by Island Man 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
Chris Tann - You have also made the basic error of thinking about evolution as something living things do in response to their environment.
No creature has ever adapted to anything in the history of life.
Evolution is about changes in the frequency of allelles in a gene pool.
Please read some science. There are lots of us who are wiling to help but you need to make the effort.
It's amazing to me how people who believe in creation will say that evolution over millions of years is absolutely impossible, but evolution over hundreds of years is plausible. The mental gymnastics this requires is astounding.
Firstly, well done for having a stab at it - that takes courage on an internet forum.
cofty has already highlighted the major flaw, but just to drive it home:
living creatures changed or evolved to survive
their genes were influenced by the cursed environment
Evolution doesn't do that. You're saying about 6000 years ago that all living creatures as soon as "the curse" struck concurrently changed their whole physiology, including their teeth, and these animals were able to survive and "evolve" at an equal rate without wiping each other out or dying of starvation? If evolution worked like that and so quickly, I would be pretty scared to walk out my front door, and if so, why aren't we seeing evolution like that today? Did God turn the dial up to 11 for a bit?
Also, if you're saying animals eating meat is all due to "the curse", your conclusion would mean there is no evidence of meat-eating animals from before 6000 years ago. Even for an old-earth creationist, that means the many fossils with meat-eating teeth and other features of carnivores are no older than about 6000 years? For example, it also means you're saying all those pretty obviously meat-eating dinosaurs were roaming the earth at the same time as Adam and Eve?
If you had gone with: "Satan put all the pointy-toothed fossils there to test us" that might have been a slightly more reasonable start.
Cofty:lol! No, I'm still reading it. In fact it's very convincing! Your answer is correct I must admit. I will continue to read the book and write a post on it when I'm done.
Simon: I feel a Christian has to admit that micro evolution is a fact. Animals changing to adapt does not mean they were not created. Having said that; to respond to Cofty pointing out that evolution is not a response to their environment: I thought the finches Darwin studied on an Island had evolved a tooth like thing on their beak to open seeds found on that island.
88JM: yes,I see you point. However according to creationists,if the flood did happen this would mess up all radio carbon dating,thus fossil dates would be inaccurate. I know, I'm reaching, but this is what Christians believe. Well, not all of them.
Chris Tann, brave of you to try to address this issue from a creationist standpoint. Without any intention of ridiculing you, here are some points to ponder on:
1. Is it reaonable to believe that millions of animals worldwide evolved whole systems geared toward predatory behavior in a mere 6000 years?
2. How do you account for the remains of predatory animals that are older than 6000 years showing that predatory features existed in animals long before the fall of man some 6000 years ago?
3. If you accept "micro-evolution" why do you reject "macro-evolution"? Is there any scientific basis for making this distinction? Do evolutionary scientists make such distinctions? If "micro-evolution" is true and supported by evidence, how can you be sure that "macro-evolution" isn't?
It is my view that the whole "micro-evolution is true but macro-evolution isn't" argument is analogous to someone saying "Humans can stand and take individual steps, but they can't walk from one point to another. They can make "micro-movements" but they can't travel from one point to another." LOL.
By the way, do you believe the earth is older than 6000 years? If you do, what evidence do you know of that proves the earth is older than 6000 years?
You might want to keep in mind that radio carbon dating is just one of a myriad of different methods used for dating purposes, and when they all converge to give the same period we can be confident that it's true (at the mouth of two or three witnesses, right?)
Chris Tann,
What Island Man just said.
DD
I have two suggestions for future articles:
1. the canine teeth of Smilodon
2. snake venom.
LUHE
You could also add
3.the many marine species that have poisonous venom
4.spider venom
and I`m sure their are many more
smiddy
If you do insist on rubbishing radio carbon dating, there are many other ways of dating things:
if the flood did happen this would mess up all radio carbon dating,thus fossil dates would be inaccurate.
Radio carbon dating isn't used to date fossils. That would be like using an egg timer to measure the speed of a glacier.
There are numerous methods of radiometric dating. Scientists use 3 or more independent methods on the same samples to see if they coincide.
Here is an excellent article on the topic, written by a scientist who is also a christian...
The problem creationists have is much greater than trying to undermine radiometric dating. They have to explain the relative ages of fossils. How do you explain the fact that the sequence of fossils found in layers in the earth follow the exact sequence of evolution determined by other methods?
Excellent points to consider Island man and cofty. I do put out there my reasonings in hope that reasonable educated individuals will respectfully give me answers. Thanks for being that! :)
