Thought about creation

[willy_p19]

Just another quick thought/theory before I runn off to work:

If eveloution is the way it all started...

The theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life, rather the origin of species. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

[willy_p19]

I want to get my opnion in here, altho I pretty much agree with prune. I will say I believe in ID, I'm a christian, but most of all it makes sence.

If eveoloution, why do we still look the same we did 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, as far back as I can see pictures, we look basicly the same. Yes eveloution takes time, but how much time? We can create new dog breeds in just a few generations. Like someone said (Prune maybe) how did 1 orginasim become every living thing on the planet? I can see a dog/wolf mutation or something. But a whale and a daisy? Did ceation happen in 144hrs? I don't think so, day's could have been our years, decades, millenia.

I also believe science can back up ID. The Bible stories, I've seen shows saying how a volcano erupted and that was the pilar or fire by night & cloud by day, and the parting of the red sea was timed somehow by something (sorry can't recall the show now) but basicly lowered the water level at a point they could walk accross.

A whale and a daisy? Wow. This demonstrates how very little you know of the theory you don't agree with.

A whale cannot evolve into a daisy and a daisy cannot evolve into a whale. Simply, the whale and daisy have evolved from a common ancestor.

[fourthworldtraffic]

This was tedious, fresh air folks.

[fourthworldtraffic]

Battling,bewildered sensibilities. life is a twist.

[Prunepicker]

What then do you make of the ERVs shared between humans and chimpanzees?

So what! There no link. If I've said it once I've said it a million times. IF
there is evolution from chimpanzees and humans then there will be a fossil
record. There isn't. Period.

I do think it's odd, of course, to suggest that species cannot evolve over
millions of years but can super evolve from the remnant 'kinds' of Noah's
flood less than 6,000 years ago. What is a kind anyways?

Good to be back.

It's a good suggestion. That's all evolutionists have to offer. They have
no absolutely without a shadow of doubt proof. That's a fact.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

. . . . That's all evolutionists have to offer. They have no absolutely without a shadow of doubt proof. That's a fact.

Other than the thousands of volumes and overwhelming agreement from the scientific community, I guess the Darwinists don't have much. On the other hand, you have your holy book from which you choose some parts to agree with and ignore the parts you don't agree with.

I'm sticking with Darwin and common sense.

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[ronronnie1]

Of course evolution is correct (as opposed to creationism.)

Look, nobody wants to die, and nobody wants to think that once they die, that's it. God, gods, religion, faith, etc are merely human inventions to comfort us from what is inevitably going to happen to all of us.

My thoughts: If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means take comfort in religion.

[Prunepicker]

I'm sticking with Darwin and common sense.

To be truthful, you aren't sticking to common sense. While it's true that
some of the scientific community agree with each other, they don't have any
proof. It's all extrapolation because there are absolutely no links to or from
any species. What scientists, who want to believe in evolution, must do is
participate in a very unscientific act called filling in the blanks.

Darwin, himself, said that evolution will prove itself in the fossil record. As
any scientist will tell you, it has never happened.

Why are you trying to bring religion into the conversation? You know I'm
a former science teacher, right?

[The Old Downtown Guy]

To be truthful, you aren't sticking to common sense. While it's true that
some of the scientific community agree with each other, they don't have any
proof. It's all extrapolation because there are absolutely no links to or from
any species. What scientists, who want to believe in evolution, must do is
participate in a very unscientific act called filling in the blanks.

Darwin, himself, said that evolution will prove itself in the fossil record. As
any scientist will tell you, it has never happened.

Why are you trying to bring religion into the conversation? You know I'm
a former science teacher, right?

Prune,

The some of the scientific community you mention as being in agreement on evolution is about 95+%. And, you are correct that the fossil record remains incomplete. All of the scientific community agrees that it is incomplete. But, virtually all of this same group agrees that all life on this planet has the same humble origin, has evolved to it's present state through the process of natural selection and will continue to evolve as long as life exists on this planet.

