Skip to main content

Evolution?

A post in the "How to convert an atheist to Christianity" series.

This is a collection of conversations taken from Facebook. The indented sections are questions or comments from others, with my response in the regular text.

warning

This section still needs to be formatted in a way to fit with the converting atheist theme.

Abiogensis vs Evolution​

Abiogenesis - this is the way that life formed or occurred aout of non life. Life reproduces, and so something has to start it. There has to be some kind of first life.

Evolution - how life forms change over time and group split into separate species eventually forming all the known species on earth

Don't get these mixed up. For evolution to explain all the life on the planet, you will also need abiogenesis to kick it off, but the process is complete different for the two. to buy an apple in the store, there will also have to be an orchard, but stores and orchards are completely different things.

When discussing evolution, the discussion is around how an animal with one form eventually became an animal with another form. That is, there were fish filling the sea, but eventually some kind of fish managed to crawl out of the sea and their descendants became amphibians. This is hard to believe, and so the discussion should focus on the ability of life to change forms over time. Also, evolution is the process responsible for new kinds of structures over time, like eyes, and hearts, feet, and wings.

When discussing abiogenesis, you are talking about the very most primitive life: the beginning of single celled life. It is reasonable to talk about how life "kick started" itself. For example, before there were cells that could reproduce, how did the cell membrane get formed. There has to have been a first cell that actually split itself successfully into two, and how did it know how to do this having never done it before.

99% of biologists agree​

The atheist will probably know that 99% of all biologists accept evolution as the best explanation for the variety of life on the planet. This is important because biology is literally the study of life.

Creationists will often find one person who has a degree in biology who make creationists claims.

Before we talk about what one isolated scientist thinks, how do you explain that 99% of all biologists find evolution is the BEST answer to the profusion of life on the planet?

99% of scientists used to believe the world was flat, that women were less intelligent, that black people were inferior to whites, and that the universe had no beginning. Consensus proves nothing, especially when there are monetary and/or reputation reasons for refusing to follow the evidence where it leads. Academia requires you to believe certain things regardless of the evidence or you'll never get hired, government grants and research monies are only given to researchers who already believe what is trying to be proved. Follow the money and you will find the answer to your question.

Here you use a false analogy.

  1. Actually it is a myth that most people thought the world was flat. The world being round was known since the earliest of Greek times.
  2. All scientists are not geologists. What scientists in general believe is not as relevant as scientists in the field of study in question.
  3. I understand the point of the statement is that a majority of experts can be wrong. Most biologists from 300 years ago did not accept in evolution -- they couldn't have known about it! We have come a long ways and one can not criticise ancient people for not knowing things we know today.

The second apologist trick is to pretend that this assessment of the world is just a vote. However, consensus among the EXPERTS on a topic is actually very telling about the best we know.

Third apologist trick is to plant the seed of cynicism into you. The peer reviewed skeptical publication mechanism makes it almost impossible for any authority to force a wrong view to become dominant to the 99% level. Papers have to actually SHOW their data, and you are suggesting that 99% of all biologists are falsifying the data. You are suggesting a grand conspiracy.

A fourth apologist trick is to convince you that biologists get rich on accepting bribes to say false things. Where are all the rich biologists then? Where are all the biologist millionaires?

A scientist that publishes false information can easily be found and discredited, resulting in the end of their career. This is a huge risk, so the bribe would need to be similarly large.

Oil companies and Christian organization are motivated to get biologists to falsify data, but where is the motivation otherwise? If you follow the money behind the Discovery Institute, it will lead right back to Christians. However, there is NO organization powerful enough to pay off 99% of all biologists in all countries. And there is NO paper trail of this. I am sorry to say, you have been fooled by the Christian apologists, and nothing I say here will have any effect on that.

Evolution is Blind, yet Successful​

According to Atheist we were created by something without a brain

The question begs the answer. By insisting from the beginning that we were "created by" something, then it implies that there is something that did the creating that is outside the thing itself.

To be created by, is not the right verb. Instead "we formed" is the right way to say it. Things form, and they become formed. This self formation is known as self-organization.

Self-organization is seen in the universe in many forms.

