Evolution Cage Fight - Part 1 · The Unlikely Son

Here's the first part of a discussion I had with some people about evolution. My comments in red.

LC

You're just one of those close-minded fundamentalists.

I'm very open-minded...just not so open that my brains fall out. Evolution, (meaning a fish changing into a lizard, which changes into a rat, which changes into a monkey, which changes into a man) flies against the laws of nature. You have to discard your brain and engage in fantasy to believe that. That's why evolutionists are keen on art, video depictions, and the like...they fill in where there is zero fact. When it comes to belief, evolution is no less a faith than Christianity.

LC

Except evolution at least has fossils and shreds of evidence. Christianity doesn't even have that.

Creationism has the exact same evidence as evolution. It's simply two different interpretations of the same evidence. If evolutionists say they have a mountain of evidence, well, creationists have the same mountain.

Here's the difference between the two interpretations. Creationists believe that animals reproduce after their own kind - ALWAYS. Animals may produce different breeds of their kind, but the breed will always be of their kind. In other words, a cat will always produce a cat, and a human will always produce a human. We don't believe that an animal that's normally covered with fur will after billions of years evolve into some other animal covered with feathers. We believe in adaptation due to environment. Adaptation can make some birds of the same species have bigger beaks than others, but it's always a beak and never a nose. We believe in speciation. We believe a portion of a certain species of animal can become isolated and over time become a new species of the same kind of animal that cannot breed with the original species. However, we do not believe speciation or adaptation means animals turn into other animals, because plainly, they don't. Everything we see in nature bears out creationism.

But evolution...do we see animals in transition to other animals? Nope, but we should, if evolution has been the law for billions of years. Do we see mammals morphing fins or reptiles developing feathers? No, but we should if evolution is true. Are there millions of transitional fossils that bear out evolution? Nope. As a matter of fact, the fossils just suddenly appear, fully formed, as if they came from nowhere (imagine that). Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

So you can look at nature and fossils, see what's there, and become a creationist. Or, you can look at nature and fossils, get artists and computer animators to depict your personal interpretation of nature and fossils, and become a evolutionist.

GREGORY

Creationists, sadly, can only see evolution on a scale of about 4,000 to 5,000 years. Because that’s all the Bible allows for. You win. Humans, nor any other species, has changed much in that period of time.

As Liza B. points out:

“ Every living organism has its own separate and distinct process of evolution, and whether it's an amoeba or a more complex colonialized creature, mutations occur and following the morphesis process, a new and improved creature is born. That's as simple/nonscientific as it gets, folks.”

Liza’s explanation takes millions of years, perhaps, and there’s no room for that in the very narrow creationist POV.

That’s the beauty of science. It’s evolving too, and there are always new discoveries and theories and nothing is absolute about it. Each generation of researchers tries to out think the last and we have something called progress. Christians locked Galileo in a tower, yet his work survived and we now know that the Earth is not the center of the solar system and Earth is not flat. And where in the Bible does God say “let there be DNA?”

Alrighty then...we should see transitional forms in the fossil record, but we don't. We have plenty of fossils allegedly millions of years old. Any transitional forms? Nope. Only those created by artists and the imagination of evolutionists.

Funny how I mention the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion (science), and you respond with the Bible. Aren't our roles reversed, lol? Perhaps you could stick with science in your arguments.

That’s the beauty of science. It’s evolving too, and there are always new discoveries and theories and nothing is absolute about it.

...we now know that the Earth is not the center of the solar system and Earth is not flat.

Nothing absolute about science? Your statement kind of sounds absolute, wouldn't you say? You've heard of scientific LAWS, haven't you? Most of these laws are expressed in mathematical equations. Seriously, how absolute can you get?

And where in the Bible does God say “let there be DNA?”

Don't know what that has to do with anything, but I'll answer. God said, "Let Us make man in Our image." That creation included everything that makes humanity human...mind, spirit, will, and yes, even DNA.

GREGORY

John, since you've chosen to get snarky, let me ask you a question:

If you had to rate your belief in the power of prayer to your invisible friend, on a scale of 1 - 10, what would it be?

Snarky? lol, if pointing out the incongruence of your arguments is snarky, well, I guess I'm guilty.

If I had to rate my belief in the power of prayer...hmmm, interesting question.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "power of prayer". If you mean do I believe I'll get exactly what I pray for, I'd say that when I pray for things God expressly desires, I would rate my belief at 10; God will answer that prayer positively, fully, and completely in His good time. However, when I pray for things that are not wrong and that I want, but don't really need, I'd say my belief stands at about .5, maybe less, lol. Like any good father, God says "no" far more than He says "yes" until His children learn what is good and healthy and develop a desire for it. If I pray in ignorance for things God considers wrong, then my belief still stands at about .5; God may give it to me to teach me a lesson, lol. I'm still learning about prayer.

