JamesKer1 wrote:I reject mass-scale evolution. I think it's the craziest thing ever. I believe it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in something filled with holes than it does to believe in the Bible, which makes sense.
Young Earth creationists often like to point to errors in the theory of evolution". IRC is full of publications talking about all the errors. The real irony is that most of those were published by traditional, mainline scientists. See, a hallmark of real science as opposed to what is passed off as science is that it must be published and subject to constant review. Errors ARE found... sometimes scientist make mistake and sometimes, scientists, like those of any profession (including saved clergy) commit outright fraud. The point is that the system of review is part of the science design.
That said, a LOT of the supposed holes are not holes at all. A recent claim, for example, is to say basically that species can change a great deal, but only within the kind... since evolutionists cannot show that a kangaroo changed into a giraffe evolution did not happen (a real example given, though I would have to dig to find the reference.. and it might even have been pulled). The whole idea that it MIGHT do so is ridiculous, as is the idea that that is anything like what evolutionists are saying happened. No, evolutionists say that a primitive canine-like species gave rise to wolves, foxes and dogs. A primitive cat-like species gave rise to Tigers, leopards, lions and housecats. A MUCH earlier primitive mammal gave rise to the ancestors of all the dogs and all the cats..etc. It was a very long process with LOTS of intermediate species.
I went over one complete article in an earlier thread where I was debating Lionz... titled "creation versus evolution" or some such. Anyway, at one point the IRC article brought up the Ceolocanth. They said that this fish was supposed to be some big transition species, but wound up just being a fish. I read that with complete increduality. While the words were technically true, the were put together into what amounted to a lie. See, the Ceolocanth IS "just a fish"... a very primitive fish, the only known living representative of a lobe-finned fish. Lobed fin fish were one of the stages in the conversion to land animals. Does that mean that we or any other living species are directly descended from the Ceolocanth. No. Its possible we are...I would have to delve into the phylogenetic history to see, but it represents a real example of the process through which these species went. We knew these creatures existed from the fossil record. From the record, we know there were many lobed fin species, but having a living example gives us a LOT more information than just fossils would, and definitely verifies that the fossils represented a real creature.
Another claim is that new species must somehow always replace the prior species, but that is not always true, either. Pockets of an original species may survive in isolated areas (like the Ceolocanth did in the rift off Africa)
JamesKer1 wrote:Starting at the beginning, the first "life form"... It has been proven that we can make organic molecules out of simple elements and lightning and a bunch of other stuff, ok. Miller-Urey experiment, proven, acceptable, plausible, whatever. However, how are you supposed to smash those organic molecules together, under any circumstances, and make a living, functioning cell? Sounds like Frankenstein. If ANYONE could do that, I might just believe in all of this. But life out of nothing? Doesn't make sense
. Then again, sounds like God. See you are mistaken when you say that evolution means God is automatically absent. Most modern Christians believes God set up the world to work how it does.. all the processes within in, including how species change over time.
At any rate, saying "insert God" really is no more sensible than saying "all this happened because of the right combination of various rare circumstance and principles.
JamesKer1 wrote:Now, let's say someone has a way to do that (please post and fill these gaps if you do). How does this cell survive? Chloroplasts and chromoplasts are believed to come from the engulfing of other cells by primitive eukaryotes- way after the first cell would have been made. So if it can't get resources from the sun or other cells (there aren't any unless we made more than one through that Frankenstein process?), where are they coming from?
You are missing quite a few steps there, and jumping a few things that don't have to go together. I will leave it to the molecular experts here to clarify fully, but sunlight did exist, as did heat and other chemical reactions. Photosynthesis and the like are really just a set of complex chemical reactions. For the process evolutionists believe happened to be untrue, you would need to show that those chemical reactions are not possible. Ou are taking essentially the end point and saying that the beginning did not match the end, so it could not happen. Evolutionists talk about a series of steps.
JamesKer1 wrote:So assuming it gets resources from somewhere, how is this thing supposed to reproduce? Cell division? How would this be hardwired in if it is the first one, coming from organic compounds instead of a parent cell?
Hmm... well, the first cells were pretty primative. No cell walls, etc. Blue-green algae is what I learned to call them, though I seem to remember some things have changed since I first learned all that. (see, that was about 30 years ago...) Again, rather than stumbling into the details I will let someone else tackle that part.
