Darwin's Dilemma, God spoke and it was fully formed

[Hobie]

The fossil record shows that nearly all major animal groups abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the 'Cambrian explosion,' this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin. He knew that if the animals were found fully formed and didnt 'evolve', that the fossil record contradicted what his 'theory of evolution' predicted. In his book 'On the Origin of Species', Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet Darwin admitted that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata did not show such creatures. Instead “species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks" without any evidence of prior ancestral forms. Darwin frankly acknowledged that this lack of ancestral forms was “a valid argument” against his theory. But Darwin basically hoped that time would provide the evidence that was lacking. And now we have the James Webb Space Telescope show much the same in the heavens, were they hoped to see empty space before the Big Bang, they find fully formed galaxies and stars. It is a problem as if their theory of the Big Bang is correct, these telescopes should be able to see ‘times’ when no stars or galaxies exist. But it appears stars and galaxies exist, no matter how far out they look.

The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist

Giant, mature galaxies seem to have filled the universe shortly after the Big Bang, and astronomers are puzzled.

www.space.com

So what will it do to their theory if no part of the visible universe fails to contain stars or galaxies and instead the heavens testify of Creation exactly as described in Scripture.

Psalm 33:6​

6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 33:9​

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Hebrews 11:3​

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Genesis 1:1-5​

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

​

​

 

[Gottservant]

Powerful testimony there.

Not to contradict you, but you do realise that "Evolution" is an alternative, much like you can have black and white?

The one main mistake that Evolutionists make, is that one species can become another - but there is no mistaking that individual species change over time.

I'm not trying to vex you, I'm just saying that how things "started" is relative to what kind of survival you think various species are worthy of? A tiger will evolve the hunt, while the sheep will evolve staying with the flock?

 

[Hobie]

Powerful testimony there.

Not to contradict you, but you do realise that "Evolution" is an alternative, much like you can have black and white?

The one main mistake that Evolutionists make, is that one species can become another - but there is no mistaking that individual species change over time.

I'm not trying to vex you, I'm just saying that how things "started" is relative to what kind of survival you think various species are worthy of? A tiger will evolve the hunt, while the sheep will evolve staying with the flock?

Not really, you cant mix the two, its either one that came together by chance over billions of years, or Gods Word is true, and it was made when He spoke. Darwin, clearly was unable to explain the sudden arrival in Cambrian rock of most of the life we have today when no fossil evidence of their ancestors can be found in pre-Cambrian rock.

They try to get around the dilemma by coming up with another "theory", that the rate of evolution during the “Cambrian explosion” was five times faster than it is today. But it only creates another dilemma for evolutionists as they have always insisted on uniformitarianism or that the rates of natural processes do not change over time. So Darwin’s dilemma remains unsolved for evolutionists. But there is no dilemma for those who believe Gods Word and know that God created all living creatures during the week of Creation.

 

[Gottservant]

@Hobie sure, Evolutionists believe a lie, but they also believe the truth as well - species literally morph between 'kinds'

How do you discover that species morph, without speculating that they morph into one another? That's the difficulty.

I think part of the answer is that species retain an inexchangeable potential, that is, one of their traits is that they only expect to be what they already were (because there is more potential in that, than change). It's like God gives them a proviso: the more you dilute your species, the less you are able to grow your potential. Instinctually, every creature knows to avoid this!

How you assert this (inexchangeable potential), in a positive case, is still a mystery to me - but I think about it constantly. If men could just humble themselves to being men, I think we would really be getting somewhere!

 

[Windmillcharge]

but they also believe the truth as well - species literally morph between 'kinds'

Sorry there is no ' evolution' that is change into different creatures.
There is change, or if you prefer evolution, within a species.
You mention tigers and sheep, there are several species of tigers and sheep, but bangalore tigers and siberean tigers are still tigers just as all the various breeds of sheep are still sheep, they have changed ( or evolved ) but are still the creature they started out as.

 

[TinMan]

The fossil record shows that nearly all major animal groups abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the 'Cambrian explosion,' this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin.

That is not correct, the Cambrian explosion refers to a time of great diversification of a very few forms of animals. Anthropoids, sponges and mollusks. There were no vertebrates in the cambion Fish or what we would recognize as fish didn't emerge until the much later in the Ordovician.

