Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

What does this Say to Yah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

From Wiki's Trilobite Article, Above;



Hey, the Trilobite Contained all the Anatomy it had originally the Entire time it Lived on this Planet!!!

You mean that while it was a trilobite it resembled a trilobite?
My understanding is that there is simply an absence of evidence of a transitional form with other arthropods, are you really saying that this lack of hard evidence is evidence of the miraculous creation of trilobites?
rolleyes: Me not buying it btw.)

It's almost like all Modern Animals Didn't Descend from the Same Ancient Ancestor!
Instead, it seems that Animals are just Appearing in the Fossil Record, with all the Same anatomy their Obvious Descendants do Today.

Geological fossil evidence can only show occasional examples, like a frame from a movie, which on its own can't fully explain the whole story behind (say) "Gone with the Wind".

Consider that the Horseshoe Crab has been found in the Same Earth as the Trilobites, and the Horseshoe Crab is still alive today.

If evolution does happen, why is there still a Horseshoe crab?

If we lost the Trilobites to "Mass Extinctions", why did the Horseshoe Crabs live through them?

Each existing species and all the extinct ones have their own story. I don't know what exactly it is about the Horseshoe Crab that has enabled it to survive while other forms eventually disappeared. Speciation and extinctions for a variety of different reasons seems to be the natural order of things.
Such things are deduced from the available evidence and yes sometimes those deductions are concluded to be wrong, but I see nothing that might be rationally deduced as complex life simply appearing, fully formed, miraculously, out of thin air. :nono:

If man Evolved from Lucy's Kind; where are all the Australopithecine today?

After All, Evolutionists believe that Lucy's Species descended from Chimp Like Animals, and Before that Monkeys.

If all these Monkeys and Chimps are alive today; What happened to Lucy's Species?


=M=

I'm sure you have already been informed Mark that Monkeys and Chimps are modern creatures which do, in all probability, share a relatively recent common ancestry to all primates including us.
But aren't you really trying to tell me that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Come on Mark, you can do better than that, surely?

 

[alwight]

Michael, what happened to my PM are you OK? :think:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Hi AL!!! : D

With all the Fossils Currently Categorized; The Absence of Transitional Fossils proves that they were Created containing all Anatomical Structures Originally, and The Trilobites without Eyes, descended from the Ones with Eyes.

That's the Opposite of Gaining New Anatomy through Time; Also Consider this:

Morphological similarities between trilobites and early arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other "trilobitomorphs" of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian are ambiguous enough to make detailed analysis of their ancestry far from compelling.[10][14

Ambiguous Enough; as in "Not Clear In Meaning, Enough", to make a Detailed Analysis of their Ancestry far from "Believable".

If the Scientists studying them find the Current theory of Origins/Ancestry "Far From Compelling"; Why do you feel so Strongly that it is True?

==================================

Also;
If speciation actually works like Evolutionists think it does, With Ring Species and All; Why has the Wolf and Dog Remained the Same Exact Species for so Long?

Why hasn't speciation taken Place?

I don't know what exactly it is about the Horseshoe Crab that has enabled it to survive while other forms eventually disappeared. Speciation and extinctions for a variety of different reasons seems to be the natural order of things.

Right, I find it odd that The Horseshoe Crab Has Remained the Same Animal for So Long, and Evaded the Various "Mass Extinctions"; Yet you still Believe in the Theory of Evolution... That states all the Various Modern Animals had a Common Ancestor.
So, what was it?

Where do you think Evolutionist Theorists say the Horseshoe Crab Descended From?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab

From the Wiki Horseshoe Crab article;

Because of their origin 450 million years ago (Mya), horseshoe crabs are considered living fossils.[3]

AL!!!

I just realized they don't have any Idea where the Horseshoe Crab Originated, and there is No Evolution Theory Stated at that Wiki Site!!!

Almost like Evolution isn't even Real, Or Something!!!
LOL!!!

What Gives?

What do Evolutionists think the Horseshoe Crab Descended From, if there is no Transitional for a Horseshoe Crab?
Makes the Theory that states all the Modern Animals Have a Common Ancestor kind of look False.

If you don't know the Answer, that's fine too; I just want you to Admit that there is no Good Evidence in the Fossil Record, for the Theory of Evolution. Unless of Course, you know of Some; If you do, feel free to post some. : D

Each existing species and all the extinct ones have their own story. I don't know what exactly it is about the Horseshoe Crab that has enabled it to survive while other forms eventually disappeared. Speciation and extinctions for a variety of different reasons seems to be the natural order of things.
Such things are deduced from the available evidence and yes sometimes those deductions are concluded to be wrong, but I see nothing that might be rationally deduced as complex life simply appearing, fully formed, miraculously, out of thin air.

One thing I'm sure we can both Agree on; All the Various Species of Modern Animals, did not Descend from the Horseshoe Crab, Right?

I see nothing that might be rationally deduced as complex life simply appearing, fully formed, miraculously, out of thin air.

What do you make out of the Fact that there are No Ancestral Fossils for the Horseshoe Crab?

You must think Evolution happens pretty fast, if you: "Don't see anything that may be a Rational Reason to believe that Animals Simply appeared on the Earth, with all their Complex Anatomy Originally", Yet here are these horseshoe Crabs, which just Appear in the Fossil Record, alongside the Trilobites; And they contained all the Complex Anatomy that their Obvious Modern Descendants do Today.

So, like I said:
You must think/believe Evolution happens Pretty Fast, Given they cannot find the Ancestors of the Horseshoe Crab; Yet Horseshoe Crabs have Contained all the Original Anatomy of their First Obvious Ancestor.

So, Actually:
You must think/believe that Evolution happened really Fast at First, then Basically Stopped, and Anatomy started falling off; instead of the Organism Gaining it, like it did Ancestrally...

In fact, I think they have actually lost some of the Anatomy they had Originally; Legs or Something, due to Mutation through Reproduction, Most Likely.

I'm sure you have already been informed Mark that Monkeys and Chimps are modern creatures which do, in all probability, share a relatively recent common ancestry to all primates including us.
But aren't you really trying to tell me that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Come on Mark, you can do better than that, surely?

That's what you say you believe, but; What Species do You think Lucy's Species Descend From?

How "Chimp-Like" was it?

How much sense does it make to believe that a Chimp-Like Animal could change into a Man in Under 3 Million Years; and Also believe at the Same time, that Tens of Millions of Years ago, other Animals which are Also Modern Mammals, Remained Exactly the Same?

If Man is the Most Advanced Living Creature; Shouldn't Man be the Oldest Species, and not the Youngest?

aren't you really trying to tell me that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Come on Mark, you can do better than that, surely?

No LOL!!!

What I'm Asking is;
After All, Evolutionists believe that Lucy's Species descended from Chimp Like Animals, and Before that Monkeys.

If all these Monkeys and Chimps are alive today, and Are Obserbable; What happened to Lucy's Species?


If you believe in Lucy, and that Her Species was "More Adapted" to the Environment than Chimps and Monkeys; Why are there Still Chimps and Monkeys, but no Sign of Lucy's Kind?


If lucy's kind was so Prominent that it Gave Rise to the Neanderthals, and Humans; Where is Lucy's Kind today?


If you don't think it's Odd that Monkeys and Chimps are Still Living; Why don't you think it's Odd that Lucy's Kind isn't around to View?

What was Between Lucy's Kind, and Human kind?
The Human Brain is a Huge step in Anatomy, and Likely an Impossible Step in Anatomical Change; By Mutation through Reproduction alone.

The theory of Evolution just doesn't fit the Observable Evidence; If man is the Furthest Advanced, yet Supposed by Evolutionists to be the Youngest Modern Species on this Planet.

