Evolutionists: Parrot-hope your reading?

Question

Why can't I get a straight forward "scientific" awnser from all you evolutionists. Parrot - at least you tried in stating that the human eye is "flawed" because of the retina that is inside out. You make a good observation, yet your conclution is "typical". Did you know that if the retina of the eye was not "inside out" as with mammals, the UV light from the sun would cause tremendous damage. Yes, thats why fish and other water living creatures have the blood vessels on the outside, the water they live in already blocks the UV light.

As for the fossil records: Why has anyone never found any fossils of "transition" species, thats to say the missing link between fish and reptiles for example?

As for the experiment they conducted in a lab "creating life". You are refering to an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.In addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

Answer 1

Here, have a cracker.

"For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation" was parroted from http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=8

"In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases" was parroted from
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=8

Answer 2

I'm a gravitationist. I believe in Gravity, even though it is only a theory, and has challenges to it ("exotic dark matter" and "exotic dark energy").

>> the UV light from the sun would cause tremendous damage
No it wouldn't. If that were a problem, then the crystalline lens of the eye would have UV-opaque elements -- in essence, natural sunglasses. Our retinas are backwards because they weren't intelligently designed. I am very nearsighted. An intelligent designer would have given me muscles to focus my eyes without glasses. My friend had to have her appendix surgically removed. An intelligent design for a human being would not have an appendix, or would have a better design that was less prone to inflammation. I had two wisdom teeth removed at age 25. An intelligent design would not have wisdom teeth, or would provide adequate space in the jaw for them.

>> Why has anyone never found any fossils of "transition" species
All species are transition species. We're all evolving. Stop ignoring the bird fossil that has dinosaur-like characteristics.

>> With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible
Not true. You'd probably have life that was shielded in some way from UV.

Answer 3

Congratulations for using science to argue against a theory. Now, if only your scientific evidence in favor of your theory of creation were as complete.

I recognize that no one really has the answer to questions like "where did we come from" and "how did we get here". My basis for following one concept over another must then stem from which one has the most supporting evidence. In that battle, evolution, reactions between energies/matter, and even the big bang (which I don't particularly follow) win out. While the evidence may not be complete, nor answer all the questions, there is evidence to support these ideas. The evidence to support a supreme being seems to only be "we don't have proof of anything else."

The complex nature of things CAN be explained by useful minute changes/mutations over BILLIONS of years. We see such evolutions even in our lifetimes (e.g. bacteria resistant to formerly effective antiseptics). I think a lot of people fail to recognize how long 4-5 billion years is. And still we do not have a "perfect" product. We do not have a lot of fossil evidence for ANY creatures, let alone the "links". We may have examples of "transition species" and not have the knowledge to understand what we are looking at. There are examples of a link between reptiles and fish in the dinosaur species that could live both in and out of water (sorry, I can't remember the name) or in the water creatures who developed hard paddles that could later have become legs.

Again, we do not have all the answers, but the answers we do have are better supported than answers stemming from a belief in God.

Answer 4

The one thing that really bothered me there (as I am not an "evolutionist, yet I can accept the fact that "I don't know" so I don't say "god did it") was when you said "With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible"

Now our lives would be, but other forms of life might. Not all life thrives in the conditions we have. Some organisms can live in boiling water and feed off of radiation. Who knows what kinds of harsh conditions other (unknown) life forms could live in. They would most likely find this world harsh as well.

Answer 5

This is by far one of the biggest jokes I have seen on Q&A today. Your sad defense of creationism is laughable. Your premise is wrong but I must say your copy and paste skills are excellent. Whoever this Parrot guy is should have a field day with you, if he doesn't then I will gladly take his place.

Please include the full Darwin quote, you xians are so concerned with us quoting the Wholly Babble out of context but you commit the same crime when it comes to Darwin.

Answer 6

This 'so-called' debate is getting tiresome. Is it real life, or is it Memorex? Go ahead and believe that there is a supernatural dimension if you want to.....or quit believing these so called scientists who are not using the scientific method. To try to defeat science using science is just like the atheists using the Bible to defeat the Bible but for different reasons. The Bible is stuck with a certain set of rules but science is supposed to change to fit any new knowledge that comes to light.

Don't you guys realise how retarded you sound repeating, "But God did it, God did it." over and over..........science has nothing to do with that.........science is describing nature....not the supernatural..

Answer 7

And what are you trying to prove with this? Just because we are unable to replicate the creation of life doesn't mean that life couldn't have been created in that way.

And it CERTAINLY doesn't prove the existence of God or that a god created the Earth with a sweep of his ethereality.

Answer 8

*breaks out the popcorn and sits back to watch Parrot lay some smack down...*

Answer 9

I take off my hat and salute you! NOW - where in hades have you been - needed this info a LONG time ago!

Thanks for your input!