  • Nobody denies that a tree grows all on its own (given light, water, air, and nutrients).
  • Nobody denies that a baby animal grows all on its own (given nourishment which is not a "cause").
  • Nobody denies that a hurricane grows on its own without the need of a brain.
  • Nobody denies that a canyon or a valley forms all on its own given precipitation and flowing water.
  • Nobody denies that a star forms all on its own.

What the creationist fails to understand is that ecosystems and the parts that are played in the ecosystem can grow on their own without a brain. Evolution grows the form of animals all by itself in the way that a tree grows all by itself. A tree doesn't need a brain. Evolution does not either.

Self Study​

My friend, I get my information from studying the subjects myself, and there are MANY world class scientists, including those in the field of biology and other fields that agree with me and TOTALLY reject the teaching of Darwinian Evolution! There are also MANY, MANY scientists that believe as I do that will keep their mouths shut, because they know that if they dared to even mention "Intelligent Design in their footnotes that they can not only lose their funding, their positions, their reputation, their tenure and even their jobs if they DARE to touch the sacred cow of Evolution! Please do yourself a big favor and watch this movie by Ben Stein on the subject. it is very interesting!

My friend, your response is an excellent way avoid answering the question. Why can't you answer directly? The question was to explain 99% of biologists.

You seem to believe that there are many scientists questioning evolution, however there are billions of people on the planet and finding a few thousand with some odd belief is actually a tiny drop in the bucket. There are thousands of people who believe the world is flat.

But, when 99% of the EXPERTS on how life works accept evolution, it is in a completely different category. Some people are easily fooled by numbers. Intelligent Design is essentially a hoax where people took "creationism" and attempted to dress it up and make it look sciency. Remember there are 2 billion Christians, many are quite religious, and a few thousand that imagine their personal beliefs are more important than facts. You seem to be easily fooled by large numbers.

The other explanation for why intelligent Design theorists don't get published is that their evidence and methodology is shoddy. Of course you will reject that and try to find some other reason. You presume the science is good, and must find some other nefarious reason mounted against these people. The flat-earthers feel the same way: dare mention flat earth in a geological conference and you just can't get your papers published.

You seem to believe there is a huge CONSPIRACY and that somehow this conspiracy controls 99% of all biologist even though nobody has found any evidence of payments. There is no paper trail that people are conspiring.

You seem to think that a biologist gets paid big bucks to purposefully falsify their scientific work, and that 99% of all biology papers are faked. Yet there is no evidence that these biologists are rich. There is no evidence of the payments.

you believe in a grand conspiracy of millions of people, but without a paper trail that anyone has found. Kind of amazing, really.

Seriously, how do you explain the 99% of all biologists accepting evolution?

Fear​

so people they are afraid of sin, lie and people who are not afraid to sin tell the truth. Do you know what is the Truth?

These people who don't understand evolution actually are quite earnest in their positions. Most Christians believe what they say, and say what they believe. So I don't think they intend to lie.

Yet apologists are in a different category. Their purpose is to "defend" the faith by whatever means they can. They get paid to present powerful persuasive stories, and they don't get paid for being truthful.

You claim creationists are "afraid of sin" while others (biologists?) are "not afraid of sin". That is an odd way to put it. I know lots of people who want to do the right thing, and life the right way, but not out of fear, but out of a desire to be the best they can be.

Anyway, many biologists are Christian. Evolution is accepted by the Catholic church, the Methodists, the Mormons, and many other major religions. Do Catholics not "fear sin" as you put it? It is only the very fundamentalists bible literalist cults that take a strong position in favor of creationism.

I don't think fearing sin has anything to do with it. It is simply a lot of non-biologists being misled by hoaxers who are confused about evolution.

too much explanation for nothing. There is no proof evolution exists and believe me as an engineer I understand almost anything. I do not value your opinion because you are brainwashed by atheists.

There are millions of fossils that are classified into thousands of layers. All the fossils are neatly organized into specific layers in the rock. This is ONLY explained by evolution, and 99% of all biologists agree.

Biologists are the experts on life, and they are the ones who know best how it works.

Now it is possible that 99% of all biologists are wrong, and instead plucky internet facebook posters are more correct. But that is not very likely.