If you don't think so, feel free to tell me; What Animal do you think has Appeared in the Past 3 Million Years?

==================================

It took me a Bit to Write out all these Answers, and Questions for you; I don't expect you to Address them all, but I hope you At Least address that Last Question Above. Thanks in Advance.

==================================

MUSIC!!!

Grounds for Divorce - Wolf Parade (Apologies to the Queen Mary)

=M=

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael, happy new year. :cheers:
Scared away? I really don't think so.:nono:

Dear Alwight! Hello! Happy New Year. :cheers: to you also. I was just joking when I said we scared away everybody. I'm not drinking 2nite. I did have a couple margaritas yesterday (Jose Cuervo and excellent vodka). But I don't drink much, because I need to have a good head on my shoulders for other matters.

Scientific theories do not involve "proof", but Mark perhaps rather does set the standards of bloviating and hot air around here imo. None of which is "proof" or falsification that anything is at all wrong with the ToE as a reasonable and rational explanation of all the evidence.


Perhaps everything was indeed brought about by a higher power, I really don't claim to know. But there is no reason at all to believe that anything has magically been created, as is, out of thin air.
The ToE is simply a (the?) natural explanation which explains the evidence, which doesn't require presumptions of non-evidenced miraculous events.

OK, Alwight, you said perhaps everything was indeed brought about by a higher power. Yes, we persons were magically created but not out of thin air by a God or superior being from him forming the creatures and man out of the dust/dirt of the ground. Since He was a the best, intricate, and awesome chemist, He need a lot of hydrogen and oxygen to combine into water, if that's the way He did it. Man is what, 98% water?? I am one of your best buddies here, so don't think I'm here to try to trick you or something like that. Pshaw![/quote]

Come on Michael, you must have realized that Stuu has been banned. I don't think anyone is neglecting you, it's just the time of year, after all this is a public arena, not a private social meeting place.

Threads come and go, it's just what happens.

Of course, I thought that perhaps Stuart might be banned, but I checked for him in the woodshed and could not find him. (The Woodshed on the Home page.) Maybe I didn't catch him fast enough. I planned on posting to you 2nite and also sending you a PM. Sometimes I get a bit swamped, but it hardly means I am slighting you. It has been six times longer since I've heard from Hedshaker or gcthomas. They are cool people to that I found to be very interesting. I just find you interesting and very essentially unique. Don't think I'm flattering you. I'm just saying that you lead me to write what I do. I write to you more often than them by far, Alwight. Writing about evolution or atheism is not quite my forte. What what I do know a lot is by far the better subject, whether anyone realizes it or not. Sports and politics, sex and mental disability don't matter either. You can be good or bad in hockey. It doesn't matter at all. Black or white, or all colors don't matter. God Loves ALL of His Children According Their Actions, which include how many time they've offered a poor person with a pair of gloves if you have them. Or offer them a sandwich that you might have in your purse or lunch bag or purse. Just treat Others they want you'd like to if you afford it. If you're very poor, so do it, unless you absolutely can afford it. Bless them saying, I hope you really need this, for if you are faking it, He will punish you. As you sow, likely that is what you will reap from God.

People post perhaps when they have something to say regarding the topic, or what has been said, but frankly Michael I don't think that you actually do have all that much to say about Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the evidence, but then again neither does Mark, if you boil away his bluster. If there is a problem with Darwinian evolution then I don't think that it's being highlighted here. I'm saying it from you sharing the truth with me.

You'd probably make a good mother hen Michael.

Why don't you write me?

I know tons more than you'll ever able to muster, but you know Al, I enjoy talking about how the person is doing and who is it whom I am writing to. I want friendship from all the efforts I share with those I wrote. If it doesn't happen, then they probably won't hear from me again. Love retains supremacy to me and the questions to discuss is just a question to caring persons are asking about. I'm that's how I am.

As far as Darwin and his explanation of his Theories of Evolution, I can see in him as a man who is not sure about his Theories. Or about Evolution or Heaven. All he is doing is speculation. I am not speculation. I know for a 100% fact of what I saw and what the angel said to me is impossible to not believe. No one around me could change my belief to any other things. Once you've ever been visited by an angel of the Lord God, u will never ever forget his booming, resonating, matter of factual, commanding voice. There is never any way that you can ever forget it. It makes me realize now how Moses was able to rewrite all that every exact word and to rewrite in onto paper. It really relieves me that that is how Daniel was able to put all the words into the book he wrote, much, how so very intricate and astutely he did it.

And ever more magnificence of John of Patmos to rewrite all of the magnificence of the words given to Him through Jesus, just as if Jesus were write next to him, which I would think it almost necessarily take for John to do it. John was a very loved disciple for Jesus for to have write down His Testimony and store. And I can really how perfect is was done so that there were no mistakes made. I already know that, with some time passing, Revelation will be chosen as the most magnificent and besides the book of Daniel and of Luke, will be among them. No more for a while. People, know when your Lord Jesus is Returning. God, please help US to MAKE this time A TIME OF Mourning For Our God's Son, and a JOYFUL TIME!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Hi AL!!! : D

With all the Fossils Currently Categorized; The Absence of Transitional Fossils proves that they were Created containing all Anatomical Structures Originally, and The Trilobites without Eyes, descended from the Ones with Eyes.

That's the Opposite of Gaining New Anatomy through Time;

You really don't have anything at all Mark to suggest, despite whatever specific evidence may be lacking, that no perfectly good rational naturalistic explanation nevertheless exists. We know that natural events and sequences happen from where evidence is more recent and abundant while requiring no suppositions of miraculous happenings. Perhaps events occurring rather more lost in antiquity and less well evidenced will always be more available to those who want to apply their own particular spin and myth to them?

Also Consider this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by From Wiki Article on Trilobites
Morphological similarities between trilobites and early arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other "trilobitomorphs" of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian are ambiguous enough to make detailed analysis of their ancestry far from compelling.[10][14

Ambiguous Enough; as in "Not Clear In Meaning, Enough", to make a Detailed Analysis of their Ancestry far from "Believable".

If the Scientists studying them find the Current theory of Origins/Ancestry "Far From Compelling"; Why do you feel so Strongly that it is True?

The one thing I'm not compelled by is that anything requires suppositions of a supernatural explanation simply because detailed hard evidence may be lacking. Having some doubt and uncertainty of the actual process simply leaves the true answer pending, not that miracles must therefore be presumed to be the only answer.

==================================

Also;
If speciation actually works like Evolutionists think it does, With Ring Species and All; Why has the Wolf and Dog Remained the Same Exact Species for so Long?

Why hasn't speciation taken Place?

Domestic dogs have been around for less time than the species that domesticated them, but I don't see what you mean by "Same Exact Species" clearly they are often very different in many ways, nor what might constitute "for so long". Anyway domestic dogs and wolves are not permanently isolated from each other.

Originally Posted by AL
I don't know what exactly it is about the Horseshoe Crab that has enabled it to survive while other forms eventually disappeared. Speciation and extinctions for a variety of different reasons seems to be the natural order of things.

Right, I find it odd that The Horseshoe Crab Has Remained the Same Animal for So Long, and Evaded the Various "Mass Extinctions"; Yet you still Believe in the Theory of Evolution... That states all the Various Modern Animals had a Common Ancestor.
So, what was it?

Where do you think Evolutionist Theorists say the Horseshoe Crab Descended From?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab

From the Wiki Horseshoe Crab article;
Because of their origin 450 million years ago (Mya), horseshoe crabs are considered living fossils.[3]

Sorry but unknowns don't require presumptions of a supernatural for me, they can just remain unknown.

