6days
New member
Which also explains why science continues exposing the shoddy conclusions of old earthers, and evolutionists.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
Right Divider
Body part
Another one that doesn't believe the Bible. :AMR:Believing that Adam shared earth with T. rex is like believing this...
iouae
Well-known member
I believe the Bible, and the heavens and the rocks. Ps 19:1
iouae
Well-known member
Clete asked what evolution teaches, not what home schooling, and Sunday schooling teaches. When you say things equivalent to the earth is supported by four elephants atop one turtle, to us who know better, you just sound ignorant.
iouae
Well-known member
Evolutionists and palaeontologists cannot explain the missing links in the fossil record.
YEC cannot explain anything about how fossils got arranged as they are, nor can they explain why Adam did not, and could not walk the earth with T. rex. The whole geologic column is a missing link to YEC.
If their ignorance were not bad enough, their Spanish inquisition smugness in their Dark Age science is just the cherry on top.
Ps. Ktoyou, what you wrote is perfectly true. Scientists have the weakness of admitting their ignorance.
iouae
Well-known member
Aaw shucks!
You just don't like Christians.
One does not counter one lie (evolution) with another lie (the earth is 6000 years old).
The truth is that Jesus created everything, the modern biota 6000 years ago, land dwelling tetrapods 345 million years ago.
I like everyone.
6days
New member
If God's Word told me that there was turtles all the way down... that is what I would believe. Actually though, God's Word tell us that He suspends the earth over nothing.iouae said:
And contrary to your above statement, what I said was that I believe Genesis 1 and that there is nothing in Scripture to support your heretical belief that Genesis 1 is a re-creation using pre-existing materials in by a God who tinkered with failed previous creations.
Right Divider
Body part
The rocks are fooling you.
Okay, well, I have to say that I'm really rather disappointed in the stuff you evolutionists have presented thus far on the question of where legs came from. It's just legs, for crying out loud, simple appendages! I wasn't trying to stump you with this question. I didn't go and find the most wildly complex thing I could think of, like a brain for example, and ask you to explain that. All I was looking for was a cogent, conceptual explanation of where legs came from. It could have been dog legs, chicken legs or whatever sort of legs. I expected that evolution expects for all legs to have had a similar evolutionary path even if there was more than one source but no one even bothered to give even the most rudimentary explanation for where spider legs evolved from at all, never mind insects and other bugs like centipedes and wood lice.
I mean seriously! I really honestly expected something way more scientifically robust than the feeble crap that has been presented so far. Is this as good as modern science can do? Is the stuff presented here what has you guys all so convinced that (to quote Carl Sagan), "Evolution is a fact , not a theory. It really happened."?
Come you guys! You can do better than this - can't you?!
I offer you another chance. Give it all you've got. Pretend like I'm some young mind full of mush in a public school science class and your job is to see to it that I don't leave your classroom without having been convinced that it is reasonable to believe that legs at least COULD have evolved from something somehow.
Ready? Go!
I mean seriously! I really honestly expected something way more scientifically robust than the feeble crap that has been presented so far. Is this as good as modern science can do? Is the stuff presented here what has you guys all so convinced that (to quote Carl Sagan), "Evolution is a fact , not a theory. It really happened."?
Come you guys! You can do better than this - can't you?!
I offer you another chance. Give it all you've got. Pretend like I'm some young mind full of mush in a public school science class and your job is to see to it that I don't leave your classroom without having been convinced that it is reasonable to believe that legs at least COULD have evolved from something somehow.
Ready? Go!
iouae
Well-known member
Clete, in your first post you give the impression of an unbiased truth seeker.
I am not an evolutionist, but I explained to you how tetrapod legs originated, suddenly and completely in the Carboniferous, after Romer's gap which is rock without tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals that walk on all fours. We are talking about vertebrates here.
Even humans, chickens and dogs are vertebrates and tetrapods but they were created, complete with legs, long after the Carboniferous.
Invertebrate legs originated in the Cambrian, the first geologic age. Trilobites appear suddenly in the fossil record complete with legs. Trilobites have legs similar to all other Arthropods. Arthropods include crabs, insects, spiders.
Pick an animal, and if your reply to this post indicates that you are willing to learn, I will be happy to tell you where that animal got its legs. Every animal appears suddenly, in the geologic column, complete with legs.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Is Googling "evolutionary origin of legs" too difficult? :idunno:
There isn't much pretending necessary...
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
This says quite a bit about your objectivity... you have none.
I already know the answers to the questions I'm asking, moron.
This is a debate forum. It's a place where people come to debate stuff. Get it?
Then do it! Show me how its at all reasonable to think that legs could have evolved. If you're so much smarter than I am, it ought to be easy for you. So do it!
iouae
Well-known member
Then why not say so from the get go?
Then you pick an animal and tell us where it got its legs.
