- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Quote Genesis doesn't say epoch. It says day. \
Genesis doesn't say “24 hour day.” It says “day.” many many times in the Bible the word “day” is used to mean “epoch” and in this specific case, both science and the context itself which uses the word “day” to refer to all 7 days here. Case closed.
It says neither epoch nor 24 hour day. But the context itself does not allow for the 24 hour interpretation. Yes, it says morning and evening.Today, we use the word “dawn” to mean the “first light of the day.” But we also use it to mean: “the earliest period; “the dawn of civilization”; “the morning of the world” as one dictionary says.
Although it's not the most used use of this word, the words “morning” and “evening” are and can be used in this way as well.Some dictionaries define morning simply as: “the earlier part of the day” and “evening” as “a later concluding time period; “it was the evening of the Roman Empire””
If you want to falsely draw the conclusion that each of these days is a 24 hour period, Stu, then what do you make of Genesis 2:4 where all these “24 hour days” are lumped into one “day” apparently another 24 hour day.
All these 24 hour days are called one 24 hour day.
No.
The ability to reason should tell us that it's using the word day here to refer to epoch's of time. And were not the days of creation epochs?
Quote (david @ Aug. 10 2007,11:24) Quote David, why do you go on about human-designed and made meat grinders and cars and houses? Living things are not manufactured, and not designed,
Um, I am suggesting that living things are largely designed. That is my argument and that is what I am suggesting. Hence, the illustrations and comparisons. So for you to say that the argument is null and void because living things are not designed makes no sense. That is in fact what I am arguing.
I'm arguing that if you can see design is something like a meat grinder made up of 15 parts, you should perhaps also see design in something that has millions of parts that all work together and that are infinitely more complex.
I'm arguing that if natural law would never put together anything like a meat grinder, (which is utterly simple) what reason have we to believe it would do something far more complex, far less likely?
Very well put! Thank you!Take anything apart even a human body. Throw it in a mixer will it come out together? AND LIVING?
Truely they are blinded by the god of this world.
A scientist said God we don't need you anymore we can create life! God said really show me.
So the scientist started taking some mud to form it and God said HEY! Get your own mud!
Man made? That's a joke! May be man put together BUT NOT made
Quote “Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”—Heredity in Humans (Philadelphia and New York, 1972), Amram Scheinfeld, p. 238. “The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”—The Races of Mankind (New York, 1978), Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, p. 3.
Science is rather flip floppy. That is what is great about it. It is constantly trying to improve and become more accurate. Does science now believe that we aren't “descended from the same first man.”
Quote We aren't all descended from one pair of humans. That is ridiculous too. –stu
“One of the great innovators of science, New Zealander Allan Wilson revolutionised the study of human evolution. He was shortlisted for the Nobel Prize and is the only New Zealander to win the prestigious US MacArthur “Genius” Award. Allan Wilson’s scientific achievements are nothing short of profoundly significant.”
“He and his team compared mDNA in people of different racial backgrounds and concluded that all modern humans evolved from one ‘lucky mother’ in Africa about 200,000 years ago.”
“Accepted thinking had various human groups evolving from different ancestors, over a million years in separate geographic regions, but at basically the same rate around the world. . . . It took 20 years to convince palaeontologists of the value of Wilson’s theory, but when they did, it married their science with that of genetics.”
“The 'Out of Africa' theory is now the accepted account of modern human origins.“
http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/wilson.htmlThe out of Africa theory that is now the accepted belief by the majority of scientists is that “all modern humans evolved from one ‘lucky mother’ in Africa.” (We'll get to the number 200,000 momentarily.)
Let's just ponder on the idea that science now finally believes that all humans have a common origin, a common mother. Stu, I'm not sure why you would disagree with this. Is this not accepted thought?“He and his team compared mtDNA in people of different racial backgrounds and concluded that all modern humans evolved from one 'lucky mother' in Africa about 150,000 years ago.”
–wikipedia.I now, would like to quote an interesting article on this:
A myth, one might imagine, is a story or explanation that is widely believed, but has no basis in fact. While there were numerous myths in the past, modern man believes that he has no need for such fabrications. Science, after all, undertakes to explain everything, and it is empirical and objective, so the saying goes. But even in science, some myths do creep into the public consciousness. It is interesting to notice how popular misunderstandings of scientific information appear and are propagated. An example springs to mind. Consider the recent studies on the “age” of the human race, for example. The conclusions and some headlines were actually misleading. One wonders how many readers obtained an inaccurate understanding of the issue. Let us investigate that case.
