|
Post by diet coke on Jun 26, 2007 0:23:00 GMT -5
free agent, are you a young-earth creationist?
There surely remain puzzles, but wow, we can't just throw out everything we know about evolution--which is the foundation for all of our biological studies--due to some minor irritating unanswered questions, can we? Shall we go back to the dark ages, believing the earth is only 6000 years old?
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 26, 2007 0:37:34 GMT -5
According to the fossil record, there were many more species and variations of these species in the beginning than there are today. Even current species are in the early strata of fossil records and are unchanged. Species are on the decline, not incline - thus the panic over endangered species. This alone is total opposite of what you should find if evolution were to be true. According to evolution, what started as one simple life form, evolved into another etc... so the graph of species should be what looks like a tree extending into more branches/species at the top from one single trunk on the bottom. But to actually look at the fossil record, many more species are in the earliest layers of the fossil record, only to decrease in time. The decrease continues and the so called "tree of evolution" is in reality is uprooted and topsy turvy. Could you provide some reference for this? Or are you referring to the Cambrian explosion of life? This is probably why no one would try to determine the age of the earth by this method. Remember that for a long time all was liquid and there were no layers at all. The strata are useful in determining the age of objects found within them. It is also possible to map certain strata by locating layers of global events (volcanic eruptions, for example) that deposited an identifiable 'fingerprint' worldwide. Determining the age of the earth through geographic strata would be as meaningless as dating fossils with C-14.
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Jun 26, 2007 6:26:01 GMT -5
If we were to be results of evolution, why don't we have fur or hair. Wouldn't we change to adapt to our natural surroundings? Why would we be dependant on clothes to keep warm? I would think we would have fur or hair to keep us warm. Why are we dependant on cars and planes? Can't we grow wings to fly to our destinations? I think evolution is a bunch of crap.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 26, 2007 7:57:30 GMT -5
If we were to be results of evolution, why don't we have fur or hair. Wouldn't we change to adapt to our natural surroundings? Why would we be dependant on clothes to keep warm? I would think we would have fur or hair to keep us warm. Why are we dependant on cars and planes? Can't we grow wings to fly to our destinations? I think evolution is a bunch of crap. This is exactly the thought pattern that I was referring to. Organisms do not evolve to be able to better face their environment but rather when evolution does take place the changes that do allow the organism to better cope with their environment are the ones that are more likely to survive. For humans, developing fur does not solve the problems faced during the summer nor does it benefit those that dwell in the tropics. In many cases fur would be a detriment to survival. However, a larger brain and manual dexterity provided man the ability to make clothing and control fire and thereby exist in a wide range of climates rather than be limited to only cool climates, both traits that not only provide protection from the elements but allow humans to construct tools that let them cope with their environment in many more ways than could be provided by any biological changes. Of course, it should be noted that, as mammals, we do have hair on most parts of our bodies and it does provide a number of benefits. This idea of evolution was proposed in the very early 1800s (1809) by Jean Baptiste Lamarck. His theory, in general, stated that: 1. Evolution within a species is driven by an innate, inner striving toward greater perfection, 2. The use or disuse of organs made them larger or smaller, 3. Acquired traits could be passed on to offspring. This idea of the inheritance of acquired traits has been disproved many times. Despite the circumcision of males in the Jewish community for 1000s of years, males are still born with a foreskin. Cutting the tails off 20 generations of mice did not lead to mice being born without tails. Unfortunately, this idea is still being offered by creationists as 'proof' that the theory of evolution is flawed beyond repair. To develop the muscles required for flight would have made man a very easy target while on the ground. For smaller organisms, flying was a great way to cover distance and the number of species that can fly is huge and among the most successful to date. However, many biologists measure success of a species in the number of organisms that exist. In those terms Pelagibacter ubique (SAR11) is the clear winner!
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Jun 26, 2007 9:11:00 GMT -5
Warning: Stupid Question Follows. Is it possible that creation and evolution could go hand-in-hand?