I suppose you will say on the 6th day, God....
...and the whole asking what evolutionists think is just irrelevant.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about many things.
Let it be understood, I am not discounting all science, but the following is on the topic of creation (by God) or evolution verses some other theory(s).
How did human life come into existance?
Fact: We know we are here. We exist.
Question: How did we get here?
Creation verses evolution or other theories.
Evolution and/or other theories: Are not fully testable.
Creation - Also not fully testable in relation to science.
Creation and the Bible: One can dismiss the Bibles explantion of creation. However, the bible is a prophetic book and many of these prophesies (historical events) are verified through documented history, historical documents and or acchological finds. The odds of anyone being able to predict the future with a very high level of accuracy (that is the more detailed the prediction) the odds of those predictions coming true become a extremely high bar to discount as to chance or any other explantion. With science one must also consider odds. However with science there is not not necessaryily confirmed by documented history that support the theory rather it is theory based on theory.
one example - the fossil record … there is nothing in the “fossil record” that shows the transition of one form into another …. on the contrary it shows the full forms. In the earth’s “layers” from the depths we are able to look at through core samples, in those layers lacks a record of transition and then there appears fully formed life of various kinds.
Science attempts to tie everything material to it’s theories. God ties everything to the spiritual.
Considering the odds:
The Spiritual - The Bible a prophetic and set of historical books. That is it predicts the future before it happens. In order for this to be believed there has to be historical accounts verifying that events were predicted with historical evidence (secular records) to prophesy(s) made. There is a lot of historical evidence (secular records) that verify biblical accounts …. through people that lived, events in history that are documented, archeogical findings etc. many that coincide with prophicies made in the Bible. So then we come to the question of odds. Predictions - the more detailed the prediction the higher the odds become that they are true and reliable. Many predictions made in the Bible are verifiable (secular history) and many are very detailed making the odds of the predictions extremely high … so high they can not be ignored, yet they are. Mostly due to people not looking at prophesies in the Bible and then comparing them with documented history. Their “beliefs” are formed without using biblical accounts into the consideration of what they believe. If the Bible is not considered … then one is not considering all evidence and therefore their arguments are futile.
So in the Bible is this verse of why we believe Gods word and therefore can be confident in it. (Again - Much much much verifiable by history)
2nd Peter
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Spiritual … yet verifiable by history. So detailed even if looking at prophesy with a rational mind can not be ignored.
Weigh the evidence … all the evidence, including the Bible. I encourage all to do so.
Let it be understood, I am not discounting all science, but the following is on the topic of creation (by God) or evolution verses some other theory(s).
How did human life come into existance?
Fact: We know we are here. We exist.
Question: How did we get here?
Creation verses evolution or other theories.
Evolution and/or other theories: Are not fully testable.
Creation - Also not fully testable in relation to science.
Creation and the Bible: One can dismiss the Bibles explantion of creation. However, the bible is a prophetic book and many of these prophesies (historical events) are verified through documented history, historical documents and or acchological finds. The odds of anyone being able to predict the future with a very high level of accuracy (that is the more detailed the prediction) the odds of those predictions coming true become a extremely high bar to discount as to chance or any other explantion. With science one must also consider odds. However with science there is not not necessaryily confirmed by documented history that support the theory rather it is theory based on theory.
one example - the fossil record … there is nothing in the “fossil record” that shows the transition of one form into another …. on the contrary it shows the full forms. In the earth’s “layers” from the depths we are able to look at through core samples, in those layers lacks a record of transition and then there appears fully formed life of various kinds.
Science attempts to tie everything material to it’s theories. God ties everything to the spiritual.
Considering the odds:
The Spiritual - The Bible a prophetic and set of historical books. That is it predicts the future before it happens. In order for this to be believed there has to be historical accounts verifying that events were predicted with historical evidence (secular records) to prophesy(s) made. There is a lot of historical evidence (secular records) that verify biblical accounts …. through people that lived, events in history that are documented, archeogical findings etc. many that coincide with prophicies made in the Bible. So then we come to the question of odds. Predictions - the more detailed the prediction the higher the odds become that they are true and reliable. Many predictions made in the Bible are verifiable (secular history) and many are very detailed making the odds of the predictions extremely high … so high they can not be ignored, yet they are. Mostly due to people not looking at prophesies in the Bible and then comparing them with documented history. Their “beliefs” are formed without using biblical accounts into the consideration of what they believe. If the Bible is not considered … then one is not considering all evidence and therefore their arguments are futile.
So in the Bible is this verse of why we believe Gods word and therefore can be confident in it. (Again - Much much much verifiable by history)
2nd Peter
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Spiritual … yet verifiable by history. So detailed even if looking at prophesy with a rational mind can not be ignored.
Weigh the evidence … all the evidence, including the Bible. I encourage all to do so.