|
Posts:
13
Registered:
1/15/01
|
|
(1 of 9)
Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Jul 23, 2006 7:50 AM
|
I'm not very eloquent and mean no disrespect to anyone.
First of all 'proof' in any sense of the word whether attempting to prove God exists or evolutional 'theory' is correct is very difficult.
Evolution has many flaws in it's reasoning and following most evolutional theory to it's final end results in dead ends.
So to make this easy let's look at 1 thing at a time. I have a huge question. If we have fossils that can be dated back millions of years, and if evolution took millions of years to create all the diverse species that exist on the earth from a toxic soup or whatever you call it now (it has changed as old theories become obsolete or flat out can't be proved, yes science changes as new discoveries are made so someone's 'proof' of the day is someone else's challenge in the future) sorry I get distracted easily.
Ahh yes my big question, where oh where are all the 'tranisitional' fossils? Where is the fossil with scales and wings? Where oh where is the fossil with fins and feet? Why in all recorded history and even now as more and more places are being discovered and with the species found do we never find anywhere evidence of a creature in it's evolutionary middle state?
The conclusion must be that every species on the earth stopped evolving at the same time, or at the very random moment a fossil was formed that particular creature was not in it's evolutionary state.
Come on people, think about it. If evolution was true then there would be hard proof and some physical evidence of animals in tranisition somewhere. Should I dare say we could take it on faith that evolution is real without physical proof of a transitional fossil or living creature in transition?
Many so called skeletal remains have been disproven over time and the disproof never published or publicized.
Once we've had fun with this I'll share my wild theory on this so called global warming thing that people are so worried about.
The end.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Columbus, OH
Registered:
8/8/08
|
|
(2 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Aug 8, 2008 6:07 PM
|
"Evolution has many flaws in it's reasoning and following most evolutional theory to it's final end results in dead ends"
As an instructor of evolution and Physical Anthropology (the study of human variation at all levels), I can tell you this is an inaccurate presumption. There are still many questions of how specific variations, biological functions and behaviors can be answered by evolution, this is indeed true. BUT, what makes evolution different from "Creationism" is that evolution is a scientific theory that can be "DISPROVEN" NOTHING, AND I MEAN NOTHING CAN BE "PROVEN". I mean no disrespect, but this is a very COMMON misconception of science, that I attribute to the U.S.'s dismal scientific teaching record (last i heard we rank between Turkey and Croatia in science literacy and teaching!!).
Evolution, as a scientific theory must be predictive and as our knowledge of the 4 evolutionary processes increases (thanks to molecular biology. The beauty of science over religion is that science is NOT Dogmatic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogmatic), meaning that science allows for changes as we get better and newer theories to explain the world....new better knowledge incorporated.....bad old knowledge thrown out! If you are a strict creationist, maybe you should let leaches bleed you the next time you have a life-threatening infection!
Finally, you obviously have not read any good material on evolution and have not taken a class. You ask a question that I address over a 10 week quarter (and really requires a 15 week semester). There are many things you must understand before gaining a critical knowledge of evolution. Most importantly is the worst of all.... GENETICS...this is my students most hatred part of the course but provides the framework for understanding what evolution IS and HOW evolution operates.
If you are simple, simple answer will satisfy you. But evolution is NOT simple, b/c it is the complex process where life has changed over time (btw, thats the definition of evolution: Change/time). WHICH has been proved mathematically in many different populations and has been shown experimentally in labs and the real world. If you want a great example......Antiobiotic resistance in bacteria!
We introduce antiobiotics that kill a majority of the variants of bacteria in an infection. IF just one of those bacteria happens to have a random variation that provides it protection from the antibiotic (or even just a greater ability to survive in prolonged exposure to the antibiotic) than that bacteria line might survive the antiobiotic regiment. If you kill off all the susceptible bacteria, that only leaves those that are resistant to the antibiotic. Now your population of bacteria is different than when it began the infection (Change/time) and you have evolution in a petry dish! We obviously can not do such experiments with humans b/c we live so darn long...but we could begin these experiments now, so that your grandchildren and great grandchildren will not need to go through such silly debates.
If you are serious in your comments, do yourself a favor and take a class on Physical Anthropology (hopefully you will have a good prof. that makes it interesting and fun) at your local Community College.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
Columbus, OH
Registered:
8/8/08
|
|
(3 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Aug 8, 2008 6:49 PM
|
REPLY TO:
"Ahh yes my big question, where oh where are all the 'tranisitional' fossils? Where is the fossil with scales and wings? Where oh where is the fossil with fins and feet? Why in all recorded history and even now as more and more places are being discovered and with the species found do we never find anywhere evidence of a creature in it's evolutionary middle state?"
