Creation or Evolution? - Page 2

Einstien. When I was in bootcamp, I made the mistake of saying scientists don't believe in God. This guy came unglued (bootcamp stress). He was a big fan of Einstien and assured me that not only was Einstien one of the smartest but also the greatest believer. I had to apoligize or he would never speak to me again.

quote:

---

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the harmony of all being.

---

Einstien

I tend to agree, the theory of evolution could be a directed route to a higher life form? Which would make God more of a separate genesis of being.

Where is the evidence of Evolution as a creation method?

In the imagination of your own mind.

I can believe that plant and animals evolve or physically adept to their environment - and this would make perfect sense, and it isn't to difficult tor me to believe that it was God's wisdom who built this into the DNA.

This is what I have difficulty with - no amount of evolution could make one single animal on this earth so far more superior that they could land one of their own on the moon or build a bomb that could destroy this very earth.

The scientific community has missed this one. They've excepted the this theory of evolution and excepted a belief that one species could do this while all the others could not.

There is something more here. I will tell you this - when you think you have all the answers then you've missed something - and the scientific community has missed a big one.

Ethereal- if you want the evidence straight up, you will need to first learn the basics of evolution and secondly- understand it. If you never have learnt the basics of evolution, go read a book from a library- such as the Origin of Life. There are hundreds upon hundreds of information sources. I can help and give you some evidence to start off, if you want, as I am majoring in evolutionary biology at university now. Heres some basic fundamental information to start you off with:

1. Fossil evidence shows:
- transitional link between groups of organisms
- geological time scale
- mass extinctions

2. Biogeographical evidence shows:
- biogeography
- continental drift
- environmental adaptations

3. Anatomical Evidence shows:
-differences/similarities between organisms (structures and functions)
- homologous structures
- analogous structures
- vestigial structures

4. Biochemical evidence shows:
- DNA sequences
- amino acid sequences



okcitykid-

quote:

---

no amount of evolution could make one single animal on this earth so far more superior that they could land one of their own on the moon or build a bomb that could destroy this very earth...The scientific community has missed this one

---

What are you trying to say okcitykid?

The evidence just isn't there it is all fiction and poor Darwin must have rolled over in his grave when the platypus turned out to be a living creature.

How do you explain the following:

1. Lack of fossil evidence
There are only a handful of supposed examples of transition creatures but most of them either been rejected as fakes or are inconclusive. If evolution was true you would expect to find millions and millions of incomplete fossils. Evolutionists are so at odds to explain this that they are now coming up with a new solution which is that you would not find any fossil evidence because evolution happened much quicker than we originally thought (BTW that is not evolution at all). Also fossils and trees have been found going through several layers of rock that are supposidly took millions and millions of years to form. According to the Bible there was a world wide flood that would have wiped out all but a handful of creatures (those on the ark). The flood would have dumped layers upon layers of sediments. The Grand Canyon is now thought by evolutionists to have been cased by something other than the colorado river. This is the only way to explain these fossils and things. The flood would have transformed the earth amazingly and could have caused the contiments to split apart. The Bible states at the begining there was a land mass.

2. environmental adaptations are micro evolution (what makes you look different from your brother). These is completely different to Darwinian evolution.

3. I will challenge these later.

4.

quote:

---

- DNA sequences
- amino acid sequences

---

are you sure you want these to go do as evidence for evolution? It speaks more of a creator than the outcome of mere chance?
Also how do you explain the 'irreducible complexity' of cells?

This is really just a 3 minute objection to Summits thoughts?

quote:

---

Certain species learned to fly a lot better than others. Certain species learned to swim a lot better than others. Humans aren't superior at everything... just whatever the apes were specializing in. That happened to be memory and the use of tools, which ended up being more powerful than the rest.

What's complicated about that?

---

None of that has anything to do with evolution as a creation method. Sure species evolve constantly, the frog is a good example of adaptive evolution but adaptive evolution also only works within it's specific species (dogs do not evolve into cats). Also it cannot explain where the world came from

quote:

---

What are you trying to say okcitykid?

---

While evolution could very well be a part of the puzzle, it is only a part of the puzzle.

There is far more than evolution involved in the creation of humankind.

Proof is the fact that we are so far more superior.

and

Evolution adapts one to their environment while we have overcome our environment - such that we are a threat to it, unlike all the other animals on this earth.

quote:

---

Why the hell are Adam and Eve white?

