gcthomas
New member
Fixed it to match the evidence of the graph in the earlier post. :up:
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Fixed it to match the evidence of the graph in the earlier post. :up:
iouae
Well-known member
Originally Posted by iouae
"But THEIR tree illustrated an important point, namely that the majority of mammals arose suddenlydiverged over a period of twenty million years in the Eocene."
Fixed the fix, since the original graph's dashed lines were speculative by their own reckoning. The SOLID lines are factual and show they did arise out of the blue.
The fact that after the Cretaceous extinction, nothing happened in the Palaeocene, shows it was not the dinosaurs holding back the mammals.
"But THEIR tree illustrated an important point, namely that the majority of mammals arose suddenly
Fixed the fix, since the original graph's dashed lines were speculative by their own reckoning. The SOLID lines are factual and show they did arise out of the blue.
The fact that after the Cretaceous extinction, nothing happened in the Palaeocene, shows it was not the dinosaurs holding back the mammals.
Interplanner
Well-known member
'Evolved creatures'? didn't you mean to say evolved animals? I really don't know where you get the idea that an evolutionary step would favor altruism. animals don't think of that. they have space and they have space for collecting food because they need to eat. I don't know that they have their sexual experience anywhere close to how humans do, but once they have offspring they generally tend to them, protect them, for a while. None of which is anywhere close to what humans do, but is functional enough to qualify as Genesis 'being fruitful, and multiplying after their kinds.'
Several cultures have ethics that descended from what we were created with but have decayed, in a very close parallel to their cosmologies. This is why the cosmologies are quite similar and it is only recently that people thought they were originally vastly different. (In the James-Griffiths presentation on 'tracing Genesis' he has a quote from a leading British literary scholar that the diverse start of cosmologies is no longer accepted; they started as one account and have fragmented from one account. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgohPpu0rE)
The command to heterosexual monogamy is just as old as Genesis says, and the command to put a murderer to death is likewise. It was not observed and the culture before the deluge became violent and evil, accordingly. This kind of society shows up in the world's geomythology about the deluge.
Other than finding pictures and charts on the internet, do you have any particular paleontology background?
alwight
New member
No, same difference so what?
Other animals (happy now?) live mainly by instinct, but humans have evolved a high level of intelligence and self awareness you may have noticed. Cooperating intelligently with each other gives humans a huge advantage over other creatures in finding their prey. Part of a developing and evolving intelligence must surely include valuing themselves and others that they live with in a human cooperative community. If it wasn't a beneficial thing to cooperate then it wouldn't have evolved. I would suggest that religion evolved because it encourages bonding and community spirit. It doesn't need to be true in Darwinian evolution, it only has to be beneficial in some way.
Humans are sexual creatures too but it takes more than instinct with us because we have the ability to think and reason. Having organised altruistic cooperating communities is clearly an evolutionary benefit in raising children.
I'm sure that most religions have borrowed much from earlier ones, in fact they tend to evolve as new cultures come along. Christmas is actually a pagan festival and probably nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.
Exactly, I think most cultures have a flood myth, but none would have known it was actually global rather than a just local event. Floods and ice ages happening are evidentially true but a single global flood is not.
I don't need a command not to murder someone, but I would consider reprisals against a murderer as probably morally correct, and really don't need a godly command for that either.
badp
New member
Crack a history book. Nobody has ever just thought, "Oh magic must have done it." People have always sought a mechanism, whether it's supernatural or natural. Today, atheists tout Natural Selection as the mechanism for everything from musical taste to milk allergies. There is zero difference intellectually between a Medieval knight saying, "Demons hath done it!" and you saying, "Evolution did it!" Both "did-its" are equally without evidence.
Oh, and stop pretending science supports your belief system. Common descent is based on a philosophical-historical interpretation of a very select set of facts. It has nothing to do with any kind of rigorous science. And you know it.
That is, to be blunt, a stupid statement, and it indicates you don't know how theories change over time. When data is found that goes against a prevailing theory, good scientists don't say, "Oh, well that old theory is done! Time for a new one!" They first consider that maybe the new data is wrong or being interpreted incorrectly. That's exactly what they did with the LHC, and it turns out the "data" were wrong. Only if successive new data keeps bringing the prevailing theory into question, then they start considering alternatives.
Evolution has so much data against it, but evolutionists are afraid to consider alternative theories because .. lots of reasons. Not scientific reasons, but human ones. Grant money at stake, reputations at stake, don't want to be proven wrong, regret having wasted a lifetime studying a disproven theory, etc.
alwight
New member
I realise that you may not want to believe this video but it explains some of the scientifically accepted evidence of common descent, it's not about a belief system, it is about reasonable evidence that I personally find convincing.
