Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Sorry, the evolution of sperm is not a topic for human genetics: all the key components of sperm were in place long before humans appeared on the scene. Human genetics deals with genetic differences between different people and between humans and our closest relatives. There is no creationist model for human genetics.
How long will scientist marvel and the perfect machine which is the human body? They say chimps and humans are the closest relatives, yet they are only 99.9% similar. That 0.1% of BILLIONS of genes makes a big difference. We're not that much alike.
Originally Posted by sfs
Nematode sperm, for example, don't have tails, and the sperm of many sea animals lack a protective seminal fluid. Other components are common to many kinds of cells (enzymes, chemical sensing ability), and would have been in place before sperm cells started to specialize.
Nematode sperm doesn't need tails because it's released directly onto the females eggs. Human sperm needs to find it. I just want to have someone plainly explain to me how mammals differenciated themselves from reptiles (cold/warm blood, scales/skin, milk/no-milk) in a logical fashion. There are no intermediate stages, none have been found. And to keep saying that one day we will find something is like Darwin pinning his hopes on paleontology to find his transitional forms, which it never did.
Humanity has existed for a long time without science, and relied on superstitious beliefs regarding the Universe and God. The first scientists, in the proper sense of the word, were the Muslims the 9th->14th century AD.
Science goes back at least 5000 years, esp. in the area of astronomy, agriculture & animal husbandry.
What is YEC? And i want to make the flood unglobal. Then it would fit the pattern of other punishments God brought down on rebellious people. Why would Noah's people be honored with a global flodo and have all humanity wiped out because of their evil? Doesn't make sense if God is Infinitely Just and Merciful.
YEC stands for Young-Earth Creationist. They generally believe that God created the earth around 6000-10,000 years ago, and that macro-evolution as put foward by Darwin is incorrect. Most, but not all, YEC's think of the flood as global, putting down most of today's fossil and coal deposits, and creating some landforms like the Grand Canyon.
Simple, it's called a "white man's burden". They saw themselves as civilizing the world. Origins only added justification to this reasoning.
White man's burden was not used as an excuse for the slavery instituted in the United States and treating them as if they were animals. And anyway, do you really think that they wanted to civilize the Africans, Indians, and Native Americans or do you think the Europeans might have possibly thought that God created them superior? A little possible?
Their excuses were not the same as their true feelings.
What is YEC?
Young earth creationist. The belief that God created all life and existance 6,000 years ago as is interpreted literally from Genesis.
And i want to make the flood unglobal. Then it would fit the pattern of other punishments God brought down on rebellious people. Why would Noah's people be honored with a global flodo and have all humanity wiped out because of their evil? Doesn't make sense if God is Infinitely Just and Merciful.
So are you an old earth creationist?
Here lies a misconception about God. Many poeple see Him as the Creator and that's it. He set the wheels in motion and let the whole thing run its own course.... Creation is an ongoing process. He is the Sustainer of the world not just the Creator.
I disagree. God does not hold atoms or molecules together. God is not involved in my cellular respiration or the earth's water cycle or the sun's nuclear fusion. So how exactly does God sustain the universe. And if God isn't involved in any of those processes, why should I throw away the evidence that supports biological evolution and believe that He specially creates all life on the planet?
perfect machine which is the human body?
Perfect machine? What about genetic diseases, the acid byproduct of anaerobic respiration, the back problems we develop due to being bipedal, our genes for a tail, and our tendancy to occasionally develop mental disorders? Those aren't perfect characteristics.
That 0.1% of BILLIONS of genes makes a big difference. We're not that much alike.
Try 66,000. So, even with 2% being the a difference in genes, we are only looking at 1,320 different genes, many of which are different only by a few base pairs. We are very much alike.
EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is what I'm talking about.
Throwing God into science whenever you find it convenient is not empirical science.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
How long will scientist marvel and the perfect machine which is the human body? They say chimps and humans are the closest relatives, yet they are only 99.9% similar. That 0.1% of BILLIONS of genes makes a big difference. We're not that much alike.
There are about ten or twenty times as many differences between a human and a chimp as there are between two humans. As species go, that makes us very similar.
Nematode sperm doesn't need tails because it's released directly onto the females eggs. Human sperm needs to find it.
Nematode sperm have to move too, but they do so using a simpler system -- kind of like an amoeba. In general, the answer to your argument about sperm is that either components were already present in the cells from which sperm evolved, or were not needed when they first evolved. Thus protective fluid was not needed when sperm were released directly into the ocean. Does this make sense? Can you see how different parts could evolve at different times, and only become necessary after they'd appeared?
I just want to have someone plainly explain to me how mammals differenciated themselves from reptiles (cold/warm blood, scales/skin, milk/no-milk) in a logical fashion. There are no intermediate stages, none have been found. And to keep saying that one day we will find something is like Darwin pinning his hopes on paleontology to find his transitional forms, which it never did.
