Evolution as a theory of creation is a JOKE

[BananaSlug]

I am not saying that some animals have not mildly evolved over time to better adapt to their environment, but to think all life came from one cell animals and plants to what we have today is a JOKE!

If you accept any form of evolution, it is not a joke. Evolution is still evolution. What exactly is "mild evolution"?

Scientist try and link one animal to another, "these two creatures have similar teeth, thus they must be related somehow and thus evolved. These two have similar ear bones, thus they must be related and evolved."

Nice caricature of evolution but in reality it is much more complex than that. Similarities do show a lot of relatedness but scientists are careful to watch for similarities due to parallel evolution rather than common descent.

Speaking of homologies (which are evidence for evolution), why did you leave out embryo homology? The more closely related a species the longer their embyros remain similar.
Tell me, off of the top of your head, what creature does this embryo belong to?

Do you have proof? Well... No... we have to make logical assumptions... REALLY! So can you prove through fossil evidence that the same species truly evolved from one stage to the next?

Though I cringe at the use of the words "prove" and "proof," I'll say that with 99.99999999999999% certainty that we have sufficient evidence to "prove" evolution. Not only fossil evidence but other lines of evidence as well.

Ankle bones of middle Eocene protocetid archaeocetes Rodhocetus balochistanensis (left) and Artiocetus clavis (right) from Pakistan, compared to those of the pronghorn Antilocapra americana (center). Note double-pulleyed astragalus, notched cubloid, and prominent fibular facet on the calcaneum (not preserved in Artiocetus), which are characteristic of mammals of the order Artiodactyla.

Only artiodactyls have a double-pulley astragalus so there is one line of evidence in support of whales evolving from ancient land mammals. Another line of evidence is the development of hind limb buds during embryonic development. Modern whales (with the exception of atavistic individuals) do not have hind limbs. So why do they sprount limb buds just to reabsorb them?

A third line of evidence is genetic evidence:
The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus, according to new genetic research.

The suggestion comes from scientists at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, who have developed a new way of tracking an animal's evolutionary history through DNA sequences millions of years old.
Every animal inherits chunks of DNA which are specific to its species. These bits appear at precisely the same place in the animal's genetic code - or genome - as in that of its ancestors.
By comparing the DNA of different animals, the researchers have been able to redefine their family trees.
New beginnings
Their results show that whales and dolphins are more closely related to cows, camels and pigs than horses, elephants and sea cows.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The camel - went its own way firstThe scientists have also been able to show that camels formed their own evolutionary branch long before other species of four-legged grazers.
A close relationship between whales and ungulates - hoofed animals - was first suggested 100 years ago, but until recently there has been little evidence to link whales with any particular group of ungulates.
Part of the problem has been the profound changes the whale has undergone in adapting to its watery environment.
The hind limbs have been lost and the front limbs have become flippers, so the only way whales could be compared to ungulates was through other links.
Underwater talking
"Hippopotami and whales share several specialised aquatic adaptations, including lack of hair and sebaceous glands, and underwater vocalisations that are apparently communicative," writes Masato Nikaido in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
These shared characteristics have been interpreted as examples of convergence - both species developed the same features independently whilst adaptating to life in the water.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Hippo and whale both "talk" underwater[/FONT]"In fact, our study shows that the two animals have the similarities because they share a common ancestor," said Professor Nikaido.
Missing link
But just what that ancestor could be is more of a mystery now than before.
Modern whales are thought to be descended from an extinct primitive whale that first appeared 50 million years ago.
It, in turn, is thought to have arisen from an extinct group of land mammals called the mesonychians.
Professor Nikaido's research, together with other evidence, now suggests that there may have been a 'missing link' between the mesonychians and the first whales - if they were related at all.
The new findings have been cautiously welcomed by other biologists
"These studies provide a useful and important new source of data but they are not magic bullets. "It would, however, be highly worthwhile to extend them to other groups of organisms," said David Hillis, from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Texas.

[/FONT]


We cannot show that fossil species are the in the actual line of descent but we can show a gradient of transitionals.

Explain why these fossils do not show evolution. The more "primitive" specimens are found in older strata and the more derived are found in progressively younger strata. We don't find the more derived organisms in the same strata with the more "primitive" ones.

Well... again... not currently... like I said, we have to make some logical assumptions... REALLY... based on what... two creatures share similar teeth? Well... that does indicate they have some connection. REALLY!