|
|
|
Post by Free Agent on Jun 26, 2007 10:16:03 GMT -5
Warning: Stupid Question Follows. Is it possible that creation and evolution could go hand-in-hand? There is natural variation within a species. Notice if you live in a warm area, but move into a cold area, your bodily functions are not able to handle the cold, but over time, your body adjusts to function at lower temperatures more readily. Your body has adapted to a temperature change. Hypothetically, let's say a large population of people move into Antarctica. Only those who's body adapts more readily than others stay, and those who don't adapt well to the cold go back to "Hawaii." Those who stay marry those who have stayed, have children, etc... and those children who can tolerate the cold stay and have children, etc.... we would say over time that the species has adapted or some might say that it has evolved. However, the use of the word evolved here is natural selection. When people are using the term evolution - you need to distinguish what type of evolution each party in the discussion is referring to. Does that person define evolution as being natural selection, or are you referring to generalized evolution - meaning that there is no bounds to the changes that can be made within a species? We know for sure all species have variation, which is why natural selection occurs. Natural selection is not evidence for 'general evolution." Scientists have used overgeneralization of natural selection to theorize the beginnings of life and it's progression, but remember, this is theory. In truth, science that is agreed upon as "law" must be observed repeatedly, and we cannot obviously observe history, unless we take someone elses word for it who was there. So the idea of general evolution is hypothetical. In many student's science classes, they will teach that it is a hypothesy, but they teach the students that you can believe the hypothesy as if it's a 100 percent true. They have to be honest and say that it's a hypothesy, but then they tell you it's as if it's law. But they speak out of both sides of their mouth. I feel sorry for most today, because the typical high school science books has very distorted information. We have been feed this information regarding evolution like a cult - without looking at the other view points and scientific evidences. There is a huge amount of scientific information that weighs on the side of creation. Most were just in the cult of public education and were privy to examining all the evidence and viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 26, 2007 10:47:28 GMT -5
Nobody has yet produced one transition fossil to back up evolution...but there sure has been a lot of crooked work going on ex: grinding down teeth deliberately to seek and prove somehow that things did really evolve
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Jun 26, 2007 11:36:57 GMT -5
Interesting post, Free Agent. I guess I believe in creation and the natural selection form of evolution. I'm not well-educated in these matters, but find it interesting. Just a question of curiousity (and not meant to start a debate), what do you believe some of the scientific evidence is that weighs on the side of creation?
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 26, 2007 18:48:11 GMT -5
Nobody has yet produced one transition fossil to back up evolution...but there sure has been a lot of crooked work going on ex: grinding down teeth deliberately to seek and prove somehow that things did really evolve But LAS, there are and they have been known about since about 4 years after Darwin published. You might look here: www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.htmlIf you can find any reference to support your ideas in any peer reviewed journal please port it here.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 26, 2007 19:10:57 GMT -5
There is natural variation within a species. Notice if you live in a warm area, but move into a cold area, your bodily functions are not able to handle the cold, but over time, your body adjusts to function at lower temperatures more readily. Your body has adapted to a temperature change. This is true. Evolution would play a part if some individuals were able to adjust more quickly to sudden changes. Or cease to exist and reproduce. This is true. And if the two groups were separated for enough time they could possibly change in a way that would prevent them from mating. The creation of a new species. Strictly speaking, this is correct. But a hypothesis is a tentative explanation of observed facts waiting, as it were, to be either proved or disproved with additional facts. In many cases the possibility of direct observation or direct measurement is not possible but ascertaining the facts indirectly in a reproducible way will usually either verify or disprove the hypothesis. Actually, evolution of not a hypothesis but a theory. Especially if you went to high school before 1987 or lived in Kansas during the 1990s. If you have references to scientific studies that speak to this please post them. It will be interesting to see this information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2007 21:28:09 GMT -5
Las quote - "Nobody has yet produced one transition fossil to back up evolution"
Las, that picture is a transition fossil between archaic humans and ourselves.Each fossil we find is a transition fossil of some kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2007 21:30:14 GMT -5
quote - "what do you believe some of the scientific evidence is that weighs on the side of creation?"
None, I am afraid. We have to stop putting our own imaginations into what Genesis tells us. God didn't create life, he created a creation to create life. This is how birds came out of the sea in Genesis.
|
|
jgb
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jgb on Jun 27, 2007 6:30:21 GMT -5
And....... If we did evolve what made it stop, where are the inbetweens? ? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 9:08:01 GMT -5
Las quote - "Nobody has yet produced one transition fossil to back up evolution" Las, that picture is a transition fossil between archaic humans and ourselves.Each fossil we find is a transition fossil of some kind.
Bert one would need to compare with many fossils to see if they could be transition fossils...sorry Bert photos unexceptable FOSSILS count as proof not make up photos
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 9:15:28 GMT -5
Las, the so-called "made up photo" is simply a reconstruction based upon a skull. I am sure you have seen it on TV - adding 'flesh" to bone. It is forensic and quite scientific.
And as for missing links. We have an amazingly good collection of "humans" going back half a million years or so. If you laid them in a line, in correct order, you would be hard pressed to see the change from one to the next.
How many "in-betweens" do you want? Every hundred thousand years, or every ten thousand years, or even every thousand years? We certainly have changed over the past thousand years, going by the shape of our skulls and the growing problems with our shrinking jaw (impacted teeth are much more common now than they were in the Middle Ages, for instance.)