JamesKer1 wrote:Assuming that can happen (a lot of assumptions here)
A lot of
incorrect assumptions
JamesKer1 wrote: here's some more holes I need filled to believe this... I'm not the brightest when it comes to the technicalities of evolution, so some of these points may be the most irrelevant things ever, but I would like to think I know enough to get by.
Before we get into this, you are making the most fundamental of errors. Science starts in the present, looks at what is, and the tries to work back to figure out what happened.
The evidence for evolution of modern species is generally pretty clear... some are fully delineated (and delineating a few is all that is necessary to prove evolution is possible), some not fully, but understanding how some species got here is enough to tell us that evolution is real.
Anyway, scientists look at the present and then go backward.
Generally (not 100%, but generally) the further back, the less evidence and the less sure scientists are. This is not 100% true because, for example, fish species are naturally more readily preserved than land species (which tend to be eaten or just dissolve before becoming fossils). Certain big events, like volcanic eruptions, can provide a firm marker and preserve some evidence well while obliterating some other evidence.
JamesKer1 wrote:-How did we make the jump from unicellular to multicellular organisms?
We have a lot of theories, which I will leave to the experts to explain. Knowing this is not really fundamental to proving evolution correct and young earth ideas wrong. As I already said, the firm proof is more recent.
JamesKer1 wrote:-How do all species have a different number of chromosomes. If a human were to get an extra chromosome, it would end up with severe disorders. How did this happen to every single species and they turned out fine?
Its not true that every species has a different number of chromosomes. Closely related species often have the same numbers. Others might just as a cooincidence.
How does it happen? Its not a common process. That said, it is like any mutation.. most are harmful, but occasionally one rare beneficial one emerges. One factor often missing in the young earth writings is that this process, the process of mutations taking hold into changed species, is generally pushed by significant environmental changes. The dinosaurs flourished for a long time. It was not until they largely died off that mammals could flourish and develop into the wide variety we see today. (and many of the remaining dinosaurs wound up giving rise to birds). This was not a single process, either.
JamesKer1 wrote:How do we have male/female species (humans), hermaphrodite species (worms), species that divide to reproduce (unicellular organisms), and species that are all female (there's some type of lizard that I can't remember the name of)? How is this possible through evolution?
-Circulatory systems also are confusing to me... Slugs, cells, starfish, and humans all have it different, you would think it would kill you to change how your body worked so drastically.
Actually, you hit on one of the arguments FOR evolution. If God designed it all, why would he design it all so differently... and why would he choose what are not the most logical of designs.
JamesKer1 wrote:Now here's my simple answer to all of this- it couldn't happen.
ALL of your questions are just wrong, but this most of all. See, scientists don't say "hey, I like this idea .. lets call it evolution and see if we can find evidence to match". Scientists, who mostly were Christian (still are for that matter... Christianity is decreasing in the US, but most US scientists still are Christian) looked around, saw evidence and then tried to figure out a theory that would explain what they saw. To refute evolution, you cannot just pose "what if" questions or play the "which is more likely" game. You have to address the real evidence that exists.
Evolution is a theory based on evidence. To refute the theory, you have to refute the evidence. If it comes to something as broad as saying all species were not created all at once... then we do have the evidence to disprove that idea. If it comes to specific ideas, such as how unicells became multicell organisms, then you are in a more tenuous realm of theories that may well be wrong. (just not wrong enough to show young earth ideas are correct, sorry, but no hole is that big).
JamesKer1 wrote:The Bible says God has always existed, that he created the heavens and the stars, the Earth and the sky, the birds and the bees, and everything in between. That makes perfect sense to me. No holes, no theories, no debates. It's all in the Bible, written out nicely and plainly for us.
Makes sense to me, too. What in there says that God in his infinite wisdom did not use the processes we see around us still.
In fact, why would all those processes exist if they did not have a purpose.. the purpose of creation? THAT, to me and many other Christians is the real question.
Text always need to be considered in context. At the very least text has to be considered within the text that it is in. Psalm 104 doesn't cover the flood.
). According to the ancient Egyptians they were making pyramids in the same time when the bible is mentioning Noah's flood. Whats interesting the evidence of their pyramids is visible, but the evidence for the global flood is nowhere to be seen. On top of everything ancient Egyptians at that time were uncomparably more educated then the people that wrote the bible.
