mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 For creationists, it is a matter of choosing those two. God has given us the evidence, we need to use our brains to figure out what the evidence means. Evolution is a fact, it is observed over and over gain. The fossil record is indisputable. Let's continue to examine the evidence through the scientific method that God provided to discover how it all came about. This is how we will become like God, through education and examining the evidence. God didn't give us "evidence". We made up the rules of what defines it as "evidence". It's all man made. Of course God is a Man you know.
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 God didn't give us "evidence". We made up the rules of what defines it as "evidence". It's all man made. Of course God is a Man you know. Man is a God according to Scripture.
nebula Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Oh yes, I remember now. We talked about this in the pre-existence. It all makes sense now!
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 A=A I'm fine with being a God worshiping the only God we have anything we have to do with.
Rob Osborn Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 So long as you ignore the fossil record that is. The foundation of your argument is that, since we have no proof it must be from Gods divine magic. Anything that cannot be explained, in your opinion, will never be explained by science because God used his magic.There are fossils it is true. But the fossil record only proves that species either go extinct or remain the same today.
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 I'm fine with being a God worshiping the only God we have anything we have to do with. Well of course a god in embryo wanting to grow up and be just like Father.
mfbukowski Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) There are fossils it is true. But the fossil record only proves that species either go extinct or remain the same today.Ultimately there are rocks that we look at and make the mental connection between the shape of the rocks and the shape of what we call "bones", and then we make up an explanation about how bones become rocks. Then we arrange what we think we know about "bones" into what we think is some kind of order, and call all that "species". Then we take all that and try to make up some explanation for how it all got that way. That's scientific belief and how it works. If you want to call that "true" I have no problem with that as long as we know what is "really" going on. Edited January 24, 2014 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 There are fossils it is true. But the fossil record only proves that species either go extinct or remain the same today. Or that they adapt as succeeding generations to the prevailing ecosystem in which they live. That is why you don't find walruses climbing trees in the Amazon jungle and spider monkeys swimming in the Arctic Ocean. They have a common ancestor just not a very recent one.
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Or that they adapt as succeeding generations to the prevailing ecosystem in which they live. That is why you don't find walruses climbing trees in the Amazon jungle and spider monkeys swimming in the Arctic Ocean. They have a common ancestor just not a very recent one. And exactly how would one test that? Are we just to suppose that several intermediate species existed but left no trace? Edited January 25, 2014 by Rob Osborn
nebula Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) And exactly how would one test that? Are we just to suppose that several intermediate species existed but left no trace?List of transitional fossils:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Edited January 25, 2014 by nebula
nebula Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 From Wikipedia:Each time a certain mutation (Single nucleotide polymorphism) appears in an individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplogroup is formed including all of the descendants of the individual who will also carry that mutation. By comparing mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the mother, geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived around 200,000 years ago.The existence of DNA that can only be inherited from the mother seems like the strongest evidence for a common ancestor, moreso even than the fossil record. Also, I love that even scientists call her "mitochondrial Eve." The Biblical influence is everywhere, even in our laboratories. I find it lovely. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 List of transitional fossils: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Right off I see the archaeopteryx which has had some very highly critical arguments against it being a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. First you have the hoax stories and then you have scientists who say it was actually a true bird with flight feathers and not a transitional fossil at all. This is supposed to be the Rosetta stone fro evolutionists and yet they can't even determine if it is a hoax, a transitional, or just a more fully developed bird of flight.
nebula Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Right off I see the archaeopteryx which has had some very highly critical arguments against it being a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. First you have the hoax stories and then you have scientists who say it was actually a true bird with flight feathers and not a transitional fossil at all. This is supposed to be the Rosetta stone fro evolutionists and yet they can't even determine if it is a hoax, a transitional, or just a more fully developed bird of flight.That's just one fossil of many on this list. I feel as though your only complaint against evolution is that it can't be unequivocally proven, which is odd considering that the same argument could also be made against creationism or intelligent design. We have all this information-- DNA, fossils-- and we're simply trying to find the most plausible explanation for how these things came to be. Even if we're entirely mistaken and evolution had nothing to do with it, that wouldn't make creationism true by default. If you have evidence that supports creationism (rather than casts doubt on evolution), I would genuinely like to review it.
Freedom Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Rob, you will be in heaven attending Terraforming 101, and you will arguing with Noah, the instructor, about this very subject because you will never accept it, no matter how much evidence is provided for you. You are so trapped by these crazy religious theories that you will deny the existence of a rock if God himself handed it to you.