---

I have no idea if Adam and Eve were white, they probably were not. Jesus was Galilean and He was probably more black than white.

a good book to read is andrew varghese- wonder of the world

Petesmith:
1. no, actually there is an abundance of fossil evidence. I don't know where your sources are coming from, but I can prove to you if you want that fossil evidence of all animal/plant phyla kingdoms in the fossil record is well established and documented. This biblical 'flooding of the world' event you have made reference to is a story. Floods don't cause continents to seperate. Continents seperate via a process called plate tectonics. The Grand Canyon, is not a result of plate tectonics, but rather it is a result of water erosion over billions of years. That is how canyons are formed- by water and/or wind erosion.

quote:

---

environmental adaptations are micro evolution (what makes you look different from your brother). These is completely different to Darwinian evolution.

---

2. Microevolution is now part of the evolution theory. I am well aware of micro vs macro evolution. (I am majoring in evolutionary biology btw). Micro evolution is a gradual change in gene pools, often over long evolutionary time periods. Charles Darwin considered such change to be directed by, and to result from, natural selection, but we now know that chance, termed random genetic drift, a process not envisaged by Darwin, also plays a major role. Evolutionists have a much better understanding of microevolution, particularly with respect to the effect of selection.

quote:

---

are you sure you want these to go do as evidence for evolution? It speaks more of a creator than the outcome of mere chance?

---

4. Yes I am very sure. Genetic material forms the blueprint to life. The theory of evolution would be rather blank without knowing and using genetic material. Evolution involves changes over time in the genetic composition of populations. Genetic evidence is found for example, from the origins of life, the Hardy-Weinberg Law, mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, nonrandom mating, natural selection regarding inheritence. All of those are examples of genetic evolution.

quote:

---

Also how do you explain the 'irreducible complexity' of cells?

---

Your wrong. Cells are reduced down to many levels. This is well established. I'll give you a brief explination instead (obviously you won't understand it, but this is a cell reduced down to its lowest level)
cells>organelles>proteins>polypeptides>amino acids> RNA>
nucleosomes>histones>chromosomes>DNA>
nucelotides> sugar, phosphate group, nitrogenous base>element>atomic molecule>atom

Hope that helps PeteSmith.


Ethereal:

quote:

---

Also it cannot explain where the world came from

---

yes, evolution only explains the origin and changes of life (which dates back approximately to 3.5 billion yrs ago). The origin of earth is part of other theories such as the big bang for instance.


okcitykid:
this 'superiority' of the humankind is explained by evolution. And yes, as you mentioned, homeo sapiens is currently the most dominant species, which has some significant control on our global environment.

1 There are tons and tons of fossils. But where is the evidence of intermediate fossils. Take the human evolutionary process from Ape to Man. Where is the fossil evidence? The supposed horse evolution was branded a fake many decades back!

I never said the grand canyon was formed by plate tectonics. It was formed by water, but not from the water. The evidence reveals that the water would have had to flow in the oposite direction to the way the water flows today!

Water covered to the tops of the highest mountains would have transformed the earth below radically.

2. Microevolution is completely different to macro evolution.
The problem with pointing at micro evolution and saying its proof of macro evolution is that there is the problem of where new information for new species comes from. There is as much probability as a frog becoming a prince as there is of a 747-400 forming after an explosion in a junk yard! Where does the new information come from?
4. That points to a creator. If you see a clock in the desert you would rightly conclude that it was created by a designer for a purpose. Why would you think any differently when observing genetic material.

Petesmith:the intermediate evidence is well established and documented in most species, including homeo sapiens. If you are asking me for the evidence, go and read current scientific journals, go and ask university professors, research labs, etc in order to obtain direct evidence. If not, read text books regarding evolutionary history/evidence.
I know you never said that the grand canyon was formed by plate tectonics (i think you interpreted me incorrectly), I was saying that the biblical 'flooding of the earth that split the continents' is false, and plate tectonics explains the reasons. And the grand canyon was a new point.

quote:

---

does the new information come from?

---

No one said that micro evolution is proof of macro evolution. They are two different evolutionary mechanisms. New 'information' comes from the genetic modifications, genetic inheritence and genetic mutations of DNA as it interacts with the environment. Random genetic drift explains this (an example is speciation). Genetic variation arises by mutation. (once again if you want to know further, read a biological text). Hope that helps PeteSmith.

quote:

---

If you see a clock in the desert you would rightly conclude that it was created by a designer for a purpose. Why would you think any differently when observing genetic material

---

Because genetic material is biological, the clock is not. The clock is abiotic. Evolution refers to biological organisms. Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. A concious mind created the clock, not the origin of life.

Just on the first point:

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man)-150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Ramapithecus-once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man)-a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man)-based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man)-now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

Australopithecus africanus-this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Currently fashionable ape-men
These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

Australopithecus-there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis-there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types-such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

Homo erectus-many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.