Creation or Evolution? (Maybe both)

[bojulay]

Yes there are many proven examples of micro evolution
( small changes within a species ) but there is really no fossil
evidence of macro evolution ( changing from one species
to another ) Even though strict evolutionist try and point
to certain examples. In my opinion none stand the test.

There is not only the need for one missing link but thousands
through out all the different species, and they just aren't there.

Some interesting (found) links.

www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm

http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.or...oevolution.htm

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent...on-is-real.php
3 through 10 are examples of micro evolution, 2 is only theory
nothing more, and 1 hardly proves that we came from lower
primates.

#2 A wolf jumps into the ocean to take a swim and becomes a whale.
The new disney pixar movie hit of the summer.

[sroach23]

what proof has creation ever offered?

[exoticdanceweardealer]

I was on this topic with some friends just today. I think that an architect (God) might have made a seed and like all other living things it just sprouted into what we have now via the means of a big bang and evolution. It might have happened naturally, either way it is not going to disprove a creation because there are nearly countless possible scenarios.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by bojulay

...there is really no fossil
evidence of macro evolution...

There is not only the need for one missing link but thousands
through out all the different species, and they just aren't there.

Evolution is on verifiable facts and scientifically-based hypotheses. Creationism is sacred book BS with absolutely NO basis in fact.

If the fossil record is somewhat lacking, that is because environmental conditions generally destroy dead bodies in a relatively short time period. It takes a unique set of rather rare circumstances for skeletal remains to survive for 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands or even millions of years.

A good fossil is the rare exception, not the rule. So scientists do the best with what they have to explain the past.

Interestingly, when mistakes in earlier scientific theories are discovered, it is ALWAYS the result of later scientific studies based on new factual evidence that discovers those mistakes. it is never discovered by creationists.

Each new discovery and correction allows scientists to move ever so slowly towards the truth. That is how science works - the constant testing and refinement of theoretical models to come closer and closer to an explanation that can withstand all scrutiny.

On the other hand, you have some old book that is NOT based on verifiable facts, just ancient stories past down from one generation to the next. Which would you trust?

And why is it that every time there appears to be some weakness or inconsistency in evolutionary theory, creationists seize upon that a some kind of proof that the Bible must be right? Evidence that the current models of evolution are incorrect proves only that the model is incorrect - it does NOT prove that anything else is right.

Creationism is not the alternative to the current explanation of evolution. A NEW explanation of evolution is the alternative to the current explanation of evolution.

[Guest071613-2]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Evolution is on verifiable facts and scientifically-based hypotheses. Creationism is sacred book BS with absolutely NO basis in fact.

THIS.

People do realize that chimps and humans share 96% of the same DNA, right? I suppose that's just a fluke.

People who support creationism truly make me question their...never mind. Unicorns and little magical gnomes have about as much relevance as a "God".

Before the big bang, there was nothing.....including time. So if there was no time, there was no place or time for a God to have existed. I know all the favorite Christian rebuttals to that, but the fact of the matter is, the more we learn about space, time, and the laws of nature, there becomes less and less need for a "God" to be the reason behind all naturally occurring phenomenon.

There was a time when the Vikings believed that a lunar eclipse was the "Wolf God", swallowing the moon. They shook their swords in the air and yelled at it, scaring it off. We now know there is no "Wolf God" eating the moon. We used to believe the Earth was fixed and the center of the universe, until Galileo said otherwise (and almost lost his life as the CHURCH cried heresy and made him recant his ideas). The Pope eventually said it's okay to question nature, just not God.

So sheeple still believe whatever is spoon fed to them through religion, including the lunacy of creationism. There ya have it! The end.

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

Originally Posted by bojulay

There is not only the need for one missing link but thousands through out all the different species, and they just aren't there.

bullshit...i saw a missing link walking into an AMP today. sure felt sorry for the poor girl that had to hump that neanderthal. and i heard walmart is usually full of missing links.

you creationists really crack me up.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Evolution is on verifiable facts and scientifically-based hypotheses. Creationism is sacred book BS with absolutely NO basis in fact.

If the fossil record is somewhat lacking, that is because environmental conditions generally destroy dead bodies in a relatively short time period. It takes a unique set of rather rare circumstances for skeletal remains to survive for 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands or even millions of years.

A good fossil is the rare exception, not the rule. So scientists do the best with what they have to explain the past.

Interestingly, when mistakes in earlier scientific theories are discovered, it is ALWAYS the result of later scientific studies based on new factual evidence that discovers those mistakes. it is never discovered by creationists.