Genetic information is stored in very long molecules called DNA. There are four different components which are connected like beads in different orders (sequences). The arrangement of these components (called base pairs) is what conveys information. This code determines the characteristics and talents of any given organism. We hear a lot about the human genome project, the programme to identify the exact order of the estimated three billion base pairs which determine what humans are like. This information is broken up into shorter segments called chromosomes.
Of course the genetic information in humans is different from that of a flower, or a bumble bee, or even of an ape. But how did each organism obtain its characteristic information code and its typical characteristics? One logical possibility is that each kind of organism was separately designed. Another is that the code changed with time, so that more and more differences accumulated. Indeed the code does change somewhat with time. The process for change in the information code is called mutation. A substitution made, in error, of one base pair for another, does occasionally occur. Evolutionists believe that this process continues indefinitely and leads to new information and new kinds of organisms. Creationists believe mutation leads only to variation within an already established group.
Beginning in the mid 1980s, based on comparison of DNA base pair sequences, molecular biologists began to look for clues about human origins. Allan Wilson and colleagues set out to find out how much variation among humans there was in one small part of the genetic code. He assumed that a lot of variety in the code would indicate that the present population was many generations removed from a possible single ancestor. Alternatively a small amount of variation would suggest a short time interval. To study the issue he decided to look at a piece of DNA that is passed directly from mother to offspring but never involves the father. This separate piece of genetic code comes only from the mother since an egg contributes not only a nucleus (containing the main body of genetic information) but also cell substance. The cell substance includes tiny bodies (mitochondria) which contain their own separate tiny ring of genetic code. The father contributes no cell material to the offspring, but only a nucleus. It is evident that any variation in genetic material from the mitochondria must develop only through changes (mutations) in what has been handed down from the mother.
Assuming that all people are descended from one original mother, Wilson and colleagues studied the amount of variation in mitochondrial DNA in the present human population. They then estimated how long it would take to develop the present amount of variation. Of course the time that has elapsed from one female ancestor (called Eve by the scientists), to us today depends upon the mutation rate as well as the number of people involved. It could involve a few people reproducing over many generations, or many people having children in only a few generations. The answer the scientists obtained would be only as good as the assumptions inserted into the equations. The scientists plugged an assumed conservative mutation rate into their calculations. This would push the value in the direction of a long time interval.
The time estimate that the computer provided, came as a shock to the scientists. Colleagues termed the answer “really controversial” (Science 26 May 1995 p. 1141). The time elapsed from a single ancestor “Eve” to the present, calculated in the range of 140,000 to 200,000 years, was astonishingly short. Scientists had expected a value closer to five million or more years. Later calculations revised the interval down as far as 100,000 years. But there was more bad news. We hear a lot about how our genetic code is so similar to that of the chimpanzee (our supposed closest relative). But investigations of mitochondrial DNA suggested that the difference between humans and chimpanzees might be a whopping 69%! (Science 27 September 1991 p. 1506) None of this looked good for evolutionary interpretations. As a result, scientists looked forward to studies on males that might revise
the female results upward toward longer ages. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, the results, when they came, revised the numbers towards younger, not older. But the headlines didn't give this impression.Males do have some genetic information that females lack. Part of the Y (sex determining) chromosome is unmatched by anything on the X chromosome (which both males and females possess). Molecular biologists therefore chose to study such a piece of Y chromosome in 38 men from around the world. It was fully expected that there would be plenty of variation among the various races. But scientists found no variation at all. The DNA was exactly the same. As a result of this unexpected finding, the scientists had to revert to plan B – damage control. They set out to integrate this “mathematically rather awkward situation” (Science 26 May 1995 p. 1142) into an evolutionary scenario. How long, they asked their computers, could this piece of DNA stay unchanged in an otherwise evolving human population.
