1. There are dozens upon dozens of fossils that have inspired heated debates over whether it is (for example) a "mammal-like reptile" or a "reptile-like mammal", indicating that the boundaries between animals is nowhere near as distinct as many would like to assert.i can have two turds laying on the ground, and tell you they seam to come from the same source or are related when in fact they probably aren't.
caseypayne69
Er, no. The point is that there exist tons of animals that have the characteristics of two different cIasses of animals. People always ask, "but where are the transitional fossils?" - well, there they are.
2. The fossils dated closer to the present day are both more diverse and more complex than the fossils dated further in the past, indicating that life on Earth became steadily more complex as time progressed.That makes no sense and his an opinion or assumption not fact.
caseypayne69
What?
Fossils of animals that lived a long time ago are simple, and there are not that many species.
Fossils of animals that lived closer to the present day are complex, and there are far more such species.
Ergo, animals became more complex and diverse as history goes towards the present day.
What conclusion from this are we to draw, exactly, except that life on Earth became more complex and diverse as time progressed? Was God just placing progressively more complex animals on Earth to make itseemas though this had happened, or what?
3. All life on Earth is interconnected through an increasingly large set of common traits the closer taxonomically two organisms are related - some of which are not perfectly adapted to the organism's structure (e.g., hollow bones and wings in flightless birds), indicating common descent in life on Earth.Having close genetic make-up with other species does not = related or from the same source though some would like us to believe that.
caseypayne69
Answer these questions, then: Why do flightless birds exist? They have wings that don't let them fly, and some have hollowed bones that don't help them get airborne. Why do we have a tailbone? We don't have a tail. Why do we have a single chromosome that bears the hallmark of a fusion of two great ape chromosomes, if we exist unto ourselves? This list could go on and on - there are many, many inefficiencies in the genetic and physical structures in organisms that is simply unexplainable if we are to assume that they were intelligently designed.
Fundamentally speaking, if we are not related to other animals, then why is there that series of interconnected traits that links together all life on Earth, even when the similar traits do not provide the benefit they do in other animals? Why are not all species perfectly designed? None of this makes any sense except when considered as the result of the process of evolution, a process that answers all of these questions and all of the ones like them perfectly well.
1. The distribution of celestial objects and the appearance of celestial objects from long ago (the light we receive from far off galaxy gives us a picture of how it was many, many years ago) strongly indicate the evolution of galaxies.Shall I mention all the flaws here? One being time, if we base time as earth goes around the sun, earth spins a perfect circle every 24 hours, solar system movies in a perfect circle as the UNIVERSE would "quote expand" then time in the beginning would be shorter in lenth and look up the rest of the flaws in Big Bang.
caseypayne69
I don't know what you're talking about here. Time is the connection of one three-dimensional space to another, just as a line in the third dimension connects two 2-dimensional surfaces together. The size of the three-dimensional spaces has no bearing on anything.
2. The predominance of light elements such as hydrogen indicate that the atoms we have in existence today formed from subatomic particles.They "say" the universal started from three simple gases collided. I'll believe that when I see it. Which I never will.
caseypayne69
Uh, what? I have never heard that assertion before in my life. At the time of the big bang, the universe was entirely filled with matter, and it then expanded outward as raisins in a rising loaf of raisin bread expand outward. The big bang was not a chemical explosion.
3. The existence of cosmic microwave background radiation indicates that the universe was once much hotter than it is today.This means nothing for Evolution or Big Bang whether true or false.
caseypayne69
Except for one teensy problem: when the big bang theory was devised, one of its testable predictions was the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation. So, to test it, they went out to look for it. And they found it, just as the theory said the ought to be able to.
If the big bang theory is so wrong, then why have its testable predictions been shown to be true?
4. The redshifting of all celestial objects indicates that everything in the universe is expanding apart and was closer together in the past.Which leads to the flaw of time.
caseypayne69
A flaw that I think is your responsibility to explain.
Here is a study for you that proves we exist outside our bodies. And do not that EVOLUTION says when you die you die, your just part of the environment. So if this proves you exist outside your body then hence it proves Evolution is false.
http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=38
caseypayne69
Huh? Evolution, and science in general for that matter, does not say anything whatsoever about what happens when you die. How can it? Its realm is the testable and empirically observable, which necessarily makes it unable to say anything at all about that which is neither testable nor empirically observable. Evolution simply says that there is a process of continual mutation and natural selection that causes animals to change to better be able to survive and reproduce in their environment. I myself am a Christian who believes in both God and an afterlife, but that does not mean that I need to discount the contributions science has made to our body of knowledge.
Log in to comment