I am sorry for the long-winded reply in the first section but here I will address your "big question": "Where are all the 'transitional fossils'? Well there are two problems to this question: 1. we have MANY transitional fossils but most of them end up in Natural History Museums and not in churches or on TV (well not as often as Paris Hilton or O'Reilly). Here are just a few of the transitional fossils that Paleontologists have found:
1. Archaeopteryx: is what the layman would call a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It has many of the features of a dinosaur but when the specimen died, the sediments captured impressions of the "flying dinosaur's" wings...strangely enough...living birds have very similar body structures to a very prodigious and large lineage of dinosaurs, "the raptors". Yes, this includes the Velociraptor of Jurassic Park the movie. Many scientists had noticed the striking similarities between modern birds and this lineage of dinosaurs and had hypothesized about there being an evolutionary link before the discovery of this species of "bird-lizzard". here is just a few links that discuss this:
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
2. http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Archaeopteryx_lithographica/
This is just ONE example of many more "transitional species" as you would call them. Sadly, there is plenty on "TS" on wikipedia and if you don't believe them...the source lists all their references which are primarily of good quality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
Now, to answer the second thing wrong w/ your question: There is no such thing as a "transitional species". It is a logical fallacy and yes b/c I am a Physical Anthropologist and I teach a course on Evolution this is a small and obnoxious pet peeve of a super-nerd! According to the theory of evolution, all organisms must be "fit" to pass on their genes to the next generation, passing on whatever beneficial traits they had that might have provided a slight advantage to the parental generation. Each variant must be considered a whole species, not an organism between two variants.
A good example of this is the evolution of the feather in birds from their early dinosaur raptor cousins. Fossil impressions dating back to the Jurassic period show that many raptor dinos, had small, light "pseudo-feathers" that were likely not in any way relevant to flight. Many scientist believe these small feather-like structures could have provided increased warmth retention (hmmmm down blanket in the winter!) in this lineage of dino-raptors and might even explain how these cold-blooded beasts survived the mass extinction of the dinosaurs ~60 million years ago when the other species of large bodied, cold blooded dinos went extinct. Once a structure exists in nature, it is easy for natural selection to "select" (for lack of a better term) larger, more dense versions of this trait to become true feathers that could adequately provide light weight lift for flight and even enhanced protection from the cold.
Sorry, back to the "transitional fossils". So there is no such thing! Each fossil represents a living organism at a given time in the history of time. Conservative estimates of how long it takes for the evolution of one species into another span between hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years (depending upon the strength of the different "forces of evolution"). Since you are looking at a fossil of an individual organism that lived over a relatively short period of time (maybe 10-20 yrs MAX) and the evolution of one species into another (Macroevolution) requires huge expanses of time, no individual fossil specimen will ever completely fulfill the common def. of a transitional species.
Nonetheless, there are several lineages that we have compiled extensive amount of evidence (in the form of transitional fossils) to show a distinct evolution from one type to another with "transitional forms" at various different stages. Each with morphological characters that connect the past with the future forms. The horse is probably the single best example, as we have an extensive collection of horse variants over millions of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
And the second, probably includes the evolution of Cetaceans (aquatic mammals). Again, wikipedia has a decent rundown of both of these lineages. Please, do yourself a favor and DON'T trust wikipedia. Do more research for yourself, the information is out there!
Lastly, I will address your final question why we don't find more specimens. 1. We do! all the time. Keep your eyes posted to the scientific websites (Scientific American, Science, Nature, National Geographic, New Scientist, BBC Science, etc). As a particularly nerdy aspect of science, fossils don't tend to receive much hype from the standard press and if they make headlines, usually not more than one-day's worth before something happens to Paris Hilton and is deemed more news worthy! 2. Fossils are animals that died long ago, got buried (usually by the forces of wind or water) and the elements in the bone are leached into the surrounding soils and vice versus. So fossils are not actually bone but rather fossilized imprints of bone (very similar to petrified wood, if you understand the mechanisms involved in that). After being buried, fossils must be uncovered which provides another whole problem, recovery. Where are there fossils? Where do we dig? how do we pay people to help uncover fossils in a society that is hostile towards anything that might further substantiate evolutionists claims and that won't help you the "consumer" get a new ipod, Wii or house. Fossils lie within the ground underneath us but not just "everywhere". There are certain conditions that are needed to cause fossilization over r the recycling of living matter into the earth. Similarly, there are only certain geological and geographic conditions that favor the creation of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Coal from dead matter. Sorry, we don't all become gas after we die! I would love to dig for fossils under your house, would you let me????? OF COURSE NOT! YOU LIVE THERE! Well continue this idea out. Are we gonna excavate under the white house if we find out there might be important fossils there??? NO. We have different priorities, which means that we (archaeologists and paleontologists) must utilize areas that are naturally eroding, which exposes sediment layers (layers of soil that collect over time, where fossils are found) on the surface, to lower digging and surveying costs.