Two answers were obtained. If there was, in each generation lasting about 40 years, approximately one father worldwide who had children, so that over all the generations a total of only 7500 men were involved, then the DNA could stay unchanged for as long as 270,000 years. A further necessary condition was that this “super father” had to be fathering children all over the world…. quite the busy schedule! Alternatively, if more men per generation were involved, the computer suggested a maximum age for mankind of 27,000 years. This latter value approached creationist expectations. Even for the smaller value, the calculated number indicated the maximum possible time interval, not actual age. The time could, in reality, be much shorter.
Although the assumptions needed to obtain the 270,000 year estimate were totally impossible, the authors chose this value and claimed that it coincided with female mitochondrial DNA (“Eve”) calculations. Actually the female dates had been revised downward and the high date for the males was totally preposterous. Nevertheless the May 26, 1995 Globe and Mai headline read “Male ancestor of humans lived about 270,000 years ago” while the Edmonton Journal on the same day, proclaimed “Our ancestors traced to 270,000 years ago”. The myth of the relatively remote male ancestor had been born. This myth continues to flourish. An article in the Edmonton Journal (December 21, 1995) reprinted from the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain, refers to the 270,000 year old male ancestor. So does an article in Earth (February 1996 p. 34). Lest we confuse the scientific “Adam” and “Eve” ancestors with Biblical figures, both these publications caution that the scientific “Adam” and “Eve” did not live at the same time and both had lots of other human contemporaries who left no offspring. Indeed?? What happened to the offspring of these other people? Good question.
Richard Dawkins is quoted as remarking “Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent woman of whom it can be said that all modern humans are descended from her in the female-only pathway.” (Edmonton Journal, December 1995 ) Similarly Francisco Ayala is said to have remarked “This ZFY Adam is the individual from which all humans have inherited the ZFY gene, but he is not our only ancestor in his generation. …. We have inherited the other thousands of genes from many other contemporaries of this Adam.” (Edmonton Journal) If this were so, how exactly, might this work?
Perhaps we can concoct an illustration. Imagine that there once was a delightful town called Blythville. The townsfolk were happy, red-headed people, short in stature and freckled of face. One day there came to town a tall dark stranger called Pedro. His eye fell on Betty and they were married. They produced several sons, all like their dad. The local girls all said that if they could not marry a tall dark son of Pedro, then they would not marry anybody. Pedro's sons married various local lassies, but none of the local lads managed to produce any children at all. From then on all the young in the village were descendants of Pedro on the male side, but of several local ladies on the female side.
Some years later Blythville was visited by a young lady, a blonde bombshell named Agatha. The young men were entirely smitten. She married a handsome young man named Juan Pedro. The resulting daughters looked like Agatha while the sons looked like the remote ancestor, Pedro. After that only daughters of Agatha had any success in marrying the local dudes. The redheaded people of the village had been entirely replaced, and their contribution to the gene pool was almost negligible. It was as if they had never been.
This sort of scenario, but on a worldwide scale, is what some population geneticists suggest happened to the human race. Of course this is a drastically simplified portrayal of the situation. All Pedro's male offspring need not, and probably would not look like him. Similarly Agatha's daughters and grand daughters need not all resemble her. We do need however, a reason why the other suitors would be excluded from reproducing. Either the others were unable to find mates, or their offspring did not survive. Did Pedro and Agatha kill off all children of non-relatives or did they outcompete everybody else for scarce resources? It gets quite ridiculous when all non-family children are eliminated on a worldwide basis, not just in one centre.
If a myth is an improbable tale, this “scientific” explanation of human origins appears to qualify as one. Some people would claim, on the other hand, that the Biblical Adam and Eve are themselves the substance of myth. This is not a recent suggestion. Christians would do well however to consider New Testament references to Adam. The apostle Paul's direct connection of the work of Christ as an antidote to the fall of Adam provides impressive corroboration of the Genesis account. Christ himself refers to the historicity of Adam's son Abel (Matt 23:35). Individuals who insist on a non-religious explanation for mankind, can scarcely be critical of the current scientific myth since they have little to replace it. Christians on the other hand, have the right and privilege to be critical. After all, we know the truth.
The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (I Cor. 15: 45)
http://www.create.ab.ca/articles/myth.htmlIn follow up to that article, I'd also like to mention that the age of “humans” continues to be shortened. We were millions of years old. Then we were hundreds of thousands of years old. Then a couple hundred thousand years old. Now, some say tens of thousands of years old.