It Defies Logic​

It didn't pop up, it took millions of years to pop up 😂😂😂 If at some point it never existed, then came to be out of nowhere and with no cause, then it just popped up. It does matter if it took billions of years. If life came from a non living source, then it just popped up. Plain and simple. Forest fire is caused by the application of heat, which produces heat that is the fire lol. You just contradicted yourself. "this isn't hard to understand" that life magically appeared from nowhere? It defies logic so... 🤷🏿‍♂️

//It didn't pop up, it took millions of years to pop up 😂😂😂// Quite humerous. It is a process, not whatever you mean by popping up. You have been fooled into thinking that evolution is about things happening by random chance. If evolution is random, then we would have animals appearing all of a sudden with random configurations: eyes on tails, mouths that don't attach to stomachs, ears in random places on the body. Evolution is not and never was about randomness but some ignorant people keep promoting that idea for religious reasons.

You apparently believe that nothing happens by itself.

What about trees that bud new leaves. Does God need to reach down out of the sky and cause every little bud to appear? Do you believe that trees can not grow without God doing it manually.

Do you believ ethe hurricanes don't form on their own? There for God has to personally start every hurricane going. Every tornado is personally cause by God swirling them up?

Do you believe that every snowflake is personally crafted by God, or is it possible that snowflakes actually form all on their own? You don't seem to be able to see that many many phenomena actually happen all on their own.

Animals should be human by now​

why aren't animal's becoming human now? did evolution stop?

Yes, all animals are still evolving and there are plenty of recorded examples of that.

No, animals in one branch of the tree of life never "become" a species on a different branch. All species are NEW when they are formed. Long ago there were a set of primates that became over time human, but no other branch will ever become human.

If you ask this question, you clearly don't understand how evolution works. Why would you think any other animal would become "human"?

Seriously, is there an apologist site that suggests that other animals should become human?

were you any animal before you became human?

No, of course not, every human is born a human with eyes ears skin and all the things that make a human. I will also die a human.

What makes you ask a question about humans being other animals. Do you believe that individuals change their species?

ALSO, you didn't answer the question: is there an apologist site that suggests that other animals species should become human?

Creationism is Simpler​

Kinds are simpler to understand. Creationism is easier to understand

how are they simpler to understand, if the definition changes pretty much depending on the person you ask to?

In reality EVERY single animal is different. Every single individual has a unique set of genes. There are enough combinations that on two individuals have the same complete set of genes.

What we recognize as "kinds" are just grouping of individuals that look the same. Every cow is unique. It is so much easier to say "that is a cow" and then you can forget about it. When you see 15 cows, your mind thinks there 15 identical thing, because a thing is a kind.

Kinds simplify the world. It doesn't matter if my kinds are exactly the same as your kinds. the fact that I only need to think of a kind make it easier.

Evolution complicates that because you have to remember that every single individual is DIFFERENT.

Evolutionism Is a religion​

Evolutionists have a hard time classifying species as there’s multiple definitions of species.

Every individual animal is different. a "species" is just a classificatoin system for individual that have a similar appearance.

There is no "species" in reality, it is just a long chain of individuals that all look slightly different from each other.

In 1999, National Geographic held a press conference to introduce a fossil they described as a crucial missing link, the first solid evidence for a new theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This was contrary to the older theory that birds and dinosaurs evolved separately. The fossil was named "Archaeoraptor." The fossil was unveiled in a press conference on October 15, 1999, and in November 1999 National Geographic published an article by Christopher P. Sloan, a National Geographic art editor. Sloan described the Archaeoraptor as a missing link that helped elucidate the connection between dinosaurs and birds. However, this claim was later challenged, and it turned out that the Archaeoraptor fossil was a forgery, leading to a significant embarrassment for National Geographic. Source: Live Science, Access Research Network, Wikipedia

There are famous cases of scientists publishing papers on things that later turned out to be fake. I would point out it is always other scientists that find the problem. In spite of the remarkable record for keeping scientific fact true to the world, mistakes are made. And it is up to science to correct them.

This article was "National Geographic" not a peer reviewed scientific journal, and because it does not use these mechanisms they will have more mistakes than the journals will.

The author was an artist?

The mistake was found by a scientists Dr. Timothy Rowe, NOT a creationist. National Geographic admitted the mistake and apologized.