The fossil search continues. There was less completeness to the fossil record ten years ago and there will be more completeness ten years from now. The gaps that you try to hang your unacceptance of evolution on are gradually being filled in. But, please don't go quoting Darwin on the one hand and oposing his universally accepted findings on the other. Either you believe he is credible or you don't.

I know that you say you have been a science teacher. I have no direct knowledge that you were, but I have no reason to doubt you. You hold the intellegent design view and for whatever unexplainable reason, your religious beliefs trump your scientific education.

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[Prunepicker]

I know that you say you have been a science teacher. I have no direct
knowledge that you were, but I have no reason to doubt you. You hold the
intellegent design view and for whatever unexplainable reason, your religious
beliefs trump your scientific education.

You can check the threads. I'm on record for NOT believing in intelligent
design. You've just made an egregious error of assuming. That's not
scientific, it's assumption. The very thing that scientists have to do in order
to make evolution appear credible.

Evolution has yet to be proven. I'm going to stick to the absolute facts
only because they work.

By the way, the reason I say I was a science teacher is because I was a
science teacher, also an optical physicist.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

You can check the threads. I'm on record for NOT believing in intelligent design. You've just made an egregious error of assuming. That's not scientific, it's assumption. The very thing that scientists have to do in order to make evolution appear credible.

Your earlier post in this thread would indicate otherwise.

. . . Intelligent design has more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or is happening. . .

Intellegent design has nothing going for it.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[Prunepicker]

Your earlier post in this thread
would indicate otherwise. Intellegent design has nothing going for it.

But I don't support Intelligent design. The fact remains that evolution is a
dead end.

Intelligent design does have more going for it in the sense that evolution
can't explain how one species evolves from another while Intelligent design
says, more or less, that it happened by something. While it's a silly thought
it doesn't go out of it's way to make something out of nothing. Which is
what evolutionists have to do in an attempt to make their point.

Now that you've managed to change the topic to another let's get
back to evolution. Show proof that one species evolved from another.

After millions of years there has to be something in the fossil record that
proves evolution.

[HSC-Sooner]

There are a few fossils, here is a list of intermediate fossils from TalkOrigins.org for hominids:

* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And another small list of fossils

[Stan Silliman]

Are there any biologists on this board? Maybe it's beneath them to discuss evolutional theory with civilians but if there are any out there, I'd like to see one chime in.

Here's a question I've always wondered. Isn't it enough to show that species have evolved over the centuries without having to prove species have jumped forms or that all species were formed from the same primordial soup for Darwin's theory to have validity? Isn't it enough to show that relative species like the dog, wolf and fox are close enough to have evolved from a single ancestor to validate the theory?

Here's another question. Do the creationists deny the existence of the Dmanisi Man, the cro-magnons or the neanderthals? I'm not up on creationist theory so maybe they square this. I would think so because even if the time-lines can't be pin-pointed there's more than enough proof to show an evolution of human like creatures.

If they need more proof than that, like incontrovertible proof, let them know I still have my dad's yearbook.

[Prunepicker]

There are a few fossils, here is a list of intermediate fossils from
TalkOrigins.org for hominids:

* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its
skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most
(possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was
slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but
which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less
projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early
H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350
cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and
chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later
anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals
and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And another small list of fossils

Alas, but no link from one species to another. They are all of their own.
Where is the link? There isn't.

The part about what creationists think is, so what?

[HSC-Sooner]

Are there any biologists on this board? Maybe it's beneath them to discuss evolutional theory with civilians but if there are any out there, I'd like to see one chime in.

Here's a question I've always wondered. Isn't it enough to show that species have evolved over the centuries without having to prove species have jumped forms or that all species were formed from the same primordial soup for Darwin's theory to have validity? Isn't it enough to show that relative species like the dog, wolf and fox are close enough to have evolved from a single ancestor to validate the theory?

