Darwin was a Christian, and he suffered tremendous health problems while he was writing his "Origin of Species", but in time he overcame this and held to his evolutionary and spiritual beliefs, why is so far-fetched that both thoughts are not conflicting.
Pehaps they are even complimentary, who is to say what mechanisms God use to create this wonderous world we live in.
Darwin was a Christian, and he suffered tremendous health problems while he was writing his "Origin of Species", but in time he overcame this and held to his evolutionary and spiritual beliefs, why is so far-fetched that both thoughts are not conflicting.
Pehaps they are even complimentary, who is to say what mechanisms God use to create this wonderous world we live in.
That could be assumed if you knew nothing about both views.
Study it and it will become clear the two concepts are not the same in any means.
I will - it's nonsense, you are creating straw men as before and drawing a false distinction between what you call "micro" and what you call "macro" evolution, bringing up the same examples over and over again, when there is a huge body of evidence supporting evolution, and none supporting ID. This is my only participation in this thread.
Fellowship, why don't you do some rudimentary research of your own?
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Number one evolutionists assume life started out simple. What was this "original common ancestor"?
Depends where you want to start. Looking at the physiology of mammals (uniformly five-toed, with almost identical nervous systems, arrangements of limbs etc. etc.) we can say that all mammals had a common ancestor. Grouping (say) reptiles, mammals and fish together we can identify their common traits and posit a common ancestor for them all.
Eventually we can be looking for a common ancestor for all plants and animals, and it's probably similar to those single-celled aquatic 'creatures' that share features with amoebae and plant cells. They have very short genomes, too, which are very easily mapped.
Before that you're probably looking at a seething mass of polymers of proteins burning in a self-regulating chemical reaction without sentience but arguably 'alive' nonetheless.
Why don't you research this in proper textbooks rather than in Creationist websites that are, frankly, not giving you the whole truth? Instead of looking for evidence to rebut people who think like me, why don't you find out about the beauty and wonder of God's creation by learning a little something about how it works from people who actually study it for a living?
There is no more evidence that Erich von Daniken is correct than that proteins were formed by the hand of a creator of some kind, such as Obatala, or Brahma, after all.
Bull. Let's say all the moths were once black. Some mutated (again you're ignoring mutation) to a slightly grey color. The chick moths wew for some reason more attracted to these, or perhaps these were easy for them to see. So more of the grey moths mated before they died. Pretty soon most of the moths were grey, and getting lighter. There were still some black hunks that had other means of getting the ladies. Then London was hit by the slime monster and the grey moths were eaten by birds.
Or lets say all the moths were once pretty uniformly grey. some of them mutated to be darker. Then (gradually) their environment got blacker because of the smog. The darker ones would be harder to spot, and would survive longer before being eaten by the birds. As the environment got blacker, so would they. Pretty soon, if the environment is completely black, so, surely, would they be.
Or lets say all the moths were grey. Suddenly the environment turned black and they would all be eaten by birds. Extinct.
Please explain why this disproves evolutionary theory and natural selection. Are you saying that random mutation itself is a lie?
Nope not at all. Mutation happens but not to make a kind more advanced. We did not evolve from rocks to humans from mutations. But yes mutations do hapen.
I never said anything disproves natural selection.
I said evolution rests on the concept of natural selection as well as mutations to explain macro-evolution.
An intelligent designer created the DNA. and the Plan.
having faith that we came to be from rocks to humans by accidents (mutations) is to say there is no plan or no God needed.
Just admit the simple truth.
I have faith in another theory and it to me is Truth.
The theory of evolution is only a theory. They come and go.
I have studied both, I come from a family of Scientists, Ministers, Fishermen, Soldiers and Nurses.
I come from a family that holds both faith and reason to a very high degree, when reason fails faith is always there. But often faith will bear reason, even when we can not see it
Example one: Scientific theory on the origin of life spontaneous formation during the period that there was no harmful oxygen on the planet, pools of water and minerals form next to heat vents or near other high energy releasing natural phenomena, these mineral happen to form protein chains that eventually form amino acids, that eventually form single cell organisms etc...
Creation says that God spat into the earth and formed man of this mud and clay...
Fellowship, why don't you do some rudimentary research of your own?
Depends where you want to start. Looking at the physiology of mammals (uniformly five-toed, with almost identical nervous systems. arrangements of limbs etc. etc.) we can say that all mammans had a common ancestor. Grouping (say) reptiles, mammals and fish together we can identify their common traits and posit a common ancestor for them all.
Eventually we can be looking for a common ancestor for all plants and animals, and it's probably similar to those single-celled aquatic 'creatures' that share features with amoebae and plant cells. They have very short genomes, too, which are very easily mapped.
Before that you're probably looking at a seething mass of polymers of proteins burning in a self-regulating chemical reaction without sentience but arguably 'alive' nonetheless.