Does this count as a LIE? No, it was not actually a scientific paper, and even then, mistakes will happen. But science is a method that is not 100% perfect all the time. mistakes are made, but mistakes are usually found and corrected.

Life Forms that Stay the Same​

how about animals that appear in very old layers as fossils then never appear again, yet they are still alive today?

Jorge Sierra Here you commit a category error. Individual animals that lived long ago, died long ago. Individuals that are alive today, are different individuals.

Here is the thing about life: every individual animal is different. There are enough genes, and enough combinations of genes that every single individual animal has a unique set of genes. Many of those combinations look very similar. Generally the direct offspring of some parents look like the parents, but they are not exactly the same. There are always small differences. Horses tend to look like other horses -- or at least more like other horses than for example a pig.

What you are saying is that there were animals that lived long ago, that look very much like animals today, and a good example is the crocodile. There is absolutely no reason that an individual today can not look like an individual millions of years ago. The shape and the features allow the animal to feed itself, and if that style of feeding still works there is no reason to expect that individuals today will be different than the ones millions of years ago.

It is also possible for the form to disappear for millions of years if the climate or ecosystem changes, but then for an animal to appear millions of years later that LOOK very similar to the ones earlier. All that is necessary is for the environment to favor an animal of that shape.

Environmental pressure comes in when a different form is needed to survive. If the pressure is not there, the form of the animal will not be different than the ancestors.

Do you understand that?

I'm referring to animals like the Coelacanths, which only show up in very old layers in the Geologic column but are still alive today.

What you are saying is that there were animals that lived long ago, that look very much like animals today, and a good example is the Coelacanths.

Again, the animals living today were born in modern times. You know that right? There are no individual animals that are millions of years old.

What you are seeing is modern animals (animals hatched in the last couple hundred year) and that they look like animals that were hatched millions of years ago.

Again, it the FORM of the animal still works and it can survive, there is no reason that a modern animal should not have the same form as one millions of years ago.

There were fish millions of years ago, and there are fish today, because fish is still a form that works. Just because amphibians crawled out of the water does not mean all the fish disappeared. Why do you believe that there is any issue with the form of a Coelacanths living millions of years ago, and that same form living today?

Fairy Tale​

I very much doubt it. Macro evolution is a fairy tale

I understand you believe that evolution is a "fairy tale" and by that you mean a made up story that is false and does not describe the real world.

I know there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists that write a lot of web pages dedicated to this, however the average Christian is no an expert in how life works. If I wanted to fix a car, should I ask a Christian minister, or should I ask an auto mechanic: all things being equal, which one is more likely to give me a good answer.

There are people who are experts in how life works, and they are called biologists. A biologist spends their entire career learning the intricate details on how life actually works. 99% of all biologists agree that evolution is the best explanation.

How is it that 99% of the people who are experts in life agree on evolution, while Christian apologists disagree?

But a biologist learns nothing if he is taught lies

You seem to be forgetting that biologists have to actually run real experiments on real plants and animals. If all they knew was lies, then none of the experiments would work.

See, science is different from religion. In religion one person says something and others simply decide to believe or not. Science on the other had demands that you demonstrate what you say, it demands that you show actual evidence.

While a biologist might be taught lies, they would so find that all their experiments failed. In order to get the experiments to succeed, they would have to reject the lies and come up with a better theory. They persist until they find a theory CONFIRMED by actual facts.

I know Chirstian apologists would like you believe that biologists just sit around and make up lies (like the Christians do) but in science you actually have to show evidence, otherwise it is thrown out.

Yes they did, and in none of their experiments did an animal turn into another.

Do you believe that because a Christian apologist told you that? Which one? Every offspring from parents is a different animal than the parents. Children are NEVER genetically identical to the parents. You surely must have noticed that kids never look exactly like the parents.

Did the apologist say that every child is genetically different from the parents, or did they imply offspring are exactly the same?

By "an animal turn into another" you probably mean enough genetic difference to appear as a distinctly different animal, something that takes about a million years on the average. did the experiment show genetic change equal to 1 millionth the kind of change you call a "different animal"?

Transitional Fossils​

There are no transitional fossils, because there is no evolution

About transitional fossils/animals. Apparently you are unaware that every individual animal is different and unique. Every individual is a "transition". There are enough genes and enough combinations that every animal is unique. And thus every animal, and every fossil, is a transitional fossil, because the form of an animal is always changing.