But if you refer to the power of prayer to change me, my attitudes, and my thinking, to draw me closer to God, then my belief stands at 10.

Why do you ask?

By the way, Greg, I hear the sarcasm in "invisible friend". The implication is that somehow my beliefs are childish and unreal. But Greg, you know as well as I that there a many things in this world that are invisible, but nonetheless REAL.

LIZA

Yeah, like the hot air you're full of.

LEA

There are fossil records that support birds evolving from smaller dinosaurs - there are fossils of feathered reptiles. It also supports why birds lay eggs instead of giving birth to live offspring. I mean, do you deny the evidence of pterosaurs? Evolution has created large birds, some of whom evolved into smaller birds because that allowed them to adapt to their environment.

As for man - why are there so many races, if not for evolution? If we were created in God's image (by the by, who is the US in that verse - Let US create man in OUR image?), then how many races is God? Or which one is the true race of God?

Evolution also explains why, when you pluck a bird, it has leathery skin. Just like a pterosaur.

KITTY

"Searching for alternative life on Earth might seem misconceived, because there is excellent evidence that every kind of life so far studied evolved from a common ancestor that lived billions of years ago. Yet most of the life that exists on Earth has never been properly classified. The vast majority of species are microbes, invisible to the naked eye, and scientists have analyzed only a tiny fraction of them. For all we know, there could be microbes with other ancestral origins living literally under our noses — or even inside our noses — constituting a sort of shadow biosphere, containing life, but not as we know it."

GREGORY

Lea, if you rolled all of the characteristics of John's invisible friend into one would you want to have been created in his image?

Lea,

I don’t know of any fossils of feathered reptiles. I know of ONE fossil of a bird, called archaeopteryx, which evolutionists tout as a feathered reptile. It is just a belief, the same as my belief that it’s a kind of bird. Sure LOOKS like a bird to me. The dictionary calls it an extinct bird.

I’d be interested in hearing how the fossil record “supports why birds lay eggs instead of giving birth to live offspring”. Never heard that one before. I don’t deny the evidence of pterosaurs; they were birds – built to fly – what of it? Creationist don’t deny that adaptation and speciation can create other kinds of birds from one kind of bird, both small and large. We deny that a bird can evolve into a dog.

There’s only one race, Lea – the human race. God is not human and has no “race”. However, Christ is part of the triune God and became human – He was a Jew. So if there is a group of people that God views as special, it would be the Jews.

Did you know that all the different colors of skin are really just different tints of one color? Environment may change our looks a little over time, but we all have ears, and eyes, and noses, and skin, and teeth, and hair, and blood. We are always human, and birds are always birds, and everything reproduces “after its own kind” just as the Bible says.

BELINDA

I disagree with your opinion that God views a group of people as special. If that were true, wouldn't that God be discriminating against other groups? Think about it. I have. I think that this so-called God/the Creator is a man-made fabrication of myth and matter; the matter is real, however, because it is physical in nature.

My opinion is that God/the Creator is metaphysical and supernatural. I can see it. I can touch it. I can smell it. I can feel it. I can taste it....because I believe that it exists and anything I believe in is a part of me and, in essence, I am a part of it.

There are several instances in the Bible where God singles out particular individuals or groups of people and treats them in a special way. Tell me, if you have a father and mother or siblings or friends with whom you enjoy a special relationship, are you discriminating against other people? If you enjoy a cultural heritage with a group of people (African, Hispanic, Jewish) are you discriminating against other people? If a gang of hoods that happen to be all black attacks a neighborhood and the neighborhood wipes them out, are they discriminating against all blacks? No in all cases. We are similar, but not the same to God. He knows each of us individually. He has special individuals and groups of people as well, but for different reasons than us.

We did not create God. He created us.

If you believe God is supernatural, then by definition, you believe you CAN'T see, touch, smell, feel, or taste Him.

BELINDA

You're a very dense man. I've already stated my opinion re the Bible. It was written by humans. Humans are not perfect. Why you insist that every word in it is factual speaks volumes about your unwillingness to understand others' opinions.

You can't prove God created us and neither can I. You can't prove we created God and neither can I.

I can't prove, without science, that oxygen exists, but it does exist. If oxygen didn't exist, I couldn't breath as I do in my present human form.

I don't have to prove that God created us. I don't have to prove that we created God. But, I can see, touch, smell, taste, and feel everything that God created for us to enjoy while I'm alive.

