evolution could not do this!?

Question

How do evolutionist explain this?????


Although only an inch long, the female trap-door spider builds her own home, wallpapers it, and then makes a high-quality door and latch. It is such a tight-fitting job, from the outside you cannot see what she has done! After digging a burrow six inches deep into soft ground, she lines the walls with silk. Then she builds the front door. This is a circular lid about three-quarters of an inch across. A silken hinge is placed on one end, and gravel on the bottom. In this way, as soon as the lid is pulled over, it falls shut by its own weight. The top part of the door looks exactly like its surroundings. The bottom part is so carefully beveled, you cannot see the door when it is shut. Who taught the trapdoor spider to make such a nice little home?

so how did it learn without dieing out ? do u think it learned in a few years? weeks? how long do they live? not too long! so how did it learn it in that short of time with nothing to teach it? it would have died out with no food

this animal wasnt born!!! it was (according to the theory) created do to the survival of the fittest, but how? how many times did this spider die before it learned this? where did it get its insticnt if it evolved slowly from another web builidng spider or even another creature??? Why is it that no one can explain that? there are tons of evidences supporting that our earth is young, so how could this happen over a short time?!?!?!?

1 - STAR CLUSTERS—There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

so where did the instinct come from? it cant just randomly appear of the creature would have died before it learned it needed that instinct...it had to have been put there by something, why is it that scientist cant even recreate the evolutionary theory in a lab? even if they did, it would show that some sort of intelligent being had to have interfered

here is your wonderful dating method!!!

the underlying assumptions about radiocarbon dating that are made in order to make it a workable method, even though not a reliable one.

(1) Atmospheric carbon: For the past several million years, the air around us had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.

(2) Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has not changed in size.

(3) Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.

(4) Balance of rates: Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.

(5) Decay rates: The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.

(6) No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

(7) No seepage: No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.

(8) Amount of carbon 14 at death: The fraction of carbon 14, which the living thing possessed at death, is known today.

(9) Carbon 14 half-life: The half-life of carbon 14 has been accurately determined.

(10) Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to Carbon 14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.

(11) Instrumentation and analysis: The instrumentation is precise, working properly, and analytic methods are always carefully done.

(12) Uniform results: The technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.

(13) Earth’s magnetic field: Earth’s magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today.

We have some big "ifs" in the above 13 assumptions! In reality, there is not one instance in which we can point to a C-14 sample and declare with certainty that EVEN ONE of those assumptions applies to it.

SIXTEEN RADIODATING PROBLEMS—

(1) TYPE OF CARBON—Uncertainties regarding the type of carbon that may be in a given sample causes significant errors in dating. As mentioned earlier, every living thing is full of carbon compounds, and includes some carbon 14. But, after death, additional radioactive carbon may have drifted into the sample. Few researchers take the exhaustive time needed to try and figure out which carbon is which. Frankly, in most instances, it would be impossible to be certain how much of this secondary or intrusive carbon had entered the sample from elsewhere.

(2) VARIATIONS WITHIN SAMPLES—Then there is the problem of variations within each of the samples. Part of the sample tests one way, and part tests another way. So many factors affect this that the experts are finding it seemingly impossible to arrive at accurate dates.

(3) LOSS OF Carbon 14—Rainfall, lakes, oceans, and below-ground moisture will cause a loss of Carbon 14, and thus ruin its radiation clock.

(4) CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON—In addition, it is not known what carbonic and atmospheric conditions were like in ancient times. We know it was different, but do not know to what degree. Evidence is surfacing that changes have occurred which would invalidate ancient dates determined by carbon-14 analysis.

(6) RADIOCARBON DATE SURVEY—A major survey of 15,000 dates obtained by carbon 14 dating revealed that, in spite of its errors, radiocarbon dating continually yields dates that are millions and even billions of years younger than those obtained by other radiodating techniques (uranium, thorium, potassium, etc.).