Each new discovery and correction allows scientists to move ever so slowly towards the truth. That is how science works - the constant testing and refinement of theoretical models to come closer and closer to an explanation that can withstand all scrutiny.

On the other hand, you have some old book that is NOT based on verifiable facts, just ancient stories past down from one generation to the next. Which would you trust?

And why is it that every time there appears to be some weakness or inconsistency in evolutionary theory, creationists seize upon that a some kind of proof that the Bible must be right? Evidence that the current models of evolution are incorrect proves only that the model is incorrect - it does NOT prove that anything else is right.

Creationism is not the alternative to the current explanation of evolution. A NEW explanation of evolution is the alternative to the current explanation of evolution.

There again, lots of micro and no example of macro.
Truly transitional fossils aren't found.

Take the whale example given in one of the threads.
The oldest found whale fossils are fully formed whales.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by TheOriginalDannie

THIS.

People do realize that chimps and humans share 96% of the same DNA, right? I suppose that's just a fluke.

People who support creationism truly make me question their...never mind. Unicorns and little magical gnomes have about as much relevance as a "God".

Before the big bang, there was nothing.....including time. So if there was no time, there was no place or time for a God to have existed. I know all the favorite Christian rebuttals to that, but the fact of the matter is, the more we learn about space, time, and the laws of nature, there becomes less and less need for a "God" to be the reason behind all naturally occurring phenomenon.

There was a time when the Vikings believed that a lunar eclipse was the "Wolf God", swallowing the moon. They shook their swords in the air and yelled at it, scaring it off. We now know there is no "Wolf God" eating the moon. We used to believe the Earth was fixed and the center of the universe, until Galileo said otherwise (and almost lost his life as the CHURCH cried heresy and made him recant his ideas). The Pope eventually said it's okay to question nature, just not God.

So sheeple still believe whatever is spoon fed to them through religion, including the lunacy of creationism. There ya have it! The end.

If there was nothing then no big bang, no matter, no time
the possibility of nothing is not a possibility. Everything from
nothing all matter, space, time, complex organisms, banana splits,
key lime pie, SCARLETT JOHANSSON, rubber baby buggy bumpers,
---really (talk about lunacy)

I'm not Catholic.

Chimps also have two eyes, a pair of ears, two feet, an asshole,
but I don't think anyone will be debating creation or evolution
with one of them any time soon.

If macro evolution is a fact and we are so closely
related to chimps why cant humans cross bread with them.

And where are the reptiles with reasoning ability, how come
they got left without that convenient little attribute during
the evolutionary process----oh wait I know that answer,
The Democratic Convention.

So sheeple still believe whatever is spoon fed to them through
pseudoscience, including the lunacy of macro evolution.
There ya have it! The end.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by bojulay

There again, lots of micro and no example of macro.
Truly transitional fossils aren't found.

Just what do you consider "macro" or "transitional"?

All evolution takes place in small steps over many generations until it can be said that a new species has been created. When that point occurs is usually a matter of judgement.

Can you not look at the evolution of man in the 3rd link and simply SEE the progression from smaller, more ape-like primates to a larger, more human-like primates until a modern human results? Everyone of the intermediate species is a "truly transitional" fossil.

Originally Posted by bojulay

Take the whale example given in one of the threads.
The oldest found whale fossils are fully formed whales.

That's because they were still whales.

The non-whale ancestors of whales are some other type of mammal.

It started out as a much smaller mammal that went back into the sea and eventually spent all of its time in the sea. Perhaps it was something that looked like a pig, or a hippo, or a bear.

You do know that whales and seals actually have hips inside their bodies, right? And that the bones in the ends of their bodies near the flukes are actually legs that fused back together? And that the flukes at the ends of those bones are what used to be their rear feet/hooves?

That is why the rear fins/flukes of whales, dolphins and seals go up and down and not left to right the way the tail fins of fish do.

The same way your legs would go up and down if you held your legs together and kicked them while swimming - because that is the way your hips would force them to move in order to produce forward motion.

Read the website here to find out about a vestigial pelvis in a whale: http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=16093

Why is/was there a pelvis in a whale, unless there was once legs attached to hips?

All that is the result of evolution from an earlier mammal species. And if we cannot produce a detailed map of all the species from that ancient mammal ancestor 60 or 70 million years ago to the modern whale, that does NOT mean there were no intermediate species, it just means that their carcasses rotted and/or are at the bottom of the fucking ocean.

