hmm, i was forcing my idea of not to force one’s idea >_<
so…what do you suggest then? 
Evolution is not a theological theory, like lets say dark matter is. Its backed up by hundreds of years of research. We have extremely good fossil evidence of when fish emerged from the seas and became amphibians, as well lots of other extinct predecessors to the animals we have today. We can also look at gene theory and DNA. We share 97.5% of DNA with chimpanzees. If you want evidence that even you will find tangible just look at parts of us. We have many vestigial organs. we still have coccyx (tail bone) evidence that shows we used to have tails but tail but shed them through evolution when we had no need to claim trees and would often painfully get our tails ripped off by predators etc. Why do we still grow wisdom teeth, Everybody over 18 knows how painfull they can be and will probably know someone that has had them removed because there’s not enough room in there mouth. That’s remnants from out herbivore days of chewing foliage. We have no need for them today. Also why do human baby’s in the womb grow a useless thick layer of fur which they then shed shortly after. Look at the embryos of all mammals they look exactly the same at the early stages and share similarities right up to the later stage before they become more recognisable. Here is a few more appendix, body hair, Nipples on males, the list goes on.
What evidence is there for god?? A book about the accounts of stupefied peasants living remote desert locations written decades after the events were said to have taken place.
I am soo glad you said that because that proves a point i am trying to make. Sciences is the only discourse where you get rewarded for shooting down other peoples theories. Science is the only discourse that changes it’s views with the sway of evidence. Science is the only discourse that admits its wrong and goes about rectifying it by searching for the truth. If real evidence for the existence of god or jesus was born of a virgin etc then scientist would be the first to say fancy that, the bible may actually be true.
Religion is the only discourse where its taboo to question and try to seek the truth. It’s the only discourse that lets people pretend to know things they clearly cannot. Blind faith in religion lets people ignore evidence. To be a Christian you have to believe the earth is less than 10 thousand years old after the domestication of the dog. Even though our latest atomic clocks put the earth at billions of years old.
I can go on all day.
Cheers
Shaun
Popper said you should ask three things about any theory:
- Can you specify a means by which it could be refuted?
- To what extent (for what domains maybe) has it been refuted?
- How complex is the theory and how much does it explain
(My words not his!)
As subsequently modified and extended, this is probably as close what most scientists believe as anything.
So its potentially interesting to ask how intelligent design and Darwinism, or rather the most modern versions of both, compare under these criteria.
Wiki is quite good on this here.
He also had quite a lot to say about tolerance!
Best wishes
Mouse
We actually don’t have great archaeological evidence for many animals’ “transition” stages. Humans, for example. We have found many so-called “missing links” between apes and humans, but most all fail.
In addition, sharing a lot of DNA with another species does not mean we evolved from them. It can support intelligent design too…a designer may well design similar things.
As for the part of the body you deem useless, please see this paper.
Evidence for a God? I notice you just call the Bible authors “stupefied peasants living [in] remote desert locations”. Shows your lack of historical knowledge. Rome and Jerusalem were more than remote desert locations. Paul, a major author of the NT, traveled to many locations in the Middle East and Roman areas.
Paul was a former Pharisee and therefore probably well educated.
Only the unknowledgeable and (maybe) historical relativists would deny the evidence for Jesus’ life.
Science is the only discourse that changes it's views with the sway of evidence.
So right now many of us could be believing something false…evolution could be totally debunked 100 years from now. Why trust science, if it “sways” along?
Some religions are “stiff” and do not like questions. However, others encourage questions, and try to provide answers. That is a faulty and weak generalization.
I’m curious about some aspects neglected by these points.
Whenever “missing links” where considered under the perspective of evolutionary theories I assume it would be clear enough that modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) appeared at some point in time.
If they did not evolve from a different species does this mean they were created sometime during the latest 500,000 years (if Archaic Homo sapiens is different enough) ? ???
For the puprose of the above quoted point what would be the archaeological evidence of the first species that could be considered human?
eg: if Archaic Homo sapiens was already human did it exist even before the earlier archaeological evidence available?
My beliefs are a combination of Religion and Science and I think that is where the truth lies. Darwin was right in the respect of evolution within a species but wrong in evolution of species. The process of natural selection and survival of the fittest within an existing species is unquestionable but there really is no evidence of a species becoming another one by a process of evolution, that is all speculation with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese in every case. Science tries to explain the gaps and sudden changes by “cataclysmic evolution”. I think that’s just another name for intelligent design.