Why don't you research this in proper textbooks rather than in Creationist websites that are, frankly, not giving you the whole truth? Instead of looking for evidence to rebut people who think like me, why don't you find out about the beauty and wonder of God's creation by learning a little something about how it works from people who actually study it for a living?
Hey Hassan why not address my 2nd question directed to evolutionists within that post? The one about natural selection?
no, or you imply that the creator is limited and only know one way of making live. We can imagine form of life based upon other stuff than ADN or proteins.
The ADN everywhere is more an argument for a common origin or life, rather a signature of a creator process. Signature of a creator, imply that his technical skills are limited, like an artist who is only able to paint with oil, and cannot perform sculpture with iron, marble ...
Otherwise, the evolution may be the way god give life and free will altogether. If god especially design all species it will be a great failure. All species have their imperfections and failure. If god is directly responsible of their making, it's not a perfect creator, now if you consider that he only originate the process of life, he made the perfect creation : a process that evolve randomly or by necessety, which go to the simpliest ( some amino acid) to humans, and in the future something more wonderfull.
no, or you imply that the creator is limited and only know one way of making live. We can imagine form of life based upon other stuff than ADN or proteins.
The ADN everywhere is more an argument for a common origin or life, rather a signature of a creator process. Signature of a creator, imply that his technical skills are limited, like an artist who is only able to paint with oil, and cannot perform sculpture with iron, marble ...
Otherwise, the evolution may be the way god give life and free will altogether. If god especially design all species it will be a great failure. All species have their imperfections and failure. If god is directly responsible of their making, it's not a perfect creator, now if you consider that he only originate the process of life, he made the perfect creation : a process that evolve randomly or by necessety, which go to the simpliest ( some amino acid) to humans, and in the future something more wonderfull.
I understand exactly what you are saying and that is an interesting philosophy. I simply believe God indeed not only created all the kinds but each one of his creatures. You, Me, the flower outside, Sin has entered this picture and man now lives in a flawed world. It is no longer the garden of eden prior to sin.
As links are discovered, the missing ones get smaller, and smaller, don't they, Fellowship? Missing links have been found. They continue to be found.
First there were ancient apes and man.
Where's the missing link?
Enter cro-magnon man.
Then there were ancient apes, cro-magnons and man.
Where's the link between apes and cro-magnons?
Then there was Lucy.
You get my point. We can get further and further into detail, and as we go along discovering new evidence, we shall.
Now before you argue that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens existed concurrently, I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that the evolutionary tree is not a linear one, right?
Tonton did you miss this?
Quote:
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 realized 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.
I hope you realize You, master Fellow have just proved the possibility of evolution with your human family tree, perhaps not of ape to man, but evolution just the same, I'm not saying it is truth but who are we to know truth, that is for God alone
Don't you see? Natural selection progression is evolution. Turtles' necks grow longer. Birds' beaks grow hooks. Eels learn to control electrical powers, and those powers get sronger. Man stands on two feet. Man's physiology adapts to standing on two feet. This is evolution.
Nothing grew. The genetic variety was already provided for within kinds. There is no evolution from one kind to another.
I hope you realize You, master Fellow have just proved the possibility of evolution with your human family tree, perhaps not of ape to man, but evolution just the same, I'm not saying it is truth but who are we to know truth, that is for God alone
Actually I think you are a nice person LiquidR
What I listed above for tonton was a list of mistakes and fabrications in some cases and in other cases nothing to suggest evolution.
There were three kinds of 'people' living on the earth at the same time. When hom sap gen. sap came out of Africa, he found Neanderthalis in Europe and all the while hom erectus was still doing his thing in Asia.
Cro-magnon man, if I remember right, is an archaic form of hom sap: ie, he was 'us'.
Don't you see? Natural selection progression is evolution. Turtles' necks grow longer. Birds' beaks grow hooks. Eels learn to control electrical powers, and those powers get sronger. Man stands on two feet. Man's physiology adapts to standing on two feet. This is evolution.
Before I go I had to reply to this thoughtful post.
If ever there were a compelling argument for evolution you just articulated it. I give you great credit for finally out of all on the thread arguing the case for evolution you tonton did the best job of communicating your idea concerning evolution. Very well articulated!
I hate to rain on the party but the changes you refer to are not evolution from rocks to man as it pertain to origins. What you reference is simply multiple animals with different features. They did not evolve. They all existed in the first place. Natural selection dictated which ones survived in the greatest numbers but none the less the genetic diversity was there from the begining. Nothing evolved.