Just because I stated my opinion and believe the Bible to be factual does not mean I don't understand your opinion. Heck, I once HELD your opinion concerning the Bible for a short time, lol. What I don't understand is why my beliefs irritate you so. I don't mind in the least that you think your beliefs true and factual. Why should it bother you that I think of mine in the same way? I don't call you dense or think your beliefs prevent you from understanding other opinions. Why do you think that of me?

Basically, what you say is that there's evidence for the existence of God for those who interpret the evidence in that way. I agree with that. For example, when I see the human body and how all its parts are designed to perform specific tasks yet work together, and how humans cannot even begin to understand the rudiments of all its workings, I see all that as evidence for a God with intelligence far surpassing ours. Others interpret the same evidence as a random evolutionary conglomeration of natural processes. Eyes were not designed to see, nor ears to hear, nor nose to smell; it just randomly happened that way as environment and genetic mutation and other evolutionary forces worked their magic. What luck! lol.

No, you don't have to prove God created us or vice versa...but whichever belief you hold determines what you believe about everything else. Would you agree with that?

BELINDA

Your beliefs don't bother me the slightest. I call you dense because you are dense. You repeatedly insist that everything in the Bible is factual, and when I/others disagree with you, you continuously repeat yourself. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm happy you enjoy reading the Bible; it seems to provide you with much enjoyment. I haven't read it in ages and when I did read it, I was always perplexed. It has some great metaphors in it...wouldn't you agree?

LEA

John - I’d be interested in hearing how the fossil record “supports why birds lay eggs instead of giving birth to live offspring”. Because, to put it simply, reptiles lay eggs, as do birds. Also, birds do have a leathery skin, similar to reptiles.

I've never said that a dog could have evolved from a reptile or a bird - a dog is a mammal, its eyes are in the front of its head and it has hair; birds are not mammals, their eyes are fixed on the sides of their head (similar to reptiles) and they do not have hair - they have feathers. I can see where a flying, feathered reptile could eventually evolve into birds since they share many of the characteristics of those flying reptiles.

Belinda: Well, you repeat that everything in the Bible is NOT factual, and when I disagree with you, you continuously repeat yourself. I take it that in your book, that makes you dense?

Metaphors? Well, I suppose in the poetic books...what I like is not the great metaphors, but the great truth.

Lea: Reptiles lay eggs and have leathery skin and so do birds...so how does that have anything to do with the fossil record? At any rate, to say those similarities mean reptiles evolved into birds is quite a leap.

A dog from a bird is precisely the kind of thing evolutionists believe. They believe lizards came from fish. They believe birds and dogs came from lizards. They think HUMANS came from lizards. You've probably seen all their imaginative artistic renditions of the "tree of life". They need that artwork to make their case because there's zero fossil evidence of a reptile changing into a bird, or a rat, or anything else except a reptile. But if that had actually happened, we'd see tons of intermdiate forms of life, both in the fossil record and today, but we don't.

If life has been evolving for billions of years, we'd see transitional forms living today. We'd see things in the middle of their evolutionary changes. We'd see half-monkey half-men walking around now and for a few million more years until they finished evolving. Or half-reptile, half-bird. Do we see any of that? Nope. Amazingly, we appear to be living in a special period where every single life form on the planet has finished evolving into other life forms. How probable do you think that is if evolution is true?

BELINDA

Amazingly, we appear to be living in a special period where every single life form on the planet has finished evolving into other life forms. How probable do you think that is if evolution is true?

Really? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

GREGORY

Evolution stands alone without a fossil record, John. If you don't believe me look at those children living in your house. If a little fishy can't turn into a human then where did they come from? You really are dense.

Belinda, I, and every creationist I know, agree with natural selection, adaptation, and speciation. We can see these processes and verify them scientifically. Where we disagree is when evolutionists say these processes cause animals to change into other animals over billions of years. There is simply no scientific basis to make that claim. You have to BELIEVE it, since nobody's ever seen it happen and there are no transitional forms of life, either living or fossils. That's why evolutionists resort to drawings and art. They produce a computer animation of a fish turning into a lizard and then a rat, but is there any fossil evidence of that actually happening? Zero. Is there fossil evidence of things progressing from simple forms to more complex? Nope. Everything just explodes in the Cambrian period fully formed as if...dare I say it...they were created one day.