AL!!!

I just realized they don't have any Idea where the Horseshoe Crab Originated, and there is No Evolution Theory Stated at that Wiki Site!!!

Almost like Evolution isn't even Real, Or Something!!!
LOL!!!

What Gives?

What do Evolutionists think the Horseshoe Crab Descended From, if there is no Transitional for a Horseshoe Crab?
Makes the Theory that states all the Modern Animals Have a Common Ancestor kind of look False.

If you don't know the Answer, that's fine too; I just want you to Admit that there is no Good Evidence in the Fossil Record, for the Theory of Evolution. Unless of Course, you know of Some; If you do, feel free to post some. : D

Why would you think that any lack of evidence requires that a supernatural be supposed rather than it simply remaining an unknown? There is vast amounts of evidence that Darwinian evolution is indeed the natural order of things, but if you go back far enough in time hard evidence for specific events will naturally become more scarce.

Originally Posted by AL
Each existing species and all the extinct ones have their own story. I don't know what exactly it is about the Horseshoe Crab that has enabled it to survive while other forms eventually disappeared. Speciation and extinctions for a variety of different reasons seems to be the natural order of things.
Such things are deduced from the available evidence and yes sometimes those deductions are concluded to be wrong, but I see nothing that might be rationally deduced as complex life simply appearing, fully formed, miraculously, out of thin air.

One thing I'm sure we can both Agree on; All the Various Species of Modern Animals, did not Descend from the Horseshoe Crab, Right?

I'm reasonably sure that we are not directly related to arthropods Mark.

Originally Posted by AL
I see nothing that might be rationally deduced as complex life simply appearing, fully formed, miraculously, out of thin air.

What do you make out of the Fact that there are No Ancestral Fossils for the Horseshoe Crab?

Evidence is limited to what could be fossilised while evidence from the Pre Cambrian is more limited still. Why should I presume anything miraculous ever occurred?

You must think Evolution happens pretty fast, if you: "Don't see anything that may be a Rational Reason to believe that Animals Simply appeared on the Earth, with all their Complex Anatomy Originally", Yet here are these horseshoe Crabs, which just Appear in the Fossil Record, alongside the Trilobites; And they contained all the Complex Anatomy that their Obvious Modern Descendants do Today.

So, like I said:
You must think/believe Evolution happens Pretty Fast, Given they cannot find the Ancestors of the Horseshoe Crab; Yet Horseshoe Crabs have Contained all the Original Anatomy of their First Obvious Ancestor.

So, Actually:
You must think/believe that Evolution happened really Fast at First, then Basically Stopped, and Anatomy started falling off; instead of the Organism Gaining it, like it did Ancestrally...

In fact, I think they have actually lost some of the Anatomy they had Originally; Legs or Something, due to Mutation through Reproduction, Most Likely.

You are someone who wants to pre-conclude a specific Godly entity and a miraculous explanation imo long before all naturalistic possibilities and answers have been exhausted. You want your God to exist in the unknowns and not to seek natural answers which, if found, would only take your God further away or less likely.

Originally Posted by AL
I'm sure you have already been informed Mark that Monkeys and Chimps are modern creatures which do, in all probability, share a relatively recent common ancestry to all primates including us.
But aren't you really trying to tell me that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Come on Mark, you can do better than that, surely?

That's what you say you believe, but; What Species do You think Lucy's Species Descend From?

How "Chimp-Like" was it?

How much sense does it make to believe that a Chimp-Like Animal could change into a Man in Under 3 Million Years; and Also believe at the Same time, that Tens of Millions of Years ago, other Animals which are Also Modern Mammals, Remained Exactly the Same?

If Man is the Most Advanced Living Creature; Shouldn't Man be the Oldest Species, and not the Youngest?

I don't particularly care how "Chimp-like" a particular, now non-existent, ancient creature may have been. Creatures typically only fill a place in the environment and adapt to suit it. Humans have found their own way of remaining here, while Horseshoe Crabs found theirs.
I don't know what your definition of "Advanced" is, please do explain.

Originally Posted by AL
aren't you really trying to tell me that if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Come on Mark, you can do better than that, surely?

No LOL!!!

What I'm Asking is;
After All, Evolutionists believe that Lucy's Species descended from Chimp Like Animals, and Before that Monkeys.

If all these Monkeys and Chimps are alive today, and Are Obserbable; What happened to Lucy's Species?


If you believe in Lucy, and that Her Species was "More Adapted" to the Environment than Chimps and Monkeys; Why are there Still Chimps and Monkeys, but no Sign of Lucy's Kind?


If lucy's kind was so Prominent that it Gave Rise to the Neanderthals, and Humans; Where is Lucy's Kind today?


If you don't think it's Odd that Monkeys and Chimps are Still Living; Why don't you think it's Odd that Lucy's Kind isn't around to View?

What was Between Lucy's Kind, and Human kind?
The Human Brain is a Huge step in Anatomy, and Likely an Impossible Step in Anatomical Change; By Mutation through Reproduction alone.

The theory of Evolution just doesn't fit the Observable Evidence; If man is the Furthest Advanced, yet Supposed by Evolutionists to be the Youngest Modern Species on this Planet.

If you don't think so, feel free to tell me; What Animal do you think has Appeared in the Past 3 Million Years?

==================================

It took me a Bit to Write out all these Answers, and Questions for you; I don't expect you to Address them all, but I hope you At Least address that Last Question Above. Thanks in Advance.

==================================

I don't recall anyone but creationists claiming that we evolved from Chimps and monkeys Mark.
I don't think any animals just appear, instead they evolve gradually from previous forms and sometimes speciate.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight and MarkS,

I got lost in a blizzard of words. I understand. Will try to get back to you 2morrow. My butt is hurting from sitting down for too long. At least you are both my best buddies. So, no jealousy! Will chat later 2nite. I guess.

It's Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight! Hello! Happy New Year. :cheers: to you also. I was just joking when I said we scared away everybody. I'm not drinking 2nite. I did have a couple margaritas yesterday (Jose Cuervo and excellent vodka). But I don't drink much, because I need to have a good head on my shoulders for other matters.

You shouldn't joke about Darwinian evolution Michael, we evolutionists take it very seriously.
(just kidding)

OK, Alwight, you said perhaps everything was indeed brought about by a higher power. Yes, we persons were magically created but not out of thin air by a God or superior being from him forming the creatures and man out of the dust/dirt of the ground. Since He was a the best, intricate, and awesome chemist, He need a lot of hydrogen and oxygen to combine into water, if that's the way He did it. Man is what, 98% water?? I am one of your best buddies here, so don't think I'm here to try to trick you or something like that. Pshaw!

I don't believe in magic or that any complex life was ever created, fully formed, out of thin air. Even if a God exists then for me life as we know it must have happened by Darwinian evolution.

Of course, I thought that perhaps Stuart might be banned, but I checked for him in the woodshed and could not find him. (The Woodshed on the Home page.) Maybe I didn't catch him fast enough.

Just look at one of his posts, the info panel shows you his current status, even on an old post.

I planned on posting to you 2nite and also sending you a PM. Sometimes I get a bit swamped, but it hardly means I am slighting you. It has been six times longer since I've heard from Hedshaker or gcthomas. They are cool people to that I found to be very interesting. I just find you interesting and very essentially unique. Don't think I'm flattering you. I'm just saying that you lead me to write what I do. I write to you more often than them by far, Alwight. Writing about evolution or atheism is not quite my forte. What what I do know a lot is by far the better subject, whether anyone realizes it or not. Sports and politics, sex and mental disabilty don't matter either. You can be good or bad in hockey. It doesn't matter at all. Black or white, or all colors don't matter. God Loves ALL of His Children According Their Actions, which include how many time they've offered a poor person with a pair of gloves if you have them. Or offer them a sandwich that you might have in your purse or lunch bag or purse. Just treat Others they want you'd like to if you afford it. If you're very poor, so do it, unless you absolutely can afford it. Bless them saying, I hope you really need this, for if you are faking it, He will punish you. As you sow, likely that is what you will reap from God.