They have to share a lot more than just teeth.

If man evolved from ape, why didn't all apes evolve?

They did, they became more derived apes. In our past we had an ancestor that shared traits of both humans and chimpanzees. One line became humans (which are still apes) the other line became chimpanzees.

Why have we not witnessed any evolution in apes? And Why do we only see big jumps, and have to hypothesize about the change, why don't we have proof of the sublte evolutionary steps from one stage to another. If man evolved from one stage to the next slow and subtly, where is the bone evidence showing these subtle changes? Why only the big jumps?

We can witness evolution in action but you have to remember the rate of evolutionary change is directly correlated with the rate of generational turnover. A species with a high generational turnover (such as fruit flies) will have more observable rates of evolutionary change than a species with a low generational turnover (such as an ape).
Evidence for evolution is more than just observing the fossil record. If you want to see some of the evidence in support of human evolution go to my post here... http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=51100837&postcount=138

Why? Because they are only guesses... I'm sorry, if you are a PhD, you don't guess you hypothesize, but a guess is a guess, is a guess.

Hypothesis does not equal a guess. A hypothesis is an educated assumption that is then tested to either verify or falsify it. In other words, we make a hypothesis about an observation and then test it or do further observations to see if it is true or false. If you don't even have a basic understanding of science then of course you will never understand evolution.

I believe in Creation. I believe God created every plant, insect, animal, fowl, and aquadic life that exists, and that they may have slightly evolved to better suit their environment, but they started and are today basically the same as what they were from the beginning.

Any evidence besides the Bible to support your claim. With new fossil discoveries, genetic testings and evo/devo the evidence for evolution is piling faster than ever.

Now some of you may even believe a higher form of life transplanted us, or genetically created us from the life already found here... While I do not believe this, I could accept this over everything evolving from one cell creatures over time.

A quasi-Raelian belief system? Though it would be really cool if humans were "designed" by extraterrestrial beings (ever read the book Link?) there is no evidence of that happening either.

Can I prove God created everything scientifically... Nope! But neither can you prove evolution. Mine is faith, and yours, a guess - ok hypothesis. I will stick with faith!

People who claim that we cannot "prove" evolution really have no clue how much evidence is out there in support of it. I would say we have proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[adimus]

Seriously. I have not told anyone in my church about this or even my own wife yet.

I have been faithfully reading ICR's monthly issues since 1997. I have read a number of Creationists books. I watched Dr Dino's videos numerous times over the years enough to memorize them. I enjoyed that sort of thing in my spare time.

But a few months ago I actually took the time to hear out the other side. I talked to people on forums and read a few books. I read rebuttals from evolutionists.

Proverbs 18:17
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

It all really sort of started to get to me in a more serious way when I watched a debate between Hovind and Ross. That was a real eye opener. Both could not be right. And I know the Bible quite well. So I know that either the creation account in Gen are literal or they are not. There is no compromised medium to suit our science. When I saw that YEC was in blatant denial of a lot of hard science and that OEC was really being creative (no pun intended) with the words of scripture, I objectively gave evolution its fair chance. Turned out I was in for a real shock!

It took a while to really let it settle in my heart. Then I had to look into Genesis again for the first time. I had to allow for a radically different approach to it. I had to also allow that it contains a lot of reasons to be considered myth/allegory/non literal. That was hard to admit. I am extremely hesitant to confess this to anyone I know. Or I will get: Heretic! Idiot! Doubter! Fool! either spoken or not, from many Christ like fellow Christian saints.

I feel cheated by the various YEC ministries and what they have indoctrinated many Christians with in the name of what is falsely called science. Who is anyone to declare one's views about science as foundational to the faith? There is a reason why this issue is not dealt with in any of the church creeds or in the New Testament.


Well... again... not currently... like I said, we have to make some logical assumptions... REALLY... based on what... two creatures share similar teeth? Well... that does indicate they have some connection. REALLY!

Explain why chickens have scales in their legs and the genes for teeth in their beak. People turned on those genes and they produced teeth in the chicken's beak. Why would God hide those useless genes in their from us and the poor chicken?

Birds and theropod ornithischian dinos share so much in common that some fossils are almost entirely indistinguishable as either a bird or a dinosaur, feathers, eggs, skeletal structure and all.