Judging by all the creationist poor attempts to debunk this evidence that I'm sure you will easily find out there, it is obviously something that worries YECs very much indeed.
| Scientific Evidence of Common Descent | |
Interplanner
Well-known member
They knew it was global because the continent was one piece. this is why there are very diverse examples in carvings (ethnicities shown in carvings) all over the world. For ex., in the Mayan faces there are very clear African and Asian likenesses. Then the continent divided quickly.
You stand at the end of much history which is a tool to make men more civil and righteous; the Bible says that. But that is not evolving. That is just accumulating or retaining wisdom. The period in question is one that was very violent, and capital punishment was ignored, and other bizarre sexual practices were the norm.
There was almost nothing new about the Ten Commands when covenanted with Israel; most of them were in practice elsewhere or at least in writing. Even commands NOT to make images of deity are found as far as as the Shang Ti and the Naszca. That is because they were all rooted in Genesis, just as the British literature quote says about the cosmologies. Started and rooted there but deteriorated from it.
You can attribute things to your evolution of humanity (which is a blind faith in secularism) all you want, but it doesn't stand historically, or in geomythology. There are also several examples of the kind of blind faith in mankind being borrowed from progress made through Judeo-Christian (and non-determinist) principles.
The difference? I didn't really answer. The difference is that the Genesis record holds up in literature, in geomythology, in society, so there is less reason to have a substantial problem with in 'mechanical' physical things. We live in a contested zone. It was created through Christ, for his purposes, and it seems that in answer to the complete rejection of this by mankind (and sometimes with the force of other higher but evil entities in the picture), it will be destroyed in a way that does not regenerate (you could say that the way the deluge happened was a first warning that could regenerate much of what was there before). Last I checked most physical scientists were generally avoiding the subject of it being created through Christ and for his purposes, so they wouldn't be equipped to speak to that.
Hedshaker
New member
Well you're almost right. Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as supernatural evidence, you'd have it nailed. Other than that little detail you make an interesting point. Most of us are indeed a curious bunch. Luckily we eventually got wind of the scientific method so no longer feel the need to treat folk with mental health issues as though they were demoniacally possessed or burn witches at the stake.
Well lets hope that you or someone close to you ever need to call on that evil medical science for life saving treatment because, unfortunately, Medieval knights are a bit short of supply these days. Luckily, a great many of these evil scientists just happen to also be Christians. Funny that, no?
Well it's most enlightening to learn that you know what I know better than I do, given that you don' actually know me at all. Maybe your beef should be directed to the scientific community instead.
I don't recall claiming that the scientific method is perfect. It isn't. It can be messy, open to abuse and fraud.But for all that it just happens to be, by far, the most successful endeavour in human history
Well don't hold back, tell us what you really think.... or better yet, show us all this devastating evidence from creationist and apologetics sites that so disproves the Theory of Evolution. After all, we all know how totally honest and without agenda these sites are...... not!
When there are frauds in science, who do you think exposes them? Creationists? Theologians? Religionists? Christians?
Think again. It's the scientific community themselves that weed their own garden. And that's the difference. Think about it.
And while your about it, instead of spending all your efforts trying to discredit the Theory of Evolution, how about presenting a little evidence for creationism. The way you guys go about it one could be forgiven for thinking you don't have any evidence in favour of creationism.....
Just saying
alwight
New member
That seems rather unlikely that they would even know they were living on a globe let alone travel the length and breadth of the land as it was, never mind that you will presumably tell me that for no clear reason, that after all the surplus flood water went away somewhere, a new terrain was revealed? That amazingly it divided quickly into the familiar shape we know today in just a few thousand years? So it must have been pretty much constantly in motion.
This is particularly difficult for me to believe because I know that the Romans inhabited where I live 2000 years ago and dug quarries and built buildings while the Pagans before them some 3000 years ago built barrows (tombs) that have all remained in place. Some were constructed above the now vertical layers of coloured sedimentary strata at a place called Alum Bay here on the Isle of Wight (UK).
This multi-layered strata must have been originally laid down horizontally but pushed vertical by the quickly folding ground. So by my reckoning, according to YECs timescales anyway all this movement of the ground would have taken place within about 2000 years since the Pagans never seemed to be troubled by the ground moving under them.
I could drone on with many more geological problems with all this but I'll spare you any more.