This should not be surprising: people breed dogs and they could only do that if the offspring were different from the parents. If offspring remained exactly like the parents, it would be impossible to breed dogs.

You claim there is no evolution, but 99% of all biologists agree that there is. Biologists are people who are actually experts in the topic, not like you and me.

A fossil is a fossil. Calling it transitional is an assumption

Every animal is different. Say you count from 1 to 100. Which number is it that "transitions" to 100? They all do.

Men and Pregnancy​

So do "biologists" believe men can get pregnant .... Abiogenesis proves evolution is a lie and a fairytale

That doesn't change anything. Every individual is different. Every offspring. Say you count from 1 to 100. Which number is it that "transitions" to 100? They all do.

A number is a number. It does not "transition" it stays the number it is, unless you can show evidence that there are different values for the same number

Thank you. The same is true with animals. No animal transitions any more than any other animal. No individual transitions, but it stays the same animal as it was born or hatched. But offspring from a parent is different, just like each number is different from the rest.

Creationists get hung up on a reductionist fallacy, and that is to assume that there is a "kind" of animal, and that all animals of that kind are identical. So, for example, rabbits are always rabbits and only a rabbit. By thinking this way you forget that each rabbit is different: some bigger, some smaller, some with harper teeth, some broader teeth, some longer hair, some shorter hair and so on. From generation to generation animals are ALWAYS changing.

The environment then selects which one lives, and if a new environment starts selecting for longer hair, then on the average longer haired rabbits will survive, and the entire group will get longer hair over time.

Beneficial Mutations​

Nothing created everything, chaos created order, nonlife accidentally became life, and things gradually turned into specialized organisms by chance though natural selection, where only beneficial mutations survived, while only leaving evil

You have a whole litany of items here, many are false or mistaken. I know you get a feeling of confidence whether you cite more than three things but it is impossible to discuss everything at once. would you like to pick one of these for discussion?

sure go ahead, or we could start with the most major problem, primordial soup turning into a cell. Reactions needed to create a cell, cant all happen in the same solution, a dirty solution, or in the presence of oxygen, nor live without it.

You do realize that is NOT evolution, don't you? That is abiogenesis and evolution is not responsible for that.

Do you have any argument against evolution? The point was in every case, people who reject evolution don't understand it.

the orgin of life is one of the many steps needed for evolution. If that one is impossible, then none of them are possible. And by the way you keep claiming to have it all figured out, but you sure haven't turned out any information.

We have OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for evolution. Evolution is not in dispute by literally any biologists working in the field in any serious capacity. The evidence for it is clear as day. We know it happened and continues TO happen. Even IF we don't have much evidence for abiogenesis or how it happened. Disproving abiogenesis or attempting to does NOT in any way shape or form dispute any of the evidence we have for common ancestry.

Evolution is the process by which life gets more and more complex over time. It is quite simple and quite straightforward how it works. It has been seen in the laboratory and in the fossil evidence. The key thing is this: there are thousands of separate layers of rock. It is clear that this rock formed by sediment falling to the bottom of a body of water of some kind. Out of the thousands of layers, in each we find a specific combination of fossils exactly as if there was only those kinds of life alive at the time that the rock was formed. Specific kinds of life were alive together.

We have literally categorized millions of fossils, and every one of them appears in the layers according to when that life was alive. Those layers are found all around the world. Every single fossil found is consistent with a story of life gradually increasing in complexity over time. This is evolution.

Let's say that God waved his wand and made the first proto-bacterium appear for the purpose of discussion. God creates one single cell. AFTER that evolution explains everything else about the profusion of life on the planet. It is true as you say that abiogenesis is needed, but abiogenesis being false says nothing about how life evolved over time.

This is why it gets so frustrating when people who do not understand evolution say in one breath that evolution is unproven, and then when asked why, they talk about abiogenesis which is a quite different process.

Most creationists don't care about having a discussion and sharing the supporting evidence for their position. They just want to spout text that they heard someone else say that agrees with their position.

Abiogenesis​

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate topics. I know that some creationists feel that declaring this is a way to dodge discussion, but it is not: Abiogenesis could be false, while evolution still true.