But scientists have found at least some ancient mammals species that lived in the sea. What have creationists found? Oh! That's right! They found a book that is a couple of thousand years old that was written by superstitious, frightened people.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by bojulay

If there was nothing then no big bang, no matter, no time
the possibility of nothing is not a possibility. Everything from
nothing all matter, space, time, complex organisms, banana splits,
key lime pie, SCARLETT JOHANSSON, rubber baby buggy bumpers,
---really (talk about lunacy)

Is that supposed to be an argument or something?

And you do know that creationism says that something came from nothing, don't you? Except that God made it happen.

Stop conflating evolution with big-bang theory - they are entirely different things. And big-band theory does NOT say that there was initially nothing. It says that initially all matter/energy was bounded in an infinitesimally small point that exploded and released all of that matter and energy outward. And there is empirical evidence for this. Astronomers using ACTUAL instruments (telescopes) making ACTUAL measurements have determined that all of the known galaxies are moving outward from a central point in our universe. Those are facts - not scriptures.

Originally Posted by bojulay

Chimps also have two eyes, a pair of ears, two feet, an asshole, but I don't think anyone will be debating creation or evolution
with one of them any time soon.

That means what, exactly? Is that supposed to be an argument?

Originally Posted by bojulay

If macro evolution is a fact and we are so closely
related to chimps why cant humans cross bread with them.

I'm sure you've tried.

But two different species cannot cross breed unless they are VERY close together, genetically speaking - like horses and mules (which produce mules).

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, but, despite what you say, we are not SO closely related genetically that we can mate. And that's true even though our genes are about 98% the same. it needs to be more like 99.9% and the hybrid ends up being sterile - the way mules are sterile

Originally Posted by bojulay

And where are the reptiles with reasoning ability, how come they got left without that convenient little attribute during the evolutionary process...

With the exception of man, ALL species failed to develop reasoning ability, not just reptiles. And, based on your posts, it appears that reasoning ability filed to develop in a lot of humans, too.

What makes you think that advanced intelligence must be the end result of all evolution? Science doesn't say that.

And maybe, given a few more million years, some reptiles will start to develop advanced intelligence. Although by then it may not look much like a reptile.

Originally Posted by bojulay

So sheeple still believe whatever is spoon fed to them through pseudoscience...

Wow that's rich coming from someone who believes whatever has been spoon-fed to him by Bible thumpers.

And how ironic you use the word "sheeple" to describe people who believe science. It is the Bible after all that frequently refers to the faithful as sheep or flock and to Jesus as the shepherd. Heh...

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Just because there is no obvious need for a God/Architect/Creator does not mean there isn't one. Even if you prove that these things -could- happen independently it isn't sufficient evidence to disprove there being one. Sorry to say, regardless of whether you bring up the imaginary teacup in space, FSM, or any other straw man, Atheists often assert that without a doubt science proves there is no God/Creator/architect and thus this assertion must be proved and cannot be and hence is an invalid statement.

Calm down, that doesn't mean a hill of beans about the written bronze/iron age texts that seek to chastise humanity. That simply means with nearly countless scenarios of how an architect may have seeded from an alternate dimension/universe or otherwise unbound by our physical laws of time and space or otherwise are not in any way going to be shot down in our lifetimes.

It isn't necessary to follow scriptures, we do have an inherent golden rule that is brought up by almost all human cultures. One must assume if a creator exists, that is the will of the said creator. It makes sense, it keeps us from destroying ourselves. Or perhaps it is collectively our will, maybe the Zen Buddhists have it right and as one collective energy we truly will this.

[bojulay]

A duckbill platypus has a duckbill and the males have
a venomous spine in their rear legs, what dose
that prove, that they are closely related to
ducks and snakes.

Similarities in certain structures really proves little.
All living creatures have many similar qualities
and characteristics.

Take the wing of a bird for an example,
it needs to be fully formed in all of it's
complex structure to be functional.

If a bird has some half formed mutated
kind of wings it will flounder around on
the ground and die, or be eaten first.

Macro evolution says that there should
be a transitional state where birds had
half formed mutated wings. If so then
macro evolution isn't a very smart
creator.

The fossil record also shows that no such
creature existed.

There is also the problem of time.
There simply isn't enough time for
all of these evolutionary changes
to have taken place.

The fossil record also shows
periods of time where
the number of creatures
increases at a
huge rate
over a
very
short
period
of
time.