It isn't much of a mystery as to why there are no clear evolutionary precursors to the creatures of the Cambrian. The Cambrian saw the emergence of both hard body parts and of creatures of any notable size. Both were the result of increased oxygen levels.
The lack of hard body parts means that fossils just didn't form. Fossils of the Precambrian era are usually just imprints and very small.

He knew that if the animals were found fully formed and didnt 'evolve', that the fossil record contradicted what his 'theory of evolution' predicted. In his book 'On the Origin of Species', Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet Darwin admitted that the fossil record below the Cambrian strata did not show such creatures. Instead “species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks" without any evidence of prior ancestral forms. Darwin frankly acknowledged that this lack of ancestral forms was “a valid argument” against his theory. But Darwin basically hoped that time would provide the evidence that was lacking. And now we have the James Webb Space Telescope show much the same in the heavens, were they hoped to see empty space before the Big Bang,

you can't see empty space as there is nothing there to see

they find fully formed galaxies and stars. It is a problem as if their theory of the Big Bang is correct, these telescopes should be able to see ‘times’ when no stars or galaxies exist. But it appears stars and galaxies exist, no matter how far out they look.

That was resolved and the early galaxies are not as young as first thought.

 

[Hobie]

That is not correct, the Cambrian explosion refers to a time of great diversification of a very few forms of animals. Anthropoids, sponges and mollusks. There were no vertebrates in the cambion Fish or what we would recognize as fish didn't emerge until the much later in the Ordovician.

It isn't much of a mystery as to why there are no clear evolutionary precursors to the creatures of the Cambrian. The Cambrian saw the emergence of both hard body parts and of creatures of any notable size. Both were the result of increased oxygen levels.
The lack of hard body parts means that fossils just didn't form. Fossils of the Precambrian era are usually just imprints and very small.


you can't see empty space as there is nothing there to see

That was resolved and the early galaxies are not as young as first thought.

Sure, they just change what they said happened, and keep going down the rabbit hole, but they have backed themselves in a corner, as the more they discover, the more clearly it refutes Evolution.

 

[TinMan]

Sure, they just change what they said happened, and keep going down the rabbit hole, but they have backed themselves in a corner, as the more they discover, the more clearly it refutes Evolution.

Nothing about the Cambrian explosion refutes evolution.

 

[Hobie]

Nothing about the Cambrian explosion refutes evolution.

How can you have 'evolution' if everything came fully formed at its appearance, I would think that is enough.

 

[TinMan]

How can you have 'evolution' if everything came fully formed at its appearance, I would think that is enough.

who said anything in the cambrian explosion came fully formed?

 

[Behold]

that the fossil record contradicted what his 'theory of evolution' predicted. s if their theory of the Big Bang is correct,

The connecting fossil record is a theory.
Carbon dating is not actually completely accurate.

And the Big Bang, is a Theory... and what is interesting about it... is that you have to ask yourself.... "IF... there was a big bang" then there had to be something available that banged. = In other words, the MATERIAL that "banged".... Where did it come from..?
Did it "self generate" from "Blank nothingness", of itself?

A.) NEVER

So, this is where SCIENCE tries to hid the ball in the Truth cups and shift them around as Theory and teach Theory as Truth and Reality.., Because..... the REAL Discussion is not about the "Bang"....... but with regards to where the STUFF came from that they say is the original" Bang."

I know where it came from.....

A.) You can't have creation without a Creator

Also....

Currently there is BUZZ regarding AI.... Artificial Intelligence, and this Ai, can recreate what its fed, the preexisting Data...that.. its given to analyze, and thereby recreate something that is seemingly a carbon copy, rearranged.......but that is re-creation of what previous exists.,
That is RE-CREATION..

Reader, if you deal with an Atheist, and they are all fired up about ". ""Well you can't prove that God exists"... Then just tell them...
= "Well you can't prove that God doesn't exist".
And leave them there, as there is no need to try to argue with a "Stop" Sign or a Brick Wall, and that's what you are up against.
Neither of those have "ears to hear".

Or, and next, you can point out that a Red Rose.... can't be created from NOTHING, by any type of SCIENCE.
However....

They can clone one.
They can Hybrid one.
They can plant one.
But they can't CREATE one out of the AIR... out of NOTHING>..

I know who Did.
And so do you, if you are a Believer, as God created it all "After its Kind", and that means fully formed.
it means the Original Chicken was not created from the egg, nor was the first Dinosaur.