Consider this scenario: primordial earth, no life to be found. God waves his wand and makes the first proto-bacterium -- the very first single celled life. And it was good. Only one single cell, that is all. This one little cell split into two. And it was good. The cell keeps splitting until evolution takes over and produces the millions of species we know today.

In this scenario, abiogenesis is false, but evolution is still true. It is NOT the case that abiogenesis must be true for evolution to be true. Those are separate topics. If you say that evolution is false, you can not prove it is false by saying abiogenesis is false. If you claim evolution is false, you must produce evidence about evolution, not arguments about your doubts on abiogenesis. Let's call the above theory "godbiogenesis" for discussion only.

Body Plans​

I know you mean well, but to this creationist, your argument is nonsense. If abiogenesis is wrong, it does not make evolution necessarily wrong, it just makes it UNNECESSARY.

Please do not pretend that homologous structures, similar traits, and the universal use of DNA gets rid of all the problem parts of evolution. It still does not make sense for completely different multicellular body plans to evolve by natural means only.

Let's face it. People accept the inductive argument from observable microevolution only because they believe in NO GOD. They have never observed significant macro evolution or body plan change. Only if someone is a committed atheist, does it make sense to accept the inductive argument that the same process which allows adaptation within a species, somehow allows whole changes to body plan and development.

If instead you believe in a God who created life in the first place, there is no need to believe in the big leaps of faith that form the theory of common descent. What I am simply demanding as a logical statement is that by Occam's razor, if "God DID it" is the only way that biogenesis can occur, then "God DID it" is the MOST LIKELY ANSWER for how macro evolution occurred. The theory that God created life, but then did not take part in evolution is not so much illogical as it is just not needed.

That is why this creationist draws two conclusions from the persistent "evolution does not depend on abiogenesis" talk from evolutionists.

  1. Many evolutionists are intellectually dishonest about their commitment to either No God, or a God who never interacts with His Creation.
  2. Many evolutionists do not bother thinking seriously about the unresolved problems in the theory of macro evolution.

IMHO, an intellectually honest evolutionist will admit that the theory of evolution DEPENDS on abiogenesis being true. Why are you so scared of abiogenesis. Do you believe there is no way for it to occur?

It is true that most biologist agree that both are most likely to be necessary. Yes, it is true that scientists are committed to finding natural ways that the world we see came about my natural means. In history, people have been wrong so many times, and science is about correcting that.

  • Ancient people used to think that lightning was caused by Gods throwing bolts. Later we learned about static electricity.
  • Ancient people use to think that weather was caused by God moving the clouds around. Later we learned how the atmosphere and weather works naturally.
  • Ancient people used to think that fire needed a special fluid "phlogiston" that brought about fire, but then we learned that chemistry explains it all.
  • Ancient people thought that life needed a special stuff "elan vital" which life had and other things didn't, but then we learned a more natural way. At each of these steps there were people who sometimes violently opposed the natural understanding. It has nothing to do with disliking God, but about misunderstanding how God works. The creator of the universe chose abiogenesis and evolution to produce the profusion of life on this planet whether you like it or not. It is just silly to imagine a God patiently hand-crafting every single little mosquito and worm. A much more powerful God creates a world where evolution does that job instead. I feel sorry for those whose image of God is so weak they don't think their God is capable of such a grand scheme.

Macroevolution​

Many evolutionists do not bother thinking seriously about the unresolved problems in the theory of macro evolution."

First off there is not such thing as the theory of 'macro evolution'. Macro evolution is a descriptive term for an easily discernible change in an organism.

And exactly what are those problems with macro evolution. Please be specific and supply tested evidence of these problems.

Also note that 'macro evolution' has been observed, demonstrated and shown via genetics to have happened in the past to many organisms including humans.

Evolution is the process by which life gets more and more complex over time. It is quite simple and quite straightforward how it works. It has been seen in the laboratory and in the fossil evidence. The key thing is this: there are thousands of separate layers of rock. It is clear that this rock formed by sediment falling to the bottom of a body of water of some kind. Out of the thousands of layers, in each we find a specific combination of fossils exactly as if there was only those kinds of life alive at the time that the rock was formed. Specific kinds of life were alive together.