The universe had no beginning. Now science believes it does.
Science does keep getting more accurate. During those times when science has it wrong, we usually just have to wait a little longer. Sometimes, because people have agendas and beliefs, bad science and un-scientific thinking seep into science and it takes years (decades) to remove the “missing link” from the museum that turns out to be a human skull on an apes body.
We must be patient.
The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present.
We are still searching for the missing link. It's still missing. Hence the phrase, “missing link.”
Over and over again, headlines are made. “Missing link discovered,” “ape man found.”
So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. Over and over again, however, the public sees these headlines and they don't see any retractions when the truth is found.In 1908 a workman at a gravel pit in Piltdown, England found a portion of a human skull and gave it to an amateur geologist by the name of Charles Dawson. Subsequent digging by Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum and Catholic paleontologist-priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin revealed more skull fragments and the lower jaw of Piltdown man. The Piltdown pit also produced fossil bones of elephant, mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver and deer.
Most scientists accepted this find as a genuine subhuman ancestor of man. For forty five years, until 1953, this find was considered to be a missing link between man and ape. The only problem was that this was a total hoax! Someone had taken a human skull cap and a jaw of an orangutan, filled the teeth and planted the evidence. This fossil might still be considered legitimate today, had it not been for the popularity of australopithecines as candidates for human ancestors, which caused a more detailed investigation in the 1950's.
This raises some interesting questions. Why was the fraud so successful? Could it be that evolutionary theory demanded the missing links so scientists found them. It is often claimed that science is objective and self-correcting, however in retrospect we see that the evidence to reject this find as legitimate was there all along.
The file marks on the teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible, the molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine teeth had been filed so far down that the pulp cavity had been exposed and plugged (Lubenow 1992, 43).
Much literature was written on Piltdown and it is estimated that more than 500 doctoral dissertations were based on this “find”.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/empd.htmSo my question is why? Why was this so successful? Looking at it now, it is so obvious it was a fraud. Yet for 45 years it was accepted. How critical are these scientists, really? Do they always follow the scientific method, or are they somewhat biased in their findings?
People have this tendency to see what they want to see (scientists included.) We all have the same facts. It's how we interpret them. And more than that, it's why we interpet them the way we do.
I can't believe that 500 doctoral dissertations were based on this “find.”
In 1856 workers quarrying for limestone in the Neander Valley near Duesseldorf, Germany came across a skull and bones. In the succeeding years many other specimens were found, not only in the Neander Valley, but in countries such as France, England, Italy, Iraq and as far south as Israel.
Controversy surrounded the interpretation of these fossils. German Anatomist Rudolf Virchow examined the first discovery and concluded that it was a Homo sapien with rickets, caused by a Vitamin D deficiency. He also theorized that his flattened head was due to powerful blows. As more finds were made, also with the appearance of rickets, this was considered too coincidental and they were now considered sub-human.
In the early 1900s, after many skeletons were found, the French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, determined that Neanderthals could not fully extend their legs, walked stooped over, and had his head thrust forward.
This notion would be the popular image for about fifty years.In 1957 researchers re-examined the skeleton Boule had examined and concluded that Neanderthals walked upright and that the stooped posture suggested by Boule's specimen was due to a case of arthritis.
More evidence from various digs have shown that Neanderthals “wielded simple tools, wore body ornaments, had religious rites and ceremoniously buried their dead” (Time, 3/14/94, p. 87). Today he is classified as totally human – Homo sapien.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htmIt still just bothers me how people for years, decades would draw on the hair, skin, etc all from their imagination, trying to get an image somewhere between human and ape. It was all their imagination, and we were looking at it as true science.
I found this covers some things that should be said, concerning micro and macro evolution.
Creationism is not “against” modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to “subdue” the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. “Creation Science” is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is “all there is”).
No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called “micro-evolution” (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the “peppered moth”, or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that “micro-evolution” is a misnomer, as it implies that “a little” evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called “macro-evolution”, is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a “research issue”. Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
The “geologic column”, which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of “fully-formed abrupt appearance” and “stasis” (that is, no change over time).
The belief that the atoms of a “Big Bang” eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be “running down” yet evolution postulates it is “building up”. Atoms to people evolution is much more a “religious belief” than a scientific fact.
