Evolution vs. Creation

[Watcher74]

Also, in response to atheists belief system...

Even if evolution was not true does not make God true.

Prove that a supernatural creature created everything that exists, made it for only one species of creature on this one planet, and all the vast universe is only a backdrop to our existence.

Talk about ridiculous theories.

How about Santa Clause? That seems more reasonable than a supreme being.

 

[TONO]

Think of this wouldn't all of these transitional animals be the victims of natural selection as Darwin put it. Like the whales evolved from land mamals. But whales have no pelvis, how could a land mamal support hind limbs with a shrinking pelvis,required for walking? This animal would have fallen prey both at land and sea and therefor would have been extremley vuberable. The lowest known whales from the fossil record are completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. To think that all living things transitioned at that same time is just crazy.

"Prove that a supernatural creature created everything that exists, made it for only one species of creature on this one planet, and all the vast universe is only a backdrop to our existence."

Watcher I can't prove anything or I we would all be believing in the exact same thing, but I can make a good argument. I will in the next couple of days.

Dale, sorry it will not happen again.

slappy
".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'"

since the 1890's paleontologist have been tearing up the ground in search for "the missing link." I think that the noted Canadian geologist William Dawson sums it up best, " The record of the rocks is decidedly againts evolution" He says this on the basis of what we know to be contained in the rocks. The fossil record is so dicontinous and the gaps are so obvious that if you study it you will wonder how evolution ever was regarded as credilble.

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

show me proof

 

[Mako]

Hey, watcher, respectfully, I'd like to take your challenge on Bible knowledge. I'm a seminary student. I'm a current Southern Baptist that was NOT a Christian most of my life, nor did I participate in any church until I was in my early 20's (7 years ago). This could be fun.

 

[Watcher74]

TONO, once again the "missing link" that creationists keep throwing out is bogus.

It's a red herring. A monkey is closer to humans than a shrew. So that can be regarded as a "missing link" in evolution from the earliest mammals(shrew-like creatures) to us. Please explain to me what characteristics(EXACTLY) a creature would have to possess to be considered a "missing link" for you.

No matter if we found proof of every creature that walked the Earth, including every tiny evolution to man, creationists would still claim we haven't found a "missing link".

It's flawed reasoning. It's a construction invented to try and prove the most likely theory about how we became is not true.

Mako, I'll accept your request. I'm not a scripture quoter if that's what you mean. But I firmly understand all the reasoning and stories/ideas/ideology.

So shall I begin?

Based on your faith, do people go to Heaven AND Hell?

What do you need to do to get to Heaven?

 

[Watcher74]

TONO, on your comment about whales. I'm assuming that you meant land mammals turning into whales, not the other way around. As far as I know, their are no land mammals that used to be whales.

But here is an ancestor to whales:

Pakicetus
Early Eocene

Pakicetus is the earliest known whale. It probably looked quite different from the modern whales. Its teeth were similar to those of the Mesonychids, and the cheek teeth had the same triangular arrangement of cusps. This suggests the Pakicetus had evolved from flesh-eating terrestrial ungulates only a short time previously.

Its ears were not particularly well-adapted for functioning underwater, so Pkicetus probably spent much of its time on land. Discoveries of other land-living animals in the same deposits as this early whale seem to confirm this.

Pakicetus had limbs that were paddle-shaped, allowing it to move awkwardly on land, but making it completely at home in the rivers and estuaries.

I.E. This is a "missing link" between terrestrial mammals and fully aquatic whales.

But creationists will never accept it as such, even though it is obviously so.

 

[Riso-chan]

Watcher, the book I read is called "Fractals: the patterns of chaos" by author John Briggs. It was one of the required books in a college course I took while studying animation.

Back to topic, another reason we have not found alot of those missing links is because of time and decay unfortunately. I'll give two good examples of this. 1. Parrots; There is no known record or findings of what these birds evolved from or what they may have looked like before now due to the fact that most live in a rainforest environment. When these birds died, more than likely they fell to the forest floor, where numerous bugs, scavengers, etc. would have devoured them. Also, the heat as well as moisture would have sped up decomposition. And the bones of birds are hollow, so they may not have lasted very long.
2. Bats; Long presumed to have evolved from some type of rodent, it was actually discovered a few years back that they have more in common with primates. However, no records of their evolution have been found, mainly because of the environment in which they live. Inside their caves, there is usually a fairly deep layer of guano(bat droppings) and in that guano lives many scavenger insect species. Whenever a bat dies, it either stays hooked upside down or it falls to the floor where it is devoured. Even if living bats fall to the floor they may be eaten. Then the droppings also add to the decaying process.

To those who poke holes in the theory of evolution, you are understandable in your questioning. There are many things still unanswered by science. Science itself is in a process of evolving to become better. I can understand those who would rather believe in something they feel has more solid ground. I'll always have my disagreements with it, but hey, we all must choose on our own what we believe in. And as long as it doesn't hurt others, I respect that.

 

[TONO]

Watcher that one fossil does not prove a transition, period. Yes I did mean lands mamals evolving into whales I don't re-check my work. I will say it again Watcher. The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution that acomplishes a major morphologic transition and therefore offers no evidence that this gradualist model can be valid.It is also remains true to fact that every paleontologists knows that most new species genera and families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known gradual completely contious transitional sequences.

This is required by evolution yet as Micheal denton puts it."Simpson is admitting that the fossils provide none of the crucial transitional forms required by evolution."

Lets look at who George ***lord Simpson really is.

"Focusing on Simpson's scientific contributions, Laporte provides chapters on Simpson's earliest paleontological research through his distinguished Alexander Agassiz professorship at Harvard and his extensive fieldwork for the American Museum of Natural History, where he developed the core themes set forth in his most prestigious work, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1944). Simpson was arguably the first evolutionary paleontologist to combine descriptive taxonomy with the modern approaches of genetics and statistical analysis."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/0231120648.HTM

 

[125gJoe]

I'm sorry if I missed someone else "putting this forward", but what could be more proof that "transitional animals" exist - than the butterfly or the frog, and others? Even over extreme times, transition occurs.

 

[Watcher74]

Exactly, even the ancestors of common creatures that are obviously majorly morphologically different will not be accepted by creationists.

Ok, how about this little fact:

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Until recently, it was thought that Neanderthals might have interbred with the later, more advanced migrations from North Africa. But it now seems more likely that the Neanderthals represent the most recent extinct side-branch of the human family.

Samples of DNA takne from the original Neanderthal fossils have shown that modern humans have not inherited any Neanderthal genetic traits. (We were too different to reproduce with them). The DNA data also shows that Neanderthals and modern humans diverged from a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago.

Neanderthal people were more sophisticated than previously thought, with a well-developed tool technology. They also show the beginnings of what has been thought of as a religious culture.

*Taken from The Simon & Schuster Encylopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures*

So hard cold facts of DNA proves that these creatures were not us, but a relative to humans. They were too different from us to even have babies(like a horse and a cow trying to make a child). But they were intelligent enough to have their own religion.

Those animals thought the were the children of God. But we are the ones with souls, and not them?? If they still existed they would say the same about us.

 

[125gJoe]

Interesting Topic.

And I still have not voted on this Poll.