We have literally categorized millions of fossils, and every one of them appears in the layers according to when that life was alive. Those layers are found all around the world. Every single fossil found is consistent with a story of life gradually increasing in complexity over time. This is evolution.

Let's say that God waved his wand and made the first proto-bacterium appear for the purpose of discussion. God creates one single cell. AFTER that evolution explains everything else about the profusion of life on the planet. It is true as you say that abiogenesis is needed, but abiogenesis being false says nothing about how life evolved over time.

This is why it gets so frustrating when people who do not understand evolution say in one breath that evolution is unproven, and then when asked why, they talk about abiogenesis which is a quite different process.

Most creationists don't care about having a discussion and sharing the supporting evidence for their position. They just want to spout text that they heard someone else say that agrees with their position. It is exactly as if they don't understand evolution at all.

Flood and Layers​

The layers formed under water, but that was a massive flood, thats why you have the same layers on every continent.

Have you ever seen a flood that left everything sorted nicely into layers without anything being mixed up? Seriously. A global flood would churn and mix everything together. Have you ever seen a flood?

Floods just don't act in a way to lay down nice layers where all across the world the exact same fossils appear in the same layers. This is clearly just an amateur attempt to make a bible story match the world.

As far as whats in the layers, there is no slow process of evolution seen, only complete fossils of fully formed specimens. With the marine fossils on the bottom bc they started out on the bottom, and the larger stuff like dinosaurs above them. The only way you get grave yards of fossils, is when stuff gets buried rapidly.

Marine fossils are not found exclusively on the bottom. They are found in every layer. But the kinds of marine life correspond exactly to the kinds of marine life available at the time the layer was laid down.

And the evidence doesn't point to millions of years, bc there is dinosaur soft tissue found on every continent, and even evolutionist admit, that soft tissue doesn't survive millions of years.

The stories of dinosaur soft tissue are still an area of active discovery. This article explains that under certain circumstances a natural preservative can form and it might hold the soft tissue for millions of years.

Its also been proven, that under the right conditions, a fossil can be created in less than a year.

A fossil is a bone that has been turned to rock, and that process takes far longer than a year. I would have to see your evidence.

I have searched for the evidence for both sides of the argument, and all the evidence points to creation, and a worldwide flood. Thats also why all the dinosaurs are in their famous death pose, because when things get drowned in cold water they bow backwards.

If God did poof the world into existence, it could be that he decided to make layers. (Not the flood, floods don't work that way). If God did this with his magic, it would be monstrously dishonest and manipulative. Even I don't suspect the christian god of such mendacity, but for some reason creationists DO.

I envision a God that is so much more awesome and so much more powerful than the christian God. The evidence is in the world, not in a n ancient book written by people so primitive they thought that fire was an element. But we all pick our own way, and I respect anyone whatever their beliefs.

actually that would depend on what kind of flood your talking about, a flash flood tends to wash everything out, ever heard of Burlingame canyon. But prolonged floods with waves, do absolutely sort everything into layers, including whatever is stuck in the mud. Science has already proved this, you can actually do the experiment yourself if you would like. Go get a big tub, throw som dirt, gravel, sand, & clay, and slosh it around for a while then let it settle and see what you get. It has been witnessed happening in nature during floods too. Read a book. And your denial of God, isn't about evidence, its about rebellion. There is plenty of evidence if you look for it, most people don't want to see it, bc it comes with a rule book that really infringe on their lifestyles, but denial of something doesn't make it disappear

There are millions of fossils sorted into 1000 layers, each layer has exactly the set of life that appeared as some time in history together.

Sloshing water and letting it settle does not do this. You might heavy dense things tending to the bottom, and lighter on top, but that is nothing like the sorting that you see in the fossil record. You have big animals and small animals, big fossils and small, in distinct layers, and every single one sorted completely perfectly without fail. Millions of fossils.

Swishing water around mixes all the things of all sizes. Try it! No flood has every organized things the way that the fossil layers are.

99% of all biologist and geologist know this. But you think you are smarter than ALL of them. You have Google, and you can search, while none of them can. You have teams of religious people who know nothing about biology and geology advising you on what really happened, and if you don't believe it they shun you and kick you out of their exclusive club. So you better agree with them.