I think that there is considerably more history to the Earth than you are prepared to recognise.
lain:I think that myths and legends were commonplace long before anyone started writing them down. Hebrew scribes probably did the best with what they had, but Genesis nevertheless seems to have two different creation versions. There was also a previous version of Eve called Lilith who was a bit too radical for her own good. Not used in the Bible btw.
The Lilith Myth
I disagree, there is copious amounts of natural evidence and facts that I find infinitely more compelling than an ancient work of myths and legends even when edited down for the OT.
If we are not careful mankind will destroy itself, but it won't happen because of any built-in decline or evil force.
You wouldn't know the evidence if it bit you on the nose. I am tired of all of your drivel, not just you, but everyone's. The ONLY way you are going to believe is by experiencing it when it happens. Don't say then that you weren't warned. You ask for answers, then you don't believe the answers you are given, whether it's the truth or not. You pick and choose what you want to believe and then scoff at what you don't want to believe. It's a hopeless situation. As far as my radiation therapy, there is no way to know if it will even help. And what caused the carcinogens anyway? Is it in the pesticides that science came up with for us? There really is no telling. I'm done, so stick a fork in me.
Michael
Dear All,
About this deluge! It was a Great Encompassing FLOOD. Noah took birds into the Ark also. If God was destroying all flesh off of the earth, then why wouldn't birds just fly to the nearest dry spot and stay there? I mean if there is dry land somewhere in this Great Flood, then the birds closest to it would fly to it. Noah would not need birds on the Ark. So now that you are wrong, are you sure that everything else that comes out of your head is wrong too?
Michael
Could it be that you're confusing atheism with nihilism perhaps?
In any case, regale us, if you will, with the tale of human value in the bible.
I'm sure you wanted to say something really witty. Unfortunately I've no clue what that phrase actually means
So I understand that you possess an intimate understanding of cosmology and the string theory. I myself, cannot follow, that's why I don't believe it.
But jokes aside, in reality it's just your incredulity revealing itself.
I bet in case the multiverse proves correct (maybe in 200 years) theists like yourself will do the same as today. Either outright deny it, or claim it's god's miraculous creation and start filling the gaps with goddonedidit.
It's quite telling that you never reply to any of the arguments and points I make in my posts, whether when I'm refuting the rubbish you promote or like in this exchange, demonstrating your weaknesses.
Nevermind though, since it's obviously clear that you'd never change your worldview, I'm not even going to try to convince you.
In terms of statistics, you can always check them out for yourself if you like, many sheep are indeed leaving the flock :luigi:
You are correct in the sense that you have nothing to say that would change my position, but before you celebrate or quotemine, go back to my previous post and verify for yourself: I'm always open to EVIDENCE. So go ahead, surprise me with some......
Cheers
Yeah and this is what I never understood either, and no one here seems to be able to explain it to me.
Sometimes it's even grotesque: when you just substitute the name of the theory leaving the content intact, they'll cheerfully agree with it.
iouae
Well-known member
Evolutionists were asking for proof of Creation, so here goes.
The Cambrian explosion has all the hallmarks of a creation event, and none of the hallmarks of an evolutionary event. Even Darwin felt the absence of Pre-cambrian precursor species was a huge downer to his theory. He hoped time would provide the missing links. Time has passed.
There are no "common origins" in this "tree" except the dashed lines at the base which evolutionists theorised, but which have never been found.
So all the major Phyla were created together, fully functional, setting the plan for all animals, for all time.
Showing God had most basic animal body plans thought out right from the start of life on earth.
Clear proof of intelligent design.
http://www.genesisnet.info/dateien_en/i42842_cambrian_explosion.php
"Sudden onset of various fossilized animal phyla
One of the most pronounced anomalies in the fossil record can be found at the transition from the Precambrian to the Cambrian .... Cambrian sediments, contain a highly diversified fauna that occurs so suddenly and is so varied that we speak of the “Cambrian explosion” (Valentine 2004) or the “big bang” in paleontology (see Figure 186).
Living organisms from all known phyla, which have hard parts, are found as fossils of the Cambrian period (many already in the Lower Cambrian). These include sponges (Porifera), coelenterates (Coelenterata), annelids (Annelida), Brachiopod (Brachiopoda), arthropods (Arthropoda), mollusks (Mollusca), echinoderms (Echinodermata) and chordates (chordates, including the first vertebrates and jawless fish). The fossil evidence of these phyla in the Cambrian is so prolific that one can clearly differentiate the distinguishable sub-groups (classes). This fossil record is also widely distributed around the world. In contrast, the upper-most rock layers of the Precambrian contain very little fossil evidence, limited to a few multicellular organisms such as coelenterates and sponges (see below).
