View Full Version : A New Argument on Creationism



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Jzyehoshua
06-28-2011, 12:36 PM
I call it new, because I've found my points are generally pretty unique. So here's what I'd like to say:

1. PARENT SPECIES. Darwin himself recognized that evolution's theory of a common ancestor has a competing alternative, what he termed 'parent species', and that there is "presumptive or even strong evidence" in favor:



"When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."
-Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", pages 16-17 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=32)

Now, why is it that, over a century after his famous book, we still have not seriously considered the opposing theory to evolution that Darwin himself recognized had strong evidence in favor of it? Scientists are happy to explore their favored theory of evolution, but what research, if any, is being done on parent species? There has been no objectivity in considering opposing theories to evolution, because the search is not for the truth, but to prop up a favored worldview.

We have tons of evidence for speciation and natural selection. What we do not have evidence for is INTER-speciary evolution, that species become entirely different species. If Darwin was right in stating there is strong evidence for parent species, the possibility remains that the Bible is right, and animals evolve only within species or kinds - dogs adapt to the environment to become subspecies of dogs, yet came from a common dog ancestor - there is no true common ancestor for all species.

This would explain Darwin's other concerns about his theory:



"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:— Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"
-Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", Ch. VI, "Difficulties On Theory", page 171 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=32).


The lack of transitional forms, evidence of irreducible complexity, evidence of intelligent design, and sterility in interspeciary breeding, would all be considered evidence for parent species, and a weakness in Darwin's own theory of a common ancestor, aka evolution.

2. TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Everyone knows the tired old examples of Java Man, Piltdown Man, and other frauds, so I won't bother mentioning them. Rather, I want to present points I've found from my reading of science and news articles over the past decade which you're probably not aware of. Evolution's history of transitional forms has been taking a MAJOR hit just over the past 5 years.

Scientists are increasingly acknowledging the human evolutionary tree now looks like a "messy bush" with branches going everywhere.


"Another discovery by Dr. Leakey challenged the prevailing view that the family tree had a more or less single trunk rising from ape roots to a pinnacle occupied by Homo sapiens. Yet here was evidence that the new species Kenyanthropus platyops co-existed with Lucy’s afarensis kin. The family tree now looks more like a bush with many branches. 'Just because there’s only one human species around now doesn’t mean it was always that way,' Dr. Grine said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26ance.html?_r=1

"The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.... In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said. It’s the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/fossils-paint-messy-picture-human-origins/

So what are these discoveries which have forced the scientific community to recognize this?

1 - Discovery of Ardipithecus Ramidus walking upright upsets belief that humans were similar to modern apes and suggests that 'Lucy' and Australopithecus were not part of the human evolutionary chain.
2 - Discovery that Homo Erectus did not evolve from Homo Habilis since they lived at same time.
3 - Discovery of Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', though at first heralded as a new missing link, proves to be an offshoot like the Neanderthal.
4 - Discovery that Orrorin Tugenesis and Sahelanthropus lived too early.

To quote from some news articles:


"The phrase "family bush" doesn't trip off the tongue the way "family tree" does, but anyone talking about human evolution had better get used to it... Two fossils discovered in Kenya suggest that evolution was a lot messier than that. One of the specimens, found just east of Kenya's Lake Turkana, is the upper jaw bone of a habilis from 1.44 million years ago; habilis was thought to have become extinct about 1.6 million years ago... The evidence that Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived at the same time in the Turkana basin makes it "unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis," says Meave Leakey, a lead author of the paper announcing the discovery in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature... The discoverers are sticking by their guns, and even Tattersall agrees that their conclusion—that erectus and habilis overlapped in time and that habilis was not the direct ancestor of erectus—is probably right. Which leads to perhaps the greatest puzzle of all. Throughout human evolution, several species of ancestors lived at the same time. The most recent, of course, were Neanderthals, which made their last stand in the Iberian peninsula about 35,000 years ago. Then why is Homo sapiens the one and only species of human on the planet today?"

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/07/the-human-family-shrub.html

"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree... The biggest surprise about Ardipithecus's biology is its bizarre means of moving about. All previously known hominids—members of our ancestral lineage—walked upright on two legs, like us. But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

"'A lot of people were happy to hypothesize that as you went back, into that first half of human evolution since the last common ancestor, as you found these fossils they'd be increasingly chimpanzee-like,' said Tim D. White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a leader of the research team. 'We have something getting pretty close to it in time, and it turns out it doesn't look chimpanzee-like; it's an unexpected combination of characteristics, some of which are new in evolution and put this pretty firmly on our side of the family tree and some others that are very primitive.'... "I think it's a siginficant discovery ... and will generate an enormous amount of controversy," said Johanson, anticipating the storm of debate over the coming years as scientists try to understand whether this creature walked on two feet or how to understand its strange mixture of traits. "I think it's very important to say that this supports the long held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes.""