Micro evolution on the other hand causes small changes within a species
that are beneficial to that species in helping it adapt to it's environment.

But it does not bring about some grand " ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER"
transformation that macro evolution proposes.

The Idea of macro evolution simply folds up under the weight that it has
been asked to carry.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Is that supposed to be an argument or something?

And you do know that creationism says that something came from nothing, don't you? Except that God made it happen.

Stop conflating evolution with big-bang theory - they are entirely different things. And big-band theory does NOT say that there was initially nothing. It says that initially all matter/energy was bounded in an infinitesimally small point that exploded and released all of that matter and energy outward. And there is empirical evidence for this. Astronomers using ACTUAL instruments (telescopes) making ACTUAL measurements have determined that all of the known galaxies are moving outward from a central point in our universe. Those are facts - not scriptures.


That means what, exactly? Is that supposed to be an argument?


I'm sure you've tried.

But two different species cannot cross breed unless they are VERY close together, genetically speaking - like horses and mules (which produce mules).

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, but, despite what you say, we are not SO closely related genetically that we can mate. And that's true even though our genes are about 98% the same. it needs to be more like 99.9% and the hybrid ends up being sterile - the way mules are sterile


With the exception of man, ALL species failed to develop reasoning ability, not just reptiles. And, based on your posts, it appears that reasoning ability filed to develop in a lot of humans, too.

What makes you think that advanced intelligence must be the end result of all evolution? Science doesn't say that.

And maybe, given a few more million years, some reptiles will start to develop advanced intelligence. Although by then it may not look much like a reptile.


Wow that's rich coming from someone who believes whatever has been spoon-fed to him by Bible thumpers.

And how ironic you use the word "sheeple" to describe people who believe science. It is the Bible after all that frequently refers to the faithful as sheep or flock and to Jesus as the shepherd. Heh...

How humble of you to concede that my posts show that you
have little reasoning ability.

Your statement: And you do know that creationism says that something
came from nothing, Don't you. Except that God made it happen.
( You fail to see the contradiction in your statement, Don't you.)

Of course I tried to mate with a chimp, I had to be for sure.
Go all the way or go home.

New York, New York, it's a wonderful town.

I know what your anger is about, BJ knows all (AN)

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Bojulay, I can't deal with this anymore. There is an explanation for everything you brought up, and I think you sound a bit like the way of the master with the platypus. You do realize we made the modern banana right?

First of all, micro evolution is just a step to a macro scale over millions of years and yes we do have plenty of examples of linking species over this time. Birds have a rather ancient history, but we still have some that really do not fly much, like a chicken or turkey for example.

Take a look here for a widely held idea on the evolutionary history of the platypus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution


If you doubt the arguments presented by wikipedia then feel free to look at the references ex.[58] cited next to the various claims in the wiki article.

---------------------

Evolution, it is a simple concept really and very evident. We bred a subspecies of wolves and we have them commonly in our homes, another million years and the decision to CALL them another species would be all that it takes. You see, we tend to say a species is unique when it can no longer breed with its parent species but clearly lions, tigers, horses, and donkeys are capable of a 1 generation breeding. Obviously the key fits for a reason however, think about it.

Why do you think most major diseases have originated in the Uganda/Zaire/DRotCongo region of Africa? Marburg virus, Ebola Virus, West Nile Virus, HIV and more have come from that region. Not because the Gods cursed that area with pestilence, it is because our last common surviving ancestors live out there, other primates and most specifically bonobos/chimpanzees. Our ancestors branched off before Australopithecus genus and then later Homonids of the genus Homo, but we still carry a close enough genome to allow the virus to attach to gain entry via our cell receptors.

Ironic but the very allele that gives a lot of Caucasians a resistance to many strains of HIV known as the CCR5-D32 (D for Delta) can also make it easier for the west nile virus to infect human hosts and cause a harsher form of the disease. At least that is believed by much of the medical community.

So what is my point? We are primates my friend, there is no denying it, the genes aren't in a pool and changing sequence, they are adapting and changing generation after generation. There is no logic in the concept of families in genetics from a divine standpoint without evolution.

If you are a creationist you aren't a fan of Dawkins but here is a great video about the poor creation of a giraffe, there is a certain rather illogical vestigial nerve that seems to keep growing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0


So what do we have left? I can offer proof until the cows come home my friend. I once argued these same points and for years, I wouldn't stop, I just never looked at the wealth of evidence until later on.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by sroach23

what proof has creation ever offered?

Israel.