I hope this helps answer your questions about evolution, if you are truly serious and earnest with your questions. If not, well ignorance is bliss. Have a nice day!
|
|
|
Posts:
2,904
Registered:
9/11/08
|
|
(4 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Dec 31, 2008 9:48 PM
|
|
Apes are God' s creatures. Darwin said apes could be related to man. If you believe God made all creatures, they have be related. The same reason why Evolution is debated is because it was said it promoted racism.It said that black people and Asian people weren't created in God's image.The Nazi thought that about the lesser races like Jews.
|
|
|
Posts:
197
From:
NYC
Registered:
1/2/09
|
|
(5 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Jan 5, 2009 1:18 PM
|
The lesser races?
--
"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for... is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
"Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is god able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is god both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is god neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"
-- Epicurus
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
Hillsboro, Oregon
Registered:
12/31/08
|
|
(6 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Jan 7, 2009 8:03 AM
|
There are plenty of fossils from different species of horses throughout evolutionary history illustrating the evolution of various characteristics such as going from feet with toes to hoofs.
Other speicies have been discovered which illustrate how early whales descended from dog or wolf-like animals who probably sought out new food sources in the seas.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,904
Registered:
9/11/08
|
|
(7 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Feb 12, 2009 2:54 PM
|
|
Maybe other people just accept it just to prove some people aren't creations of God or weren't made by god or something divine.Either they don't wish to accept the fact they are creations of God or are created in God's image.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
10/20/09
|
|
(8 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Oct 20, 2009 12:03 PM
|
I guess its important to mention that the "Theory" of evolution is just that. In addition, it has not been disproved. It's been modified over the years and added and detracted from but the basic theory of evolution is defined as nothing more than "an animals ability to adapt to their environment and pass those traits onto their offspring."
I am not a religious person but the complexities of how we evolved from one form to another requires a religious belief of some sort. There are many proponents of Evolution that are highly religious. They believe that God is still the creator of the Heavens and Earth but He is more patient than we give Him credit for. (using the caps for Him and He to show respect). That Evolution is so complex that in a way it can only work if the hand of God was some how involved. I was quoting others by the way, i wish I could give names but I don't have them at the moment.
Also remember that its a fact the Earth has been around for Millions of Years. Bible or no, we cannot discount this fact. In addition we have to realize that the very small insignificant changes that happened over the course of millions of years will be completely unapparent to the individual observer. But looking at it through the prism of time we can see how minor changes over the long term turned into big changes.
Lets me give an example as it relates to humans.
Perhaps you notice that people with darker skin tones do not get sun burns as easily as people with very light skin tones. Most People with dark skin tones' ancestry originates from areas with a lot of direct sunlight, usually around the equatorial regions of the earth. Africa, South and Central America. They are good examples. This trait didn't just happen on day, someone didn't just wake up with a darker or lighter skin tone. Their bodies over the course of time adjusted to the immense amount of sunlight that was being exposed to them and developed a natural defense against it. As sunlight against our skin develops vitamin D (I believe) darker skin tones absorb less of it and lighter skin tones absorb more. People who lived in the cold areas of the world, Russia, Europe, for thousands and thousands of years developed a lighter skin tone for the opposite reason.
Another example, this one is more recent and happened quickly enough that we can all see it.
In England, before the Industrial Revolution, their was a type of moth, it came in two flavors, moths with with wings, moths with dark wings, the white wings flourished because the trees at the time were for the most part very light. After the beginning of the industrial revolution, soot from the mills darkened the tree trunks from a whitish color to a dark brown, black color. The white wing moths started to die off while the dark wing moths flourished.