I believe that everything we see around us and the entire universe was intelligently designed and created by God. I also believe that the order of the process was the one given in Genesis but not in the time frame of 7 of our days. An eternal being like God has no need to measure time and time is a human invention anyway based on the actions of our planet and it’s satellite the moon. Creation has been a series of stages with each stage setting up the next. Without the ages of the dinosaurs, we would not have the natural resources that have enabled our progress. This did not happen by accident or random chance. It was planned. The reason for the time frame of the book of Genesis, in my belief, is the way it was told to Moses. Moses was a human being with a relatively (relative to a being like God) feeble ability to understand something as complex as creation. God told it to him in a way that he could grasp, with a time frame that he could understand. To God, a day may mean billions of our years (a measurement that didn’t even exist until we invented it). More importantly, it may have been told in a way that Moses’ followers would be impressed by and thus be more likely to accept.
I also believe that Adam’s creation was not from literal clay from the ground but from another form of “clay”. I think God took a previously existing creature and changed it into what we now know as the modern man, the first true human being. Combining scientific discoveries with Genesis, I think it’s possible that the “clay” was what science calls a Neanderthal and the resulting creation of Adam was the origin of what science calls the Cro-Magnon. Science has no explanation for how the Cro-Magnon species just suddenly seems to have appeared on the scene. I also have possible explanations for the Giants spoken of in Genesis and also for the fact that humans originally did live up to 1000 years before the great flood.
As has been said, the scientific theory of the big ■■■■ does not really explain anything. they say that in the beginning there was this ball of pure energy that suddenly exploded and resulted in the creation of the Universe. Okay, where did the ball come from?
The authors of the Bible were chosen instruments used by God to set his words down on paper. The words were not theirs but were , in effect, channeled through them. God is the true author.
When and if the truth about creation is ever known, I believe science will have to acknowledge that Religion was there waiting for them all along. The similarites in appearance and DNA structure can be explained by intelligent design easier than by random evolution. Even the possibility of intelligent life elsewere in the Universe is supported more by Creationism than Evolution. The possibilities of the same random events occurring somewhere else are astronomically unlikely but if God could create things here, there is no reason why He couldn’t do it somewhere else as well. Both viewpoints should be considered and both should be presented in schools.
If Cro-Magnon was actually the first species relevant for the purpose of disputing evolutionary theories what Homo erectus was?
I think you misunderstand what you are likely to find if the theory were to be correct. Only a small proportion of all the individual animals, or indeed species, that ever roamed the earth have been found, because even bones require quite specific circumstances for their preservation, and because we have not yet dug up and examined all the sedimentary rocks. Accordingly it is very unlikely that you will find specimens on the direct line of descent from apes (broad term) to man. What you are most likely to find is some specimens on nearby side branches, and by putting together a decent number of such specimens, and working from a known point (man) you can start to put the story together.
In addition, sharing a lot of DNA with another species [url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4369gc8-25-2000.asp]does not mean we evolved from them[/url]. It can support intelligent design too...[b]a designer may well design similar things[/b].That's true. But that also points towards a problem. Unless one is very specific about what the 'intelligent' in intelligent design means, intelligent design is consistent with almost any set of evidence. The question potentially then becomes whether it is refutable, or falsifiable, and therefore whether it qualifies as a scientific theory. Do you believe that you can be specific? Or do you believe that we cannot know specifically what 'intelligent' means in this context because we cannot know the mind of God? I have heard both arguments, and would be interested to know where you stand.
Evidence for a God? I notice you just call the Bible authors "stupefied peasants living [in] remote desert locations". Shows your lack of historical knowledge. Rome and Jerusalem were more than remote desert locations. Paul, a major author of the NT, traveled to many locations in the Middle East and Roman areas.Paul was a former Pharisee and therefore probably well educated.
Only the unknowledgeable and (maybe) historical relativists would deny the evidence for Jesus’ life.
I cannot see how this is ‘evidence for a god’. I think the evidence you refer to suggests that a man called Jesus probably once lived. Also that some of what the bible says he did, he did. But we all know that historical accounts are often inaccurate, incomplete, and interpreted by those with particular views. So one must expect that there is some of this in the Bible as well if one regards it as a historical account.