You have to be careful who you give money to imo, some people make a good living out of begging while others use the money to buy drugs. I remember one guy who was telling me that he was hungry and hadn't eaten for a while, could I give him some money, but I took him into a café/diner and bought him a large breakfast instead.

I know tons more than you'll ever able to muster, but you know Al, I enjoy talking about how the person is doing and who is it whom I am writing to. I want friendship from all the efforts I share with those I wrote. If it doesn't happen, then they probably won't hear from me again. Love retains supremacy to me and the questions to discuss is just a question to caring persons are asking about. I'm that's how I am.

You must surely be a chosen one Michael.lain:

As far as Darwin and his explanation of his Theories of Evolution, I can see in him as a man who is not sure about his Theories. Or about Evolution or Heaven. All he is doing is speculation.

The ToE offers a good rational explanation based on hard evidence for how life came to be as it is, but it isn't about personalities or supposed doubts or what might be preferred instead.
If you don't think that Darwin's explanation works then it's rather up to you to explain why that is rather than simply speculate about any doubts he might have had because you'd prefer to believe that creationism is true, based on apparently nothing except an ancient scripture.

I am not speculation. I know for a 100% fact of what I saw and what the angel said to me is inpossible to not beleive. No one around me could change my belief to any other things. Once you've ever been visited by an angel of the Lord God, u will never ever forget his booming, resonating, matter of factual, commanding voice. There is never any way that you can ever forget it. It makes me realize now how Moses was able to rewrite all that every exact word and to rewrite in onto paper. It really relieves me that that is how Daniel was able to put all the words into the book he wrote, much, how so very intricate and astutely he did it.

I'd like to believe that you really have been visited by angels Michael but I don't think that anyone is a chosen one, but it really wasn't you who needed to be specially shown, you'd have been a believer anyway, right?
:rapture:

 

[Straightshot]

The biblical account of creation is correct in every sense

Humanity created in the image of God is about 6000 years old by the biblical records

The earth and the balance of universe are of extreme age from the beginning of creation

A recent reconditioning of the earth for the purpose of supporting new life forms including humanity was necessary and occurred about 6000 years ago

The view of Genesis 1:1 is the initial creation of all of the Lord's creation ..... the view of Genesis 1:2 is an account of reconditioning a judged earth

One can see this contrast by viewing the earth's own solar system today .... the earth is the only planet bearing life support systems along with great natural beauty

All of the others bear the scars of judgment only ..... these were never reconditioned

The Lord's judgment against Satan and his rebel angels was devastating and reached all of the original creation

The Genesis account of the Lord's reconditioning acts must be viewed from the earth .... the sun, moon, planets, and other heavenly bodies were already present, but could not be seen from the earth because of the dense water vapors eliminating from the warming of the covering of the great deep

The Lord dissipated the vapors above and separated them from the waters below forming the oxygen rich atmosphere needed for the new life forms

This action caused the existing sun, moon, and stars to be visible from the earth

The massive plethora of fossil remains and marks of judgment and upheaval of the earth's crust were all part of a pre-Genesis 1:2 condition brought about by the Lord's unrelenting judgment against Satan's rebellion

All life forms perished in this judgment and the earth's crust was formless and void ..... frozen and covered with ice

The warming of the earth brought the great deep and the earth once standing out of the water became covered inundated by the same [2 peter 3:1-6]

This setting was different and not the same of the account of the Noahic flood which can 1000 years later .... not all life forms perished in this judgment

The ideas of men related to what has been discovered in the earth's crust are just that ..... ideas of men .... who refuse to accept the biblical account of the original creation and the reconditioning of the earth about 6000 years ago

Proponents of evolutionary theories, both those of the purely unbiblical fabrication and those of some sort of compromising position are in error and only speculations of men

All truth on such matters can only be found in the Creator's own account of His written Word

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Hi AL!!!

How's the Weather Treating ya?

You really don't have anything at all Mark to suggest, despite whatever specific evidence may be lacking, that no perfectly good rational naturalistic explanation nevertheless exists. We know that natural events and sequences happen from where evidence is more recent and abundant while requiring no suppositions of miraculous happenings. Perhaps events occurring rather more lost in antiquity and less well evidenced will always be more available to those who want to apply their own particular spin and myth to them?

First Off, I'm suggesting that the First Animals in the Fossil Record, had Fully Functional Anatomy, and they didn't have to "Gain Functional Anatomy" over time, because they were Obviously Created with it Originally.

Perhaps events occurring rather more lost in antiquity and less well evidenced will always be more available to those who want to apply their own particular spin and myth to them?

Perhaps...

Perhaps Life is all a Dream, too; So, who cares about Perhaps?

What are you Saying, here; That There Must be ancestors to Animals that have Not Changed the Entire time they Lived on this Planet, we just have yet to Find them?

Well, if you can believe that; I can also simply have faith also and Believe that All the Fossil Evidence has yet to come in yet, and that Everyday we are finding out that More and More Modern Species of Animals Lived during the Time of the Dinosaurs, and the Trilobites.

Everyday, it's looking more and more like Animals have Always Looked the Way they Do Now, and have Contained the Same anatomical Features the Entire time they Existed on this Planet. For Instance: Starfish, Horseshoe Crab, Lobsters, Giraffe, Deer, Cows, and basically Everything but Humans; Given Humans are the Only Living thing that Evolutionists think Evolved in the Last 3 Million Years.

The one thing I'm not compelled by is that anything requires suppositions of a supernatural explanation simply because detailed hard evidence may be lacking. Having some doubt and uncertainty of the actual process simply leaves the true answer pending, not that miracles must therefore be presumed to be the only answer.

If there is not a Single True Transitional Fossil for any animal, Where did they Come from; Given they Obviously didn't all have a Common Ancestor?

Domestic dogs have been around for less time than the species that domesticated them, but I don't see what you mean by "Same Exact Species" clearly they are often very different in many ways, nor what might constitute "for so long". Anyway domestic dogs and wolves are not permanently isolated from each other.

This is what I mean; All the Textbooks used to teach that Dogs Descended from Wolves, and that Dogs are Actually a Fully Different Species than the Wolf, However:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Are+Dogs+and+Wolves+the+Same+Species?&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Cited from Above Google Search;
A wolf/dog hybrid is fertile and is in fact not a hybrid at all because wolves and dogs are exactly the same species. The dog is now known scientifically as Canis Lupus Familiaris and not just Canis Familiaris (as it is in older textbooks) in recognition of this fact.

Now that Science understands that they are the "Exact Same Species", they had to take out the Old Evolutionist Non-Sense, which I call "Non-Science".

Which is Good; I think it's a Good thing to have Actual Knowledge in the "Science" Textbooks.

Don't you agree?

Right, I find it odd that The Horseshoe Crab Has Remained the Same Animal for So Long, and Evaded the Various "Mass Extinctions"; Yet you still Believe in the Theory of Evolution... That states all the Various Modern Animals had a Common Ancestor.
So, what was it?

Where do you think Evolutionist Theorists say the Horseshoe Crab Descended From?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab

From the Wiki Horseshoe Crab article;
Because of their origin 450 million years ago (Mya), horseshoe crabs are considered living fossils.[3]

Sorry but unknowns don't require presumptions of a supernatural for me, they can just remain unknown.

