Evolution - Yes again.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Can someone please read this information, and Yes, it's a creationist site, but it explains the  life-from-nothing / evolution theory and how it is flawed..

I understand most of what he is saying, and the arguments seem very logical to me, but, I have no way of knowing whether the Science he is quoting is correct or has subsequently been debunked.

I would appreciate if someone with a bit more knowledge in DNA / RNA / proteins / cell regeneration / cell division etc could advise me.

By the way, he also quotes Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale and how, with recent developments at least some of the assumptions that Dawkins makes are impossible.

Can we PLEASE see if we can keep this thread civil and on-topic.

There is a lot more info on this site too, but first can we look at and discuss:

http://creation.com/genetic-code-intelligence

http://creation.com/meta-information

[curmu-curmu]

True! 

And interesting to note that many other animals also bear lanugo - whales, primates, seals and elephants, to name a few. Yet to some, they're not at all related to humans - despite so much contrary evidence.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@curmu-curmu wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

---

OK. Pick one. Let's take your favourite if you like 'human embryos".

---

I'm good with that. But before any debate takes place, you'll need to research the facts prior. Googling 'human embryo gills' will take you to a myriad of sites - and curiously, the ONLY ones that discount the theory, are the religious sites. A classic example of distorting the facts to suit an agenda.

Anyway, here's just a couple worth looking into...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/are-the-gill-slits-of-vertebrate-embryos-a-hoax/

and to add balance...

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/something-fishy-about-gill-slits/

I await your investigations...

---

a lot to absorb in the first read. I'll have another look tomorrow.

[curmu-curmu]

"a lot to absorb in the first read. I'll have another look tomorrow."

I don't doubt it! Particularly when much of it, if you let it, will start to challenge some long-held beliefs.

Here's another interesting site - AiG's 'statement of faith' page.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

The one paragraph that particularly stands out, reads:.

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science"

.

How can you trust a site with a statement like that? It's clearly obvious that christian sites have an agenda to promote their bible - both figuratively and literally.

[curmu-curmu]

Hey Rabbit...check out UFO's thread here -

http://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Community-Spirit/Star-Size-Comparison-HD/m-p/1763170/highlight/false...

Adds a new dimension to the prospect of a god creating mankind and the universe, doesn't it?.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@curmu-curmu wrote:

"a lot to absorb in the first read. I'll have another look tomorrow."

I don't doubt it! Particularly when much of it, if you let it, will start to challenge some long-held beliefs.

Here's another interesting site - AiG's 'statement of faith' page.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

The one paragraph that particularly stands out, reads:.

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science"

.

How can you trust a site with a statement like that? It's clearly obvious that christian sites have an agenda to promote their bible - both figuratively and literally.

---

Indeed! But then I would never trust a site that said:

"The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit."

anyway.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@curmu-curmu wrote:

Hey Rabbit...check out UFO's thread here -

http://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Community-Spirit/Star-Size-Comparison-HD/m-p/1763170/highlight/false...

Adds a new dimension to the prospect of a god creating mankind and the universe, doesn't it?.

---

Why do you say that? I would have made the same statement as follows:

Adds a new dimension to the prospect of a BIG BANG creating mankind and the universe, doesn't it?

All of those planets and Galaxies in perfect alignment and order - have you ever let off an explosive device? No, neither have I but I wouldn't imagine the result would be ORDER, I would think CHAOS.

Anyway, still reading ...

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@curmu-curmu wrote:

---

I'm good with that. But before any debate takes place, you'll need to research the facts prior. Googling 'human embryo gills' will take you to a myriad of sites - and curiously, the ONLY ones that discount the theory, are the religious sites. A classic example of distorting the facts to suit an agenda.

Anyway, here's just a couple worth looking into...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02

---

OK, as I said a lot of reading but that first link seems to be saying that ORP is NOT correct or at least not consistent.

In his comments on chicks and axolotl says to me that ORP is NOT the case ??

In his closing comment: "If ORP were completely true, it would certainly make constructing phylogenies a lot easier. We could study an organism's development and read its history directly. Unfortunately, phylogeneticists are out of luck here."

Your comments?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

I am reading Troy Britain's "Playing chess with pigeons" - pretty heavy stuff, I am trying not to form ANY opinions until I understand exactly what he is saying so you will understand that  I must have a few reads of this to digest what he is saying.

I will get back to you.

[curmu-curmu]

Actually, what I was alluding to is the sheer magnitude and vastness of the known universe - all supposedly made for little old us, to enjoy.

Sort of seems just so silly when you see the sizes of both planets and stars - in relation to the minute, insignificant speck that is our planet...

[the_great_she_elephant]

All of those planets and Galaxies in perfect alignment and order - have you ever let off an explosive device? No, neither have I but I wouldn't imagine the result would be ORDER, I would think CHAOS.

As I understand it, it was chaos in the beginning - clouds of gas swirling around, planets forming and crumbling, bits of planets breaking off and bumping into each other. It probably took millions if not billions of years for the order we see now to establish itself, and lets face it, there are still random asteroids out there that could and very possibly may wipe us all out at any time.