Really? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

I already told you, but if you want me to repeat it, I will. Evolution claims to be the law of nature for billions of years - we'll disregard the fact that the fossil record begins abruptly in the Cambrian with animals fully formed. Evolutionists claim that evolutionary changes take millions of years to complete. So if some bird wants to evolve arms and hands instead of wings, it would take millions of years. However, at some point during that evolution, the bird would cease to fly and walk on the ground with rudimentary arms and hands instead of wings. It would exist in this form for millions of years, with the arms and hands slowly becoming more and more defined and strong as time passed. It would exist in that form for millions of years before its arms and hands were fully evolved.

Alrighty...evolution's been the law for billions of years...where's the animals walking around in these transitional forms? Did evolution just stop a few million years ago? Because I see zero animals in the process of changing into other animals or evolving different kinds of limbs or abilities. But evolution demands that they exist in these transitional forms for millions of years. Where are they? They all look hopelessly "stuck". You think you'd see at least ONE animal you could point to as an example of the evolutionary process. Ah! See those chimps over there, with the mixture of skin and tufts of fur? In about 100 million years, those kind of chimps will probably be a new kind of human...probably taken them 200 million years to evolve this far. And take a look at those fish! No more fins...looks like the buds of feet and claws maybe coming in. Probably taken it 50 million years to evolve that far, and it'll probably be another 150 before it turns into whatever its evolving into.

We should see that kind of thing all over the place as animals travel their evolutionary road, but do we? Nope. Not even a hint of it.

That's how I arrived at that conclusion.

GREGORY

John, how rude of you. You refused to anwser my question. I'll ask again: if a little fishy can'y evolve into a human, where did those home schooled kids of yours come from?

My children were born. I don't think I should explain that process to you. I think you should ask your parents.

GREGORY

You refuse to answer because BORN means a little fishy you planted in your wife EVOLVED over a period of nine months into a kid. If that's not a quick enough EVOLUTIONARY cycle for you then there isn't one.

You split hairs over human inability to locate buried fossils under billions of tons of dirt when the Gulf of Mexico will soon be covered with billions of gallons of EVOLUTION.

LOL...you think sexual reproduction is an example of an evolutionary process? I don't believe I've ever heard that one before, lol. Well, at least you're original.

It's not just the lack of fossils, Greg. It's also the lack of living examples of things changing into other things. We should see that if evolution's been going on for billions of years. We should see all kind of transitional forms of life right now. Where are they, Greg?

GREGORY

I'm sorry John, is my example too complicated for you? Ask your wife to have an affair with a man with bright red hair and see how many red headed kids are tromping around your house.

Google a microscopic photo of a sperm cell. Don't worry it's not porn. Look kinda like a fish? Does it look remotely human in any manner at all?

Human reproduction is the grandaddy of all proof of evolution. It just doesn't get discussed among you creationists because it makes you a little squeemish. Try reading something other than the bible.

I think "ridiculous" would be a better word than "complicated". So you’re saying the passing of genetic material is evolution. I’ve never heard anyone say that before. I suppose, if evolution were true, genetics would play an important role, but genetics in itself is categorically NOT evolution. I suppose you could try to make a case for it, but I don’t see how.

I've never heard the “sperm” argument before either, and quite frankly it makes no sense at all to me. First, the sperm does not evolve at all, it combines with an egg and is destroyed in the process; second, the process CREATES unique DNA that never existed before; third, in every case the process always produces a human and nothing else; fourth, when anomalies occur (“mutations” in evolution-speak), say no eyes, or scaly skin, or a flap of skin where an arm should be, nobody says that person is an example of evolution, but of deformity; fifth,...but I could list fifty, and I suspect you already know how unlike evolution reproduction is, and it makes no difference to you, does it? You do know, don’t you, that's why they call it "reproduction" and not "evolution"?

So is the whole argument based solely on the fact that a sperm looks somewhat like fish? I mean, that's it? That's your "grandaddy of all proof"? You know, I know a man with a head that looks something like a pumpkin, but to me (maybe not to you), those two things are vastly different, and in the same way that a sperm is different from a fish. I mean, is that even arguable? I suppose it would do no good to list the many ways a sperm is utterly unlike a fish? But okay, that’s what you believe. All I can say is…that’s quite an imagination you have there.

I think the reason it's not discussed among creationists is because no evolutionist has ever seriously put forth the idea before as a legitimate argument for evolution for the simple reason that it's patent nonsense. I, at least, have never heard it before. I mean, seriously Greg, how does a sperm that's completely destroyed evolve?

So, Greg…if evolution has been going on for billions of years, where are all the transitional life forms? Of all the animals living on earth, there should be at lease ONE example half or three quarters of the way into its 100 million year evolutionary change from lizard to bird or whatever. They should be all over the place. Where are they?