In science, it's never enough to prove that a theory is true. The theory of gravity comes to mind. Practically every scientist holds the theory of gravity to be true ever since Isaac Newton proposed the theory.

Scientists base a lot of experiments on Newton's theory although Albert Einstein later showed that there were some flaws in Newton's original equation. Einstein's general theory of relativity supercedes Newton's theory. It doesn't mean gravity is false. It just means that new data revises the theory; it's also interesting that many calculations still use Newton's theory since it is simpler and still fairly accurate. But no matter how much proof you come up in science, a theory cannot be concrete. It is always fluid.

This is scientific theory's greatest strength though. Its strength lies that in light of evidence, the theory is either confirmed or revised. Because it is constantly tested, theories in science are upheld to the highest standards and provide a blueprint on which to base experiments on.

I'm basing this on memory, but I believe at least 95% of biologists accept evolution as a theory. That may be a conservative number. I don't know any biomedical researchers on the OU Health Science Center campus that accepts creationism or intelligent design. Almost every experiment in this campus is based on a tenet of evolution or the assumption that evolution is true. There are scientists here who have religious faiths but they do not let their faith blind them when researching.

Here's another question. Do the creationists deny the existence of the Dmanisi Man, the cro-magnons or the neanderthals? I'm not up on creationist theory so maybe they square this. I would think so because even if the time-lines can't be pin-pointed there's more than enough proof to show an evolution of human like creatures.

I believe most creationists refer to neanderthals as another race of mankind. I don't think they consider them to be a separate subspecies but I don't know about that argument.

[HSC-Sooner]

Alas, but no link from one species to another. They are all of their own.
Where is the link? There isn't.

The part about what creationists think is, so what?

Of course they are different species, but it is unfeasible to find the fossil or remnants of every single individual between a modern human individual and his/her hominid ancestor. The link lies in the fossil morphology and the layer of earth that the fossil resides.

*Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early
H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350
cc.)

[Prunepicker]

Of course they are different species, but it is unfeasible to find the fossil or
remnants of every single individual between a modern human individual and
his/her hominid ancestor. The link lies in the fossil morphology and the layer
of earth that the fossil resides.

*Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early
H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350
cc.)

If the link resides in the so-called fossil morphology then the fossil record
will show it? Why? Because the so-called morphing fossil will be in every
layer and they would very clearly show the evolution. There are millions of
species and the fossil record shows them to be of their own kind.

[Stan Silliman]

If the link resides in the so-called fossil morphology then the fossil record
will show it? Why? Because the so-called morphing fossil will be in every
layer and they would very clearly show the evolution. There are millions of
species and the fossil record shows them to be of their own kind.

What you are as much as saying is that a new higher developed specie popped up on it's own, without evolving. Yes, it shared almost identical dna, similar but more adaptive traits, exact construction of certain bones but the new creature has to be entirely of unknown origins. It's like abiogenesis every 100 or 1000 years. Kill off the old species, bring out a new one from scratch.

If I were to explain this through intelligent design, I'd have to say the designer is running out a new design because there is always something inferior about the old model. You know what conclusion that would lead to? This so-called intelligent designer isn't so damn intelligent, otherwise why wouldn't he have brought out the perfected model on the first try?

[The Old Downtown Guy]

I recently heard a thought about creation. Most people (at least the ones who believe in Creation or intelligent design) believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. I think most would agree that asked the question, how old were Adam & Eve when they were created, most would say 20-30ish. Or basically mature enough to reproduce, not created as an infant left to fend for themselves. So with this said, that means they would have been created "aged" or "matured". Many also believe that the earth is millions of years old, etc. etc.. Given that theory, what's to say God couldn't have created an "aged" earth from beginning? Just an interesting observation and discussion I had with someone recently. Thought it was food for thought.

Actually, Prune, this thread is about two things . . . the origin of human life and the "aged earth" intellegent design concept. You're right . . . nothing in Metro's thread starting post about evolution.