–http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htmTHE FACT OF EVOLUTION IS SUPPORTED BY A RATHER WELL FORMED SEQUENCE OF INTERMEDIATE STAGES IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
This comment by the famous Harvard evolutionist Steven J. Gould when he testified before Judge Overton in the Arkansas Creation-Evolution trial suggests that the countless intermediate stages in the evolution of one organism into another, really are visible in the fossil record as indeed they should be IF evolution has occurred. This same Dr. Gould, however, in one of his regular columns in Natural History magazine (May 1977) said:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils) — 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.” The paleontologist Dr. David B. Kitts agrees: “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” (Evolution 28:476). Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, recently pointed out that Darwin himself was: “embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would — different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated — we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much — We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins' time. By this I mean that some some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information” (Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29). The evolutionist Dr. Steven M. Stanley put it bluntly: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition – “”(Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p.39). No wonder G.K. Chesterton quipped that folks “seem to know everything about the missing link except that it IS MISSING.”
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fosrec.htmto repeate:
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition – “David where do you get this rubbish from? Do you think readers are simpletons?
++”The out of Africa theory that is now the accepted belief by the majority of scientists is that “all modern humans evolved from one ‘lucky mother’ in Africa.”
What was the species of the MOTHER and FATHER of this mitochondrial Eve?
++”One logical possibility is that each kind of organism was separately designed.
You have not explained why this is logical. I don’t see design in living things. I see natural selection.
++”Creationists believe mutation leads only to variation within an already established group.
What is the definition of this “group” and exactly why is there a sudden barrier to evolutionary change as you come to the edge of this mythical thing? Real scientists know that creationists are liars who have an Imaginary Friend that must be justified no matter what.
++”We have inherited the other thousands of genes from many other contemporaries of this Adam.” (Edmonton Journal) If this were so, how exactly, might this work?
Mitochondrial Eve or Adam is AN ancestor of all present humans. She is not the only contributor to our genetic make-up from that period of time.
++”If a myth is an improbable tale, this “scientific” explanation of human origins appears to qualify as one. Some people would claim, on the other hand, that the Biblical Adam and Eve are themselves the substance of myth.
The scientific “Eve” is nothing like the Mitochondrial Eve. Did your Beetle Collector in the Sky ALSO make thousands of other humans at the same time 200,000 years ago and then planted fossils of their ancestors to trick everyone?
The biblical Adam and Eve are mythical, they are biological impossibilities and the evidence does not support that hypothesis.++”After all, we know the truth.
Creationsists are liars. Their truth is a fantasy world.
Stuart
David
++”The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present.
What do you mean by “fully formed”? What kind of fossil would you expect, except for one that was a complete animal / plant in its own right?
++”We are still searching for the missing link. It's still missing. Hence the phrase, “missing link.” Over and over again, headlines are made. “Missing link discovered,” “ape man found.” So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. Over and over again, however, the public sees these headlines and they don't see any retractions when the truth is found.
Two issues: firstly journalists don’t understand their own use of missing link. Secondly creationists use the term to imply that evolution is a sequence of species after species with some magical change happening between each one. What actually happens is mostly gradual, and there is no one point when you can definitely say that one species became another. Think of the ring species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
As we have already been over before, all fossils are transitional, as are all extant species, including us.
++”People have this tendency to see what they want to see (scientists included.) We all have the same facts. It's how we interpret them. And more than that, it's why we interpret them the way we do. I can't believe that 500 doctoral dissertations were based on this “find.”
You quote Lubenow. I am reading this book at the moment. Every three pages he launches another biblical rant to extol the wondrous perfection of God’s creation. Hardly a dispassionate scientific treatment of the evidence. More the wishful thinking of a man utterly defeated by reality.
Science has a mechanism to detect frauds like Piltdown. The bible doesn’t. That’s why scientific truth is a better quality of knowledge than biblical mythology, which has been demonstrated wrong often. How many of those PhD dissertations were on the fraud itself? How many were done by creationists at a fundamentalist “university”?Stuart
++”Very well put! Thank you!
Kenrch I don’t think you should appreciate people who lie on your god’s behalf.
++”Take anything apart even a human body. Throw it in a mixer will it come out together? AND LIVING? Truely they are blinded by the god of this world.