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 That's just one fossil of many on this list. I feel as though your only complaint against evolution is that it can't be unequivocally proven, which is odd considering that the same argument could also be made against creationism or intelligent design. We have all this information-- DNA, fossils-- and we're simply trying to find the most plausible explanation for how these things came to be. Even if we're entirely mistaken and evolution had nothing to do with it, that wouldn't make creationism true by default. If you have evidence that supports creationism (rather than casts doubt on evolution), I would genuinely like to review it. The observations we make and document scientifically tels us some very startling facts about intelligence and life which we cant lightly dismiss. DNA encodes for how to build protein but yet protein is required to build DNA. This is the classic chicken or egg paradox- which came first? http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html you have the next phase of this question of observational documentation that DNA doesn't exist outside of the cell and yet is the blueprint for the cell. So how can DNA have come into existence if there was not first a cell to house it in but it is the DNA itself that encodes for how the cell is made? Now, establishing these facts of observable scientific documentation, the cell itself means nothing by itself and serves no purpose nor can exist on its own as it takes even further lines of DNA structured bodies to give rise to cells. These thus come in the culmination of a complete set of working cells together that form a biologic system that work together to provide the very sustenance so that DNA and cells can even exist at that smallest level. The end result of all this we call the "miracle of life" because of the astronomically high degree of intelligent information working in concert to sustain and replicate life. The human body has some 60-100 trillion cells working in concert to give us joy and existence. Each one of those 60-100 trillion cells also know their respective placement with their relative cells. We have yet to decipher the mechanism at work that directs where each cell should go, how it should grow, when genes should become manifest, etc. Presumably it is our spirit acting as this intelligent center for the direction of all these cells because the DNA by itself doesn't have spatial relation elements tagged to it that would detect its placement and thus directions for that part of the body. So what center of intelligence within life is the "brain" so to speak, that detects spatial relation and keeps cells growing in the right direction with correct spatial relation to all the other organ and other biologic parts? We could go on and on with trying figure out these deep principles of observable science and create a myriad of hypothesis for how this process could have come about. But, if we just stick with observation and documentation we quickly arrive at the fact that the element of design in biology is a whole complete system so dependent upon all of its parts that there is no pathway for development from rudimentary unguided steps. You end up trying to answer the unobservable- the untestable and unprovable. Like life for instance- How does one test for developing DNA from scratch if we already know it only gets transcribed by proteins that itself encodes for? Science keeps speaking of some hypothetical RNA world but yet again they are in untested waters trying to observe the unobservable and untestable.
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Rob, you will be in heaven attending Terraforming 101, and you will arguing with Noah, the instructor, about this very subject because you will never accept it, no matter how much evidence is provided for you. You are so trapped by these crazy religious theories that you will deny the existence of a rock if God himself handed it to you. But I am not trapped at all. No, I am free. The evidence for evolution fails in my understanding, which is sound. The evidence for a flood and an intelligent designer is manifest all over in the world.
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Right off I see the archaeopteryx which has had some very highly critical arguments against it being a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. First you have the hoax stories and then you have scientists who say it was actually a true bird with flight feathers and not a transitional fossil at all. This is supposed to be the Rosetta stone fro evolutionists and yet they can't even determine if it is a hoax, a transitional, or just a more fully developed bird of flight.Birds are still dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.http://www.amnh.org/our-research/science-news/2009/archaeopteryx-was-not-very-bird-like-archaeopteryx-lacked-rapid-bone-growth-the-hallmark-of-birds
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Birds are still dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. http://www.amnh.org/our-research/science-news/2009/archaeopteryx-was-not-very-bird-like-archaeopteryx-lacked-rapid-bone-growth-the-hallmark-of-birds See what I mean? They still can't figure it out.
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 See what I mean? They still can't figure it out. That science has unanswered questioned is a given. IE: We still don't know exactly what electricity(We refer to it as the electromagnetic force) is. That doesn't deny it usefulness in any way.
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 That science has unanswered questioned is a given. IE: We still don't know exactly what electricity(We refer to it as the electromagnetic force) is. That doesn't deny it usefulness in any way.You can actually test electricity you cant test whther dinosuars evolved into birds. That is true we do not know exactly the mechanism of electricity we test it and see the result of it constantly. When was there ever a time we saw the result of a dinosuar turning into a bird?Get the drift? Stop equating the two.
Stone holm Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You can actually test electricity you cant test whther dinosuars evolved into birds. That is true we do not know exactly the mechanism of electricity we test it and see the result of it constantly. When was there ever a time we saw the result of a dinosuar turning into a bird?Get the drift? Stop equating the two.Seems they have used some pretty good deductive reasoning, which is more convincing than I have heard on the other side.
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You can actually test electricity you cant test whther dinosuars evolved into birds. That is true we do not know exactly the mechanism of electricity we test it and see the result of it constantly. When was there ever a time we saw the result of a dinosuar turning into a bird?Get the drift? Stop equating the two. Every time we eat fried chicken.http://www.amnh.org/explore/curriculum-collections/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/explore-the-family-tree-of-birds
changed Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Or that they adapt as succeeding generations to the prevailing ecosystem....Do they adapt? or do they just move somewhere else? Most animals I know migrate to regions they like - they control their own environment, and change their environment, rather than letting the environment change them.Some define life as merely "that which is acted upon", while others define life as something that is able to "act" (rather than just react). I believe in life that is able to act - whose attributes are not just a result of environment (can you say someone will never amount to anything because of the environment they grew up in?), not just a result of DNA (it's racist to suggest that who someone is is the color of their skin, or anything else defined by their DNA). We are more than our environment, we are more than our DNA - we seek for more than mere survival (the rocks survive, and do not evolve to do so) we seek eternal progression.
Freedom Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Do they adapt? or do they just move somewhere else? Most animals I know migrate to regions they like - they control their own environment, and change their environment, rather than letting the environment change them. So you are identical in appearance to your great grandfather? All humans are clones? This comment is serious flawed and profoundly false. Genetic change occurs every time a living organism reproduces, and adaptation is observed all the time in the real world.
Recommended Posts