The characteristics you've listed are ones that aren't preserved in fossils, so how could anyone offer to show you intermediate stages? For characteristics that are preserved (i.e. bones), there is a very nice series of transitional fossils between the "mammal-like reptiles" and early mammals. Look it up.
__________________ But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore;
And having done that, Thou hast done;
I fear no more.
The characteristics you've listed are ones that aren't preserved in fossils, so how could anyone offer to show you intermediate stages? For characteristics that are preserved (i.e. bones), there is a very nice series of transitional fossils between the "mammal-like reptiles" and early mammals. Look it up.
I dunno! You tell me! You're the ones telling me that animals evolved from one another just by staring at their fossils.
How can plain bones tell you how the animal lived or how it really behaved/looked like. Yet our books are filled with drawings and such of this stuff.
Mammal-like reptiles? Oh you mean like the duck-billed platterpus? How did that come about? Maybe these mammal-like reptiles were just another highly specialized creature with unique feature.
What about the 4 winged fossil they found a few months back?
Mo.mentum - check this forum. It's a Christians Only forum. Aren't you a Muslim? Or are you here as an affirmation that you believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from light, True God from true God?
I don't imagine you are - indeed I imagine that the above formula is blasphemy, isn't it?
I dunno! You tell me! You're the ones telling me that animals evolved from one another just by staring at their fossils.
Their scales/skin, warm/cold bloodedness, and existance of mammary glands are not fossilized. We can tell they evolved from each other by looking at their skeletal features. For example, we see how in mammal-like reptiles 2 reptilian jaw bones became the 2 bones in the mammalian inner ear.
How can plain bones tell you how the animal lived or how it really behaved/looked like.
They can tell us a lot about behavior. What they ate, what ate them, how they died (occasionally). Fossil footprints can tell us whether they herded or not.
Yet our books are filled with drawings and such of this stuff.
I don't know about yours, but both my biology books only had very outdated pictures of fully scaled, cold-blooded looking dinosaurs; I don't think you would argue with that.
Mammal-like reptiles? Oh you mean like the duck-billed platterpus?
No, not like the "duck-billed platterpus". We are talking about therapsids as mentioned here.
How did that come about?
It's a very basal mammal that has had ancestors that were lucky enough to find a niche they could stay in.
Maybe these mammal-like reptiles were just another highly specialized creature with unique feature.
Therapsids are an enormous taxonomic group that include whole varieties of animals. They are not just one little species in the back woods of Australia.
What about the 4 winged fossil they found a few months back?
Microraptor was a very feathered dinosaur. Feathers, unlike scales and skin, do fossilize well under the right conditions. We are very lucky that those conditions existed in the Yixian during the early Cretaceous
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 12th August 2003 at 07:12 PM.
Not true. The basis of Nazism and Facism is evolution. Read up on it.
I did. And the basis of Nazism was Christianity and creationism. All the following quotes are from Mein Kampf. Read them.
"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." " It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s are trained for intellectual professions." "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe." The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."
"The folkish-minded man, in particular," Hitler concludes, "has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
(all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version)
The theory itself is neutral, but a belief in it leads people to think of themselves as superior, or that their race is meant to dominate all others.
You do realize that racism began in creationism, don't you?
RACISM is the problem, not evolution. Racism will take any other idea -- creationism or evolution -- and warp it to their own ends.
When Darwin first came out with evolution by natural selection, it initially destroyed racism, because racism was built on the idea that each race was a separate creation. See Gobineau below. Evolution had all races coming from a single source -- common ancestor -- and therefore none could be superior. Some Germans took evolution and warped it with the idea of "more evolved" and then decided that some races were "more evolved" than others. A concept that is antithetical to Darwin's idea. All this is detailed in the book The Evolution of Racism.
"The foundation of modern "scientific" racism was Gobineau's (1853-5) Essay on the Inequality of Human Races. Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) was a one-time diplomat who held that humanity is divided into three races, white, yellow and black. He considered that his reasoning established that the black race had an "animal character, that appears in the shape of the pelvis"; has a crude yet powerful energy; and dull mental faculties but has an "intensity of desire". The yellow race has little physical energy; feeble desires; mediocrity; a respect for order; and "does not dream or theorise". The whites have an energetic intelligence, perseverance, instinct for order, love of liberty, and sense of honour; they can be cruel, but when they are "they are conscious of their cruelty; it is very, doubtful whether such a consciousness exists in the negro".
"Gobineau was, naturally enough for Europeans of his day, a Biblical literalist; and he remained so all his life, seeing in Darwinism a negation of his view that races always had been and always would be as they now are" http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/c..._of_racism.htm
Linear Mode