(7) CHANGE IN NEUTRINO RADIATION—A change in neutrino radiation into our atmosphere in earlier times would also affect radiocarbon levels. But we have no way of measuring past neutrino radiation levels.

(8) COSMIC RAYS—The amount of cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere and reaching the earth would also be crucial.

A partial change in cosmic radiation amounts would also greatly affect C-14 dating. But a change in cosmic radiation from outer space would not be necessary, only a change in the amount of water or warmth—or both—in our atmosphere.

(9) MAGNETIC FIELD—Scientists now know that there has been a fairly rapid weakening of earth’s magnetic field. (This was discussed in chapter 4, Age of the Earth.) It is cosmic radiation entering our atmosphere that changes Carbon 12 into Carbon 14. The three go together: earth’s magnetic field, cosmic rays, and Carbon 14. Thus the strength of earth’s magnetic field has a major effect on the amount of carbon 14 that is made.

(10) MOISTURE CONDITIONS—Atmospheric changes in moisture content in the past would also significantly affect C-14 amounts. Changes in ground moisture, even temporary ones, would have an even greater impact. How much moisture came into contact with a given sample at various times in past ages? Could water have trickled alongside or through the sample at some earlier time? What about storage problems in more recent times or after the sample was collected? Prior to testing, was the sample placed in a location more damp than where it was found? —All these factors can decidedly affect the internal clockwork of radiocarbon samples.

(11) IF WARMER AND MORE WATER VAPOR—If the earth was either warmer at an earlier time or had more water in the atmosphere (both of which we believe happened before and during the Flood), then the C-14 clocks would register long ages of time prior to about 2000 B.C.

(12) DRAMATIC CHANGES AFTER FLOOD—For some time after the Flood there were changes in the atmosphere (a loss of water from the vapor canopy), changes in climate (due to worldwide warmth changing to cooler conditions), and changes due to volcanism and glaciation.

Because of these dramatic worldwide alterations, plants, animals, and people living in the early centuries after the Flood would have received much less carbon 14 than they would receive today. This would make those earlier life-forms and civilizations appear to be much more ancient by radiocarbon dating methods than they actually were.

With the passing of the centuries, the carbon-14 radiation levels would have gradually increased until, by about 1000 B.C., they would have been close to early nineteenth-century levels.

This is why radiocarbon dates for the past 2600 years (going back to c.600 B.C.) generally show a better correlation with historically verified chronologies. But even in dates from 2600 B.C. on down to the present there are discrepancies in carbon-14 dates.

(13) RECENT DATES ARE MOST ACCURATE—It is rather well-known that carbon-14 dates, going back about 2600 years, tend to be the most accurate. But, prior to about 600 B.C., the dates given by radiocarbon analysis begin lengthening out excessively.

(14) EVEN MODERN SPECIMENS ARE INACCURATE—It is a surprising fact that even specimens from recent centuries show serious problems. Consider a few examples. They reveal that radiocarbon dating cannot be relied on as accurate evidence for anything

Freshly killed seals have been dated at 1300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4600 years (*W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210).

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago (*B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by *K.V. Thimann, 1958).

Various living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2300 years ago (*M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634).

(15) CARBON INVENTORY—Due to drastic changes at the time of that immense catastrophe, the Flood, there is reason to believe that dramatic changes were occurring at that time in the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. In addition, massive amounts of carbon were buried then. Immense worldwide forests became fossils or coal, and millions of animals became fossils or petroleum.

16) THROWING OFF THE CLOCK—In his book, Evolution or Degeneration (1972, pp. 80-81), H.R. Siegler mentions that *Willard F. Libby, the developer of radiodating, found a serious discrepancy at a certain point in past history that indicated his assumed build-up of terrestrial radiocarbon was inaccurate. But, since he was convinced that the earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his date assumptions. Siegler suggests that a relatively recent Creation (plus, we might add, the catastrophic effects of the Flood) would account for the discrepancy. Keep in mind that, before the Flood, a vast vapor canopy was in our atmosphere, which would tend to shield the earth from radiocarbon buildup.