So right now many of us could be believing something false...evolution could be totally debunked 100 years from now. Why trust science, if it "sways" along?Since is trusted precisely because it adjusts itself when new information is acquired. It's less than perfect, tends to resist then progress in a bit of a jump, but probably better at responding to new information than most other human processes!
Some religions are "stiff" and do not like questions. However, others encourage questions, and try to provide answers. That is a faulty and weak generalization.Agreed. And where religion shades into philosophy, this happens all the more. But I ma not sure how quickly they adjust in relation to new information - perhaps more slowly than science?
The same thing as the Neanderthal just an earlier version but the same basic species.
Was Homo eragster the same basic species as well?
BTW is there anybody willing to dispute that birds evolved from reptiles (dinosaurs) on the basis of geneis narrative (5th day: birds; 6th day: reptiles)?
[b]Fifth day:[/b] God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His “image” and “likeness” (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as “very good.”
Perhaps mentioning if there is archeological evidences that confirm that birds predate reptiles?
And if possible point out archeological evidences that dates bird species back as much sea creatures were?
Evolution works slowly, right? We have many fossils for animals…and it seems like we should have at least found some worthy fossils for humans. I would not think that a ape would give birth to a half-ape, and that produces a human(!), but it would take much longer.
We have much more fossils, and more ability to find fossils, than in Darwin’s time. Plus, many scientists are eager for more fossils, and search quite hard.
I find that the idea of a worldwide flood, and Creation before that, explains the fossil record very well.
“Evolution” just kind of “wanders along”, slowly losing features that the fittest don’t have, etc (and some suppose they gain new features, but it is really just a loss of info that makes an otherwise “suppressed” bit of DNA/gene “appear”).
“Intelligent design”, at least in my view, is that a God created or designed everything. He has capacity for thought and reason, and has a purpose for what is made. We are in the “image” of God, so since He has thought and reason, so do we.
Nature didn’t come by chance (the fittest survivors happened to not have so-and-so, so it was lost, etc.), but was made by Someone with a purpose for it.
I was replying to Metal’s idea that the authors were stupefied peasants, not specifically trying to prove the Bible is true.
I agree; historical accounts can be quite biased. However, there was more than one human author (or interpreter of what was told by God) of the Bible, and there were other historical accounts by different people that mention the same details.
Yes–as i said, we know evolution occurs within species but there is no evidence of one species turning into another through evolution.
As I said, I believe there is much more evidence for creation (and that it fits better than evolution too).
Of course, since reptiles were created only a day apart from birds, they would around the same time frame.
Let me quote a bit from an AnswersInGenesis article:
[u][b]Problems with Dinosaurs Evolving into Birds[/b][/u]Warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded
Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs (or at least that they evolved from dinosaurs) is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. There are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that (with precious few exceptions) living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. Indeed, even compared to most mammals, birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.The difference between cold- and warm-blooded animals isn’t simply in the relative temperature of the blood but rather in their ability to maintain a constant body core temperature. Thus, warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature; they are more properly called “endothermic.” In contrast, reptiles have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called “ectothermic.” An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature behaviorally (e.g., moving between shade and sun), even achieving higher body temperature than a so-called warm-blooded animal, but this is done by outside factors.
In an effort to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, some evolutionists have argued that dinosaurs were also endothermic,1 but there is no clear evidence for this.2One of the lines of evidence for endothermic dinosaurs is based on the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones. Fossil dinosaur bones have been found containing special microscopic structures called osteons (or Haversian systems). Osteons are complex concentric layers of bone surrounding blood vessels in areas where the bone is dense. This arrangement is assumed by some to be unique to endothermic animals and thus evidence that dinosaurs are endothermic, but such is not the case. Larger vertebrates (whether reptiles, birds, or mammals) may also have this type of bone. Even tuna fish have osteonal bone in their vertebral arches.
Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behavior of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged.3 There is in fact no theropod brooding behavior not known to occur in crocodiles and other cold-blooded living reptiles.
Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.”4 Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”“Bird-hipped” vs. “lizard-hipped” dinosaurs
All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles).