Figure 186
Fig. 186: Cambrian explosion. Not a tree but a bouquet. This diagram depicts the occurrence of fossils of the major animal phyla over time. The diagram does not look very much like a tree ...
....So it appears that the main differences between the blueprints of all animals were already present in the beginning of the documented fossil record of multicellular organisms. Darwin had already noted the diversity of the Cambrian fossils as a problem for his theory. In a recent monograph, Valentine notes (2004), that this striking discontinuity has since been confirmed by many researches. Among all the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils, there are hardly any forms that can be cited to link different phyla, and even of the few life forms that are present, none of them are suitable as evolutionary transitional forms. The reason for this is that the single unifying characteristic of these few life forms are present in species with such a complex array of other characteristics that would exclude them as transitional species.
Valentine (2004, p. 31, 35) notes that there is no phylum for which the predecessor life form is known. Likewise, there is no known source for the formation of all the known classes of invertebrates (see Figure 44 for the taxonomic units). Some Precambrian fossils are so very different from Cambrian fossils, that their origin is also a mystery. Changes after the Cambrian (ie, the differentiation among the phyla or classes), are also very significant, but smaller in scale than those postulated between phyla that have no fossil evidence for evolution before the Cambrian. “What occurred after that in terms of evolutionary transformations were, for all the variety of forms, basically just variations of the established basic plans that were established during the Cambrian Revolution” (Seilacher 1992, p. 19).
....
...
Summary
In the Lower Cambrian, fossil representatives of all known animal phyla), which have hard parts, occur almost simultaneously in a large variety of forms and over a wide geographical area. In comparison, the underlying Precambrian rocks contain few multicellular organisms, of which only a few could be interpreted as a precursors to Cambrian forms. The sudden appearance of so many different blueprints (different phyla) at the beginning of the fossil record is also an enigma for evolutionary biologists."
The Cambrian explosion has all the hallmarks of a creation event, and none of the hallmarks of an evolutionary event. Even Darwin felt the absence of Pre-cambrian precursor species was a huge downer to his theory. He hoped time would provide the missing links. Time has passed.
There are no "common origins" in this "tree" except the dashed lines at the base which evolutionists theorised, but which have never been found.
So all the major Phyla were created together, fully functional, setting the plan for all animals, for all time.
Showing God had most basic animal body plans thought out right from the start of life on earth.
Clear proof of intelligent design.
http://www.genesisnet.info/dateien_en/i42842_cambrian_explosion.php
"Sudden onset of various fossilized animal phyla
One of the most pronounced anomalies in the fossil record can be found at the transition from the Precambrian to the Cambrian .... Cambrian sediments, contain a highly diversified fauna that occurs so suddenly and is so varied that we speak of the “Cambrian explosion” (Valentine 2004) or the “big bang” in paleontology (see Figure 186).
Living organisms from all known phyla, which have hard parts, are found as fossils of the Cambrian period (many already in the Lower Cambrian). These include sponges (Porifera), coelenterates (Coelenterata), annelids (Annelida), Brachiopod (Brachiopoda), arthropods (Arthropoda), mollusks (Mollusca), echinoderms (Echinodermata) and chordates (chordates, including the first vertebrates and jawless fish). The fossil evidence of these phyla in the Cambrian is so prolific that one can clearly differentiate the distinguishable sub-groups (classes). This fossil record is also widely distributed around the world. In contrast, the upper-most rock layers of the Precambrian contain very little fossil evidence, limited to a few multicellular organisms such as coelenterates and sponges (see below).
Figure 186
Fig. 186: Cambrian explosion. Not a tree but a bouquet. This diagram depicts the occurrence of fossils of the major animal phyla over time. The diagram does not look very much like a tree ...
....So it appears that the main differences between the blueprints of all animals were already present in the beginning of the documented fossil record of multicellular organisms. Darwin had already noted the diversity of the Cambrian fossils as a problem for his theory. In a recent monograph, Valentine notes (2004), that this striking discontinuity has since been confirmed by many researches. Among all the Cambrian and Precambrian fossils, there are hardly any forms that can be cited to link different phyla, and even of the few life forms that are present, none of them are suitable as evolutionary transitional forms. The reason for this is that the single unifying characteristic of these few life forms are present in species with such a complex array of other characteristics that would exclude them as transitional species.