This is the problem: Prior to about 1600 B.C., radiodating tends to go wild. Something happened back then that threw the clock off. Creation scientists recognize that the problem was the Genesis Flood and the abnormal conditions that existed for centuries after it ended.

So as i hope some of you can tell, i have studied the theory and yet,they have zero evidence, and dont say "Micro-evolution" that proves nothing, if they can prove "Macro-evolution" mabe i'd consider changing my mind, but they cant

obviously no one gets my question, my question was how did could evolution do this? but you evolutionist only answer is evolution, so the proof and the answer to evolution and this question is evolution? You guys are so lost

Answer 1

very good question
also on that same note -
bees cannot fly - but they do
bats use sonar - how?
bombardier beetles shoot fire without burning themselves - unreal
and people reason, formulate ideas, invent things and feel emotion - hmmmm

Answer 2

In the first place to explain every aspect of evolution would require thousands of hours of writing, and I don't believe anyone wishes to engage in such a lengthy project, if you are interested there are years of scientific research readily available to you.
The question of evolution has been answered years ago by the scientific community, there is no real dissent, just a fine tuning of theory, and a filling in of some minor gaps in the geologic record.
Again there is no controversy in the scientific community, the only controversy is that which has been propagated by creationist and the Discovery Institute using pseudoscience and misrepresenting the facts.
The continual references to carbon dating illustrate the lack of understanding shown by creationist. Carbon is used as a dating tool for relatively young specimens and has very little use in dating something as old as the earth. Other methods are used to date very old things....billions of years not tens of thousands.
Creationist never seem to understand the scope of time that scientist are talking about.
The fossil record clearly shows evolutionary changes, any remaining gaps are small and will in all likely hood be resolved eventually. Earths history is filled with dead-ends, failed experiments, species that for one reason or another could not adapt to changing environments and became extinct.
Again you really need to look at the available information from many sources and please remember that Intelligent Design and creationism are NOT science.

Answer 3

Another silly drivel from a young earth creationist. Since you have so many copied and paste stuff without seriously look for an answer,I will only provide answer to the fallcy on the supposed "inaccurate dating for modern specimens".

You claimed that:
Freshly killed seals have been dated at 1300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4600 years

Refutation:
This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water . It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.

The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain. As a result, the radiocarbon content reflects a mixture of old radiocarbon, which is thousands of years old, and contemporaneous radiocarbon from the atmosphere. The result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the seal.

You claim:
Wood was cut out of living, growing trees. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago (*B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by *K.V. Thimann, 1958).

Refutation:
I don't even know how this one is supposed to disprove evolution or the age of earth. Dating methods are used to calculate how "old" something is, not "how long has it been dead". As for the supposed age, remember that trees do absorb minerals from soil, and it is nothing strange to find that these minerals absorbed has been on Earth for a very long time.

You Claim:
Various living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2300 years ago (*M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634).

Refutation:
This is one of the oldest and non-valid arguements so much so that even premium creationist websites like answersingenesis have abondoned it.

The answer is "reservoir effect", same as the one for the seal. The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are.

Answer 4

First remember that like anyone else here, I am not an expert on evolution (I do not have a degree based on any sciences that cover the subject). The basic answer is probably something like this (I have not researched the evolution of spiders, so this is an educated guess):

What we find in the trap-door spider is the end result of years and years of evolution. The ancestors of this particular type of spider were probably not much unlike those spiders which build webs on walls...only they built theirs on the ground to capture unsuspecting insects who passed over the web. As time went on, those spiders who built webs which were less visible to passing bugs were more likely to catch their prey...having a better food supply they were also more likely to survive long enough to produce little baby spiders. These successful spiders produce young and some of these young are better at making webs than their brothers and sisters. So again, the most successful web builders live on to produce young that are also successful web builders...this process continues through time until we get to having spiders like the moder trap-door spider who's web is amazingly complex and effective.

