Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 446,990 views
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Duke
Actually, the pilgrims came to the new world to ESCAPE religious persecution. And the vast majority of the founding father's were spiritual men. But anyway....
All I was trying to say is that science is evil, stupid or against God. And has in almost every case helped spread the message of the Gospel.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
The Massachussetts Bay Colony did come here for religious reasons. The Jamestown and Roanoke colonies most assuredly did NOT - they came here to economically exploit the New World, pure and simple.Swift
You're definitely losing me here.
- 1,620
Swift
No, not stuff like that... I specified that the ideas I was talking about were about how the world works, fundamental understandings of things (exactly like the damn obvious things I was talking about like how the earth goes around the sun etc). I have the patience of a saint I tell you. Are you TRYING to misunderstand me just to annoy?
Btw the game called "Live life in a cheery, healthy and morally just way" is hardly exclusive to the Christian Platform. You'll find its a multiplatform title available on every system (be it Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, Jedi
, etc, even the ancient Greeks believed "every man is born equal")... Most people on the earth aim for this regardless of religious or cultural differences, and more often than not, get it right, despite certain minorities screwing things up a little (islamic extremists etc).If anyone (not looking at anyone...) starts talking down to non-religious people as if they're on some moral high-horse, I'll really be offended. I live in a very moral and ethical way, and I'm very happy. I do have a serious heart condition that means I'll probably die before I get real old, but hey, you can't win 'em all.
- 2,208
Found a nice blurb here that states the evolutionary case quite well:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
This part cites some examples of those very "intermediates" or "transitional forms" of life that creationists claim do not exist. We keep hearing them claim that the fossil record doesn't show any (such as all those "nonexistent" early hominids they just keep digging up in Africa...), but that just isn't the case:
A second prediction of evolution is that the fossil record should yield transitional forms. Evolution does not require the fossil record to yield transitional forms as plentiful as the stars, since the conditions of fossilization are severe, and some organisms fossilize less easily than others, but one would reasonably become very suspicious of evolution if, after more than a century of work, paleontologists had not discovered any transitional forms at all. A complete absence of transitional forms, in fact, is precisely what creationists should expect. Paleontology, however, has yielded plentiful transitional forms, of which a mere handful is listed here:
From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.
From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94).
From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.
From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints--one reptilian and one mammalian.
If we look to some of the less prominent transitions in life, we find equally astounding transitional forms. For instance, evolutionists have hypothesized that whales evolved from the cow-like mesonychids. This is a hypothesis which many creationists have ridiculed, and virtually all seem to have thought implausible. A prominent creationist once complained about the lack of transitional forms demonstrating this transition, thinking it a problem for evolution:
"If random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the Mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found." (Behe 1994:61)
However, no sooner had this creationist spoken than his smoking gun vanished into thin air: By 1994, [Phillip] Gingerich and fellow paleontologists, including Hans Thweissen, had found not one, but three intermediate species [Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, and Rodhocetus kasrani] linking land mammals to the archeocetes, the oldest swimming mammals. The midpoint of the series, a marvelous animal called ambulocetus natans (the "swimming whale who walks"), displayed exactly the combination of terrestrial and aquatic adaptations that critics of evolution had called impossible, even in principle. (Miller 1999:264)
Given that creatures such as these--which creationists expect not to exist at all--exhibit obvious transitional characteristics and exist in the places and time periods in which evolutionists expect to find them, we again have no option but to conclude either that evolution took place, whether through God's design or not, or else that God created all of these creatures directly, transitional characteristics and all, so that man might be deceived into rejecting the true history of creation.