So, in the Theory of Evolution that seems to indicate that all the Various Forms of life we share the Planet With had a Common Ancestor; Also, fits perfectly with Starfish and Horseshoe Crab Being alive during the Time of the First Animal in the Fossil Record (Trilobite), and the Fact that the Starfish Currently Contains all the Same Anatomical Features it Did, when it First appeared on this Planet... Right... Tell me one more time how that Probably Fits with your Theory, and maybe I'll believe you... LOL!!!

Why would you think that any lack of evidence requires that a supernatural be supposed rather than it simply remaining an unknown?

I'm simply stating that the Lack of Fossil Evidence for any sign that all the Modern Animals have a Common Ancestor, disproves Evolution; However, it still Fits and Adds to the Theory of Creation of animals in Fully Functional Form, containing all the Anatomical Features that they do Modernly, Originally.

No Presumption, just an Honest Look at the Fossil Record Evidence.
The Record is Vast, and there is Plenty of Evidence to Look at.
Even the Fossils that make up Lucy are Probably real fossils; They may not all be from the Same Animal, or Even Species of Animal, but hey Who's the Evolutionist Keeping track anyway, right?

Animals Created with All the Various tools they would need to interact with Nature on their Level of Life.

There is vast amounts of evidence that Darwinian evolution is indeed the natural order of things, but if you go back far enough in time hard evidence for specific events will naturally become more scarce.

Where is that AL!??
I'm here everyday asking for it.
Where is it AL; Where is the Evidence that all the Various forms of Animals we share the Planet with had a Common Ancestor?

I'm reasonably sure that we are not directly related to arthropods Mark.

I don't believe it!!!

I agree with you, about something in Science!!!

Maybe I'm Wrong, But;
I'm also reasonably sure that we are not Directly related to Arthropods, As Well.

In fact, I don't think we share Common Ancestry at all With any other Species on this Planet, but hey, maybe you are on your Way?

The Question is; If we don't share Common ancestry with Arthropods/Trilobites/Crabs where is the Common ancestor, that the Theory of Evolution seems to Describe as an Obvious Truth?

Evidence is limited to what could be fossilised while evidence from the Pre Cambrian is more limited still. Why should I presume anything miraculous ever occurred?

I'm not asking you to Presume, or Assume anything; I'm simply asking you to Acknowledge and Understand that there is No Evidence for All the Various Animals We Currently are Sharing this Planet With with today share a "Common Ancestor", in the Fossil Record. (To Your Knowledge, and you don't think the Trilobite Fossils Prove the Theory of Evolution.)

I don't particularly care how "Chimp-like" a particular, now non-existent, ancient creature may have been.

I bet you would if you found out how much they actually were alike; Try, Exactly alike.

In fact, the Skulls of the Chimpanzees that are believed by Evolutionists to be the Species before Lucy; Look Exactly like Chimpanzee Skulls. They also contain all the Same Exact Anatomical Features that Chimpanzees do today, Skull cavity size and Everything.
They believe those Chimpanzees, evolved from Monkey like Creatures; Which Contained all the Same Anatomy that Monkeys do Today.

Interesting, Right?

Now; what Happened to Lucy's Species, and why don't they Find Thousands of astrolopiphicene Fossils?

I mean; if Lucy;s Species was So Successful, that she was supposed to be the One that Gave Birth the the Various Neanderthals and Humans, Where Is She?
Hmm?

Humans have found their own way of remaining here, while Horseshoe Crabs found theirs.
I don't know what your definition of "Advanced" is, please do explain.

Oh, don't even go there with me; "Advanced" like: "Humans are the Only Creature from this Planet that can fly to the Moon".

Of Course Humans are the Most advanced creature on this Planet; Why do Evolutionists think that we are the Only Creatures that have Speciated in the last 3 Million Years?

I don't recall anyone but creationists claiming that we evolved from Chimps and monkeys Mark.
I don't think any animals just appear, instead they evolve gradually from previous forms and sometimes speciate.

Oh; So, you just realize that Evolutionists claim that Humans Descended from Animals that Contained all the same Anatomy that Chimpanzees Now Contain, which they Also believe Descended from animals which Fully Contained all the Same anatomy that Monkeys do today?



=M=



==================================


MUSIC!!!

Thank You - Led Zeppelin (II)

Praise God, for God is Worthy of Praise!!!

 

[alwight]

You really don't have anything at all Mark to suggest, despite whatever specific evidence may be lacking, that no perfectly good rational naturalistic explanation nevertheless exists. We know that natural events and sequences happen from where evidence is more recent and abundant while requiring no suppositions of miraculous happenings. Perhaps events occurring rather more lost in antiquity and less well evidenced will always be more available to those who want to apply their own particular spin and myth to them?

First Off, I'm suggesting that the First Animals in the Fossil Record, had Fully Functional Anatomy, and they didn't have to "Gain Functional Anatomy" over time, because they were Obviously Created with it Originally.

OK, so it seems you are apparently unshakably convinced that, for every extinct and current form of complex life on this Earth, once upon a time they did not exist in any shape or form and then, hey presto, they did! That's all very quaint, magical and everything, but personally I'm not buying it, it's just not how things happen in my world, but by all means do believe away in yours Mark.

Perhaps events occurring rather more lost in antiquity and less well evidenced will always be more available to those who want to apply their own particular spin and myth to them?

Perhaps...

Perhaps Life is all a Dream, too; So, who cares about Perhaps?

What are you Saying, here; That There Must be ancestors to Animals that have Not Changed the Entire time they Lived on this Planet, we just have yet to Find them?

Well, if you can believe that; I can also simply have faith also and Believe that All the Fossil Evidence has yet to come in yet, and that Everyday we are finding out that More and More Modern Species of Animals Lived during the Time of the Dinosaurs, and the Trilobites.

Everyday, it's looking more and more like Animals have Always Looked the Way they Do Now, and have Contained the Same anatomical Features the Entire time they Existed on this Planet. For Instance: Starfish, Horseshoe Crab, Lobsters, Giraffe, Deer, Cows, and basically Everything but Humans; Given Humans are the Only Living thing that Evolutionists think Evolved in the Last 3 Million Years.

If creatures actually did start appearing from nowhere then yes, Darwinian evolution predicts that they don't, they evolve. It would indeed falsify the ToE. What you need to do imo is to demonstrate that there were no prior forms and common ancestry in areas in which rather more evidence is available, rather than perhaps finding some obscurity in antiquity. Genetics alone convinces me that Hominidae at least clearly must share common ancestry, never mind all the physical evidence. Citing horseshoe crabs is pretty unconvincing stuff since simply takes us to a paucity of evidence, not to evidence of miraculous creations.

The one thing I'm not compelled by is that anything requires suppositions of a supernatural explanation simply because detailed hard evidence may be lacking. Having some doubt and uncertainty of the actual process simply leaves the true answer pending, not that miracles must therefore be presumed to be the only answer.

If there is not a Single True Transitional Fossil for any animal, Where did they Come from; Given they Obviously didn't all have a Common Ancestor?

A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but could be an argument from ignorance. What is your precedent for anything ever requiring the miraculous or supernatural to exist and why might that claim tend to be rather more arguable as less hard evidence is available?

Domestic dogs have been around for less time than the species that domesticated them, but I don't see what you mean by "Same Exact Species" clearly they are often very different in many ways, nor what might constitute "for so long". Anyway domestic dogs and wolves are not permanently isolated from each other.