I do believe b/c of the delicate nature of this topic in America, that when addressing evolution in an educational enviroment that a healthy discussion of opposing views be expressed w/o it turning into a bloody mess, perhaps also a presentation of the ideas of those that express a relationship between the two, there have been many, those of faith and those of reason who do not see a conflict, sometimes these people are in both vocations
Comments
Pehaps they are even complimentary, who is to say what mechanisms God use to create this wonderous world we live in.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Darwin was a Christian, and he suffered tremendous health problems while he was writing his "Origin of Species", but in time he overcame this and held to his evolutionary and spiritual beliefs, why is so far-fetched that both thoughts are not conflicting.
Pehaps they are even complimentary, who is to say what mechanisms God use to create this wonderous world we live in.
That could be assumed if you knew nothing about both views.
Study it and it will become clear the two concepts are not the same in any means.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Number one evolutionists assume life started out simple. What was this "original common ancestor"?
Depends where you want to start. Looking at the physiology of mammals (uniformly five-toed, with almost identical nervous systems, arrangements of limbs etc. etc.) we can say that all mammals had a common ancestor. Grouping (say) reptiles, mammals and fish together we can identify their common traits and posit a common ancestor for them all.
Eventually we can be looking for a common ancestor for all plants and animals, and it's probably similar to those single-celled aquatic 'creatures' that share features with amoebae and plant cells. They have very short genomes, too, which are very easily mapped.
Before that you're probably looking at a seething mass of polymers of proteins burning in a self-regulating chemical reaction without sentience but arguably 'alive' nonetheless.
Why don't you research this in proper textbooks rather than in Creationist websites that are, frankly, not giving you the whole truth? Instead of looking for evidence to rebut people who think like me, why don't you find out about the beauty and wonder of God's creation by learning a little something about how it works from people who actually study it for a living?
There is no more evidence that Erich von Daniken is correct than that proteins were formed by the hand of a creator of some kind, such as Obatala, or Brahma, after all.
Hey cmon, we all know that von Daniken IS Jesus.
Originally posted by tonton
Bull. Let's say all the moths were once black. Some mutated (again you're ignoring mutation) to a slightly grey color. The chick moths wew for some reason more attracted to these, or perhaps these were easy for them to see. So more of the grey moths mated before they died. Pretty soon most of the moths were grey, and getting lighter. There were still some black hunks that had other means of getting the ladies. Then London was hit by the slime monster and the grey moths were eaten by birds.
Or lets say all the moths were once pretty uniformly grey. some of them mutated to be darker. Then (gradually) their environment got blacker because of the smog. The darker ones would be harder to spot, and would survive longer before being eaten by the birds. As the environment got blacker, so would they. Pretty soon, if the environment is completely black, so, surely, would they be.
Or lets say all the moths were grey. Suddenly the environment turned black and they would all be eaten by birds. Extinct.
Please explain why this disproves evolutionary theory and natural selection. Are you saying that random mutation itself is a lie?
Nope not at all. Mutation happens but not to make a kind more advanced. We did not evolve from rocks to humans from mutations. But yes mutations do hapen.
I never said anything disproves natural selection.
I said evolution rests on the concept of natural selection as well as mutations to explain macro-evolution.
An intelligent designer created the DNA. and the Plan.
having faith that we came to be from rocks to humans by accidents (mutations) is to say there is no plan or no God needed.
Just admit the simple truth.
I have faith in another theory and it to me is Truth.
The theory of evolution is only a theory. They come and go.
Fellowship
I have studied both, I come from a family of Scientists, Ministers, Fishermen, Soldiers and Nurses.
I come from a family that holds both faith and reason to a very high degree, when reason fails faith is always there. But often faith will bear reason, even when we can not see it
Example one: Scientific theory on the origin of life spontaneous formation during the period that there was no harmful oxygen on the planet, pools of water and minerals form next to heat vents or near other high energy releasing natural phenomena, these mineral happen to form protein chains that eventually form amino acids, that eventually form single cell organisms etc...
Creation says that God spat into the earth and formed man of this mud and clay...
Catch my drift8)
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Fellowship, why don't you do some rudimentary research of your own?
Depends where you want to start. Looking at the physiology of mammals (uniformly five-toed, with almost identical nervous systems. arrangements of limbs etc. etc.) we can say that all mammans had a common ancestor. Grouping (say) reptiles, mammals and fish together we can identify their common traits and posit a common ancestor for them all.
Eventually we can be looking for a common ancestor for all plants and animals, and it's probably similar to those single-celled aquatic 'creatures' that share features with amoebae and plant cells. They have very short genomes, too, which are very easily mapped.
Before that you're probably looking at a seething mass of polymers of proteins burning in a self-regulating chemical reaction without sentience but arguably 'alive' nonetheless.
Why don't you research this in proper textbooks rather than in Creationist websites that are, frankly, not giving you the whole truth? Instead of looking for evidence to rebut people who think like me, why don't you find out about the beauty and wonder of God's creation by learning a little something about how it works from people who actually study it for a living?
