Evolutionary science likes to claim that the chimpanzee is our “closest” relative. But the phrase “closest” is both deceptive and indoctrinating. When examined closely, chimps aren’t even close at all to people. The differences are immense. The use of the phrase, “closest”, implies that chimps are “close” to people. However, mankind is very different from all creatures. None are close at all - not in appearance, not in genetics, not in behavior, and not in intelligence. Yet chimps are quite like other apes and monkeys. A chimp is much closer to other apes and monkeys than to people. In fact, chimpanzees are not even relatives of people. People are people and chimps are animals. It could not be more obvious. The fact that evolutionary science has identified the chimp as our closet cousin is proof that evolution is false. If our supposed closest cousin of all the animal kingdom is not even remotely close, as can be clearly proven, then mankind is not related to any animal at all through common biological descent. Once again, evolutionary science has presented evidence that is not evidence. Therefore there must be NO EVIDENCE for evolution. You can bet your everlasting destiny that evolution is false.

I'm so glad I left my old church many decades ago that taught such nonsense. I accept reality; not try to excuse it away.

 

[metis]

Look, I don't mean to make fun of that, but -- the main difference? (sorry I'm chuckling again.) That's what you were taught -- the MAIN DIFFERENCE??? Two year olds -- more or less permanently staying at two years cognitively compared to humans?? in chimps -- smiling here -- that is what they teach?
No, I believe we don't resemble fish. Or flowers. Or lions. And yes, I can see why some believe humans belong to the "ape" family because of a certain resemblance to chimps, etc. But again -- and I'm sorry to say this because I know it will lead to more erudite responses perhaps -- t this point not only is there no genetic evidence coming from some UCA (Unknown Common Ancestor) said to branch off to the various entities like chimpanzee, bonobos and humans, etc. -- there is a v=a=s=t difference as I see it, between chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and humans. I hope no one will attempt to tell me that humans were inclined to agriculture and that's what makes the difference. I'm stopping for a while, your honor.

Maybe "study" the science instead of "chuckling". The fact is that the anti-scientists we see here at RF don't even understand the basic process of evolution that is now quite well known. It's more the details that's much less so.

IOW, I'm wasting my time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe "study" the science instead of "chuckling". The fact is that the anti-scientists we see here at RF don't even understand the basic process of evolution that is now quite well known. It's more the details that's much less so.

IOW, I'm wasting my time.

You could feel that way, and I do appreciate your desire to incorporate evolution somehow with the Bible. If, in fact, you do. Which brings up the question and I hope you or someone that claims belief in Jesus Christ in a religious way will answer (other than him being a good man, which I also believed before I believed what the Bible says, having seen him on a cross on the walls of some churches while I wondered: what did he do that was so terrible that he was nailed to a cross) do you think he evolved into Mary's womb you know from maybe a cell that was unleashed into a human form, and he came from heaven by evolution without a sexual union involving his mother and a man? I mean how do you relegate the two? Since you're finished with me, it's ok, I understand if you don't want to answer. I haven't read Teilhard de Chardin's writings yet but wonder if he touched upon that subject of Jesus coming into Mary's womb without a sexual union.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe "study" the science instead of "chuckling". The fact is that the anti-scientists we see here at RF don't even understand the basic process of evolution that is now quite well known. It's more the details that's much less so.

IOW, I'm wasting my time.

Sorry I laughed. Naturally you don't have to take seriously any of my questions. But the question you bring to mind is that you really think and believe the main difference between humans and chimpanzees is: In physical anthropology, we studied chimp behavior in detail from difference sources and experiments, and the main distinction between us and them is our much larger brain size. For all practical reality, we humans are large-brained almost-hairless chimps, and an adult chimp has the cognitive ability of roughly a two-year-old human child. Yes sir, I find that amazing as well as astonishing and -- unbelievable as the main distinction. Since you're probably not reading this or do not wish to respond any more, it makes me wonder about things. Especially if the Roman Catholic Church thinks somehow Jesus evolved from a virgin's womb.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe "study" the science instead of "chuckling". The fact is that the anti-scientists we see here at RF don't even understand the basic process of evolution that is now quite well known. It's more the details that's much less so.

IOW, I'm wasting my time.

I don't think you're wasting your time. But if you do, please do something possibly more productive as you see it with your time. I have questions about what some believe or don't believe in the Bible (such as Jesus being enthroned in heaven, being born to a virgin, things like that). Hope you have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

With all respect, I think it is very clear that when faced with a contradiction between actual evidence and the biblical account, you ignore the evidence.

I find the evidence unconvincing that life evolved by natural (physical) means without a Creator involved in the structure and progression. Some animals are so different from others that it becomes astounding.
The reason some give that humans just haven't been around long enough during those supposed 300,000+ years to wonder about things except for the past few thousand years. And of course, unless a person wants to imagine things, gorillas and chimpanzees have no desire to figure this out. Only been the past couple of thousand years. Too amazing to really believe that for hundreds of thousands of years humans didn't wonder about this. Or develop microscopes. Videos. Etc.
Considering chimpanzees' brains, is it, stay about the 2-year old level say scientists(?) most 2 year old humans do not wonder about these things. But if you think maybe some genius chimpanzees do, I have nothing to add. (Have a good one...shalom...peace...take care...good health...to you and yours...poor health is not something we enjoy, right? so I hope you have good health... My mother-in-law would always say if you have good health, you have everything. Not that I believe that a person has everything, but I see to a nice degree it is nice to have good health. Shalom again.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolutionist is a nonsense term, but regardless, could you list some of this "evidence", or is this just another baseless claim?

Why do you object? Do you believe in evolution as the means humans are alive?

Please notice that the word evolutionist is an accepted word by a respected dictionary. "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection."
"relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection."
"an evolutionist model" That from evolutionist definition - Google Search

 

[metis]

what did he do that was so terrible that he was nailed to a cross)

He upset the Romans.

evolved into Mary's womb

I assume he grew, but that really doesn't involve the ToE.

. I haven't read Teilhard de Chardin's writings yet but wonder if he touched upon that subject of Jesus coming into Mary's womb without a sexual union.

I took a seminar on de Chardin decades ago but don't recall that ever being mentioned.