This is what I mean; All the Textbooks used to teach that Dogs Descended from Wolves, and that Dogs are Actually a Fully Different Species than the Wolf, However:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Are+...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Cited from Above Google Search;
A wolf/dog hybrid is fertile and is in fact not a hybrid at all because wolves and dogs are exactly the same species. The dog is now known scientifically as Canis Lupus Familiaris and not just Canis Familiaris (as it is in older textbooks) in recognition of this fact.

Now that Science understands that they are the "Exact Same Species", they had to take out the Old Evolutionist Non-Sense, which I call "Non-Science".

Which is Good; I think it's a Good thing to have Actual Knowledge in the "Science" Textbooks.

Don't you agree?

Science adapts to new information, which is how it should be.
I don't think there is a catch-all scientific definition for a species. Assuming that speciation isn't going on despite the actual evidence of hybrids and the genetics involved tends towards wilful ignorance imo. If breeds of dogs were ever to become sufficiently genetically divergent over time then imo speciation is what will have happened, not that creationists would ever agree perhaps.

Right, I find it odd that The Horseshoe Crab Has Remained the Same Animal for So Long, and Evaded the Various "Mass Extinctions"; Yet you still Believe in the Theory of Evolution... That states all the Various Modern Animals had a Common Ancestor.
So, what was it?

Where do you think Evolutionist Theorists say the Horseshoe Crab Descended From?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab

From the Wiki Horseshoe Crab article;
Because of their origin 450 million years ago (Mya), horseshoe crabs are considered living fossils.[3]

Sorry but unknowns don't require presumptions of a supernatural for me, they can just remain unknown.

So, in the Theory of Evolution that seems to indicate that all the Various Forms of life we share the Planet With had a Common Ancestor; Also, fits perfectly with Starfish and Horseshoe Crab Being alive during the Time of the First Animal in the Fossil Record (Trilobite), and the Fact that the Starfish Currently Contains all the Same Anatomical Features it Did, when it First appeared on this Planet... Right... Tell me one more time how that Probably Fits with your Theory, and maybe I'll believe you... LOL!!!

I wouldn't agree that the first appearance in the fossil record signifies that that must coincide with the beginning of a species' lineage nor of any miraculous creation event. I would tend to believe instead that earlier forms were rarer, more likely to be destroyed or not as likely to fossilise for some reason before invoking a supernatural power.

Why would you think that any lack of evidence requires that a supernatural be supposed rather than it simply remaining an unknown?

I'm simply stating that the Lack of Fossil Evidence for any sign that all the Modern Animals have a Common Ancestor, disproves Evolution; However, it still All adds Fits for the Theory of Creation of animals in Fully Functional Form, containing all the Anatomical Features that it does Modernly.

No it's finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian that would falsify the ToE. A lack of a specific evidence might indicate something if all the surrounding evidence is assessed properly.

No Presumption, just an Honest Look at the Fossil Record Evidence.
The Record is Vast, and there is Plenty of Evidence to Look at.
Even the Fossils that make up Lucy are Probably real fossils; They may not all be from the Same Animal, or Even Species of Animal, but hey Who's the Evolutionist Keeping track anyway, right?

Animals Created with All the Various tools they would need to interact with Nature on their Level of Life.

You seem rather more keen on what isn't there or in supporting a creationism imo than in what actually might have been happening at the time based on all the available evidence.

There is vast amounts of evidence that Darwinian evolution is indeed the natural order of things, but if you go back far enough in time hard evidence for specific events will naturally become more scarce.

Where is that AL!??
I'm here everyday asking for it.
Where is it AL; Where is the Evidence that all the Various forms of Animals we share the Planet with had a Common Ancestor?

Genetic evidence alone is sufficient evidence of common ancestry (particularly Endogenous retrovirus'). Not that you haven't been made aware of it before. If you want more then try paleontology, biology, geology...

I'm reasonably sure that we are not directly related to arthropods Mark.

I don't believe it!!!

I agree with you, about something in Science!!!

Maybe I'm Wrong, But;
I'm also reasonably sure that we are not Directly related to Arthropods, As Well.

In fact, I don't think we share Common Ancestry at all With any other Species on this Planet, but hey, maybe you are on your Way?

The Question is; If we don't share Common ancestry with Arthropods/Trilobites/Crabs where is the Common ancestor, that the Theory of Evolution seems to Describe as an Obvious Truth?

I presume that a very remote indirect common link was there long ago, but I really don't pretend to know where and when, but the same probably also applies to mushrooms. :think:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

OK, so it seems you are apparently unshakably convinced that, for every extinct and current form of complex life on this Earth, once upon a time they did not exist in any shape or form and then, hey presto, they did! That's all very quaint, magical and everything, but personally I'm not buying it, it's just not how things happen in my world, but by all means do believe away in yours Mark.

I don't Care if you "Buy It/ Believe", Don't you think it fits the Evidence in the Fossil Record?

If creatures actually did start appearing from nowhere then yes, Darwinian evolution predicts that they don't, they evolve. It would indeed falsify the ToE. What you need to do imo is to demonstrate that there were no prior forms and common ancestry in areas in which rather more evidence is available, rather than perhaps finding some obscurity in antiquity. Genetics alone convinces me that Hominidae at least clearly must share common ancestry, never mind all the physical evidence. Citing horseshoe crabs is pretty unconvincing stuff since simply takes us to a paucity of evidence, not to evidence of miraculous creations.

I'm pretty sure Darwinian Evolution thinks that the First life that Appeared came from Dirt, and Water...

Interesting...

: )

demonstrate that there were no prior forms and common ancestry in areas in which rather more evidence is available, rather than perhaps finding some obscurity in antiquity.

Give me an Example so I can Observe it, for myself; An Animal.

Genetics alone convinces me that Hominidae at least clearly must share common ancestry, never mind all the physical evidence.

What if Evidence is Beginning to show a 60% Likeness with the Banana Tree, and an 87-90% Likeness of Genomic Material With dogs and Cats?

What would you say to me then? That Chimps are Somehow, "Closer"?
It's simple observable truth that the More we Map the Chimpanzee Genome, the more we find out that it is not like the Human Genome to the Degree that was Claimed by them Originally.

Maybe we should wait till they are done Mapping the Chimpanzee Genome Completely to give an Opinion on Genomic Likeness between Humans and Chimps, given Dogs and Cats are Proving to be "So Close", as Well

A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but could be an argument from ignorance. What is your precedent for anything ever requiring the miraculous or supernatural to exist and why might that claim tend to be rather more arguable as less hard evidence is available?

Right AL; Which is the Same Reasoning behind my logic that All the Various Other Modern Animals that are not Starfish, and Horseshoe Crabs, may Exist in the Same Layers of Earth as the Trilobites, as Well: There just must be fossils that are yet to have been found.

: D HA!

I bet you thought you had me on that last one, for "Certain". LOL!!!

Science adapts to new information, which is how it should be.
I don't think there is a catch-all scientific definition for a species. Assuming that speciation isn't going on despite the actual evidence of hybrids and the genetics involved tends towards wilful ignorance imo. If breeds of dogs were ever to become sufficiently genetically divergent over time then imo speciation is what will have happened, not that creationists would ever agree perhaps.

I guess we will see; Did you know that Starfish and Horseshoe Crab information is Relatively "New" Science (Observable Truth).

I wouldn't agree that the first appearance in the fossil record signifies that that must coincide with the beginning of a species' lineage nor of any miraculous creation event. I would tend to believe instead that earlier forms were rarer, more likely to be destroyed or not as likely to fossilise for some reason before invoking a supernatural power.

Does that mean you are ready to finally admit that the Fossil Record holds no Common Ancestor for all the Various forms of Life that Exist on the Earth Today?

No it's finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian that would falsify the ToE. A lack of a specific evidence might indicate something if all the surrounding evidence is assessed properly.