Valentine (2004, p. 31, 35) notes that there is no phylum for which the predecessor life form is known. Likewise, there is no known source for the formation of all the known classes of invertebrates (see Figure 44 for the taxonomic units). Some Precambrian fossils are so very different from Cambrian fossils, that their origin is also a mystery. Changes after the Cambrian (ie, the differentiation among the phyla or classes), are also very significant, but smaller in scale than those postulated between phyla that have no fossil evidence for evolution before the Cambrian. “What occurred after that in terms of evolutionary transformations were, for all the variety of forms, basically just variations of the established basic plans that were established during the Cambrian Revolution” (Seilacher 1992, p. 19).
....
...
Summary
In the Lower Cambrian, fossil representatives of all known animal phyla), which have hard parts, occur almost simultaneously in a large variety of forms and over a wide geographical area. In comparison, the underlying Precambrian rocks contain few multicellular organisms, of which only a few could be interpreted as a precursors to Cambrian forms. The sudden appearance of so many different blueprints (different phyla) at the beginning of the fossil record is also an enigma for evolutionary biologists."
Jose Fly
New member
That's your "proof", eh? Not anything positive, or direct evidence....just "there's a gap here, therefore God"?
Thanks for illustrating so well exactly why creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century.
alwight
New member
Sorry but you are not presenting any evidence of creation here. All you are doing is highlighting some of the perceived problems that Darwin had with his own theory.
Since Darwin's time many discoveries of life before the pre-Cambrian have been made and not just flora but fauna too. It is clear that life existed long before the pre-Cambrian, but yes it was a puzzle as to why it suddenly seemed to take off then.
There seems to be no one definitive answer, but the type of strata making up the pre-Cambrian is more likely to preserve soft tissue and that before this time hard body parts were rare. It is also combined with a general increase in oxygen levels and with creatures producing body parts that were hard, skeletal and much more likely to fossilise. This was probably due to higher levels of calcium from volcanic activity.
There are many good rational possibilities before presuming a miraculous creation ever took place, including "snowball Earth" and an increase in ozone levels which protected land biology from lethal UV radiation.
But the point here is about creation, one minute nothing and then suddenly, complete complex life forms appearing miraculously from nowhere.
There is no evidence of that ever happening that I've ever heard about. Picking holes in some of the evidence for evolution is not the same as showing that a miraculous creation ever took place. Science continues to show that there are genuinely good answers and none of them miraculous. Not that creationist websites would ever acknowledge that.
iouae
Well-known member
It will always boil down to faith since unlike the cosmos where we can see back in time billions of years, in this case we Creationists, and you evolutionists must look at the same set of fossils, and ask honestly, does this resemble creation or does it more closely resemble evolution?
My main reason for rejecting evolution is the absence of missing links.
They say that 99% of all animals which have ever lived are now extinct. It is not good enough to show me three or four animals with supposed complete fossil records. I want to see every animal's complete fossil record.
And although new fossils are discovered daily, mostly they are altogether new animals with more need for links.
And the Geologic Time Scale with all its eras, periods, epochs is itself testament to non-continuity. This stop, start, sudden appearance, sudden disappearance is odd. Why is evolution not continuous? Are we blaming the earth for disasters forcing species to change? Disasters of themselves have no mechanism for forcing change.
I see God as the Great Scientist, and Earth is His shed. He obviously has a great interest in biology and in diversity of organisms. The strange creatures of the Cambrian show his interest at that time.
The Hominids of the Pleistocene show me that God was getting interested in creating man, and he was busy experimenting with H. erectus and Neanderthals tweaking these till he got the formula right.
Then He clears the decks, and creates a whole new biome with man-appropriate animals and plants. Dinosaurs would be too big. Our world is tame enough for man to rule over and exercise his powers.
My view of God is of a Great Scientist who does not know everything. He is very good, but even He has to see how various creatures will interact. The fact that God exclaims with delight after each creation day that "it is very good" tells me that just like us, when a plan comes together as expected, its a time to rejoice.
I know very few Christians who believe in an experimenting, growing, learning God. The fossil record shows me that God is just like that. And Christians will come down on this attitude like a ton of bricks, but what's new. I even believe God fails occasionally. Like the Old Covenant may have been a failure. And God seems clearly miffed pre-flood when after 1600 years only three humans have come to him for salvation. That looks like a failure.
So God institutes the Old Covenant after the flood. And what does it produce? Israel failing continually, and we end up with Pharisees.
So God tries the New Covenant? I hope this iteration comes up to snuff. I hope the quality of Christian He is producing meets His specs. I don't think we have too long to wait to find out. Or God may be enjoying this part of human history with its freedom and opportunity to choose Him so much, that He may let it go on for a few hundred more years. I certainly am not setting a date. Maybe there is no date. Maybe at the whim of the Father he will decide to send Christ back when it suits him. We Christians have to beware or knowing it all.
- Status