 

[AV1611VET]

As has been asked before, what's wrong with admitting you don't know?

You, AV, cannot complain about unanswered questions. The species obviously comes first, otherwise there would be no fossil. You received plenty of answers, just not the ones you wanted. You'd probably prepared refutations for either answer, so that's why you got all in a huff when the answer was "none of the above."

Making up answers is why you talked yourself into a corner in the Embedded Age thread and were eventually ground up into, as Hespera put it, glacial silt. Don't you get tired of that? Admitting you don't know shows integrity, maturity, and most of all, faith.

Are you hiding your faith under a bushel?

Let's go over this one a second time, Gaara --- I'll say it again:

An ad hoc answer is an automatic "I don't know".

If you ask me, for instance, where the Flood water went --- and I reply --- "In my opinion, Neptune", do you have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know that I don't know?

Do I have to prefix every ad hoc answer with, "I don't know, but..."?

And, fyi, no one has painted me anywhere on Embedded Age --- the Creation is my forte.

Not one in ten here know what it is, and if anyone thinks I've been pwned on Embedded Age, I say they don't know what Embedded Age is.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK. Darwin predicted that our ancestors would be found in Africa. This was based on evolution. He was right. The evidence shows our ancestors evolved in Africa and migrated into Eurasia, then to other continents.

That's not what I'm talking about.

How's come the label goes on AFTER a new fossils is found?

How's come Neanderthal Man was never mentioned, until after a fossil was found, and they "invented" Neanderthal Man from the fossil --- not "discovered" the fossil from Neanderthal Man?

The fossil always comes first, then the species --- that tells me that you guys "invent" --- not "discover" --- just as Solomon said:

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

You remember Solomon, don't you?

He was the man who studied apes, imported from Tharshish, and concluded evolution an "invention".

 

[Split Rock]

And, fyi, no one has painted me anywhere on Embedded Age --- the Creation is my forte.

You painted yourself into a corner with your own "theory." We had nothing to do with it.

Not one in ten here know what it is, and if anyone thinks I've been pwned on Embedded Age, I say they don't know what Embedded Age is.

You don't even know what "embedded age" is! You don't know how God "embedded" age. You don't know why He "embedded" age. You cannot tell us anything about "embedded age," other than you are sure God used it. This despite NO passages from scripture that support it. The whole thing is ad hoc.

 

[Split Rock]

That's not what I'm talking about.

How's come the label goes on AFTER a new fossils is found?

How's come Neanderthal Man was never mentioned, until after a fossil was found, and they "invented" Neanderthal Man from the fossil --- not "discovered" the fossil from Neanderthal Man?

The fossil always comes first, then the species --- that tells me that you guys "invent" --- not "discover" --- just as Solomon said:You remember Solomon, don't you?

He was the man who studied apes, imported from Tharshish, and concluded evolution an "invention".

We cannot describe in detail an extinct species we have never seen before, until we have the fossils that represent it. Is that some kind of a problem??

 

[Cabal]

We cannot describe in detail an extinct species we have never seen before, until we have the fossils that represent it. Is that some kind of a problem??

Well, let's not forget that evolution predicts transitional forms with particular features - that we have found in several cases (Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, etc)

But yes - giving a hitherto unknown species a name for sake of differentiation is CLEARLY epic fail on our part

 

[ranmaonehalf]

just basing this on the OP title, hes right
Evolution as a basis of creation is a joke.
Evolution deals simply with how the diversity of life came to be.
Not with creation, biogeneis, or the formation of the universe. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read a book.

 

[AV1611VET]

We cannot describe in detail an extinct species we have never seen before, until we have the fossils that represent it. Is that some kind of a problem??

So much for your junk science being predictable, then.

And it shows Solomon to be right on the money.

 

[Cabal]

So much for your junk science being predictable, then.

And it shows Solomon to be right on the money.

Yes, I'm sure he knew all about 19th century AD scientific theories back....whenever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I'm sure he knew all about 19th century AD scientific theories back....whenever.

He didn't have to --- notice he does not use the word "evolution"?

Since evolution is a lie of the devil, evolution (in whatever form) may have been taught throughout all the dispensations (except Innocence).

 

[Split Rock]

So much for your junk science being predictable, then.

And it shows Solomon to be right on the money.

As you yourself have told us many times, you know nothing about science and don't care to learn. You are in no position to tell us what is "junk" science, especially with your "junk" embedded age theology.

 

[Split Rock]

He didn't have to --- notice he does not use the word "evolution"?

Since evolution is a lie of the devil, evolution (in whatever form) may have been taught throughout all the dispensations (except Innocence).

Creationism is the real lie of the Devil. It drives people away from Christianity by making it look foolish. Isn't that the Devils' purpose?

 

[Cabal]

He didn't have to --- notice he does not use the word "evolution"?

Since evolution is a lie of the devil, evolution (in whatever form) may have been taught throughout all the dispensations (except Innocence).

If that's a satanic master plan throughout the ages (citation sorely needed), I think we're overestimating the guy.

Notice that Solomon doesn't mention the phrases "embedded age" or "knickerbocker glory" either?

I'm all for interpreting what the Bible DOES say, AV, but this "unwritten principles" malarkey is just ridiculous.

 

[adimus]

So much for your junk science being predictable, then.

And it shows Solomon to be right on the money.

Can creationism predict what we will find any better? No.

We still haven't discovered the Leviathan if you interpret that part of Job as literal.

We still haven't found a giant metal dome over the atmosphere as Genesis states should be there.

We still haven't found the storehouses of rain and hail as the Bible tells of.

We still haven't found how light can be mixed together with darkness, as Genesis tells of.

We still haven't found any animals that can or could once talk, as Genesis tells of.

We still haven't found any evidence for the garden of Eden ever having existed literally, as Genesis tells of.

We still haven't found that there was ever possibly a time that there was no rain and only dew that Genesis tells of.

We do find genes in our own cells and all other organisms cells that tell of a very different genetic heritage than is being expressed in modern organisms.

Which idea makes the better predictions?

Evolution predicted Cosmic Background Radiation and found it.

Evo predicted finding human primate ancestors in Africa and now people have found a number of them there.

Evo predicted that genetics would reveal an evolutionary past- and was right.

Evo predicted that dinosaurs would be found with feathers and other birdlike features and traits- and was right.

Evo predicted that genetic mutations were the norm- and was right.

Evo predicted that viruses would constantly evolve via mutation to be resistant to medicines- and was right.

Evo predicted that land mammal to whale intermediary fossils would be found- and was right and right again and right again and right again.

Need I continue?

BTW. Creationism predicted none of these. In fact. What has creationism successfully predicted ever?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

If this junk science is so predictable, then show me a species of mankind predicted BEFORE anything is found --- in other words, a true prediction.

Darwin noticed chimps and gorillas have the most similar anatomy to humans. Since they lived in Africa, he predicted in 1871 the earliest human ancestors would also be found there -- and they were. It was a ballsy prediction considering Neandertals had already been found in Europe.

The Tiktaalik discovery in 2006 is another great example. Paleontologists were looking for a good fish-amphibian intermediate. Rather than just picking a random place to dig, they relied on evolutionary theory to tell them where to look. The theory told them the transitional should have existed in the Devonian and should be near a fossilized river or the shoreline of some other body of water. And praise Jesus, that's exactly the type of place they found it! Can I get an amen from the choir?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I get an amen from the choir?

I ask for a species and get a place --- wrong noun.

And you want an 'amen'?

 

[Nathan45]

Which idea makes the better predictions?

Evolution predicted Cosmic Background Radiation and found it.

<begin pedantic>

I like your post however, I'd like to tell you that Evolution did not predict Cosmic Background Radiation, that was predicted by the "The Big Bang" cosmological model (a term, ironically, coined by one of the theory's detractors).

The "Big Bang" could be completely false and it wouldn't have any effect on the theory of evolution, and vice-versa, because they're different theories discussing different things.

Otherwise your post is absolutely on the mark.
</end pedantic>

 

[adimus]

<begin pedantic>

I like your post however, I'd like to tell you that Evolution did not predict Cosmic Background Radiation, that was predicted by the "The Big Bang" cosmological model (a term, ironically, coined by one of the theory's detractors).

The "Big Bang" could be completely false and it wouldn't have any effect on the theory of evolution, and vice-versa, because they're different theories discussing different things.

Otherwise your post is absolutely on the mark.
</end pedantic>

My bad. I guess I was getting at science in general outside of YEC.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I ask for a species and get a place --- wrong noun.

And you want an 'amen'?

I'm gonna shove Tiktaalik right up your butt.

Praise Jeebus!