So, my thoughts on this topic are that Adam & Eve is just one of many tales from one of the many holy books that far too many people use to base their concept of life and value system on. There are only a handful of learned scientists that subscribe to the theroies Metro is describing.

Metro also mentions a large g god which is a whole other topic that actually over shadows this whole conversation, but I'm not going there today.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[Prunepicker]

What you are as much as saying is that a
new higher developed specie popped up on it's own, without evolving...

It's sounds like you're trying to argue with someone who believes in
intelligent design and not me. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I've
been very clear.

As of 4/20/2009

I DON'T ACCEPT INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

The Old Downtown Guy quoted correctly that I said that intelligent design
has more going for it than evolution. That does not mean I support it. I've
also said that during the last elections that the democrats had more going
for them. That doesn't me I support democrats by any stretch of the
imagination.

THIS is what I am saying. There is absolutely without a doubt not one
piece of solid evidence for evolution. Similarities does not make evolution.

There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest evolution. There are all of
these missing sections to every single species. Where's the link? It's not
there. Nobody is going to convince me that evolution exists unless they
start digging up the connecting links.

Charles Darwin said it becomes much more difficult to understand why they
can't find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived
at its commencement and at its close.

Now, if you want to argue about Intelligent Design you should read what
biochemist Michael Behe says. Just don't argue with me about it.

[metro]

What you are as much as saying is that a new higher developed specie popped up on it's own, without evolving. Yes, it shared almost identical dna, similar but more adaptive traits, exact construction of certain bones but the new creature has to be entirely of unknown origins. It's like abiogenesis every 100 or 1000 years. Kill off the old species, bring out a new one from scratch.

If I were to explain this through intelligent design, I'd have to say the designer is running out a new design because there is always something inferior about the old model. You know what conclusion that would lead to? This so-called intelligent designer isn't so damn intelligent, otherwise why wouldn't he have brought out the perfected model on the first try?

Sounds like you're arguing if someone believes in relativity or absolute truth.

[metro]

Other than the thousands of volumes and overwhelming agreement from the scientific community, I guess the Darwinists don't have much. On the other hand, you have your holy book from which you choose some parts to agree with and ignore the parts you don't agree with.

I'm sticking with Darwin and common sense.

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Sounds like you may be picking and choosing parts of "Darwinism" to believe in as well. Quotes from Darwin on his when talking to Lady Hope towards the end of his life.

Quoted by permission of the author from True Science Agrees with the Bible, Malcolm Bowden, Sovereign Publications, Kent, 1998, section 6.6, pp 259-276


"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered - "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said:

"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"

"What shall I speak about?" I asked.

"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."

[HSC-Sooner]

Sounds like you may be picking and choosing parts of "Darwinism" to believe in as well. Quotes from Darwin on his when talking to Lady Hope towards the end of his life.

Quoted by permission of the author from True Science Agrees with the Bible, Malcolm Bowden, Sovereign Publications, Kent, 1998, section 6.6, pp 259-276


"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered - "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said:

"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"

"What shall I speak about?" I asked.

"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."

As wonderful as it seems, Charles Darwin NEVER recanted his theory of evolution nor publicly professed a new faith.

There is some evidence that Lady Hope exaggerated these stories in her zeal. You can find such evidence at a Christian website here, a creationism-evolution site here, and Darwin's family denying the story at here.

PS, I understand Michael Behe's arguments but he has been since refuted by scientific study and literature.

[Prunepicker]

PS, I understand Michael Behe's arguments but he has been since refuted by
scientific study and literature.

As far as I'm concerned the fossil record holds the absolute fact that
incremental mutations, which must take place, have not, and I dare say will
not be found. If they can find a million year old species then it holds true
that, if evolution took place, they can't help but find the mutations that
supposedly evolved into another species. They have only found species that,
for whatever reason, are of their own kind.

Oh yes, there are similarities, but not a single plenary link.