How did you come into being Kenrch? Did your parents put a whole lot of body parts in a mixer?
I think it might be you blinded by your god!
Stuart
David
++””Creation Science” is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is “all there is”).
Real science makes no assumptions about god’s existence. The fact is there is no evidence that would lead to such an assumption.
++” However, it is important to note that “micro-evolution” is a misnomer, as it implies that “a little” evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
So new species HAVE come into existence by evolution then. Good, I’m glad we’ve cleared that up for Nick.
Is there an urgent environmental need for a new organ in a species? Would you expect to see this kind of change?
Emphasis of some already present traits over other is natural selection all the way. It’s just your timescale that is off. The fossil record demonstrates such changes. Good, we’re making progress!++”Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called “macro-evolution”, is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a “research issue”. Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
I think you’ll find that Denton and Behe actually do believe in speciation by natural selection. They are still creationsists, though (find and read the Wedge document). What makes you think that large-scale change is beyond the “ability” of natural selection? Just multiply the small-scale change by a big number, representing lots of historical changes in the environment.
++”The “geologic column”, which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of “fully-formed abrupt appearance” and “stasis” (that is, no change over time).
Oh dear. Backwards again. The geologic column is only better explained by the alleged flood if you are a fundamentalist bent on making every word of Genesis into a literal account of history. Why do we not find the heaviest bones at the bottom?
++”The belief that the atoms of a “Big Bang” eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory.
I hope Answers in Genesis don’t catch you using one of their “don’t use” arguments!
Why do you call the Second Law “well proved”? Do you actually know what the Second Law says? In your interpretation it literally means that life is impossible at all.
Can you explain, complete with the mathematics, exactly what information theory says about evolution?Stuart
++”The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition – ”
Please re-read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossilStuart
Many posts ago:
my line:
“The scientific “Eve” is nothing like the Mitochondrial Eve.”should read: “The biblical “Eve” is nothing like the Mitochondrial Eve.”
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 10 2007,19:42) Hi t8 ++”The universe creates the human eye, and humans with intelligence and billions of dollars of research cannot even come close to what so-called non-intelligence can do.
This is of course a very small example.
Look at anything in creation and man cannot match it.
Do our planes fly as well as a dragonfly?
Do our robots walk as well as a small child?
Do our search engines answer questions as well as humans can?
It seems that non-intelligence kicks our butt.
However that is what you must think if you believe creation is not the result of an intelligent designer.
So you think non-intelligence is better at technology than intelligence. There in lies the foolishness of denying the creator.I’ve had to think long and hard about this one. The temptation is to replace “non-intelligence” with “natural selection” in your post, but it’s not quite that simple.
Looking specifically at life, if we pretend for a minute that it is designed, then it is pretty obvious that it is a very different kind of designing process from that which humans use. Humans are distinguished from other animals by an ability to anticipate the future and we can set goals. Human design is the process of fulfilling a future goal of some kind. We pride ourselves on the efficiency and simplicity of a design and we admire the depth of thought and foresight that went into producing the designed thing.
By contrast, living things have strange bits left over from past “designs”, the instructions for building a new one are not for a carpenter or surgeon, they are for ribosomes to make protein – ie: to grow the wood before making the cricket bat. The DNA design “plans” include pages and pages of utter gibberish. The “designer” has not ordered the materials ready to put together, but has used a recipe book of left-over scrap bits of instructions that will recycle parts that will do the job, some better than others, some recycled parts doing entirely new jobs. The total effect is more like hopeful cooking than construction. Living things bear all the hallmarks of a designer that could look no further ahead than the present.
We can’t make an eye. The details of the cell chemistry and assembly are not achievable with our current technology. But, give a good engineer the human lower back and she could probably produce a much better design than the one we evolved. We also have much science able to repair the results of what you might call poor design, such as statins for lowering cholesterol or reconstructive surgery for cleft palate.
It is really important to understand that the process by which living things come into existence is very different from that which we use to make things. I match your claim of foolish denial with a counter-claim: those who claim that natural selection cannot produce the illusion of design do not understand natural selection.
Stuart
You still believe that nothing/non-intelligence is better than intelligence.This is where I fundamentally disagree with you.