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/10/01/scientists_announce_discovery_of_earliest_prehuman _skeleton/

"Previously, the hominid Homo habilis was thought to have evolved into the more advanced Homo erectus, which evolved into us. Now, habilis and erectus are thought to be sister species that overlapped in time. The new fossil evidence reveals an overlap of about 500,000 years during which Homo habilis and Homo erectus must have co-existed in the Turkana basin area, the region of East Africa where the fossils were unearthed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6937476.stm

"The new estimate supports claims that recently discovered primate fossils, the Millennium man (Orrorin tugenesis) and Sahelanthropus, are not on the human lineage but belong rather to an ancestral lineage from which both humans and chimps evolved. The results are detailed in the February issue of the journal PLoS Genetics. The new estimate fails to square up with previous molecular estimates for the divergence date, not to mention the fossil evidence on hominids, said Ian Tattersall, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History."

http://www.livescience.com/4406-humans-time-origin-pinned.html

"In the 1990s, scientists finally crossed the Lucy divide. In Kenya, Meave G. Leakey of the celebrated fossil-hunting family came up with Australopithecus anamensis, which lived about four million years ago and appeared to be an afarensis precursor. Another discovery by Dr. Leakey challenged the prevailing view that the family tree had a more or less single trunk rising from ape roots to a pinnacle occupied by Homo sapiens. Yet here was evidence that the new species Kenyanthropus platyops co-existed with Lucy’s afarensis kin... Two even earlier specimens are even harder to interpret. One found in Kenya by a French team has been dated to six million years and named Orrorin tugenensis. The teeth and bone pieces are few, though the discoverers think a thigh fragment suggests that the individual was a biped — a walker on two legs... Other challenges arise from human evolution in more recent epochs. Just who were the “little people” found a few years ago in a cave on the island of Flores in Indonesia? The Australian and Indonesian discoverers concluded that one partial skeleton and other bones belonged to a now-extinct separate human species, Homo floresiensis, which lived as recently as 18,000 years ago.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26ance.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

In summary, you have a rapidly growing number of offshoots just not part of the human lineage, which now include some of the most major sections of what was once considered the human evolutionary tree. Scientists are also being forced to concede ancient humans looked nothing like modern apes, and actually underwent very little evolution with regards to their walking methods, for example. This could be strong evidence for a human ancestor that underwent changes after a global Flood, after which mankind began living closer to one century rather than ten, and the theory of parent species, rather than evolutionary theory.

3. THE SCOPES TRIAL. Having read the Scopes Trial transcript (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm), I noticed there was no actual evidence presented for evolution itself. Rather, Darrow simply made a series of attacks on the Bible, without actually proving that macroevolution is science. We know microevolution, minor changes within a species, or what Darwin called Parent Species, is scientifically evidenced. What we don't see is evidence for a common ancestor or everything coming about from nothing. As pointed out by WhatYouOughtToKnow.com (http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/):



“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening,” says Dawkins. “It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you – the detective – hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English.” But ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh! Dr. Dawkins! Pick me! Pick me! Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It’s like seeing two bones on the ground 40 feet apart and assuming it came from the same animal. Skullcap, thigh bone – Java Man!

The evidence of evolution may indeed spell out a message in plain English. We’ve never seen it happen. We can’t prove it happened, we can’t reproduce it, but it’s the best we’ve got, so we have to believe it. Which is a pretty poor qualifier for teaching it as an undeniable fact to impressionable young minds. Why don’t we just teach the truth? We don’t know how life came about. Why is that so threatening? You can’t prove that evolution happened, or that it didn’t. It’s beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. And if we were to subject evolutionary theory to the same rigors that scientists want to impose on ID, it probably wouldn’t pass the test to be classified as science, either.

Prunepicker
06-29-2011, 12:10 AM
Very nice. You're thoughts really aren't that unique. The evidence you
provided has been used for years.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a species evolved
into another species. Virtually everything that evolutionists (I no
longer call them scientists) use is extrapolation.

I don't argue Creationism, per se. I simply show that the evidence
for evolution, i.e. species evolving into other species, doesn't exist.

Oh, be prepared for some of the most unscientific hate-speech
you've ever encountered. As with homosexuality, facts don't matter
too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

Flame on!:numchucks

ljbab728
06-29-2011, 12:22 AM
As with homosexuality, facts don't matter
too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

Flame on!:numchucks

It's nice that you finally agree with me. LOL

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 07:37 AM
But dogs do all share a fairly recent common ancestor.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 07:48 AM
And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.


Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.

Jzyehoshua
06-29-2011, 09:20 AM
And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.

Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.

The articles clearly do show a weakening of the transitional forms. Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis living side by side? That's a HUGE blow to the human evolutionary 'tree', as is the fact that scientists are now being forced to call it a messy bush. And an article titled "Move Over Lucy, And Kiss The Missing Link Goodbye (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html)", from no less than National Geographic? That shows just how serious the findings that Ardipithecus walked upright were, with National Geographic recognizing it casts into doubt the placement of 'Lucy' in the human lineage. Knocking off Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tugenesis from the human lineage is key as well, and the finding of Homo Habilis, 'Hobbit Man', as yet another offshoot, after it was originally heralded as a missing link, just adds to the growing mix of debunked transitional forms.