I think it indicates that Animals have contained all the Same Functional anatomy the Entire time they have Existed on this planet, and that Long ago, modern Looking Species were Larger, Somehow...

Why do you think the Dragonflies and Other Animals used to be so Large?
What Environmental Change would make them the Size of a Bug I'd Squash if it flew at me, instead of Run from, like how they used to look when they First Existed on this Planet?

You seem rather more keen on what isn't there or in supporting a creationism imo than in what actually might have been happening at the time based on all the available evidence.

Tell me more about what you mean by this, AL.

Genetic evidence alone is sufficient evidence of common ancestry (particularly Endogenous retrovirus'). Not that you haven't been made aware of it before. If you want more then try paleontology, biology, geology...

Like lines of Code, may also prove that we came from a Common Designer, or the same Image when we were Initially Created.

I presume that a very remote indirect common link was there long ago, but I really don't pretend to know where and when, but the same probably also applies to mushrooms.

What?

I know you are not saying that Mushrooms were the Original Common ancestor for all the Various Species we share the Planet With, Right?

Again, please Clarify your Meaning; Define your Statement Further, AL.

=M=

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

Make sure I explain this well enough here. When you said 'magically,' I should have been specific enough with you to say 'miraculously.' I figured you, as a Christian, would know better. But you are not Christian. I'm a Christian, and am not a 'magic' person. God says not to believe in sorcery. See Revelation 10:7. So I don't. It was a slip that I thought would not have made such a big deal. But you really have to be intricate with every dang word you say on this TOL thread.

Thanks for understanding. I cannot guarantee that I can read ALL that you and Mark have written here. It is lengthy. But I am trying. Just so you know. No magically, just miraculously.

Thanks Al,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

That Horseshoe Crab mystery is really interesting, to say the very least. Well, Mark, I'm going to have another nice, midnight snack (an actual Mexican Beef and Bean Burrito) with extra cheese and Salsa sauce. Out here, a Burrito is a Burrito. Seems like it's different, depending on the chef. Such a wide and delicious assortment here. Then I am hitting the sack. Just so nice to chatting to you all.

Pleasant Dreams Al,

 

[alwight]

OK, so it seems you are apparently unshakably convinced that, for every extinct and current form of complex life on this Earth, once upon a time they did not exist in any shape or form and then, hey presto, they did! That's all very quaint, magical and everything, but personally I'm not buying it, it's just not how things happen in my world, but by all means do believe away in yours Mark.

I don't Care if you "Buy It/ Believe", Don't you think it fits the Evidence in the Fossil Record?

Clearly you at least would like to believe that an arguable absence of evidence opens the door to miraculous creations. You'd also probably want to continue waving away the more recent and more detailed evidence of common ancestry in say hominids.
The legends of King Arthur survive imo largely because of a lack of evidence, allowing the imagination to create magic and myth, untroubled by any irritating solid facts.

If creatures actually did start appearing from nowhere then yes, Darwinian evolution predicts that they don't, they evolve. It would indeed falsify the ToE. What you need to do imo is to demonstrate that there were no prior forms and common ancestry in areas in which rather more evidence is available, rather than perhaps finding some obscurity in antiquity. Genetics alone convinces me that Hominidae at least clearly must share common ancestry, never mind all the physical evidence. Citing horseshoe crabs is pretty unconvincing stuff since [it] simply takes us to a paucity of evidence, not to evidence of miraculous creations.

I'm pretty sure Darwinian Evolution thinks that the First life that Appeared came from Dirt, and Water...

Interesting...

: )

My understanding is that Darwinian evolution has much more to say about the origins of species than the origin of life.

demonstrate that there were no prior forms and common ancestry in areas in which rather more evidence is available, rather than perhaps finding some obscurity in antiquity.

Give me an Example so I can Observe it, for myself; An Animal.

I can't really help you there Mark since for any example I might offer it would be too late, it already exists. Your task here surely is to demonstrate that spontaneous creation is a reality.
If the scientific conclusions of a more recent common ancestry in say hominids is nevertheless somehow wrong then presumably you think that humans have been around as long as horseshoe crabs? Really? Otoh maybe you think that fully formed complex life is being spontaneously created at any time?
A new animal might even appear spontaneously in my living room right now, ...now that would be convincing.

Genetics alone convinces me that Hominidae at least clearly must share common ancestry, never mind all the physical evidence.

What if Evidence is Beginning to show a 60% Likeness with the Banana Tree, and an 87-90% Likeness of Genomic Material With dogs and Cats?

What would you say to me then? That Chimps are Somehow, "Closer"?
It's simple observable truth that the More we Map the Chimpanzee Genome, the more we find out that it is not like the Human Genome to the Degree that was Claimed by them Originally.

Maybe we should wait till they are done Mapping the Chimpanzee Genome Completely to give an Opinion on Genomic Likeness between Humans and Chimps, given Dogs and Cats are Proving to be "So Close", as Well

I think that common ERVs show well enough just how close is close.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but could be an argument from ignorance. What is your precedent for anything ever requiring the miraculous or supernatural to exist and why might that claim tend to be rather more arguable as less hard evidence is available?

Right AL; Which is the Same Reasoning behind my logic that All the Various Other Modern Animals that are not Starfish, and Horseshoe Crabs, may Exist in the Same Layers of Earth as the Trilobites, as Well: There just must be fossils that are yet to have been found.

: D HA!

I bet you thought you had me on that last one, for "Certain". LOL!!!

Fossils are often abundant but can also be rare or perhaps don't exist at all, but it isn't me who wants to make miraculous assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Science adapts to new information, which is how it should be.
I don't think there is a catch-all scientific definition for a species. Assuming that speciation isn't going on despite the actual evidence of hybrids and the genetics involved tends towards wilful ignorance imo. If breeds of dogs were ever to become sufficiently genetically divergent over time then imo speciation is what will have happened, not that creationists would ever agree perhaps.

I guess we will see; Did you know that Starfish and Horseshoe Crab information is Relatively "New" Science (Observable Truth).

I think it's nice that science doesn't seem too keen on creating and adherence to tablets of stone. However "popular science", like 24h rolling news channels, rather has to keep coming up with the goods, even when there isn't any.

I wouldn't agree that the first appearance in the fossil record signifies that that must coincide with the beginning of a species' lineage nor of any miraculous creation event. I would tend to believe instead that earlier forms were rarer, more likely to be destroyed or not as likely to fossilise for some reason before invoking a supernatural power.

Does that mean you are ready to finally admit that the Fossil Record holds no Common Ancestor for all the Various forms of Life that Exist on the Earth Today?

I'll admit that the fossil record is not a verbatim recording of events, but it does produce dots that we can join up or project to where we don't have any dots. In your case however when the dots run out you don't want to project, you'd rather assume that magic happens instead. It's the dots that are the bane of creationism Mark, fear the dots. lain:

No it's finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian that would falsify the ToE. A lack of a specific evidence might indicate something if all the surrounding evidence is assessed properly.

I think it indicates that Animals have contained all the Same Functional anatomy the Entire time they have Existed on this planet, and that Long ago, modern Looking Species were Larger, Somehow...

Why do you think the Dragonflies and Other Animals used to be so Large?
What Environmental Change would make them the Size of a Bug I'd Squash if it flew at me, instead of Run from, like how they used to look when they First Existed on this Planet?

Clearly then a changing size does not equate to staying the same. Without checking I seem to recall that the size of insects seems to be directly proportional to the amount of oxygen thought to be in the atmosphere. I think there is a limit to the efficiency of their respiratory systems and larger bodies simply require too much oxygen.
If that was all hogwash then by all means make me go and look it up.