Another phrase that is linked to evolution is "Survival of the fittest." Humans don't count because our higher intellect (in most cases) causes us to be empathetic for weaker and impoverished humans. We take care of our sick and elderly and those with disabilities, but for the most part, that is a rare trait amongst animals (some would say its the defining characteristic between animals and humans). But obviously in the wolf category (for example) a weak, sickly wolf living in the wild won't live long enough to breed. Thus ensuring that only those strong enough to survive will pass on their genetic code to their offspring. And any mutation that would be a benefit is also passed on, where debilitating mutations are eventually weeded out. And over the course of thousands of years, beneficial mutations will merge to become another species of wolf.
I guess in the end I doubt I will change many minds over their believes over religion vs evolution. I ask that those that says "Evolution is wrong" at least have the facts about what they are against. Best phrase I can think of that matches this is "Know your enemy."
Thanks and have fun
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
11/4/09
|
|
(9 of 9)
Re: Evolution Disproved (we're God's children, animals are God's creation)
Nov 4, 2009 3:27 PM
|
First off let me point out that I am a devout Christian and I don't believe in evolution. I do however find science to be very interesting and thank God for all the wonderful things science has brought us.
To be honest so many thing are coming to my mind that I am having trouble sorting out all the points I want to make. Hopefully all my thought will make sense.
I guess I will start with this. The "Theory of Evolution" does have some scientific backing, obviously or it wouldn't be a theory if it didn't. All we truly know though, is that there is a beginning and there is now. How the rest fills in is a highly debated issue. The fact of the matter is that there is only one True path. Think of it this way if we are at value of 100 in time, space and existence, we can assume two things. There had to be a 1 and then there has to be a way to get from 1 to 100. Now I am no mathematician but there are countless ways to get to 100 from 1. 1 + 99 = 100.. 1+ 1 + 98 = 100...1 + 10 + 37 + 42 + 10 = 100...and so on and so on. From all those possibilities there are only two acceptable options to even discuss. Evolution or Creationism.
Can we all agree on that?
Science is based on the fact that every part of the Theory can be proven by facts supported by the data supplied. It has a beginning and an end result. For instance in order to get steam you start with 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom they combine to form water when they are heated to 212 degrees the water begins to boil and steam is formed. Does that make sense to everyone? I remind you I am not a scientist so I could missing one or two small things but I think you get the point. This whole process can be observed and studied and other hypothesis can be formed.
As I said before evolution has some scientific support but it also has some scientific discrepancies. For instance, the surface of the moon. When Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon scientists calculated that the moon dust gathered over millions and billions of years would be an issue for landing and so created very wide "duck" feet to prevent the lunar landing module from sinking into this sediment. The fact is though that there are only a few inches of sediment which would lead one to believe the moon is much younger. How about the petrified tree in Australia that goes straight up through several different sedimentary levels of the earth. How about the fact that the Dead Sea which is a unique salt filled lake shows signs that it was a fresh water lake about 7-10 thousand years ago possibly giving some validity to the Flood. The countless times that carbon dating has mis-aged an animal or artifact by thousands of years. When we know the age of it.
The point of this is that these things are discounted because they don't fit with the evolutionary account of the earth and that is the exact practice that these evolutionary scientist accuse the creationist of. Why are their methods so great and ours so bad. They do the same thing we do and try to make the results fit our preconceived notions. The fact of the matter is that no one knows exactly what happened between Day 1 of creation and today. That's right I said Day 1 of creation because as I stated before science requires a 1 to start from and no evolution model has a 1 for the beginning of the universe. Yes they have some theories on the beginning of life but what about before that and before that. The Big Bang Theory has attempted to explain it but according to all natural laws it is unexplainable. If there was nothing then nothing could ever have started and so therefore if you truly follow science you are left with only one choice. Something or Someone outside of our natural laws had to be in existence to start it. You can call it what you will but it had to happen, there is no way around it. Even if you try to go around it you can't. This is often forgotten when discussing evolution because scientist base their whole argument on things that can be proven and the 1 can't be tested or proven. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't happen.
Let me show you an example of this today. Explain to me how a man falls from an airplane and lives to walk away. Someone who has cancer and lives yet someone else has the same cancer receives the same treatment and dies. Science can not explain these things because they are beyond explanation. That's where God fits nice and neat just as He always has. Watching over us and giving us life even when we do not deserve it and even when we despise Him and mock Him. How mercifully and loving is that?!?! All he asks to be given eternal life with Him is that you believe that Jesus Christ came and died for your sins. What an amazing God!
I know many of you want accept this and might even spew nonsense at this but I know where my 1 is do you?
|
|
|
|
|
