Evolution vs. Creation

[Riso-chan]

I agree there with you, Watcher. We humans are not absolute pinnacles of evolution, nor should we have special treatment that makes us out to be more valued than any other species on Earth. And as far as having souls, I believe that any living being, even plants, very well have an essance that is 'them' individually. Each being, even those of a same species can have traits that are unique to that individual alone while still being recognizable as that given species. Like fingerprints, the stripes of a tiger, shapes of leaves, etc. It is a random process called "self similarity", I learned about it in college while studying fractals. This process occurs virtually everywhere in life and it is very probable that it occurs in the rest of the universe as well. It is such a random yet effecient pattern, it is the closest thing to perfect design that I can see.

BTW, I am glad to be able to finally chat with people about in depth subjects such as this. My own age group is unfortunately too busy thinking of themselves to be entertaining to talk with like this. Usually, I've found more often than not, if they are talking deep subjects it's because they are smoking something that allows them to visit green elves or something. Anyway, thanx for being fun to talk with about complex issues! :

 

[Watcher74]

It is a random process called "self similarity", I learned about it in college while studying fractals. This process occurs virtually everywhere in life and it is very probable that it occurs in the rest of the universe as well. It is such a random yet effecient pattern, it is the closest thing to perfect design that I can see.

Ok, you have me really interested here. Fractals and self similarity?

Where can I find more info on this?

Any authors or books you can suggest???

 

[TONO]

Well first off there is no real fossil evidence linking any species evolving into another organism. please anyone name a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would show one species evolving to another. that is a required part of evolutionary theory that had to have happened right?

Now if you knew what you were talking about you would throw the supposed tranistional development of the horse into this. One of the greatest paleontologist Simpson is forced to admit " The most famous of all equid trends, (reffering to the the gradual reduction of the sides of the toes) is flatly ficticious." There is little doubt in the scietific communtiy if this had not been an issue of evolution it would have been discarded long ago. no matter how long pro evolutionist downplay the testimony of fossils, the simple fact remains the fossil record does not support evolutionary thought. Since Darwins time we have discovered 99% of all know fossils and all are either closely related to all other known forms or they are strange and unique types of unknown affinity.

Or what about apes evolving into man. No experiments or oberservations have ever demonstrated the process of human evolution. The neandrthals are classified under the name of homo.(humans no others have). Non humans are the species such as australopithecines . This has been verified by the study of the nerve connecting the ear canal to the tounge. DNA similarities are extremely exaggerated, gentic diferences are vast. If you go up and talk to any genetistis they will tell you the argument genetic similarities is circular. What I mean is all organic beings share a great deal of similarity even to other forms of organic life such as yeastWe all need to perform similar functions requiring the need for similar structures(particularily apes and humans).

I think the reason why we are still holding on to this ridiculous theory is because it would destroy the root of all athiests beliefs.

just my two cents

Next I will talk about the big bang theory and how it some how defied the first law of thermodynamics. You know the one that tells us that the total quantity of energy in the universe is constant. One of the most fundemental laws scientist have ever been able to make about the universe.

I'd say it takes even more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than a religion.


PS: Riso I'm sure that I am around your age

 

[Dale W.]

Tono and everyone else,

Let me remind you to "attack the issue, not the person" By attacking the issue, you will keep the thread somewhat civil. Lines like this, "Now if you knew what you were talking about you would throw the supposed tranistional development of the horse into this." have no place in threads on AC.

Thanks

Dale

 

[cyberbeer65]

We'll all know when we die,won't we?

 

[Matak]

We'll all know when we die,won't we?

You've got it. But better sooner than later.

 

[nursie]

You've got it. But better sooner than later.

I would rather die later I think, If I could choose.

This has been an interesting read. I think it's good to have the title up front and those who are offended by this type of debate or feel it doesn't belong here don't have to read it. Thanks, Dale for taking the chance.
Just remember..closed minds stagnate...

 

[RTR]

Re:Evolutionary offsets: Consider the feathered dinosaurs transition to birds.

 

[Slappy*McFish]

..and the probability that we haven't even come close to finding fossils of every single creature that has ever lived. There could be thousands of prehistoric creatures that will never be discovered. Many of which may include these 'missing links'

 

[Watcher74]

Exactly RTR. There are no "transitional" creatures. Every creature is complete into itself and is not "incomplete" in it's journey to be something else.

The feathered dinosaurs had arms they held up. When they grabbed for their prey the arms came out and down. The same movement that birds use to flap. They were not transitioning. Those traits worked well for grabbing prey during that period. The fact that they same movement is now used for powered flight did not matter then, nor was it intended then. It just slowly adapted to use the same movement for a different function.

To try and find an "incomplete" creature or "link" that is not fully formed to do what it is trying to do is ludicrious.