Pages: 1
Qs TO ASK ABOUT EVOLUTION
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Praying Gal
SOCRATES SAYS YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QS.
(The Qs have been narrowed down to the first two layers
of life per the so-called "geologic comumn" to keep the list from being too lengthy. According to evolutionists, life began in the "Precambrian and Cambrian" fossil layers. "Precambrian fossils" are very simple, sometimes at the cellular level and evolutionists don't agree on whether they are plants or animals. "Cambrian fossils" include such things as squid and nautiloids - both of which exist in exactly the same form today as they did "billions of years ago" - and the now extinct trilobytes.)
No answers are provided for the questions below. According to the Socratic Method, the truth is already inside you, and it only takes being asked the right Qs for you to discover it (if you didn't yet know it.)
QUESTIONS:
- If a scientist can't find evidence for transitional forms (i.e. "missing links"), how can he tell the difference between missing links and never existed links?
- Considering the fact that there are billions of fossils of "Cambrian" nautiloids alone in the Grand Canyon alone, and uncounted trillions of other fossil discoveries around the globe, do you think there might be enough fossils to show some clear cut transitional stages for at least one preCambrian or Cambrian species?
- Have you ever been shown, for instance, a series of fossils of squid who have longer and longer emerging tentacles, nautiloid fossils that show incomplete but ever more and more perfect spiraling of the shell, a trilobyte that doesn't have as many ridges or as incredibly complex eye structures, to compare to the billions upon billions of examples of these fully formed fossils that we can see throughout the world?
- If a scientist tells you "Such and such is a PreCambrian or Cambrian transitional fossil..." does he need to provide scientific evidence or is it enough for you if he just says "...because it looks similar, and less complex, compared to another lifeform that was found higher up on the 'geologic column'"?
- If one PreCambrian or Cambrian fossil looks less complex than another, does that make you feel certain the more complex fossil is the descendant of the less complex one - or do you think it's theoretically possible that the two fossils are simply somewhat-different-and-somewhat-similar life forms, like monkeys and gorillas?
- Were you ever told that the "Precambrian period", which is considered to be the base of the "geologic column", is only found in about 5 places around the world, not in any of the other innumberable fossil sites spread across the planet?
- Were you ever taught that neither the "PreCambrian" nor the "Cambrian" fossils have a consistent pattern of showing up where evolutionists say they should be on the "geologic column"?
- Have you been provided with information from observable data that demonstrates indisputable (or even undisputed amongst evolutionists themselves) fossil evidence for any Cambrian fossil being the descendant of a PreCambrian or even an "earlier Cambrian" period fossil?
- Which of these answers do you believe is correct: (a) All evolutionary scientists believe that there are transitional forms in the PreCambrian and/or Cambrian period. (b) They all agree on what these are. (c) There is disagreement about both a and b.
- If scientists do not all agree that a particular "earlier age" fossil is a transitional form, do you think the conflict most likely springs from: (a) some scientists themselves (i.e. poor data collection, political correctness, "publish or perish" concerns, desire for research grants from instituitons that promote scientific orthodoxy, peer rivalry, etc.) (b) the theory (c) lack of evidence (d) a, b, c, or (e) something else.
- In school, were you ever shown the scientific method being used to demonstrate that living matter can be produced from non living matter - analogous to inorganic-matter-gives-rise-to-PreCambrian-lifeforms?
- Have you ever seen the scientific method being used to demonstrate that one species can evolve from another (Cambrian or any period?) i.e. any scientific experiments that have been conducted to support the theory of the evolution of species? (Although, admittedly, true NeoDarwinian evolution can never be created in a lab since in a lab one has "intelligent designers".) The only case I know of, starting with Darwin in the 19th century, is with the fruit fly experiments. Using the scientific method, over a hundred generations of fruit flies were bombarded with radiation to make them "evolve" into another species. This experimient produced generally deformed, defective fruit flies, none superior to the original models, and all of the bugs remained fruit flies. Therefore the experiment's results could not be called supportive to the evolutionary theory.
- Have you ever heard an evolutionist quote a sicentific law in support of the theory that preCambrian or Cambrian lifeforms emerged through evolution?
Posted by: Christian Commando
Good questions Praying Gal-
For Secular Scientists, the problem they have, is no solid evidence of evolution "in" any creatures as fossils found.
They have theorized that because further advanced creatures were found mostly at other types of rock forming levels, this means evolution.
Wrong. The pure doctionary definition of evolution states this- "The slow and gradual changing of one living creature, over a long period of time, into a more advanced creature".
But there is no evidnce of this. Only a new more advanced creature showing up at the beginning ofthe next time period starting after a lesser level creature had lived.
Evolution is called "the theory of Evolution" for a reason. Its just a "theory"- or by definite- "a guess" or "an assumption."
In the last 10 years or alittle more, more and more Secular Scientists are coming over to at least now, acknowledging, the original time span man "theorized" for evolution of everything from beginning to now, is not even close to how long it really took.
thus, those Scientists are thinking now, there had to be an ultimate Power behind creation of this physical world.
And Secular Scientists cannot be trusted anyway, for the fact they constantly change thier minds about beliefs as they've learned newer things they cannot deny changes what they thought or believed before.
And when look at the two major floods God brought upon the earth, 1st back in Genesis1:2, and 2nd then in Genesis 7, know that the prehistoric fossils have had plenty of chances, while the water was up over mountain tops for both floods, to be moved around by under water mud slides, water currents, etc, to be mixed together and give man even more confusion over what belongs where for fossils to time periods.
I've studied this for years and yes, they like to use the "laws of physics" to back up thier "theory". But nothing ever fits. It always fits loosely, never a solid fit for proof. So, that leaves alot of room for doubt.
I could go down your list of questions and provide evidence of the lack of proof scientists who came to our School up to those I spoke with as near as 8 years ago, who could not answer your questions solidly, besides some finding I studied up on in the last 5 years as they came to my attention.
Scientists use all available "laws of physics, dynamics, environments, gravity and more, to try and claim thier "theory" as Truth. But, they still claim it comes down to starting since the beginning by- "Random Chance".
Thats one reason so many are backing away from "evolution" starting on its own. According to documentations, when it was tried to be calculated what the chances were evolution and our earth came about "Randomly", the number was too big to be written out, or it was unquantifiable to our way of figuring so far.
God Bless!
Posted by: Praying Gal
Yeal, evolution would be funny if it's results weren't so sad. 