As for Darwin, I read the book for myself - if you think I'm taking him out of context, explain how so. He did state concerns about his theory because he was honest, from what I can tell. I didn't bother going over his 'dismantling' of them because he didn't dismantle them, or he wouldn't have called them serious concerns. He thought the fossil record's lack of transitional forms would be fixed after a few decades and better understanding of the fossil record - which never happened. He thought sterility due to interspeciary breeding was a lack of familiarity with animal interspeciary breeding - now that familiarity is available to us, and we can recognize that sterility as a huge objection to Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you think he dismantled his posed objections, then explain how so.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 09:24 AM
No, it really isn't a huge blow to their status as demonstrating transition. And if you think it is you need to read some very fundamental work on the entire theory, because something is wrong with the version of it that exists in your head.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 09:29 AM
And that Lucy article only demonstrates that our ancestors were not exactly like chimps. That is not damning at all to the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, and in fact supports the notion thoroughly. These articles are about revisions in the details of our immediate family tree., but that doesn't mean they don't completely support the idea that we have a family tree.

Notice how the article doesn't use the term "debunked transitional form". But you do. Why do you think that is?

Jzyehoshua
06-29-2011, 09:30 AM
Very nice. You're thoughts really aren't that unique. The evidence you provided has been used for years.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a species evolved into another species. Virtually everything that evolutionists (I no longer call them scientists) use is extrapolation.

I don't argue Creationism, per se. I simply show that the evidence for evolution, i.e. species evolving into other species, doesn't exist.

Oh, be prepared for some of the most unscientific hate-speech you've ever encountered. As with homosexuality, facts don't matter too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

Flame on!:numchucks

It's been used for years by ME. :) I haven't heard anyone before, online or elsewhere, bring up Darwin's comments on parent species. I also haven't seen publicized much, at least in Creationist circles, the new weakening of transitional forms we've discovered over the past decade. If you know someone else who's been making these points, I'd love to see a link or source for this, I'd always thought they were unique. :S

Concerning Creationism, I don't think it OR evolution should be taught in science classrooms. The Brothers Winn, i.e. WhatYouOughtToKnow.com (http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/), make this point very well, suggesting both should be taught in philosophy classes or something. My interest is not in disproving evolution, which I think is likely impossible, but rather, in showing that Creationism can have a reasonable basis as a competing theory to Evolution, if considered in the form of Parent Species that Darwin acknowledged.

It's become too common for liberals to superioristically write off as intellectually inferior those who so much as consider Creationism plausible, as though it's been disproved the same way the earth being flat has. Yet evolution is still very much a theory, and one that has been weakening as we gather more evidence. The classic bait and switch occurred, with people inferring that because there was evidence for microevolution, small adaptations within species, that macroevolution, a theoretical belief that interspeciary evolution occurs and all species have a common ancestor, was rock-solidly proven. I intend to argue that the evidence is increasingly pointing the other way, towards the parent species, i.e. microevolution, that Darwin recognized as the competing alternative to his theory of a common ancestor, i.e. macroevolution.

I simply want to show this is not a finished debate, and that there is evidence for the other side as well, that microevolution, parent species, may be considered a reasoned, plausible theory along with evolution.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 09:34 AM
But your musings on the theory demonstrate that you do not mind blabbing about scientific realities that you have never bothered to fully master. Thats why we use creationism as a litmus test.

Jzyehoshua
06-29-2011, 09:37 AM
And that Lucy article only demonstrates that our ancestors were not exactly like chimps. That is not damning at all to the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, and in fact supports the notion thoroughly. These articles are about revisions in the details of our immediate family tree., but that doesn't mean they don't completely support the idea that we have a family tree.

Notice how the article doesn't use the term "debunked transitional form". But you do. Why do you think that is?

More like "nothing like chimps". Your subtle word variation is false. To quote the article:



"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between."


They do say, "The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree." They also say, "If White and his team are right that Ardi walked upright as well as climbed trees, the environmental evidence would seem to strike the death knell for the "savanna hypothesis"—a long-standing notion that our ancestors first stood up in response to their move onto an open grassland environment."

You're talking about the destruction of a longstanding hypothesis that humans came from chimp lookalikes, and the way humans began walking upright - the Savanna Hypothesis. Stuff that's been getting taught about basic human evolution in science classes for decades has been instantly shown to be false. You and many of the scientists making these discoveries would love to just write them off as revisions, and avoid focusing on how it weakens evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, that is the end result.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 09:41 AM
Yes, and it is replaced with the idea that humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was something else. It is most definitely NOT replaced with the notion that we do not share a common ancestor. It's an interesting detail, to be sure, but it doesn't in any way reduce the evidence for evolution.

If someone was teaching the Savannah hypothesis as fact then that was a mistake. It was a reasonable option, but its never been an established fact, like the spherical earth or evolution.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 09:48 AM
To be perfectly frank your notion of parent species is just a misreading of that term. Darwinism has parent species, the modern synthesis has parent species, even Lamarckism has parent species. Perhaps you should find a new term for whatever it is you are describing.

Jzyehoshua
06-29-2011, 09:59 AM
Yes, and it is replaced with the idea that humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was something else. It is most definitely NOT replaced with the notion that we do not share a common ancestor. It's an interesting detail, to be sure, but it doesn't in any way reduce the evidence for evolution.

If someone was teaching the Savannah hypothesis as fact then that was a mistake. It was a reasonable option, but its never been an established fact, like the spherical earth or evolution.

Of course it's not replaced by such a theory, because that would be contrary to the atheistic beliefs of most scientists. The scientific method only ensures objective evaluation of a theory, it does not remove bias from the choosing of the theory. That is why the scientific community will only consider theories that fit an anti-Biblical worldview, that held by the majority of them, since they're liberal. That's why a century + later, we still haven't given consideration to the alternate theory of parent species. There is no honesty in considering other theories, no matter how weakened evolution becomes in terms of evidence. It will always just be 'revised' rather than reconsidered.

HewenttoJared
06-29-2011, 10:02 AM
Parent species is not an alternative theory. It's a term, with a meaning, used by any theory. Whatever it is that you are describing as an alternative theory you need to find a new term.

The suggestion that someone could master the basic concepts of evolutionary theory without knowing this is preposterous. Would you trust a mechanic that wasn't sure what engines are for?

Prunepicker
06-29-2011, 12:34 PM
Of course it's not replaced by such a theory, because that would be
contrary to the atheistic beliefs of most scientists.
Since when have most scientists been atheistic? Do you mean as
not believing in God or trying to be objective? Is there a valid poll?

Prunepicker
06-29-2011, 12:42 PM
There's one thing that can't be denied and that's the fact that
humans and chimps don't have the same ancestry. Chimps come from
chimps and vice versa.

Another fact that can't be denied is that every species, without
exception, comes after it's own kind. This is something those in the
religion of evolution can't stand. Take the chimp, for instance. There
isn't a species that proceeded it and evolved into the current species
and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of a chimp evolving into
another species.

We must keep in mind that when evolutionists talk about evolution
they really mean a species becoming different species regardless of
the fact that every single shred of evidence points to the contrary.
They try to convolute the word by saying it means any change,
which is really adaptation, but that is rarely, if ever, the case.

Roadhawg
06-30-2011, 09:11 AM
There's one thing that can't be denied and that's the fact that
humans and chimps don't have the same ancestry. Chimps come from
chimps and vice versa.

Another fact that can't be denied is that every species, without
exception, comes after it's own kind. This is something those in the
religion of evolution can't stand. Take the chimp, for instance. There
isn't a species that proceeded it and evolved into the current species
and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of a chimp evolving into
another species.

We must keep in mind that when evolutionists talk about evolution
they really mean a species becoming different species regardless of
the fact that every single shred of evidence points to the contrary.
They try to convolute the word by saying it means any change,
which is really adaptation, but that is rarely, if ever, the case.

So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth? Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what was necessary for survival.

Jzyehoshua
06-30-2011, 10:00 AM
Since when have most scientists been atheistic? Do you mean as
not believing in God or trying to be objective? Is there a valid poll?

Yes, polls and studies have shown that most scientists don't believe in God or doubt, just like most medical professionals do believe in God. Here's a 1996 study:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I probably should have used the term agnostic though, as more might be that than atheists.

Roadhawg
06-30-2011, 10:11 AM
so you're saying most intelligent people doubt there is a God?

USG'60
06-30-2011, 02:00 PM
So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth? Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what was necessary for survival.

Actually, I think he believes it is 10,000 years old.

Roadhawg
06-30-2011, 02:24 PM
Actually, I think he believes it is 10,000 years old.

Living in the dark ages with that kind of thinking

Prunepicker
06-30-2011, 02:38 PM
So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth?
Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?
What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion.


Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into
something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the
environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what
was necessary for survival.
There's no evidence of any of that happening. None. It's all
speculation while attempting to take similarities of different species
and extrapolating that information into species evolving into other
species. This, according to the facts obtained by science, has never
happened and they're champing at the bit to find just one instance.

Prunepicker
06-30-2011, 02:40 PM
I probably should have used the term agnostic though, as more might
be that than atheists.
That would have been better and accurate.

USG'60
06-30-2011, 03:01 PM
What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion.



What that means is that he DOES believe it is ten thousand yr old, and that it happened just like the bible says but he also knows that all of us with educations would decend on him like vultures. He loves to ridicule but hates receiving it ......like the rest of us, I reckon. :-)

Midtowner
06-30-2011, 03:29 PM
This thread:

The theory of evolution is flawed! Clearly that rules out everything but magic being the answer!

The idea of the OP is to simply brush aside science by equivocating as to the meaning of key terms. The creationist argument is in essence, a straw man. The fact is that there is plenty of evidence of macroevolution, both in the present and in the past.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The fact is that whether or not scientists are atheists is irrelevant to whether evolution happened.

The fact is that on a planet with a history of life dating back about 3.8 billion years, when looking at a snapshot of maybe 50-100 years, or even 10,000 years, you're not going to see massive change.

Finally, your alternate theory is basically "magic," which isn't much of a theory, and scientifically isn't even a theory at all.

Lord Helmet
06-30-2011, 05:48 PM
What that means is that he DOES believe it is ten thousand yr old, and that it happened just like the bible says but he also knows that all of us with educations would decend on him like vultures. He loves to ridicule but hates receiving it ......like the rest of us, I reckon. :-)

No one seriously believes the bible is 100% correct do they? The book is ridiculously old, was written by many people, and has been rewritten over and over again throughout history (usually by those in power with the goal of controlling the masses). Even the most devoted Christian has to know that, right?

USG'60
06-30-2011, 06:05 PM
Prune is Prune and there just ain't no 'splainin' some folks.

Midtowner
06-30-2011, 07:05 PM
No one seriously believes the bible is 100% correct do they? The book is ridiculously old, was written by many people, and has been rewritten over and over again throughout history (usually by those in power with the goal of controlling the masses). Even the most devoted Christian has to know that, right?

Facts are irrelevant. The book is magic and you can't change it. If you try to change it, well you can't. It's magic.

Prunepicker
06-30-2011, 10:20 PM
No one seriously believes the bible is 100% correct do they? The book
is ridiculously old, was written by many people, and has been rewritten
over and over again throughout history (usually by those in power
with the goal of controlling the masses). Even the most devoted
Christian has to know that, right?
Can you back this up? Have you ever studied about the ancient
manuscripts? I know you haven't. Your ignorance shows you
haven't. It appears that you're perfectly fine with the hearsay
you've been told and evidence is something you've made very
clear you don't care to worry about.

Just who were these people in power? How did they rewrite it?
Where's your evidence. Did it ever occur to you to honestly
research this? Compare the ancient with the most modern. This
will come to you as a shock but there is very little difference.

For someone who tries exemplify intelligence you certainly don't
exhibit it.

Jzyehoshua
07-07-2011, 07:59 PM
Can you back this up? Have you ever studied about the ancient manuscripts? I know you haven't. Your ignorance shows you haven't. It appears that you're perfectly fine with the hearsay you've been told and evidence is something you've made very clear you don't care to worry about.

Just who were these people in power? How did they rewrite it? Where's your evidence. Did it ever occur to you to honestly research this? Compare the ancient with the most modern. This will come to you as a shock but there is very little difference.

For someone who tries exemplify intelligence you certainly don't exhibit it.

It's a somewhat different topic, but prunepicker is dead on. A lot of people like to accuse the Bible of having been rewritten, without bothering to even check the science or history behind how we got the Bible we have today. The fact of the matter is that we can double-check the translation of the King James Version and other translations today by going back to the source manuscripts - we don't depend on those translations.

Those lobbing this accusation should research the Bodmer Papyri, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Chester Beatty Papyri, and Dead Sea Scrolls. We have manuscripts (copies of the original documents) written before the time of Christ (Dead Sea Scrolls) for the Old Testament and within the first few centuries A.D. for the New Testament. The New Testament alone has more reliable manuscripts, over 20,000 last I heard, than any other historical document in history. Since the Scientific Method can't prove historical events, historians rely on a variety of tests, Internal Evidence, External Evidence, and the Bibliographical tests - the last of which looks at how recent the most reliable manuscripts we have are, how many we have, and how close to the original document's writing we have reliable manuscripts.

Many historical documents are considered reliably preserved based on just a handful of manuscripts with copies milennia after the original writing, e.g. Caesar's Gallic Wars. The New Testament has them dating to within a few centuries of the original documents, far too early for substantial error to have crept in as the Form Critics have suggested, and we can see for ourselves that they were reliably transmitted for centuries. We can even look at the original Greek and Aramaic (what most of the Old and New Testament manuscripts were written in, though we have thousands in other languages also) to see for ourselves whether the KJV writers were accurately translating the original texts.

I would recommend people read Josh McDowell's "More Than a Carpenter" for a discussion of this subject, as McDowell mentions the vast array of evidence for the Bible's validity. Whenever I hear someone suggesting the Bible was translated too many times to be reliable, it is an instant tipoff that they never looked into it for themselves, to realize we actually have the old manuscripts dating to around the time of Christ to examine for ourselves whether later translations were accurate. Small wonder then that archaeology has time and time again verified the Bible's accuracy to even the most minute of historical details. Unlike the Q'uran, it frequently gives names, locations, and even dates (e.g. Nehemiah 2 gives dates according to the Persian calendar of the building of Jerusalem's wall that allow the dating of the Daniel 9 prophecy, when the Messiah would come, down to the exact month).

Bunty
07-07-2011, 08:17 PM
No one seriously believes the bible is 100% correct do they? The book is ridiculously old, was written by many people, and has been rewritten over and over again throughout history (usually by those in power with the goal of controlling the masses). Even the most devoted Christian has to know that, right?

I think one person heavily admired by Prunepicker, Sally Kern, would disagree with you.

Jzyehoshua
07-07-2011, 08:48 PM
This thread:

The theory of evolution is flawed! Clearly that rules out everything but magic being the answer!

The idea of the OP is to simply brush aside science by equivocating as to the meaning of key terms. The creationist argument is in essence, a straw man. The fact is that there is plenty of evidence of macroevolution, both in the present and in the past.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The fact is that whether or not scientists are atheists is irrelevant to whether evolution happened.

The fact is that on a planet with a history of life dating back about 3.8 billion years, when looking at a snapshot of maybe 50-100 years, or even 10,000 years, you're not going to see massive change.

Finally, your alternate theory is basically "magic," which isn't much of a theory, and scientifically isn't even a theory at all.

Bottom Line:

-Darwin himself recognized parent species are a perfectly reasonable alternative theory, and a century later, the scientific community has refused to give even a cursory examination to the primary competing theory.

-The scientific community has begun calling the evolutionary tree a messy bush. This has been in the news, as have the numerous discoveries that transitional forms no longer fit so nicely into said tree.

-The co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, believed in a spiritual creator, and was then blackballed by the scientific community. This shows an unwillingness to consider immaterial alternatives, a closed-mindedness not fitting of the term 'science'.

-The Scopes Trial lacked any proof for macroevolution. Darrow simply mocked the Bible on the following points:

A) Jonah was swallowed by a big sea creature.
B) The sun was stopped for a day in the book of Joshua when God worked a miracle.
C) The Flood is said to have occurred in the book of Genesis.
D) The Bible says the Earth was made in 6 days.
E) Darrow falsely says there were no other children apart from Cain and Abel by Adam and Eve.
F) The serpent was said to have been forced to crawl on its belly after the Garden of Eden incident.
G) The rainbow was created after the Flood.

Darrow simply points to these to try and attack the Bible. He never provides any evidence for macroevolution itself. Several of these could have been much better defended, too. For example, some easy ones to point out:

E) In Genesis 5, it says Adam had sons and daughters. It just never names the daughters specifically. We have no idea how many children Adam and Eve actually had, the Bible in genealogies simply mentions primary descendants, not all children. Darrow falsely accused the Bible here. Furthermore, the commandment against polygamy wasn't given yet for a reason, since Biblically, people lived 800-1000 years and thus could be siblings without having grown up together and be centuries apart in age.
G) The concept of a rainbow not having previously existed is explainable by the earth having previously been watered by a mist, apart from rain (Genesis 2:6). We actually have evidence of similar cases occurring where mist waters the area, rather than rain, such as a self-watering rain forest in Oman (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14959893/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/unique-cloud-forest-has-self-watering-trees/), and the Amazon Rain Forest.

Other objections appear based primarily on a predisposition to disbelieving the possibility of miracles, i.e. circular reason: "Miracles in the Bible are ridiculous, the Bible is false; The Bible is false because it mentions miracles." In no case do contradictions appear involved.

Regardless, the fact is that no proof was actually provided for evolution in the Scopes Trial, merely a series of attacks on the Bible. We have yet to actually prove it true in a court of law.

Prunepicker
07-07-2011, 10:39 PM
The bottom line is that there is no evidence of any species evolving
into another species. Many similarities but similarities do not evolution
make.

Take our present time, are humans becoming another species? No. Is
there any species that's turning into another species? No. You'd think
with all of the digs around the Earth over the past 200 years would
produce at least one single shred of evidence. Alas, not one. What
has been found it every single fossil, species and you name it are all
after it's own kind.

Midtowner
07-07-2011, 10:40 PM
Bottom Line:

-Darwin himself recognized parent species are a perfectly reasonable alternative theory, and a century later, the scientific community has refused to give even a cursory examination to the primary competing theory.

Which is proof of what, exactly? Besides that the "scientific community" doesn't appear to think that the alternative idea holds much water?


-The scientific community has begun calling the evolutionary tree a messy bush. This has been in the news, as have the numerous discoveries that transitional forms no longer fit so nicely into said tree.

And this disproves evolution how? It seems to confirm it, just perhaps, if true, alter some of the preexisting charts. That's what science does, it constantly takes in new information, testing existing theories and adjusts our truths based on new findings. This actually confirms evolution more than it disproves it as a scientific theory as new information has allegedly been added.


-The co-discoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, believed in a spiritual creator, and was then blackballed by the scientific community. This shows an unwillingness to consider immaterial alternatives, a closed-mindedness not fitting of the term 'science'.

This proves what? That the scientific community can't test the hypothesis of a spiritual creator, so they probably don't publish too many papers on said subject?


-The Scopes Trial lacked any proof for macroevolution. Darrow simply mocked the Bible on the following points:

A) Jonah was swallowed by a big sea creature.
B) The sun was stopped for a day in the book of Joshua when God worked a miracle.
C) The Flood is said to have occurred in the book of Genesis.
D) The Bible says the Earth was made in 6 days.
E) Darrow falsely says there were no other children apart from Cain and Abel by Adam and Eve.
F) The serpent was said to have been forced to crawl on its belly after the Garden of Eden incident.
G) The rainbow was created after the Flood.

Darrow simply points to these to try and attack the Bible. He never provides any evidence for macroevolution itself. Several of these could have been much better defended, too. For example, some easy ones to point out:

E) In Genesis 5, it says Adam had sons and daughters. It just never names the daughters specifically. We have no idea how many children Adam and Eve actually had, the Bible in genealogies simply mentions primary descendants, not all children. Darrow falsely accused the Bible here. Furthermore, the commandment against polygamy wasn't given yet for a reason, since Biblically, people lived 800-1000 years and thus could be siblings without having grown up together and be centuries apart in age.
G) The concept of a rainbow not having previously existed is explainable by the earth having previously been watered by a mist, apart from rain (Genesis 2:6). We actually have evidence of similar cases occurring where mist waters the area, rather than rain, such as a self-watering rain forest in Oman (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14959893/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/unique-cloud-forest-has-self-watering-trees/), and the Amazon Rain Forest.

Other objections appear based primarily on a predisposition to disbelieving the possibility of miracles, i.e. circular reason: "Miracles in the Bible are ridiculous, the Bible is false; The Bible is false because it mentions miracles." In no case do contradictions appear involved.

Regardless, the fact is that no proof was actually provided for evolution in the Scopes Trial, merely a series of attacks on the Bible. We have yet to actually prove it true in a court of law.

And what on Earth does an arcane trial in Tennessee have anything to do with science? It might be some sort of emotional event for you, but scientifically significant it isn't. Evolution is proved by empirical data and constant testing of hypotheses. The Bible is not proved in the least, it is entirely a matter of faith. You would do well to understand the difference between the two concepts.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Which is proof of what, exactly? Besides that the "scientific community" doesn't appear to think that the alternative idea holds much water?



And this disproves evolution how? It seems to confirm it, just perhaps, if true, alter some of the preexisting charts. That's what science does, it constantly takes in new information, testing existing theories and adjusts our truths based on new findings. This actually confirms evolution more than it disproves it as a scientific theory as new information has allegedly been added.



This proves what? That the scientific community can't test the hypothesis of a spiritual creator, so they probably don't publish too many papers on said subject?



And what on Earth does an arcane trial in Tennessee have anything to do with science? It might be some sort of emotional event for you, but scientifically significant it isn't. Evolution is proved by empirical data and constant testing of hypotheses. The Bible is not proved in the least, it is entirely a matter of faith. You would do well to understand the difference between the two concepts.

Here witness the foolish certainty of a cold, dead heart.

God will one day disabuse you of your "facts".

USG'60
07-10-2011, 12:50 PM
Here witness the foolish certainty of a cold, dead heart.

God will one day disabuse you of your "facts".Well, I asked God and he said he doesn't mind that I believe in evolution. In fact, he said he doesn't mind a bit.

Bunty
07-10-2011, 12:52 PM
Well, I asked God and he said he doesn't mind that I believe in evolution. In fact, he said he doesn't mind a bit.

Why not. God created evolution.

USG'60
07-10-2011, 12:59 PM
He said that, too, btw. Thanks for reminding me.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 01:02 PM
Well, I asked God and he said he doesn't mind that I believe in evolution. In fact, he said he doesn't mind a bit.

Mock me all you want, but God will not be mocked.

USG'60
07-10-2011, 01:05 PM
He just was and in front of witnesses. Why am I not afraid?

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 01:13 PM
He just was and in front of witnesses. Why am I not afraid?

Good question.

USG'60
07-10-2011, 01:19 PM
Listen, I'm not usually snarky about God, but your remarks warranted it.

Midtowner
07-10-2011, 01:26 PM
Here witness the foolish certainty of a cold, dead heart.

God will one day disabuse you of your "facts".

Oh! Threats of magical, postmortem holy vengeance! I must repent!

Seriously... the above tactic has been used by religion to control the uneducated masses since the dawn of civilization. It has always been particularly useful because magic seemed like as feasible as any explanation for the world around us. Now that we possess the tools to understand the world around us, it might be time to disabuse ourselves of magical thinking as a way to explain anything at all.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 01:43 PM
Oh! Threats of magical, postmortem holy vengeance! I must repent!

Seriously... the above tactic has been used by religion to control the uneducated masses since the dawn of civilization. It has always been particularly useful because magic seemed like as feasible as any explanation for the world around us. Now that we possess the tools to understand the world around us, it might be time to disabuse ourselves of magical thinking as a way to explain anything at all.

So you've evolved beyond the need for God?

Magical, indeed.

USG'60
07-10-2011, 01:47 PM
So you've evolved beyond the need for God?

Magical, indeed.

We will presume that you mean as YOU perceive "Him." You are afraid of yours, we aren't afraid ours.

RadicalModerate
07-10-2011, 01:54 PM
And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.


Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.

Would it be fair to say that your use of the word "grok"--in the above reposte--relegates everything else contained, therein, to the realm of "Mid-Twentieth Century Sci-Fi Heinleinism"--that is, the memory of a pre-Harry Potterian kingdom of non-evolved thought, to which True Believers, even today, light candles and one that is located immediately adjacent to the time-worn principality of "Primitive Nineteeth-Century Darwinism" and bordered, incidentally, by "Discredited Nineteeth-Century Socio-Economic Marxism"?

Or not? =)

After all, this IS The Twenty-First Century . . . And "Quantuum"--or is that "Quaantum"?--Mechanics for The Masses (the new version of an old god) tells us not only that there IS a "god" but that "it is what you think it is" . . . To paraphrase a highly evolved thinker: "Nice Ladder . . . Wrong Tree."

Midtowner
07-10-2011, 01:58 PM
So you've evolved beyond the need for God?

Magical, indeed.

I never had a need for whatever it is that you are referring to as God.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 01:58 PM
We will presume that you mean as YOU perceive "Him." You are afraid of yours, we aren't afraid ours.

It is respect that I have.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 02:01 PM
I never had a need for whatever it is that you are referring to as God.

You've only forgotten.

Midtowner
07-10-2011, 02:02 PM
It is respect that I have.

"Respect" isn't an unfounded (unfoundable) notion that your superbeing will smite unbelievers in the afterlife. Or at least, that's not what Merriam-Webster would say.

USG'60
07-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Would it be fair to say that your use of the word "grok"--in the above reposte--relegates everything else contained, therein, to the realm of "Mid-Twentieth Century Sci-Fi Heinleinism"--that is, the memory of a pre-Harry Potterian kingdom of non-evolved thought, to which True Believers, even today, light candles and one that is located immediately adjacent to the time-worn principality of "Primitive Nineteeth-Century Darwinism" and bordered, incidentally, by "Discredited Nineteeth-Century Socio-Economic Marxism"?
Or not? =)

After all, this IS The Twenty-First Century . . . And "Quantuum"--or is that "Quaantum"?--Mechanics for The Masses (the new version of an old god) tells us not only that there IS a "god" but that "it is what you think it is" . . . To paraphrase a highly evolved thinker: "Nice Ladder . . . Wrong Tree."

I am too old to understand this. Would you mind clarifying what you are trying to say.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 02:28 PM
"Respect" isn't an unfounded (unfoundable) notion that your superbeing will smite unbelievers in the afterlife. Or at least, that's not what Merriam-Webster would say.

Respect for His power and will for me.

Midtowner
07-10-2011, 02:35 PM
I ain't afraid of no ghosts.

RadicalModerate
07-10-2011, 02:38 PM
Don't worry . . . (Ref. Post 52) . . .

Obviously, you are NOT too old to understand "this" [that post]. Since you, sir/amigo, didn't actually use the word "grok"--within the context of attempting to explain/deny/question/apologize for/etc. "Darwinism" (an obviously outdated, half-baked, pseudo-scientific primative explanation for the variety of life that exists around us that some people treat as a religion) . . . The first step in The Quest For Clarity would be to read the book, "Stranger in A Strange Land."

At the very least, it will leave a lasting impression on you regarding the value of water.
(And its importance for life, no matter how it "got" here. Not including watering the lawn during a drought. =)

After reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" (by Robert Heinlein) you won't have to carry out a red-hot cauldron on your forearms to move to up to the next level of understanding. (Remember? "Kung Fu"? . . . David Carridine? =)

At the very least you will have learned the meaning of "grok" even if you haven't internalized it.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 02:39 PM
I ain't afraid of no ghosts.

Jesus loves you.

Midtowner
07-10-2011, 02:41 PM
No matter how hard you try, you cannot philosophize away science. Science is the study of the empirical and observable. To liken evolution to religion is to reject the empirically observable as some philosophical fantasy.

Midtowner
07-10-2011, 02:42 PM
Jesus loves you.

But I will be smited for my godless embrace of science. Gotcha.

lake hefner breeze
07-10-2011, 02:49 PM
But I will be smited for my godless embrace of science. Gotcha.

No, you got yourself and your self alone.

USG'60
07-10-2011, 03:03 PM
I already realize that water is more valuable than oil or gold but maybe there is more to realize. We had better start investing in perfecting and building desalination systems.

Back on topic for a minute: Some have mentioned that we have never found "these missing links," as though that is a problem. Let me posit this. There have been billions if not trillions of (lets just use vertabrates) on this earth and it is a miracle that ANY of them have be perserved and/or found. We only have several thousands of those to study and work with. With such a miniscule number we will never be able lay out skeletons in chronological order with all their branches and be able to say, "See, this is the transition between X and Y. It ain't gonna happen that way.

By the way, are brown (grizzly) bears a different species? The other day on Science Friday they mentioned a new DNA study that showed "when and where" polar bears split from the browns. Evolutionary science certainly acknowledges that there are far more unanswered questions than answered ones, but it is far more likely to find the answers to our questions than any Creationists are.

I have an in-law who is one of the big voices in the Creationists movement. From the moment I met him it was obvious that he was a total flake ......and that was before I knew "who he was." A blatant bloviator that desprately needed attention. Who'da thunk?