You seem rather more keen on what isn't there or in supporting a creationism imo than in what actually might have been happening at the time based on all the available evidence.

Tell me more about what you mean by this, AL.

In time grasshopper, I will perhaps teach you how to be an "evolutionist", if you are worthy.

Genetic evidence alone is sufficient evidence of common ancestry (particularly Endogenous retrovirus'). Not that you haven't been made aware of it before. If you want more then try paleontology, biology, geology...

Like lines of Code, may also prove that we came from a Common Designer, or the same Image when we were Initially Created.

Do you really think that your designer inserted ERVs so that it looked as though a common ancestry had arranged it that way, just to deceive us?

I presume that a very remote indirect common link was there long ago, but I really don't pretend to know where and when, but the same probably also applies to mushrooms.

What?

I know you are not saying that Mushrooms were the Original Common ancestor for all the Various Species we share the Planet With, Right?

Again, please Clarify your Meaning; Define your Statement Further, AL.

=M=

You're sounding like my old teacher now Mark.
I read somewhere recently that mushrooms (fungi) are now thought to be genetically somewhere between flora and fauna. IOW mushrooms are closer to animals than regular plant life. The original self replicating molecule has got a lot to answer for.:angrymob:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

If the scientific conclusions of a more recent common ancestry in say hominids is nevertheless somehow wrong then presumably you think that humans have been around as long as horseshoe crabs? Really?

Yes. Exactly, and;

That is the Same Reasoning behind my logic that All the Various Other Modern Animals that are not Starfish, and Horseshoe Crabs, may Exist in the Same Layers of Earth as the Trilobites, as Well: There just must be fossils that are yet to have been found.

You'd also probably want to continue waving away the more recent and more detailed evidence of common ancestry in say hominids.

What Evidence?


=M=

What doesn't make sense to me is that there are People who Believe: "All Modern Animals Share A Common Ancestor; yet they also believe Man is the Only Creature that has Speciated ("Evolved") from another Species in the past 3 Million Years".

It's fine with them believing that man is the Most Advanced Creature; yet, at the Same time, they also think Man is the Only Kind of Animal that has Sprung out of another Species in the last 3 Million Years.

How could that Ever "Make Sense"?

My understanding is that Darwinian evolution has much more to say about the origins of species than the origin of life.

I'd say it has more to do with just Observing the Mutation through reproduction that happens in the Genome of any Given Creature, and then Trying to claim Every Mutation as proof of Speciation.

But, Let's see;

What's your Personal Definition of the Word "Species", in your Sentence you use the Phrase "Origin of Species"?

How is "Origin of Species" not Equal to the phrase "Origin of Life"?

And;

How does that Prove that the Theory of Evolution doesn't state; "that all the Various Modern Animals are supposed to have a Common Ancestor."?

I'll admit that the fossil record is not a verbatim recording of events, but it does produce dots that we can join up or project to where we don't have any dots.

But; Where is the Common Ancestor for all the Various Species of Animals in the Fossil Record?

Which Animal Fossil from the Fossil Record, do you think Humans Share a Common Ancestor with; Which Lived during the Time of the Trilobites?

I think that common ERVs show well enough just how close is close.

So, are you now ready to admit that the Genome of the Chimpanzee does not Match up with the Human Genome to the 97th Percentile?

and that:
Only Pieces and Parts match up that Closely; almost like the Creator Used Codes that he could use in Multiple Genomes for Purpose?

Interesting, AL.

In time grasshopper, I will perhaps teach you how to be an "evolutionist", if you are worthy.

If you have some Observable Evidence for it, feel free to show me now, and we can get on our way; The Main Problem I have, is nobody has ever shown proof of speciation to me, and the Lack of Astrolopiphecene simply shows that they Probably Never Existed.

Oh, and the Fact that Lucy and her what (Three Pals) are Fossils Collected from Wide areas, and from Multiple Layers of Earth.

There is no Actual Evidence that Lucy's Remains were all from the Same Animal.
If you think they were; prove it, or go get your Common Descent Belief off the Roof!!!

LOL!!!

Do you really think that your designer inserted ERVs so that it looked as though a common ancestry had arranged it that way, just to deceive us?

No, I believe that the Reason Certain Codes and ERVs appear in the Genome of Multiple Species of animals, is because they all have a Common Designer, and thereby common Coding that makes up their Image.

I will find you a good video, for more information on ERVs; but my wife just got home from work.

See Yah!!!

: D

 

[alwight]

Didn't I just get through explaining that ERVs are solid evidence of common descent? :think:
Hang on, more words are spontaneously appearing...

I'll add some myself:

But, Let's see;

What's your Personal Definition of the Word "Species", in your Sentence you use the Phrase "Origin of Species"?

How is "Origin of Species" not Equal to the phrase "Origin of Life"?

Mark, Darwin wasn't talking about the origin of life, the origin of species is purely about err the origin of species from existing life. :doh:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Didn't I just get through explaining that ERVs are solid evidence of common descent? :think:
Hang on, more words are spontaneously appearing...

I'll add some myself:


Mark, Darwin wasn't talking about the origin of life, the origin of species is purely about err the origin of species from existing life. :doh:

Dear Alwight,

That still does not answer the question of why there are no speciation after origin of life, like evolution contends? Just because Mark said something wrong with one word, does not change the facts I'm concerned with. Of course God created all species involved, you can forget it that man's ancestor was a chimp, why horseshoe crabs are 'living FOSSILS', or why we don't find chimps in the process of changing into humans during our lifetimes. If that were true, there would be plenty of that going around.

Unending Joy Be Yours, Regardless That I Have Questions,

Michael

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

AL!

I want to show you an Example of the Kind of Crazy we have to put up with here.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4173013&postcount=175

Please feel free to Reply in that thread. : D

Really, though; Especially if you happen to agree!!! LOL!!!


=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Didn't I just get through explaining that ERVs are solid evidence of common descent?

ERVs were proven to just be sections of Active Genome, which are not "Scars" from a virus at all.


=M=


That's just Proof that the Various Code Structures we see in Creatures are throughout the Animal Kingdom.
I wouldn't be surprised if we found the Very same ERVs in chickens or animals that Evolutionists don't think are Directly Ancestral to human Beings.

Creationist Argument Side of the "Like ERVs" Existence in Multiple Species

ERVs are not just Viral Scars, but instead Funtional Coding that Exists in Multiple Species of Animals? Common Creator? : D =M=

I will also find the Newest Information on this, to see if it holds any Weight.

==================================

Now, to even out the Debate;
Here is what Evolutionists say ERVs in Multiple Species Means... To them.

Evolutionist Views on ERVs

If it's "Proven" like these "Evolutionists" say; Why is it still a "Theory"?

There's really not that Many Evolution Youtube Videos made that are in support of Evolution on this Subject;

So, here is another Creationist View, on this topic;

ERVs, and Phylogenetic Trees;

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Mark, Darwin wasn't talking about the origin of life, the origin of species is purely about err the origin of species from existing life.

Right, AL; So, Where in the Cambrian Layer do you think our Common Ancestor is?

Do you think it's the Starfish, or the Horseshoe Crab?
Possibly the Trilobite, as Carl Sagan says in his Documentary "On Space, and the Universe"; Which it's title was Ripped off by Neal Tyson called "Cosmos".

Neal Tyson, the "Theoretical" Astro-Physicist.

Who uses Newton's Math on a Daily basis, but on the Other hand constantly talks smack about Newton for his belief in a Creator.

Tyson is also a Moron of Sorts, but at least he's not a "Magical Magician Evolutionist Atheist Catholic Popery Incensed Moron".


=M=