I believe that species can adapt and that is why we see so many human forms. But I do not hold your belief that the universe is nothing but a design that came about with no designer.
A singularity just exploded and unraveled to eventually create all the lumps in the time space fabric which are the galaxies and in at least one particular galaxy of billions there happened upon a solar system among billions that had a planet that was positioned in an exact way to allow life to come into being through natural selection and through that process a being with great intelligence who possessed an eye that he couldn't replicate because he is to technologically in adept to compete with nothing but the processes that happened from this unraveling or explosion of the infinitely dense singularity.
Dude, sorry but I might as well believe in the tooth fairy. In fact I even have more proof that the tooth fairy exists because I actually got some money for a tooth once.
But as for this singularity that came from nothing that unraveled to create all this order and an almost infinite amount of wonders, I have no proof to say that is came about by nothing. So if I had to choose, I take the tooth fairy.
Nothing produces nothing Stu. It's a simple precept to understand.
If you came from nothing then you should be nothing and you shouldn't even be in a position to think that nothing made everything.
According to your theory there should be nothing because you believe in nothing or no God or cause. Yet you acknowledge that there are men who you say are apes and right there we have a contradiction.
Nothing produces nothing. How can nothing make something. Both Apes and Men are not nothing. This is why it is foolish to believe that nothing is the creator.
t8 I don't believe design comes about without a designer either – we are not talking about design, that's the point. To understand it you have to suspend your preconceptions and appreciate that it is not what you as a human would produce.
On the point of nothing coming from nothing, how do you propose matter came into existence? To simply categorise it as the unexplainable work of a creator is to do no better, and in my opinion considerably worse that the Big Bang theory, imperfect though it is.
As soon as you say these thing are impossible without a designer, you have an infinitely recurring need for a designer of that designer, ad infinitum. Have you considered that problem?
Stuart
Quote What actually happens is mostly gradual, and there is no one point when you can definitely say that one species became another. –Stu
You also repeatedly say that we are the transitions.
Yes, Stu, you CAN SAY that all fossils are transitional. But it seems like we only have one thousandth of a percent of the “transitions” then. What we mean when we’re talking about this is: Where are the actual transitions between the few “transitions” that we have now, that you speak of.
We keep saying: If we evolved, there would be transitions. Your clever way around that is to say: we are the transitions. Fine. Suppose we are transitions. But what of the transitions between us?If a fish became an amphibian over tens of millions of years, where is the transitional links of this “gradual” process you speak of? Not a single fossil with part fins and part feet of this fish/amphibian have been found.
The missing links with partially evolved legs, eyes, brains, organs, etc have yet to be found.
This is what we are speaking of when we speak of the missing transitional links.
Darwin stated that this lack of transitional links is “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”There aren't transitional links in either the fossil record or the modern world.
Therefore, there is no actual evidence for this myth of yours. Despite the decades rolling by, and Darwin thinking this would have easily been proved by now as we found more fossils, the opposite is true.“The point to remember…is that the fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time.”–Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. p.57)
David
++”Where are the actual transitions between the few “transitions” that we have now, that you speak of.
You simply repeat the great mantra of the dishonset creationist. Whenever a new transitional fossil is found, the response is “aha, now there are two gaps in the fossil record where there used to be one”.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
gives an overview of transitional forms in the fossil recordhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
lets you see an examplehttp://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
explains a bit more about the limits and scope of the fossil recordStuart
Quote ++”Where are the actual transitions between the few “transitions” that we have now, that you speak of. The following uses horses as one example:
Quote http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
explains a bit more about the limits and scope of the fossil recordAs The World Book Encyclopedia states: “Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.”
The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line.”
In other words, nowhere does the fossil evidence show a “gradual” development from the small animal to the large horse.
Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: “Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush.”
Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable says: “It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal.” But do the facts support this assumption? “The fossil species of [Eohippus] show little evidence of evolutionary modification,” answers the book. It thus concedes, regarding the fossil record: “It fails to document the full history of the horse family.”
So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one.
And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors.
Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family.
To give this neat picture of horses growing in size and losing toes, etc, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.
They may say they are simplifying to avoid confusion, but really they are concealing evidence and oversimplifying to the point of falsification.Naturalist I. Sanderson writes:
“This pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structures, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion.
“So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved.”david
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