Hey Hassan why not address my 2nd question directed to evolutionists within that post? The one about natural selection?
I welcome that...
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
3 Same creator
Fellowship
no, or you imply that the creator is limited and only know one way of making live. We can imagine form of life based upon other stuff than ADN or proteins.
The ADN everywhere is more an argument for a common origin or life, rather a signature of a creator process. Signature of a creator, imply that his technical skills are limited, like an artist who is only able to paint with oil, and cannot perform sculpture with iron, marble ...
Otherwise, the evolution may be the way god give life and free will altogether. If god especially design all species it will be a great failure. All species have their imperfections and failure. If god is directly responsible of their making, it's not a perfect creator, now if you consider that he only originate the process of life, he made the perfect creation : a process that evolve randomly or by necessety, which go to the simpliest ( some amino acid) to humans, and in the future something more wonderfull.
There is nothing new under the stars and skies that is not already in Heaven... that includes scientific theories
Lets just give thanks that we have reasoning minds even when they are bloody minded...
Originally posted by Powerdoc
no, or you imply that the creator is limited and only know one way of making live. We can imagine form of life based upon other stuff than ADN or proteins.
The ADN everywhere is more an argument for a common origin or life, rather a signature of a creator process. Signature of a creator, imply that his technical skills are limited, like an artist who is only able to paint with oil, and cannot perform sculpture with iron, marble ...
Otherwise, the evolution may be the way god give life and free will altogether. If god especially design all species it will be a great failure. All species have their imperfections and failure. If god is directly responsible of their making, it's not a perfect creator, now if you consider that he only originate the process of life, he made the perfect creation : a process that evolve randomly or by necessety, which go to the simpliest ( some amino acid) to humans, and in the future something more wonderfull.
I understand exactly what you are saying and that is an interesting philosophy. I simply believe God indeed not only created all the kinds but each one of his creatures. You, Me, the flower outside, Sin has entered this picture and man now lives in a flawed world. It is no longer the garden of eden prior to sin.
Fellowship
Originally posted by LiquidR
Fellowship
There is nothing new under the stars and skies that is not already in Heaven... that includes scientific theories
Lets just give thanks that we have reasoning minds even when they are bloody minded...
Giving thanks is something I think we all can not do enough of...
I am very thankful of God's Grace.
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
As links are discovered, the missing ones get smaller, and smaller, don't they, Fellowship? Missing links have been found. They continue to be found.
First there were ancient apes and man.
Where's the missing link?
Enter cro-magnon man.
Then there were ancient apes, cro-magnons and man.
Where's the link between apes and cro-magnons?
Then there was Lucy.
You get my point. We can get further and further into detail, and as we go along discovering new evidence, we shall.
Now before you argue that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens existed concurrently, I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that the evolutionary tree is not a linear one, right?
Tonton did you miss this?
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 realized 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.
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
Don't you see? Natural selection progression is evolution. Turtles' necks grow longer. Birds' beaks grow hooks. Eels learn to control electrical powers, and those powers get sronger. Man stands on two feet. Man's physiology adapts to standing on two feet. This is evolution.
Nothing grew. The genetic variety was already provided for within kinds. There is no evolution from one kind to another.
Fellowship
Originally posted by LiquidR
I hope you realize You, master Fellow have just proved the possibility of evolution with your human family tree, perhaps not of ape to man, but evolution just the same, I'm not saying it is truth but who are we to know truth, that is for God alone
Actually I think you are a nice person LiquidR
What I listed above for tonton was a list of mistakes and fabrications in some cases and in other cases nothing to suggest evolution.
Fellowship
Fellows
Cro-magnon man, if I remember right, is an archaic form of hom sap: ie, he was 'us'.
Originally posted by tonton
Don't you see? Natural selection progression is evolution. Turtles' necks grow longer. Birds' beaks grow hooks. Eels learn to control electrical powers, and those powers get sronger. Man stands on two feet. Man's physiology adapts to standing on two feet. This is evolution.
Before I go I had to reply to this thoughtful post.
If ever there were a compelling argument for evolution you just articulated it. I give you great credit for finally out of all on the thread arguing the case for evolution you tonton did the best job of communicating your idea concerning evolution. Very well articulated!
I hate to rain on the party but the changes you refer to are not evolution from rocks to man as it pertain to origins. What you reference is simply multiple animals with different features. They did not evolve. They all existed in the first place. Natural selection dictated which ones survived in the greatest numbers but none the less the genetic diversity was there from the begining. Nothing evolved.
Fellowship and g'nite
I do believe b/c of the delicate nature of this topic in America, that when addressing evolution in an educational enviroment that a healthy discussion of opposing views be expressed w/o it turning into a bloody mess, perhaps also a presentation of the ideas of those that express a relationship between the two, there have been many, those of faith and those of reason who do not see a conflict, sometimes these people are in both vocations