I think I'll go on a bit of a quest to round up some more of these non-existent intermediate species. The creationists are adamant that they just aren't there, so having a nice long list of them might come in handy in future discussions...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html
This part cites some examples of those very "intermediates" or "transitional forms" of life that creationists claim do not exist. We keep hearing them claim that the fossil record doesn't show any (such as all those "nonexistent" early hominids they just keep digging up in Africa...), but that just isn't the case:
A second prediction of evolution is that the fossil record should yield transitional forms. Evolution does not require the fossil record to yield transitional forms as plentiful as the stars, since the conditions of fossilization are severe, and some organisms fossilize less easily than others, but one would reasonably become very suspicious of evolution if, after more than a century of work, paleontologists had not discovered any transitional forms at all. A complete absence of transitional forms, in fact, is precisely what creationists should expect. Paleontology, however, has yielded plentiful transitional forms, of which a mere handful is listed here:
From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.
From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94).
From reptile to bird: Archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics, and highly resembles the theropod reptiles of its time.
From reptile to mammal: Probelesedon and Massetognathus exhibit both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. Probainognathus even has two sets of jaw joints--one reptilian and one mammalian.
If we look to some of the less prominent transitions in life, we find equally astounding transitional forms. For instance, evolutionists have hypothesized that whales evolved from the cow-like mesonychids. This is a hypothesis which many creationists have ridiculed, and virtually all seem to have thought implausible. A prominent creationist once complained about the lack of transitional forms demonstrating this transition, thinking it a problem for evolution:
"If random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the Mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found." (Behe 1994:61)
However, no sooner had this creationist spoken than his smoking gun vanished into thin air: By 1994, [Phillip] Gingerich and fellow paleontologists, including Hans Thweissen, had found not one, but three intermediate species [Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, and Rodhocetus kasrani] linking land mammals to the archeocetes, the oldest swimming mammals. The midpoint of the series, a marvelous animal called ambulocetus natans (the "swimming whale who walks"), displayed exactly the combination of terrestrial and aquatic adaptations that critics of evolution had called impossible, even in principle. (Miller 1999:264)
Given that creatures such as these--which creationists expect not to exist at all--exhibit obvious transitional characteristics and exist in the places and time periods in which evolutionists expect to find them, we again have no option but to conclude either that evolution took place, whether through God's design or not, or else that God created all of these creatures directly, transitional characteristics and all, so that man might be deceived into rejecting the true history of creation.
I think I'll go on a bit of a quest to round up some more of these non-existent intermediate species. The creationists are adamant that they just aren't there, so having a nice long list of them might come in handy in future discussions...
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
James2097Sure sure
i actually assumed you meant "isn't", as its something you've previously said, plus it just didn't make ANY sense if it was "is". Not that I'm expecting you to make sense...
No, I didn't expect you would since I'm one of the people that "You will think of how you will..."
- 3,425
Actually I am still waiting to see when the Bible and those who take it literally will acknowlage the existence of all of mans precursers , along with cro magnon and neanderthal man . I still remember being told in religion class that African Americans were black because God made them that way . Then going to Science and biology and being taught that African Americans are black because they evoved to adapt to the conditions they had to live in . So now I wonder how all the different races could have come from only Adan and Eve ? And if they did how do you account for all the types ? But then again I kind of take it for granted now days that it wont because its a story book .
- 2,208
Unless a solid, direct, complete set of transitional fossil remains is discovered and categorized in a nice neat, precise linear order, the whole evolutionary deal is bunk. Says so right here:
http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/con...12bc4431386d59c/miscdocs/testsofevolution.pdf
Boy, them fossil-hunters better get cracking, huh? And they better find the right fossils, too. Otherwise, the criteria these IDEA folks set up, which must all be met to the letter, won't be met, which means they've proved that they're right and them evolutionists is dead wrong.
http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/con...12bc4431386d59c/miscdocs/testsofevolution.pdf
Boy, them fossil-hunters better get cracking, huh? And they better find the right fossils, too. Otherwise, the criteria these IDEA folks set up, which must all be met to the letter, won't be met, which means they've proved that they're right and them evolutionists is dead wrong.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,454
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
I have different theory's/beliefs than evolution being the origin for mankind. Without undeniable proof, there is no way for anyone to hold onto a theory such as evolution so strongly without some "belief" in it. In your mind you can fill in the blanks to form your own opinion and ideas of what you think your reality is. Bravo, I applaud you for being a self thinker. So some people have different beliefs, yes? We will never "know" but only continue to believe/disbelieve other peoples theories.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Pako
You don't HAVE to believe ANYTHING. You seem to be of the opinion that we must believe something happened since we will never "know" what really happened. I don't see it that way.