But in most other respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, including such huge quadrupedal sauropods as Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus, are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs such as the theropods. This point is rarely emphasized in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution.The three-fingered hand
One of the main lines of evidence cited by evolutionists for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is the three-fingered “hand” found in both birds and theropods. The problem is that recent studies have shown that there is a digital mismatch between birds and theropods.Most terrestrial vertebrates have an embryological development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are lost (or greatly reduced) and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, one would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, but such is not the case. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.5
Avian vs. reptilian lung
One of the most distinctive features of birds is their lungs. Bird lungs are small in size and nearly rigid, but they are, nevertheless, highly efficient to meet the high metabolic needs of flight. Bird respiration involves a unique “flow-through ventilation” into a set of nine interconnecting flexible air sacs sandwiched between muscles and under the skin. The air sacs contain few blood vessels and do not take part in oxygen exchange, but rather function like bellows to move air through the lungs.
The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow of air through the lungs resulting in higher oxygen content than is possible with the bidirectional air flow through the lungs of reptiles and mammals. The air flow moves through the same tubes at different times both into and out of the lungs of reptiles and mammals, and this results in a mixture of oxygen-rich air with oxygen-depleted air (air that has been in the lungs for awhile). The unidirectional flow through bird lungs not only permits more oxygen to diffuse into the blood but also keeps the volume of air in the lungs nearly constant, a requirement for maintaining a level flight path.
If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird.6 Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird.
Archaeological evidences can also be called into question since it has been shown on numerous occasions that the dating methods used are not always accurate. Such as the case where a 75 year old piece of wood was dated as being something like 1.5 million years old and another where a less than 6 month old piece of tissue from a currently existing snail was dated at something like 500,000 years old.
Also, do not take a “day” in the Genesis account to mean what we call a day. To God it could have been billions of years. I have never accepted the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs any more than I believe that we evolved from apes. No species has ever evolved from another one through random chance. It has all been directed.
If there is an error range of a millenia, archaeological evidences that dates birds species back as much sea creatures were would be affected by the same margin of error and thus difference of millenia in datation should not be accounted for.
Do you have actual references of specific cases of mistakes or it is an hyperbole that by no means point out how much accurate dating methods would be?
Wow, this topic has really taken off. :o
I just realized that we’ve went from discussing the origin of life to discussing the progression of life. Evolution has one major flaw for me…If evolution is the survival of the fittest and we evolved from apes then why are there still apes? If science is always right as some here seem to believe, then why are they constantly proving their own theories to be flawed and therefore always being inherently wrong? That being said, evolution could still be possible while still holding to creation. Another thing, most people here seem to be thinking they’re talking about evolution while the whole time explaining what is in fact ADAPTATION. I’ve already talked about the dangers of this distinction and confusing the two in an earlier post.
One of the best things you can look at to refute humans evolving from apes is the human foot vs the ape foot. In particular the placement of the big toe. Apes have the big toe on the side of the foot almost like a thumb. There is no evidence anywhere of a gradual shift of the toe from the side to the front of the foot as would have to have happened if evolution took place.
These margins of error seem to vary between samples. Sample could be affected one way or another, and the margin is not the same in all cases.
I can provide some specific cases:
Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict! Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ lava flow yields radiocarbon
Dating in conflict: Which ‘age’ will you trust?
Radio-dating in Rubble
Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology
Overall articles:
So whereas the genesis clearly differentiate the “time frames” mentioning different “days” your comment does not acknowledge such difference as relevant.
Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs (or at least that they evolved from dinosaurs) is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles.Whereas "around the same time frame" obviously neglect [i]place in time[/i] sea species, birds and reptiles at least answersingenesis confirms dinoaurs as reptiles and mention Archaeopteryxas as "True bird" and thus provides some informations.
Phanerozoic time numbers in millions of years
First sea creatures archeological evidences dates back to the Cambian era.
Dinosarus archeological evidences dates back to the Triassic era.
Fist “true birds” archeological evidences dates back to the Jurassic era.
Whereas in the timeframe of genesis birds and sea creaures were created on the “5th day”, archelogical evidences of the earliy bird species should date no later than the start of the “6th day” when early reptiles appeared (Triassic) and around the same time frame of early sea creatures (Cambrian).
:-La Are such generically reported “margins of error” able to invalidate the sorting order and time-frame between eras actually separated by several millions of years such as the 300 million difference between Cambiran (sea creatures) and Jurassic (birds) ?
:-La Anybody feel free to re-locate birds, reptiles and sea creatures on the Phanerozoic timeline according to different documented evidence.