Creation vs. Evolution

[Green_Manelishi]

macro-evolution takes longer than the order of 10,000 years of human history to produce difference classes and families. you're looking at the end result of 4 billion years of evolution which is 5-6 orders of magnitude more time than all of human history. and within human history speciation has probably occured, but its difficult to prove since we would have to be able to assert that some animal which did not exist 10,000 years ago does exist now -- and proving a negative back to times when records were not well kept is impossible. we can do it for viruses like HIV because of their rapid evolution. for everything else it'll probably take another 1,000-10,000 years to start to scratch at the level of proof that you'd like. feel free to refuse to extrapolate and remain completely ignorant though...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How convenient. You did not see it happen but you know it did happen. Sounds like faith to me. Evolution should should have left a fossil trail of failed experiments that weren't quite workable, but it did not. Fortunately SJG rode to the rescue with an explanation for that problem. I think he called it "Puncuated Equilibrium" or some such non-sense.

So, since evolution can't be proven (false) we are supposed to accept it but since God (and creationism) can't be proven (false) we are supposed to reject it? You imagine/believe the fossil record shows a progression of complexity caused by a (perhaps) goal-less series of events that "just happened". Evolutionists claim the problem of life arising from lifelessness is irrelevant to evolutionary theory but it's very relevant because without it your case is stillborn. Creationists/ID see the fossil record as supporting creation of fully viable and complete life forms, some of which no longer exist.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

GM, are you going to respond to my request for sources? Are you going to refute the notion that adaptation is an evolutionary process?

lamont, you can't forget that GM can't see macro-evolution because he's only dealing with < 10,000 years of earth history to draw from.

I so wish I could put up some photos for everyone showing some excellent depositional layering in floodplain. It would make stratigraphic dating a lot easier to explain.

R

Been busy.

Sure, would you like me to cut and paste a list of articles from creation(ist)/ID websites? Then you can cut and paste rebuttals. Each side will accuse the other of not really understanding science, or selectively reporting facts (or fiction) that supports their position. Let me add that both "camps" are full of qualified scientists so the debate will continue and there will likely be no agreement.

Continue to believe what you choose to believe. Pray you are correct.

 

[lamont]

How convenient. You did not see it happen but you know it did happen. Sounds like faith to me.

I didn't see the planes slam into the world trade center with my own eyes either, but I know it happened. I didn't see JFK get shot, but I know that he did. I didn't see the concentration camps or the london blitz either. I never saw the mustard gas in the trenches in WWI. Lots of history that I never observed but "conveniently" assume actually occured.

Evolution should should have left a fossil trail of failed experiments that weren't quite workable, but it did not.

The ones that worked vastly outnumber the ones that didn't. We find the ones that worked.

We also do see various stages of evolution of common building blocks of organisms like eyes. They evolved from light sensitive patches up to fully formed eyeballs in stages, and not only do those stages exist in the fossil record there are examples of living species which have sensory organs which span the range.

 

[Kevrumbo]

The way of nature is unchanging.
Knowing constancy is insight.
Not knowing constancy leads to disaster.
Knowing constancy, the mind is open.

(Tao Te Ching, Verse 16)

 

[wreckchick]

Been busy.

Sure, would you like me to cut and paste a list of articles from creation(ist)/ID websites? Then you can cut and paste rebuttals. Each side will accuse the other of not really understanding science, or selectively reporting facts (or fiction) that supports their position. Let me add that both "camps" are full of qualified scientists so the debate will continue and there will likely be no agreement.

Continue to believe what you choose to believe. Pray you are correct.

I want ONE article that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports creationism and has theory and/or fact to back it up. Just one.

R

 

[H2Andy]

Creationists/ID see the fossil record as supporting creation of fully viable and complete life forms, some of which no longer exist.

but that's not what the fossil record shows (have you been reading my posts?)

the fossil record shows a progression from less complex forms to much more complex forms.

in 1993, the discovery by William Schopf of fossilized microorganisms three and a half billion years old (three and a half billion years old... that's about 80% of the age of the Earth), confirmed this view. back then, we don't find rabbits. no ducks. no vertebrates (nothing with a backbone). no worms. no corals. no
nothing but microorganisms.

correct. all we find is microorganisms. then, much, much later, we start to find slighly more complex animals. by 540 million years ago (mya), we see worms, molluscs, corals. but no fish, no dogs, no whales.

then by 505 mya we finally see the first of the fishes.

and so on ...

so, the idea that there was a creation of fully formed animals is not supported by the fossil record. what the fossil record supports, on the other hand, is a slow pregression from less complex to more complex organisms.

that's called evolution, btw

 

[lamont]

but that's not what the fossil record shows (have you been reading my posts?)

the fossil record shows a progression from less complex forms to much more complex forms.

when we get back, say, to the in 1993 discovery by William Schopf of fossilized microorganisms three and a half billion years old (three and a half billion years old... that's about 80% of the age of the Earth), we don't find rabbits.

no sir, we don't find cows, or walruses, or even a single, tiny, itty bitty bone of any creature.

all we find is microorganisms. then, much, much later, we start to find slighly more complex animals. where did they come from?

so by 540 million years ago (mya), we see worms, molluscs, corals. but no fish, no dogs, no whales.

then by 505 mya we finally see the first of the fishes. where did they come from?

and so on ...

is God creating wave after wave of creatures every few million years?

why?

Also the rate of mutation that we see today is sufficient to explain the rate of change of evolution. If you worked backwards and found that it would have taken 10 trillion years for life to evolve given the mutation rate in DNA, then you'd have a serious issue with Evolution. To that extent, Evolution is a falsifiable theory, but has not been falsified.

 

[H2Andy]

To that extent, Evolution is a falsifiable theory, but has not been falsified.

hey, i'm not too familiar with that... want to explain a little?

 

[lamont]

hey, i'm not too familiar with that... want to explain a little?

If you compute from your stellar evolution models that the stars are 100 billion years old, but your big bang theory produces ages of the universe of 10 billion years then one or both of the theories have an issue. They are therefore falsifiable through lack of internal consistency.

Similarly, we know from multiple different independent sources that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If it would have taken evolution substantially longer than that to produce the varity of mutations that we currently see today then the theory would be in deep trouble.

 

[H2Andy]

ah, i see... "falsifiable" means "discreditable" or "impeachable?"