So, that was a layman's answer to your question...I'm sure a real scientist could offer a better explanation. It appears that you think evidence leads to a young earth...I don't know what you have been reading to get this idea since the majority of scientists accept 4.5 billion years as the age of the earth; the source provides an explanation for why this is the accepted age.

Um, honey, C14 dating isn't used for fossils because they are too old for that to work:

"A type of radiometric dating that you might have heard of before is Carbon 14 dating or Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating, often simply called "carbon dating". Naturally occurring Carbon 14 decays to Nitrogen 14, with a half-life of 5,730 years. Because Carbon 14 has such a short half-life, it is useful in archaeology for dating artifacts (man-made objects) and the bones of animals up to 50,000 to 60,000 years old. However, it cannot be used on anything older than Middle Pleistocene Epoch in age."

Answer 5

Man! Where the hell did you learn that there's evidence the earth is young? At creationist school? Cretinist, I would say (that's French). The Earth is young compared to the UNIVERSE! Man has been on Earth for thousands of years. Not 5,000 years (I don't know what the Creationists say about that, I never remember, it's too stupid to bother remembering such information. How about dinosaurs? How about the bones of our ancetors which have been dated thanks to Carbon 14? Actually, I think there's a new technique, now. How about the tubes of ice they take and analyse on the North pole?

Still not convinced? Well, I'm not going to bother with you. But don't you ever try to preach to me. I have a brain. Try not to insult it.

Get a life and open up. Or study! Find books on evolution. I don't know! DO something.

Answer 6

The argument here is the same as the eye argument. That is you are using human perceptions to color nature. Just because an organ is complicated, doesn't mean that the combination of time and opportunity will not yield such an organ. Same as a spider making a nice little home. Is nature--that being chance and an organism--that simple as it is may not lack a capacity to learn over time how best to make a trap. It's trial and error. The spiders that didn't make a perfect home died and those who were closer to being correct lived to procreate.

Answer 7

You did well to research the details of how this spider builds her home, but obviously you failed to research the inner workings and machinations of the evolutionary process, which takes tens of millions of years to complete, and through which such marvelously detailed processes can occur. Perhaps an introductory book on evolution could shed some light for you. These things dont just happen from one day to the next, it takes millions of years of trial and error before the end product is acheived. We are only alive long enough to view but a tiny insignificant window of this process and thus have a hard time understading it, and thus associate it with devine intervention just because it is so easy to do so.

Answer 8

A man who reads the Bible and takes it literally. Is like a diner who goes to a restaurant and after reading the menu he eats the menu. The Bible is so much more when read as it written to be read as metaphor and parable. When you take it as history that is all it is history. When you read it as metaphor the whole book opens to the world around YOU today and the Inner space in Our souls. IT was never meant to describe Outer space. Genesis is a parable that describes the Human Soul. Inner space the place we are supposed to be working on. Four rivers just like a human heart, it could be so deep and beautiful for you. But you choose to hang on to the old. When God told Satan to bow before man he refused. He would not change, that is part of the reason he created his own hell.

Answer 9

That is a very interesting story. What a clever spider! However, this is the type of thing that only increases my belief in evolution.

Who taught the spider how to make such a nice little home? Eons of evolution did.

Things like this are far too complex for a divine being to have spoken a few words and brought about in a day. It had to take much, much longer for this intricate, wonderful, amazing, miraculous, stunningly beautiful world to be created. But that's just one person's opinion on the matter.

Answer 10

Some animals are very intelligent, probably more intelligent than we'd assume. It is not a question of who taught the spider how to make "such a nice little home", but it's environment. Evolution is affected in so many ways, particularly environment and what we are exposed to psychologically as well.

Answer 11

It's called instinct.

Different species did and do develop (over long periods of time) survival techniques and at some point they happen as instinct. No one teaches other spiders to make intricate webs, they just do...no one taught you to breath when born, you just instinctively did.