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 9:21:01 GMT -5
Las, the so-called "made up photo" is simply a reconstruction based upon a skull. I am sure you have seen it on TV - adding 'flesh" to bone. It is forensic and quite scientific. And as for missing links. We have an amazingly good collection of "humans" going back half a million years or so. If you laid them in a line, in correct order, you would be hard pressed to see the change from one to the next. How many "in-betweens" do you want? Every hundred thousand years, or every ten thousand years, or even every thousand years? We certainly have changed over the past thousand years, going by the shape of our skulls and the growing problems with our shrinking jaw (impacted teeth are much more common now than they were in the Middle Ages, for instance.) Is that why the teeth of some skulls need to be filed down Bert?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 9:23:55 GMT -5
I have seen some videos that say there isn't a transition fossil anywhere to be found that would support evolution Oh Bert beware they are lying to you Bert
|
|
|
Post by tobert on Jun 27, 2007 9:24:52 GMT -5
(impacted teeth are much more common now than they were in the Middle Ages, for instance.) Of course the problem back then was lack of teeth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 9:26:33 GMT -5
Ok las, suppose we dug up a collection of human skulls and could lay 'em out, 20 years apart, would that satisfy you?
p.s. How can I be sure these Irvine photos are real? And all those so-called "documents"? Fake, I say. ;D
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 9:29:06 GMT -5
Ok las, suppose we dug up a collection of human skulls and could lay 'em out, 20 years apart, would that satisfy you? p.s. How can I be sure these Irvine photos are real? And all those so-called "documents"? Fake, I say. ;D I have a problem with just skulls only surely there would be the rest of the skeleton
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 9:30:30 GMT -5
Impacted teeth come from the fact that our jaw is too small for the number of teeth we have. Our jaw has been shrinking for a long long time. And here our current understanding of Darwinian evolution deserts us, for we can't explain why our skull and jaw continue to evolve when there is no "natural selection" reasons for it to do so.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 9:31:46 GMT -5
Ok las, suppose we dug up a collection of human skulls and could lay 'em out, 20 years apart, would that satisfy you? p.s. How can I be sure these Irvine photos are real? And all those so-called "documents"? Fake, I say. ;D I have a problem with the 20 yr thing Bert since scientists say things evolved over millions of years...there should be all kinds of transition fossils bert to back up evolution...but man leaves a creator designer out of the picture
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jun 27, 2007 9:33:12 GMT -5
Things happened by design Bert not evolving
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jun 27, 2007 9:48:57 GMT -5
God didn't create life, he created a creation to create life. This is how birds came out of the sea in Genesis. Bert, it seems very important to you to reconcile Genesis with the known facts of evolution. Why? Is it because it's written in the bible? Yet you are willing to let science chip away slowly at the creation story until all that is left is desperate reconciliation. Wouldn't it be far easier to accept that the creation story in Genesis is mythology, instead of wondering how Genesis "knew" birds came out of water, or that there was once upon a time water over the whole earth, but ignoring all the other guesses in Genesis that are wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 10:04:00 GMT -5
[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. FACT - (figured out finally in 2005 or 2006.) Earth was an oceanic world.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. FACT - the earth was a planet much like the moon Titan is - deeply enshrouded in clouds.
[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. This one I don't understand.
[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. FACT - the granite which made the continents emerged much later. Granite "floats" on the earth's crust. No other planet has granite, and some suggest life may have helped form it.
[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. FACT - algae, lichens and later plants grew first on dry ground
[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, FACT, but only is as much as we take the dense cloud deck of the earlier "let there be light" day.
[20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. FACT - the ocean is the cradle of life. From the fishes we had amphibians which led to reptiles which led to dinosaurs which led to birds which flew in the air.
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. FACT
What is NOT A FACT is the SEQUENCE. But I hold to the view that this is the earliest account of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 10:04:31 GMT -5
Things happened by design Bert not evolving Tell me Las, did you bother to look at the link that I posted that explains the great number of transitional fossils that have been recovered and classified? Or have you just put your head in the samd and decided that there are no so-called transitional fossils. I seem to recall you did that once before with a religion you were part of. Don't make that same mistake here Las. In the grand scheme of things every fossil or scull is transitional. There is no reason to believe that man is not evolving right now. Man is certainly changing. From smaller jaws that have difficulty accommodating all of our teeth to the average height. 400 years ago the average height for European males was about 4'5" and today the average for US males is 5'9". While this is the result of selective breeding it does indicate that man is changing. That is a 16 inch difference. If that were to continue for 4,000 years the average man would be just under 20 feet tall!
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Jun 27, 2007 10:15:33 GMT -5
Creation myths are as varied as the people who created them. They will all have some elements that can be retroactively fitted into the current scientific thought of the day. And the current trend is that if they do not fit it is a miracle that cannot be explained. The earth stopping on its axis and reversing without causing widespread destruction, for example. It is an illustration and does not have to be accepted as scientific fact. When on high the heaven had not been named, Firm ground below had not been called by name, When primordial Apsu, their begetter, And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters mingled as a single body, No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared, None of the gods had been brought into being, And none bore a name, and no destinies determined-- Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven. Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.Here is the opening of the Babylonian Creation Myth. It is much more detailed than the biblical creation story. For links to this and other creation stories: www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2007 10:15:47 GMT -5
Las, evolution happens. How it happens is constantly being refined. We don't have all the answers to evolution, anymore than we have all the answers about stars and planets. But, we are getting there. But, there is an amazing article on big changes about to take place in our understanding of evolution. Read www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
|
|