Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 My point (which was greatly simplified for effect - and we seemed to be keen on the fruit metaphors) is that the fossil records do not back up the theory. Even though there are a great number of genetic similarities between species, that in itself neither proves nor disproves evolution as they could just as easily point to intelligent design (or rather re-use of intelligent design). If however evolution occured like this then why aren't we stumbling over at least a few fossils of the presumable millions of creatures with half formed legs and wings etc which must exist - a wing can't suddenly appear in a species unless it is already present in the genetics as Aurora has already pointed out. (Even if you argue that we just haven't found these intermediates then you have to question how a half formed leg or lung/gill that could breath neither air nor water would be of any benefit to the intermediate creature. They would die before ever passing on their evolved dna to the next generation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 My point (which was greatly simplified for effect - and we seemed to be keen on the fruit metaphors) is that the fossil records do not back up the theory. ... If however evolution occured like this then why aren't we stumbling over at least a few fossils of the presumable millions of creatures with half formed legs and wings etc which must exist Again, please thoroughly read that link (including all sub-links it contains). There is much more to this than you are implying. Creation can be nether proven nor disproved. It’s an untestable, unscientific hypothesis. Evolution, however, can have it's theories and predictions re-enforced, or disproven, by evidence and testing. That is what makes is a science. So far, Evolution has not shown falsifications in it's predictions, and the evidence that it has predicted is being discovered. These are not broad predictions as you imply, but rather narrow and improbable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Again, please thoroughly read that link (including all sub-links it contains). There is much more to this than you are implying. That is a huge number of sub links to wade through - and i'm not a genetics expert so it goes way over my head - but i have read enough expert's comments on the subject to know that the fossil records are not nearly as supportive of evolution as a number of evolutionism evangelists would have the non-scientific population believe. (If you can put the "much more" into laymans terms for me i'll have a go at commenting on it though.) "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”- George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist) “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” - E.R. Leach (evolutionist) “The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” - S.J. Gould (evolutionist) So my point is that fossil records do not offer the convincing evidence of evolution that a lot of laymen evolutionists believe they do, and i think the scientific community does have to take some of the blame for over stating the evidence. People can be swayed towards evolution on the basis that all the scientists agree on the evidence (which they don't). If anyone wants to read up on some of common evolution misconceptions they should have a read here http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp I accept that creationism is completely religious belief that cannot be scientifically proven, but i protest that evolution is being protrayed as a "better" explanation on the basis that it's "more scientific". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I accept that creationism is completely religious belief that cannot be scientifically proven, but i protest that evolution is being protrayed as a "better" explanation on the basis that it's "more scientific". If you are unwilling to read and learn the about Evolution and the current state of the science, then you're unfit to comment on it. What you are doing, however, is regurgitating old, outdated news. Re: George Gaylord Simpson See: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie008.html Re: E.R. Leach You need to give dates. His quote comes from 1981. Much has been discovered since then. Re: S.J. Gould SJ. Gould in not an "evolutionist", but a paleontologist. And again, this quote is from ~1980. Those statements do not hold up to current findings, and were hotly contested at the time of them. Also see: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie009.html By your own admission, you say much of the theory and evidence behind Evolution is above your head. Unless you're willing to get down to the nitty-gritty and understand it, you can't argue against it. If you can put the "much more" into laymans terms for me i'll have a go at commenting on it though There is no "laymans" terms. You understand it, you try to understand it, or you don't. However, this site (one of the link provided by the original) does help ease, those that are at least willing to understand, into some of the findings. You need to read from start to finish... no jumping about. Edit: After re-reading that, I think I may have come off a bit harsh. If so, please realize it was not intentional (just got of a loooong conference call). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Aurora - Thanks for the macro- and micro- distinction. I was just about to get to that. Another main problem I have with evolution is its foundation - 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy baby. Things fall apart. If you leave a pile of junk in a field for a million years it doesn't automatically become a porsche. It stays junk. I've heard this before, and agree. It does make sense. A leaf can fall from a non fertile plant and a new plant won't evolve from it. It will just wither away and die. My problem with evolution is, if science states that matter can NEITHER be CREATED nor DESTOYED, then why does matter exist in the first place? Had to get here some way! God spoke and BANG, it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It always existed - the idea of eternity is hard to grasp but both the evolutionists and creationists agree that whatever or whoever created the universe always existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It always existed - the idea of eternity is hard to grasp but both the evolutionists and creationists agree that whatever or whoever created the universe always existed. Yes, God is eternal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I guess the evolutionists would say it was the matter/energy that is eternal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yes, God is eternal. But it has no bearing on Evolution. Evolution is about terrestrial life, and how it developed. Not what kicked it all off in the first place. I started off with the simple fact that Evolution and Creation can co-exist. It's only that, in the case of religions that interoperate the bible literally, the bible says that the earth is 6000 years old, took 6 days to create, and that Adam came from clay. If you're able to overlook that, and intemperate the Bible metaphorically, you can resolve that and move on. So I come back to: Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Nevertheless evolution states that human beings evolved from apes - the bible states that human beings were created in God's image. Those statements are mutually exclussive. (As far as debating a subject i'm not an expert in - i think it's a bit harsh to say that i can't give my oppinion on a subject i don't have a university degree in. But it does illustrate my point about the confusion surrounding evolution, you have educated people using the same evidence to make different ascertions and without a background in the science it's difficult to know who to believe. If the topic wasn't as important then i would probably just choose not to have any oppinion but it comes down to the very nature of life and i think everyone is entitled to a view on that. However as you pointed out my reading is out of date - perhaps when i get these damn exams over i'll update myself on modern theory) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 But that's a literal interpretation. It could have been God’s plan all along that we eventually evolved from bacteria->apes->man to finally fit God's image. So again, it's only the literal interpretation that's getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I find it difficult to swallow that interpretation - the manner in which the bible specifically makes reference to the creation of human beings, man and woman in God's image does not easily suggest such a methodology. However, the origin of creation is definitely more important than the manner in which was created and the bible is very explicit in that. So i guess i can live without knowing how we were made and settle for knowing who made us. Although it does provoke the question, for the atheists out there, where did life originate from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 However, the origin of creation is definitely more important than the manner in which was created and the bible is very explicit in that. But that's another thread. For practical scientific purposes, and this isn't strictly for atheist, the science of evolution does help expand our knowledge. Microevolution is a child of Macroevolution, as just one example. Microevolution has given us many useful technologies. And really, what's 6 days in God years? For all we know, it's only 10:00AM "Day 7" OST (Omnipotent Standard Time). Although I'm afraid of the steam, it'd be interesting to see a thread on what those that interpret the Bible literally get out of it, verses those that use the more potent metaphoric messages it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Go on start it - at the very least we could see how many posts it gets before it needs closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myzar Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 This thread is scary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyman Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Well, I'm just glad that I live in a secular society/country where such convictions can't find their way into the educational system or elsewhere in official structures! There are just too many arguments for a darwinistic evolution theory and against creationism which is NOT scientifically founded AT ALL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I started off with the simple fact that Evolution and Creation can co-exist. It's only that, in the case of religions that interoperate the bible literally, the bible says that the earth is 6000 years old, took 6 days to create, and that Adam came from clay. Ive never seen anywhere where it says the earth is 6,000 years old. Although I have seen where it says that a day to God is 100 million (or so) years to us. The bible never says that evolution doesn't exist. It just doesn't go into detail as how god 'made' the universe. When we die all things will be revealed. It doesn't say he 'came' from clay. It says he was 'molded' from clay, and that God breathed the breath of life into him. Big difference. It also says in revelations that in end times, there will be a vast wealth of great knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 It also says in revelations that in end times, there will be a vast wealth of great knowledge. Kind of like today? Look at how much society knows today and look at how much they knew back when Jesus was around. Look at all the technology and knowledge we have. I think we might be near the end times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiZMaC Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I refuse to believe that we are the descendants of Apes! I'm pro-creation... I'm not a religious fanatic but I do practice my religion [islam] and all the proofs/facts you'll ever need to backup the theory of creation are mentioned in all of the three heavenly religions- Torah, Bible and the Qur'an. Just like we refer to scientific textbooks to get answers to mystifying questions can't one at least read God's version of the creation theory? There's so little to loose and so much to gain- knowledge & faith wise that is. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp http://www.scienceinquran.com/ http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/science_01.html http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/re...aism/index.html 'And in knowing the truth, the truth shall set you free' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermiguel Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I accept that creationism is completely religious belief that cannot be scientifically proven, but i protest that evolution is being protrayed as a "better" explanation on the basis that it's "more scientific". Exactly. The Evolution Theory is somewhat better explanation for the evolution of the different species of the planet, not because it's better by it self, but because you can prove it right or you can prove it wrong and you can correct it as the knowledge of nature becomes more complete. My problem with evolution is, if science states that matter can NEITHER be CREATED nor DESTOYED, then why does matter exist in the first place? Had to get here some way! God spoke and BANG, it happened. That is one of my questions. I think that there had to be something that "pulled the trigger" to start the evolution chain and that maintains the balance in the universe...something that is greater than human comprehension...and no, it's not like a god or something like that, because religions "humanize" thins "thing" applying it adjectives like "is pure love" or things alike....I was thinking some kind of force (not like the one in star wars) that keeps the universe in an equilibrium. I guess the evolutionists would say it was the matter/energy that is eternal... Yes, matter and energy are eternal and one can convert in each other. So again, it's only the literal interpretation that's getting in the way. Exactly. I really hate the people who literrally follows what the bible says literally...The bible is a book that has to be interpreted and applied to your lifestyle. You can't "live by the book" of any religion because it's ridiculous. Those books were writen by men, modified through history and interpreted in so many ways that you can't know wether it has been writen by men, by god himself (if it exists as the humans believe) or by some "middle age" politician. Me? I'm an evolutionist open to the progress of scientific knowledge and to the possibility of a full review of the theory if it needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I believe that it is a 'possability' that god created the universe through the big bang. I don't know. So I am open about what events happened DURING the CREATION. I KNOW he created it, but I don't know the details. I do not believe we evolved from apes either. I believe just what the (ONLY) living Bible says. I do believe that we 'evolve' but I don't believe in the 'evolution' of man. The Bible says that he set us 'APART' from the beasts of the world, which is why I believe god MADE us, and we din't evolve from something. Now god may have created the animals from evolution, but I don't honestly know. He din't say. He just said he made them. We do know that fish evolve, quite fast infact. If you introduce a fish into a cave enviroment they can loose their eyes, and their pigment in less than 40 years to adapt to the environment. But that could also be called adaptation, and not evolution. Depends on your point of view. God made all creatures with the ability to evolve and adapt to their surroundings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJägermeister Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Evolution. We should believe in science not in fiction. I can't understand why some adult guys still believe in creation, Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiZMaC Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Evolution. We should believe in science not in fiction. I can't understand why some adult guys still believe in creation, Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. LOL!!!! That's fine with me if you want to believe that your great great great great ^ whateva grandfather was an ape then by all means stick to your beliefs and I respect that... and that 'We' part should be 'I' - no offense, but I'm sensing you're trying to feed the sane this utter {censored} of religion being fiction. Santa Claus and 'Easter Bunny' and not Easter were not mentioned anywhere in any of the religions- I believe and correct me if I'm wrong and i beg ur pardon if I was... but that was added some where down the timeline by mankind just like they made 2 or 3 christmases. This is starting to get interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJägermeister Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 That's fine with me if you want to believe that your great great great great ^ whateva grandfather was an ape I have no problem to be a descendant from an ape and that 'We' part should be 'I' You are right, you don't need the science, all you need is your bible or quran. Get happy with it. Santa Claus and 'Easter Bunny' and not Easter were not mentioned anywhere in any of the religions- I believe and correct me if I'm wrong and i beg ur pardon if I was... but that was an added some where down the timeline by mankind just like they made 2 or 3 christmases. Religion was also add by mankind, so believe in god, creation, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny IS the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiZMaC Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I have no problem to be a descendant from an ape I'm happy for you- Bravo! You are right, you don't need the science, all you need is your bible or quran. Now hang on a second- I didn't say I didn't need science... There's a fine line here and I'm not crossing it. Religion was also add by mankind, so believe in god, creation, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny IS the same. Was not! I won't even bother to ask were you got this information from or who/what your source is. Seems like you've been fed enough. Get happy with it. I am and will always be happy knowing that I am not a direct descendant of a mammal or any animal for that matter. So back to the topic- Evolution or Creation ... next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts