Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/17/2002 6:27:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 6:28:09 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
I'm not a strict creationist (world created as it exists now) and I obviously do find "evolution" a rational explanation. However, I find the dismissal of the story of Genesis as a mere fairy tale a bit hasty. No other "fairy tale" that I've ever read regarding the beginning of the universe parallels what we know now about the beginning of the universe/Earth/life as Genesis does. Though it's not a perfectly understood writing (especially the details), Genesis does have an interesting general timeline. A comparison for your consideration: Biblical Events [u]in order they occurred[/u] [b]("Actual" Events in order they're believed by SCIENCE to have occurred)[/b] ------------------------------------------- "Earth was dark formless and empty" [b](pre-Big Bang)[/b] "Let there be light" [b](Big Bang)[/b] "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water" [b](solar system forms several separate planets, earth, mars, jupiter... each with water separate from each other)[/b] "God called the expanse 'sky.'" [b](atmosphere was created)[/b] "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." [b](water and land separated)[/b] "Let the land produce vegetation" [b](photosynthetic microbes first appeared in mud)[/b] "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years..." [b](regular daylight/nightime and seasons began as earth axis tilts for final time)[/b] "Let the water teem with living creatures" [b](sea life were first animals to appear)[/b] "Let the land produce living creatures" [b](land animals appeared AFTER sea animals)[/b] "God created man in his own image" [b](man appeared LAST)[/b] -------------------------------- Not bad for a "fairy tale" written thousands of years before Hoyle, Hawking, Aristotle, Linnaeus or Darwin. Sure, some details get confusing, but does any other 6,000 year old "fairy tale" follow current scientific understanding as well?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 6:28:31 AM EDT
Oh, God (pun intended). Not this again! [:D]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 6:49:39 AM EDT
Add the poll man, add the poll...
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 6:51:26 AM EDT
This all seems vaguely familiar. And not in a good way. I think I'll go play video games instead. [}:D]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 7:11:05 AM EDT
[:K] and what do you hope to accomplish by this?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 7:19:45 AM EDT
Hasn't this been done to death yet???
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 7:28:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 8:08:36 AM EDT
i said the same thing once and was nearly thrown out of the discussion by certain types. (i think they thought it was heresy for putting the evolution on the same level as the Bible). but you do raise and interesting point. and DKProf. i've always wondered about the two versions of creation myself. i read an article once that said that Christians like to use the two creation stories as separate events. the long and short of it was that the first creation failed miserablly cuz the peoples were so bad, bad, bad; and God ended it all. He started over again with the second creation (why He'd use a different recipe though is beyond me), which is our current world and universe. And to top it all off, the article says that some say the dinosaurs were part of the first creation, so we're seeing remnants of the first creation in the fossils we find. pretty convenient heh? though i would venture to say that most Christians don't subscribe to this philosphy. heck, i wonder if most Christians realize there's a discrepancy in the story at all.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 8:22:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Actually, if you read Genesis carefully, there are two different versions of the same story included in Genesis. The order of creation (that you outlined) is told in two different ways in the same chapter. In the version you outlined, man is created last. But in the other version, man is created before the animals and they are set upon the earth to serve him. I don't have my copy here at work, but I can give you the specific cites later when I get home if you'd like. Historical scholars are relatively sure that our version of Genesis is an amalgam of what were originally two separate stories - which differ slightly in the details, but tell the same general story. If you go into real detail of style, you can apparently quite easily separate the two. This of course poses a huge problem for people who interpret the Bible as the "literal word of God". As far as I can tell, their solution is to ignore it - jsut as they usually ignore that the Gospels disagree on such basis things as the day that Jesus was crucified. There are also huge issues of translation that have never been resolved. We have become so used to the current version (based on early translations) that it is too late to change - but there are a number of things in Genesis (especially at the very beginning) that are very ambiguous and could be translated to mean very different things. The early translators simply made judgments calls or guesses based on their best estimate - some are no doubt right, and some are no doubt wrong.
View Quote
True. I, like most, have a hard time believing the literal interpretation of EITHER version, let alone trying to reconcile both. To those who call me troll... [moon] I was just saying that for a so-called "fairy tale", Genesis is an [u]unusually[/u] interesting and revealing one, given its history. I don't know why so many people belittle and dismiss it with such zeal.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 8:50:00 AM EDT
Why could evolution not be God's method of creation? I see no conflict here. (assuming I was Christian still, of course)
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 8:58:54 AM EDT
I do give the Genesis creation myth credit for not containing any cosmic eggs, incestuous divine siblings, or slain monsters whose body parts become mountains, rivers, planets, et cetera. Believers in creation myths containing such elements are now welcome to complain about how oppressed and misunderstood they are. [:D]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:01:53 AM EDT
Hey! The giant monster story was way cool! And no sillier than the rest. Whatever floats your boat [:D]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:06:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:09:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 9:11:07 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
Originally Posted By Hannah_Reitsch: Why could evolution not be God's method of creation? I see no conflict here.
View Quote
Hannah, First as an Agnostic I most often have no true 'fit' in these discussions. I too "see no conflict here." The God I blieve in - my God - would have no problems 'creating' evolution. (Of course my God IS omnipotent.)
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:32:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hannah_Reitsch: Why could evolution not be God's method of creation? I see no conflict here. (assuming I was Christian still, of course)
View Quote
I don't understand why the hard core fundies have such difficulty in at least acknowledging that it is indeed POSSIBLE for evolution to be one of God's tools. Maybe God didn't use it to create everything, but it undeniably does appear to be one of nature's processes.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 9:51:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: I don't understand why the hard core fundies have such difficulty in at least acknowledging that it is indeed POSSIBLE for evolution to be one of God's tools. Maybe God didn't use it to create everything, but it undeniably does appear to be one of nature's processes.
View Quote
I think the battle lines were drawn and the trenches were dug at Scopes Monkey Trial. Many atheists latched onto "evolution" as a means (mistakenly) of refuting the existance of God or at least relegating God to insignificance. At the same time, many "fundies" immediately saw evolution as contradicting (rather than illuminating) the mechanism of God's creation of the world. Generations later, many on both sides are knee-jerk reactionaries still battling like the Hatfields and McCoys - just for the sake of it.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:08:34 AM EDT
The_Macallan What makes us Athiests wrong?? If the bible is right and genesis is right there is a god... If not......NO god.. I know that it is exremely simple but true none the less.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:22:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: The_Macallan What makes us Athiests wrong?? If the bible is right and genesis is right there is a god... If not......NO god.. I know that it is exremely simple but true none the less.
View Quote
Yes, that's true. But my point (and others above also) is that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. I believe you're wrong about God, but I can't prove that God exists by attacking evolution. THAT'S the mistake so many "fundies" make. Likewise, athiests make the mistake of thinking that if they can "prove" evolution, that will also prove that there is no God. Too bad there's so much of bad blood between the two sides, it really makes common sense hard to find. That was the point of this thread - not to incite a riot.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:41:09 AM EDT
Well said, and an interesting discussion. Extremists abhor the middle ground. Unfortunately for them, that's probably where most truth lies. Maybe we don't give enough credit to early man (and women [:)] ) for being so perceptive. Some civilizations had "scientific" understanding of things like astronomy long before we thought they should have had them.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:50:02 AM EDT
Bottom line - No one knows and won't until it's too late to tell the rest of us. This is where faith or the lack of it comes into play.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:53:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:04:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: The_Macallan What makes us Athiests wrong?? If the bible is right and genesis is right there is a god... If not......NO god.. I know that it is exremely simple but true none the less.
View Quote
not technically true. if the Christian religion were based on a false god, it does not necessarily mean that there is no god. there are many other religions out there; if Christianity were wrong, one of them could very easily be correct. which would mean that there still is a GOD.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:05:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I have not seen a whole lot of atheists "attacking" religious Christians with evolution, but I have seen a LOT of religious Christians attacking evolution (and trying to hijack schoolboards to do so). I react very strongly to that - but it's not the Christianity of such people I object to, it's their willful ignorance and desire to impose it upon others.
View Quote
Oh yeah? Try adding teaching of creationism to the current teaching of evolution and see what happens. You'll hear all of those supposedly silent athiests going on the warpath, that's what. Right now they are only content because they are getting their way in public schools, only evolution being taught, instead of having the subject presented in a well balanced manner. The problem is that schools only want to teach one aspect of the subject. And yes, it does indeed lend to the appearance of teaching that our universe is a Godless one. I would prefer that schools either teach all sides of the subject or not deal with it at all.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:08:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 11:10:59 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I have not seen a whole lot of atheists "attacking" religious Christians with evolution,
View Quote
One example comes to mind quickly: Christians starting putting the "Jesus-Fish" symbol on their cars. Then the evolutionists countered with the ubiquitous "Darwin-Fish eating the Jesus-Fish" and the "Jesus-Fish-with-Darwin's-Name-And-Legs" bumperstickers just to mock them. Cute, but the message is clear.
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: ...but I have seen a LOT of religious Christians attacking evolution (and trying to hijack schoolboards to do so).
View Quote
Agreed. I only wish the "fundies" would teach their children that what they learn in science helps us better understand God's creation and design, not that it refutes God's existance.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:15:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:17:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I have not seen a whole lot of atheists "attacking" religious Christians with evolution, but I have seen a LOT of religious Christians attacking evolution (and trying to hijack schoolboards to do so). I react very strongly to that - but it's not the Christianity of such people I object to, it's their willful ignorance and desire to impose it upon others.
View Quote
Oh yeah? Try adding teaching of creationism to the current teaching of evolution and see what happens. You'll hear all of those supposedly silent athiests going on the warpath, that's what. Right now they are only content because they are getting their way in public schools, only evolution being taught, instead of having the subject presented in a well balanced manner. The problem is that schools only want to teach one aspect of the subject. And yes, it does indeed lend to the appearance of teaching that our universe is a Godless one. I would prefer that schools either teach all sides of the subject or not deal with it at all.
View Quote
at the extreme risk of pissing a lot of people off and kicking an already dead horse, just how in the world would you propose to TEACH creationism in the schools? i have seen first hand the utter bullshit that comes from the mouths of those wishing to remove the teaching of evolution from the schools. a local church is sponsoring this guy's 11 part seminar in creationsim vs. evolution. and i could hardly believe the crap that came out of this guy's mouth. no wonder so many Christian's don't believe in evolution if they think it's what this guy was calling it. i mean he flat out lied to them. some examples: said that mutations were LOSSES of genetic code (they're not, they're merely changes, including additions, subtractions, changes, and transpositions of nucleotides or groups of nucleotides), said that all the planets and all the planets' moons should rotate in the same direction based on the concept of conservation of angular momentum (except his statement is based on a bunch of faulty assumptions), said that Archeopteryx was a BIRD (but failed to mention that the current taxonomic hierarchy doesn't have a category for bird-like reptiles or reptile-like birds and it must be placed in either the reptile or bird category for convenience, NOT because it is truly a bird by modern bird definition), said that birds have teeth (they don't). the list is endless. either his concept of science is so misguided that he doesn't know what he's saying or he's lying to people to furhter his own agenda. you wanna talk about getting irate at teaching bullshit in schools. this guy's information was about as factual as a Mother Goose nursery rhyme.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:19:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: It's like a Chevy vs. AK debate. (not a typo)
View Quote
aye, and there's the rub, heh? [;)]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:27:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: The inherent problem is that evolution is accepted by ALL scientists who work in the field of biochemisty, biology and medicine - at top research universities and at top pharmaceutical companies. There is no disagreement within the scientific community about this.
View Quote
WHOA!! NO disagreement?! Hardly! Try telling that to Dennett, Dawkins, Gould, Margulis, Dyson... Plenty of disagreement on the philosophy, scope and dynamics of evolution. For [b]ARLady[/b], one bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch, huh!
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:35:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: Oh yeah? Try adding teaching of creationism to the current teaching of evolution and see what happens. You'll hear all of those supposedly silent athiests going on the warpath, that's what. Right now they are only content because they are getting their way in public schools, only evolution being taught, instead of having the subject presented in a well balanced manner. The problem is that schools only want to teach one aspect of the subject. And yes, it does indeed lend to the appearance of teaching that our universe is a Godless one. I would prefer that schools either teach all sides of the subject or not deal with it at all.
View Quote
Trying to find middle ground here folks. Put the sharp instruments down! [;)] (I just hope Velveeta doesn't find us.)
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:11:17 PM EDT
DK-Prof, maybe my reply was a bit pointed, but I was only replying to your statement suggesting that atheists are peacable types who never attack creationism. That is clearly not always, or even often, the case. I don't know how the teaching of creationism could be integrated alongside evolution. I'm not a teacher by trade. But I'm sure it could be done in a sensible manner. Your smart remark about people who might still believe the world is still flat so that should be taught as well was not very appropriate, either.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 12:47:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:12:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 1:13:34 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Sorry - this is not a matter of opinion, but of public record. Other people tried this tired old tactic in the earlier threads, but the fact remains that there are none. Evolution-deniers trot out the same old tired lists of "scientists" who disagree with evolution. Problem is, that when you actually look up the people and writings, it turns out that almost all of the academics are professors of law, or theology or philosophy. I'm not saying that no educated people dny evolution, I am saying that no scientists who work in biochemisty, biology or similar fields at research 1 universities or top pharmaceutical companies hold this view. The few cases where actual scientists in these fields are claimed to agree with evolution-deniers, invariably turn out to be quotes taken out of context, or pure mistakes. Gould might be interested in a debate about gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium as a mechanism of evolution, but has never questioned the validity of evolution. Some other guy (a Nobel Laureate) is sometimes quoted as well, but he is concerned with the origin of life (the creative spark), not with the process of evolution. If you actually try to look up all of these people who are thrown out there as legitimate scientists who oppose evolution, it turns out there THERE ARE NONE at top research universisites and at top biotech and pharmaceutical companies - even though there are tens of thousands of these scientists, all highly educated, from all different background, countries and religions.
View Quote
DK-Prof, either I misunderstood your statement or you misunderstood mine. After re-reading your statement about "ALL scientists", I came to the conclusion that you believed that there was [u]no debate regarding evolution[/u] within the biological community. THAT is wrong. You have stated as much above (gradualism vs punc. equil.) The words "ALL scientists" and "no debate" threw up a red flag for me to question you. If you simply mean that "most" scientists agree about the [u]concept[/u] of evolution, just disagree about the logistics, that I also agree with. I hate to use the word ALL because I don't know ALL tens of thousands of scientists, just a few dozen, who work in the field and so I don't like to make blanket statements regarding "ALL" scientists. I don't even think [u]ALL[/u] R1 University researchers can even spell "evolution", including a certain Regent's Professor whom I've worked with and who shall remain nameless. [%|]
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:41:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2002 1:47:49 PM EDT by Planerench]
Dk- if you read carefully, the so called two account are two separate events not one. The first is the creation of the Earth, the second the creation of the Garden of Eden. The garden was its own creation. Many so called contradictions in the Bible are a failure of the reader not the book. The two view are both religious. That is the basis for the conflict. One is tax supported and one is not allowed to be. Neither is able to be proved outright because viewing an event in process tells you nothing other than what you see during your observation. The consensus of professionals in which evolutionist find validation is laughable. Nebraska man manufactured from a pig's tooth. Lucy manufactured from a monkey skeleton and a single knee joint (the critical missing link proof) found nearly two miles from the rest of the skeleton in a different strata. Ice core samples with 135,000 annual rings (still in text books today) when the rings are formed by warm and cold cycles sometimes two a day and over 200 feet since WWII. Consensus of the experts is all the religious evolutionists have. Evolution doesn't happen. I blindly believed in evolution as a science savy kid until the real science part came into play. I refuse to believe the word of my teachers who still believe the inaccuracies of the theory and who have no first hand knowlege of the real world. Open your minds. Objectivity is extinct in the religious evolutionist scientific world. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:45:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: I don't know how the teaching of creationism could be integrated alongside evolution. I'm not a teacher by trade. But I'm sure it could be done in a sensible manner.
View Quote
i guess a better question would be this: just [b]WHAT[/b] would they teach about creationism?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:59:28 PM EDT
How about doing it scientifically? Oil is found under tremendous pressure underground class (observable). The oil is made up of dead animal and plant matter and we can make it in a lab (repeatable). Geoligist agree that the rock containing the 20,000 PSI oil has a containment life expenctancy of no more than 10,000 years. Some people believe that God drowned the animals and plants and the sediment buried them and others believe they accumulated from tens of millions of years ago. But we don't know because no one was there (accept Noah). Planerench out.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 2:07:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Planerench: How about doing it scientifically? Oil is found under tremendous pressure underground class (observable). The oil is made up of dead animal and plant matter and we can make it in a lab (repeatable). Geoligist agree that the rock containing the 20,000 PSI oil has a containment life expenctancy of no more than 10,000 years. Some people believe that God drowned the animals and plants and the sediment buried them and others believe they accumulated from tens of millions of years ago. But we don't know because no one was there (accept Noah). Planerench out.
View Quote
and your point would be what? just how does that relate to creationism?
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 2:10:47 PM EDT
I think I will stay out of this one!
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 1:14:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2002 10:17:39 AM EDT by CKA]
Just an idea to add if it hadn't been noted prior (didn’t read all the posts)… Can't remember where, but doesn't it say in the Bible in a quote from God, in reference to time that He states that 50,000 years(can't remember the exact number here) to us is equivalent to what God seems to experience in 1 second worth of time (or, one second to God = 50,000 years to us)? If so, and seeing that there are 86,400 seconds in a day, and 604,800 seconds in 7 days (see where I'm taking this, (time span of creation)), that this would equal 30,240,000,000 earth years (604,800 seconds * 50,000 years)? Playing out the idea that God could have used evolution for the creation process, would this guesstamate of time seem close to what evolutionists are stating that the earth is old (don't know the proclaimed number)? Could throw an interesting shade of light on the situation. Updated: Yeah, I seemed to be a bit off on the number of 50,000 (it's 1000 years), the new number would be 604,800,000 years. Still a reaching idea.
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 4:20:24 AM EDT
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 4:23:00 AM EDT
There is a reference to God being outside of time. One thousand years is as a day. Out of context for creation though. AR lady, my point is teach science. What is observable and repeatable. Not what certain people BELIEVE. That word BELIEVE is as applicable to the Evolutionist as it is to the Creationist. The fact that some primates live in the trees and some walk around on the ground no more proves they are becoming human than the fact there are small horses and large horses proves they are becoming a pickup truck. I can hardly contain my laughter when consensus of opinion is lifted to the level of fact while the very foundations of evolution theory are subject to dismissal with every fresh government grant! Boys and girls a long time ago....
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 4:23:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CKA: Just an idea to add if it hadn't been noted prior (didn’t read all the posts)… Can't remember where, but doesn't it say in the Bible in a quote from God, in reference to time that He states that 50,000 years(can't remember the exact number here) to us is equivalent to what God seems to experience in 1 second worth of time (or, one second to God = 50,000 years to us)? If so, and seeing that there are 86,400 seconds in a day, and 604,800 seconds in 7 days (see where I'm taking this, (time span of creation)), that this would equal 30,240,000,000 earth years (604,800 seconds * 50,000 years)? Playing out the idea that God could have used evolution for the creation process, would this guesstamate of time seem close to what evolutionists are stating that the earth is old (don't know the proclaimed number)? Could throw an interesting shade of light on the situation.
View Quote
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. I think a lot of you are getting hung up on the exclusive use of the term "evolution" instead of the much more plausible (and scientifically proven) reality of natural selection. Evolution theorizes that "life" began at the most basic level and developed into increasingly complex forms, with non-sustainble forms dying off as they became unable to adapt (natural selection). But this brings up the main contradiction in evolutionary theory. If it took thousands or millions of years for a life form to evolve in a certain way, why would it die out? Any defects would have been resolved very early in the process, yet we find many examples of extinct and extant life forms which exhibit features that serve no useful purpose, and many examples with very useful features that are no longer with us. Evolutionary theory, in it's most plausible form, would mean that ONLY the most adaptable life forms would survive, and that there would be NO weakness in any existing life form, all defects being purged over the long evolutionary period. A more pure interpretation of natural selection apart from evolution would begin with many diverse life forms all existing together, with the less adaptable being eliminated over time, and relatively small genetic mutations/variations improving the survivability of the remaining species. This law of natural selection is both provable and observable in both science and nature. Evolutionary theory is based mostly on hypothesis. There is no absolute agreement within the scientific community on any particular theory of evolution, just a continually evolving (pun) group of theories. As each one develops beyond the reach of scientific proovability, a new one emerges. Not "hard" science at all, just theory. DK-Prof: In this and other threads you have mentioned inconsistencies and disagreement in the Bible and particulary the Gospels. I am not seeing what you are seeing. Please provide your citations, Chapter & Verse, so I can research your point(s). TIA
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 4:26:57 AM EDT
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 5:10:33 AM EDT
Evolution theorizes that "life" began at the most basic level and developed into increasingly complex forms, with non-sustainble forms dying off as they became unable to adapt (natural selection). But this brings up the main contradiction in evolutionary theory. If it took thousands or millions of years for a life form to evolve in a certain way, why would it die out? Any defects would have been resolved very early in the process, yet we find many examples of extinct and extant life forms which exhibit features that serve no useful purpose, and many examples with very useful features that are no longer with us. Evolutionary theory, in it's most plausible form, would mean that ONLY the most adaptable life forms would survive, and that there would be NO weakness in any existing life form, all defects being purged over the long evolutionary period.
View Quote
The "contradiction" lies in your mistaken belief that species become extinct because they have "defects". But that isn't the case at all; survival and extinction are a matter of fitness for a [b]particular[/b] environment and ecosystem. A species that is well-adapted to situation X might not be able to compete in situation Z. For an analogy, look at the evolution of the automobile. Cars have become more capable and sophisticated over the years, have they not? If you were to try to re-introduce the Model T today, it would flop because modern cars are much better in terms of comfort, speed, safety, et cetera. Something like a 2002 Accord (or whatever the "best" make of car is) has very few "defects" compared with the Model T. But what would happen if, for instance, there were a breakthrough in electric car technology at the same time that a nuclear war in the Mid East pushed the price of oil to $150/barrel? Conventional gas-burning cars would become obsolete. The 2002 Accord would disappear from the market just as surely as the Model T did, even though it was the beneficiary of decades of evolutionary progress. The problem wouldn't be a "defect" in the Accord; it would be a combination of a change in the environment (much higher gas prices) plus rivals better able to compete in that environment (electric cars).
A more pure interpretation of natural selection apart from evolution would begin with many diverse life forms all existing together, with the less adaptable being eliminated over time, and relatively small genetic mutations/variations improving the survivability of the remaining species.
View Quote
This idea has several problems: 1) It requires a huge degree of biodiversity (much greater than exists today) to just pop out of nowhere. So having species evolve over billions of years is somehow more far-fetched than having all of them suddenly appear at the same time? 2) There is no physical evidence (such as fossils) showing that all of the species that have ever lived on Earth co-existed at some point in the past. 3) It would be very, very difficult for so many different species to exist together for even a short time. How, for instance, would predators like lions be able to share the top of the food chain with tyrannosaurs?
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 5:40:09 AM EDT
If evolution is true........ Can anyone name a "new species" we have documentation of in ooooohhhhh lets say the last 1000 years?? Why has "evolution stopped??? Better yet...........WHO stopped it!!! [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 5:42:55 AM EDT
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:08:58 AM EDT
If evolution is true........ Can anyone name a "new species" we have documentation of in ooooohhhhh lets say the last 1000 years??
View Quote
If you want "documentation", you'll have to start by "documenting" all the species that existed a thousand years ago. What? There weren't any biologists to classify the species in 1002 AD? How convenient... [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:22:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
If evolution is true........ Can anyone name a "new species" we have documentation of in ooooohhhhh lets say the last 1000 years??
View Quote
If you want "documentation", you'll have to start by "documenting" all the species that existed a thousand years ago. What? There weren't any biologists to classify the species in 1002 AD? How convenient... [rolleyes]
View Quote
No, but there are paleontoligists, and others. It should be easy, just use the fossil record. The introduction of a "new" species is easy to acertain. Also, impossible, THERE AREN'T ANY!
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:33:45 AM EDT
Note to [b]cerberus[/b] - I tried IM'ing you just a minute ago, and it appears your mailbox may be full! Try mine again! Eric The(Friendly)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:44:18 AM EDT
Evolutionary processes don't work that way- as a rule, they take a lot longer than 1000 years to effect changes with existing species, and new species don't just spring up out of thin air. That would be creationism! Some species, like fruit flies, procreate so fast that it *is* possible to observe generational changes in the expression of genetic codes. Someone smarter than I am would have to expound further... but I hope you get the idea. What you're asking for is like asking for *proof* that the Bible was written by the hand of God. Go ahead, provide a proof that doesn't depend on the "God says it's so" arguement.
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:51:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: If evolution is true........ Can anyone name a "new species" we have documentation of in ooooohhhhh lets say the last 1000 years??
View Quote
Oh absolutely...a species of light dappled moth evolved to a dark winged moth from the coal soot left on the tree bark in the Industrial Age. Previously, the dark winged ones were easy prey to predators, and were a rare mutation, and quickly eaten, but when the soot on the trees made the light dappled ones easy to see, the rare dark mutations actually flourished, and now all moths in the region have dark wings. Presto! Natural selection (evolution) at work!
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:57:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hannah_Reitsch: Oh absolutely...a species of light dappled moth evolved to a dark winged moth from the coal soot left on the tree bark in the Industrial Age. . Presto! Natural selection (evolution) at work!
View Quote
The finch beaks on Galapagos Island (I beleive) are another example. They actually changed twice within a single sceientists lifetime. Raising a bit of a problem for evolutionists. The ONLY observable mutation / evolution takes place VERY rapidly - 20 to 40 years. NOT 20-40 MILLION years. Contradicting the long, slow time periods they use for their evolutionary framework. Observed mutation is NOTHING like they say it is. From a Creationists POV, these are just examples of the amazing complexity of the world God created. Just as humans can adapt, animals can (to a somewhat lesser degree) adapt to their environemnt. DANG IT!!!!!!!! Now why'd I go and get into this all over again. I was doing SO well staying out of it!!!!! [BD]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top