Floods simply do not sort things the way we see the fossil record, but some weak minded people think that a flood can do this.

but they aren't sorted perfectly, and they are dated with circular reasoning. You can believe whatever you want, but you would be a lot better off if you stop looking at the interpretation of the evidence, and look at the actual evidence. You will see its not as we are told.

Christian apologists commonly lie that the dating is circular reasoning, but that only works to convince gullible people who are not familiar with the actual evidence.

No rabbit fossil has ever been found in Cambrian rock. None. Never. In undisturbed layers that formed millions of years ago, there is never a fossil out of place. there are millions of catalogued fossils, and never found in the wrong layers.

Obviously gullible people will believe anything, but biologists spend their lives studying such things, and 99% accept evolution. If there were obvious things out of place they would know.

But your "google search" does not somehow make you more knowledgeable about evolution than a typical biologist. You would have to be very gullible to fail to understand this.

God Commands in Natural Ways​

Whatever any "Christian" claims is irrelevant. The text, "bible" states that God commanded the earth to bring forth plants and animals. So, we should expect to find natural mechanisms.

Good point. He didn't just poof them into existence, but instead causes the world that already existed at that point to then in turn "bring forth" the plans and animals. It does not say anything about micromanaging the form of each and every species.

Evolution of Organs​

evolution is a fraud. Tell me then how do organs grow in nature. How heart evolved?

Evolution does not work by organs growing ON THEIR OWN. That is not how organ development works. The entire body develops wholistically different parts getting bigger and then slowly specializing.

Consider the "eye" an important organ. This book describes how it developed over time.

The heart evolved long long ago. There would be fluid in the body, and without a heart you have to move that around by moving the body. For example, maybe every so often the animal would move a fin just to circulate the fluid. Eventually that fin keeps moving, but it no longer needs to be a fin, it is just a muscle that causes fluid to circulate. From there is starts to get specialized. This is all completely plausible and understandable. This article has some details. WHY don't you believe this happened?

Proving Magic​

so you believe in magic? so can science test that?

I think it is great that you are asking the right kinds of questions. How are we sure that these findings are correct beyond being the best explanation. Let's apply that same thinking to your position. Can you test creationism?

no you cant test but we don't claim science which you have to prove.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Millions of fossils have been found and categorized and ALL are consistent with evolution. None of them are consistent with creation. There is no evidence AT ALL for creation.

Creation is a story made up by ancient men so primitive they through that fire was an element. They thought colds were created by evil spirits.

4.5 Billion​

The only question I would have for you is "why?". Why did YHWH wait 4.5 billion years before bringing forth man? Why is the evolutionary tree so complicated when it came to homos? I am not trying to attack you, it is just that was the question I struggled with.

Good argument. If the universe was created JUST for the tribe of Israel, it is way too big, and took way too long to get here. It is a waste pure and simple. Surely these must be some Christian principle that god does not do wasteful things. The "argument from profligate waste". That waste can not be explained. Same with 99 of all the species.

On the other hand, natural means are unlikely, and so you need a big universe and a long time to allow that is certainly happens. This is an explanation for the waste.

First Monkey​

According to science how was the very 1st monkey born?

A real answer to your question might take 1000s of pages - I hope you are not expecting a trivial answer. but again, I will strive to answer your question just remember the answer will start very general, but you can ask more specific questions for specific answers.

The first monkey was born in the regular way. I think the question you are trying to ask: when the first animal that was considered to be a monkey was born (to animals that are not considered monkeys) how did it happen that the offspring was considered a monkey and the parents were not. Is that what you mean?

A species (or genus or family) is a grouping of similar animals. Every animal is unique -- every animal has a unique set of genes, every animal is different from all others. The parents of the first monkey will look very much like monkeys. Over the generations there will be more and more offspring that look more (and less) like monkeys. The first monkey then is just a very technical judgement where we finally draw a line to say that the first monkey has all the characteristics that we can call it a monkey. The important thing to note is that this distinction if purely based on a very technical definition of what is and is not a monkey.

You might imagine the same in dog breeding (which is smaller change so it happen much more quickly). Pick any breed: Shetland sheep dogs. There had to have been a first dog that was called a Shetland sheep dog, and that dog was born from animals that are not called Shetland sheep dogs. The breed of dog is just a name we put on a category of animals.