Why can't people accept the "this is our best guess" approach. Take in the data, and try to make a theory that fits the data. As the data changes, the theory changes. The more data we get, the closer we get to being right.
- 2,208
danoff
Data such as this:
"Whales did not turn into fish. Inside every flipper is found the bones of the mammalian hand. They swim like otters by undulating the mammalian spine. The tail fluke is not a fish fin. Evolution works by modifying existing body plans to fit new conditions of life, and is often constrained by developmental pathways. No longer limited by gravity and strength of bones, whales could become giants of the sea."
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
ZardozData such as this:
"Whales did not turn into fish. Inside every flipper is found the bones of the mammalian hand. They swim like otters by undulating the mammalian spine. The tail fluke is not a fish fin. Evolution works by modifying existing body plans to fit new conditions of life, and is often constrained by developmental pathways. No longer limited by gravity and strength of bones, whales could become giants of the sea."
So, it's saying that Whales started on land and then went to the water....and why would they do that?
- 2,208
Swift
Shortage of food on land, plentiful fish to eat in the sea, right along the shoreline, and less competition for it from bigger, meaner mammals. As time went by mutations that made them more adaptable to life in the sea made them better fish-hunters, enabling them to go further out from shore for food. They lived longer, made more babies, the genetic mutations very slowly became more prevalent in the gene pool, etc., etc.
But they did not turn into fish. They remained mammals, as they are today.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
PSI think Swift is pointing at the Great Flood.
Which would be impossible, because they'd just drown first.
I wasn't pointing at anything. I was just asking a question. Because almost every example that I've seen of evolution had the creatures coming OUT of the water.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
Swift
An entire species of animal doesn't move as a whole. Some may have moved out of the water do to population issues, climate, environment, food source, etc. Numerous factors could have caused creatures to have gone back and forth between water. And not all of them do it either, that's how different species come about: one species going seperate paths and creating two different ones.
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
As someone pointed out earlier, there are traces of evolution in humans!
Cave man, chinese, africian, white man, indians etc. As far as i know their are different types of skulls etc for humans depending on when they lived, cave man head is different.
People have adapted to their conditions, Black people live in hot weather, white people live in finland etc. This is differences created by nature in 1000's of years, or even 10'000 years.
Image the changes in millions of years, can anybody accutaly relate to how long that really is?
Cave man, chinese, africian, white man, indians etc. As far as i know their are different types of skulls etc for humans depending on when they lived, cave man head is different.
People have adapted to their conditions, Black people live in hot weather, white people live in finland etc. This is differences created by nature in 1000's of years, or even 10'000 years.
Image the changes in millions of years, can anybody accutaly relate to how long that really is?
- 8,017
- GTP_Royalton
Small_Fryz
All humans are just that, human. neandertahl, cromagman everything, they are just humans, nothing more nothing less. there is nothing to suggest early man was in any way stupid. primitive, yes, but lacking intelligence? no
Species produce according to their kind
any change by breeding or anything else does not produce new creatures.
ANY AND EVERY genetic mutation has not created a new kind but simply a small variation, usually harmful. but the animal remains the same.
Too bad alot of my posts had to be answered partially by famine. meaning the supporters who claim creation guys follow their beliefs blindfolded are just that themesleves, hopeless followers
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Lots of fish to eat, and not so many T-Rexes. Plus, as the excerpt states, water reduces the strain on skeletal structure for very large animals. Why did Eohippus, a primitive 3-toed horse, learn to live an aquatic life? Because hippopotami find it much easier to swim than run.Swift
Just like most Creationists, you simply to fail to grasp the idea of what a really really long time is. No wonder you don't understand evolution.Earth