 

[TinMan]

The connecting fossil record is a theory.
Carbon dating is not actually completely accurate.

and can't be used on fossils

And the Big Bang, is a Theory... and what is interesting about it... is that you have to ask yourself.... "IF... there was a big bang" then there had to be something available that banged. = In other words, the MATERIAL that "banged".... Where did it come from..?
Did it "self generate" from "Blank nothingness", of itself?

A.) NEVER

or consider what is actually being proposed and what the best models show. All you need is E=mc2

So, this is where SCIENCE tries to hid the ball in the Truth cups and shift them around as Theory and teach Theory as Truth and Reality.., Because..... the REAL Discussion is not about the "Bang"....... but with regards to where the STUFF came from that they say is the original" Bang."

I know where it came from.....

A.) You can't have creation without a Creator

Also....

you also know the big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution....right?

Currently there is BUZZ regarding AI.... Artificial Intelligence, and this Ai, can recreate what its fed, the preexisting Data...that.. its given to analyze, and thereby recreate something that is seemingly a carbon copy, rearranged.......but that is re-creation of what previous exists.,
That is RE-CREATION..

AI isn't actually creative.

Reader, if you deal with an Atheist, and they are all fired up about ". ""Well you can't prove that God exists"... Then just tell them...
= "Well you can't prove that God doesn't exist".

And that is why one should believe in Thor

And leave them there, as there is no need to try to argue with a "Stop" Sign or a Brick Wall, and that's what you are up against.
Neither of those have "ears to hear".

Or, and next, you can point out that a Red Rose.... can't be created from NOTHING, by any type of SCIENCE.
However....

Just wait

 

[Behold]

and can't be used on fossils

Thank you for making no sense.

or consider what is actually being proposed and what the best models show. All you need is E=mc2

Original Creation is well beyond man's "best models".
Believe it.

you also know the big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution....right?

It has everything to do with the evolution of the Cosmos, according to the Theory.

AI isn't actually creative.

Correct.

As "re-producing" is not original creation.
See, everything with man is a "reproduction"< while with God its "original Creation".

God created from Nothing, all that you see.
Man re-creates, from the pre-existing, all that they produce., so in this we discover that God is GOD, and Man is "like"God. 'image".
Big difference., yet, quite similar.

And that is why one should believe in Thor

I love the Movie.
The 1st one.
Anthony Hopkins, as Odin, was a brilliant cast, and so is the casting of Chris Hemsworth, as Thor.

Just wait

U2

 

[TinMan]

Thank you for making no sense.

Radio carbon dating measures the decay of one isotope of carbon in organic materials. Fossils have no organic material having that been all replaced by inorganic minerals.

Original Creation is well beyond man's "best models".
Believe it.

Yet they work and do so consistently

It has everything to do with the evolution of the Cosmos, according to the Theory.

evolution has nothing to do with the cosmos.

Correct.

As "re-producing" is not original creation.
See, everything with man is a "reproduction"< while with God its "original Creation".

you just shot down your own point.

I love the Movie.
The 1st one.
Anthony Hopkins, as Odin, was a brilliant cast, and so is the casting of Chris Hemsworth, as Thor.

Movies based on Gods. And as you note you note one cannot prove that Thor doesn't exist

 

[Behold]

Radio carbon dating measures the decay of one isotope of carbon in organic materials. Fossils have no organic material having that been all replaced by inorganic minerals.

Yes, and its a funny little false scientific game of: connect the random skeleton pieces, to pretend to be able to date the age of "LUCY".

"Today, scientist in the heart of the Yucatan discovered 34 million year old teeth, clinging to the wings of a chicken shaped dinosaur, and all the fools that believe this because we used the word "Science"..(which is their religion)... please stand up and be counted, as NASA needs more of your money".

Now, the dating of the MOON is interesting, because its dated based on depth of the surface material, having accumulated, as this can be observed.
In other words, "in space no one can hear you scream, and the lack of gravity produces an equalized descent of matter.. (Space dust).
This can be measured in time... so, that'll work.

Yet they work and do so consistently

You are told....

evolution has nothing to do with the cosmos.

You meant to say the "theory of Evolution".
Be sure to modify your belief system to reflect that reality....

Also....Big Bang, to NOW< is the evolution of the Cosmos, according to "time".
See any "scientific journal".

And that is not saying that an amoeba struck by lightning that become a dinosaur chicken, that became a monkey becoming an evolutionary scientist is teaching the big bang theory.

you just shot down your own point.

Not at all.

Movies based on Gods. And as you note you note one cannot prove that Thor doesn't exist

Thor is the creation of a writer, who is a person, who wrote the story.
Man is the creation of a Supernatural Being who also made the cosmos and everything "after its Kind".

 

[TinMan]

Yes, and its a funny little false scientific game of: connect the random skeleton pieces, to pretend to be able to date the age of "LUCY".

its a fun little creationist game to claim that fossils are random

"Today, scientist in the heart of the Yucatan discovered 34 million year old teeth, clinging to the wings of a chicken shaped dinosaur, and all the fools that believe this because we used the word "Science"..(which is their religion)... please stand up and be counted, as NASA needs more of your money".

source? or did you just make it up?

Now, the dating of the MOON is interesting, because its dated based on depth of the surface material, having accumulated, as this can be observed.
In other words, "in space no one can hear you scream, and the lack of gravity produces an equalized descent of matter.. (Space dust).
This can be measured in time... so, that'll work.

Pinpoint the exact age of the moon

You are told....

Since it is repeatable and easily dmeonstartatd so no one has to be told

You meant to say the "theory of Evolution".
Be sure to modify your belief system to reflect that reality....

Also....Big Bang, to NOW< is the evolution of the Cosmos, according to "time".
See any "scientific journal".

Which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution

And that is not saying that an amoeba struck by lightning that become a dinosaur chicken, that became a monkey becoming an evolutionary scientist is teaching the big bang theory.

Your grasp of science is amazingly bad

Not at all.

if it makes you feel better to say that....

Thor is the creation of a writer, who is a person, who wrote the story.
Man is the creation of a Supernatural Being who also made the cosmos and everything "after its Kind".

Thor is an ancient deity of the Germanic and Teutonic people

 

[Behold]

its a fun little creationist game to claim that fossils are random

The "fossil record" is science at its best "guess".

"Let us tell you that these teeth are 30million years old... and it must be true". "and for our next trick, someone hand me a rabbit, as i already have the hat"....

source? or did you just make it up?

That was humor...

Pinpoint the exact age of the moon

Since it is repeatable and easily dmeonstartatd so no one has to be told

It has been "pin pointed", and because it can be observed, we can at least get the math involved.
But pretending about the fossil record..... pretending that Chimps are our ancestors..

C'mon., maybe they are your ancestor....??

So.....Time to move into the land of Reality.
Ready yet, ?? or would you still prefer to stay "woke"' ??

 

[Behold]

source? or did you just make it up?

""" Dickinsonia"" is not the biography of Charles Dickens.... tho you might think so, @TinMan

So.....The Scientific Fossil Record hilarity continues.... like these actual headlines.. found in "Scientific" Journals, or similar.

""""How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology"""​

""""9 Fossils and Finds That Were Total Fake""""​

"""""3 Science Hoaxes Of Today: From Theranos To Fake Fossils"""""​

“False” Microfossils Challenge our Interpretation of the Fossil Record"""​

 

[TinMan]

The "fossil record" is science at its best "guess".

"Let us tell you that these teeth are 30million years old... and it must be true". "and for our next trick, someone hand me a rabbit, as i already have the hat"....



That was humor...




It has been "pin pointed", and because it can be observed, we can at least get the math involved.
But pretending about the fossil record..... pretending that Chimps are our ancestors..

C'mon., maybe they are your ancestor....??

So.....Time to move into the land of Reality.
Ready yet, ?? or would you still prefer to stay "woke"' ??

Chimps were not the ancestors of humans, Try learning about evolution before you expound on it. Chimps and human's and the rest of the great apes have a common ancestor.

 

[TinMan]

The "fossil record" is science at its best "guess".

"Let us tell you that these teeth are 30million years old... and it must be true". "and for our next trick, someone hand me a rabbit, as i already have the hat"....



That was humor...




It has been "pin pointed", and because it can be observed, we can at least get the math involved.
But pretending about the fossil record..... pretending that Chimps are our ancestors..

C'mon., maybe they are your ancestor....??

So.....Time to move into the land of Reality.
Ready yet, ?? or would you still prefer to stay "woke"' ??

You might also want to educate yourself about just what "woke " is