Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Hoghead1]

Yes most everything comes down to how you define the meaning of the worlds. There are a lot of words in the Bible that are not so easy to define and for many words we would need a whole book to explain them. As John says: "I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.". (John 21:25) Dr Gerold Schroeder gets into a discussion on this. University library contain hundreds of thousands of book that cover a very small aspect or part of Evolution. Even a million books on the subject of Creationism and you are only starting to begin to understand what God has done.

I don't view creation-science as true science or anywhere near adequate theology. I hold God works in and through evolution. I believe that evolution would be impossible without God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Of course it is, natural, atheistic or non-theistic evolution is not creationism. Theistic Evolution is very much Creationism.

Yes, but I already explained to you why many of us don't like being labeled "creationists."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, but I already explained to you why many of us don't like being labeled "creationists."

There is young earth and old earth creationism. If you are old earth then I would think you would want to set the record straight that not everyone is a young earth creationist. I constantly say that Adam and Eve, David and Jesus were real historical people. Yet I am an old earth creationist because this is what overwhelming evidence indicates.

 

[Hoghead1]

There is young earth and old earth creationism. If you are old earth then I would think you would want to set the record straight that not everyone is a young earth creationist. I constantly say that Adam and Eve, David and Jesus were real historical people. Yet I am an old earth creationist because this is what overwhelming evidence indicates.

Well, I well know that no matter what I say, others may choose to label me as a 'creationist" or say I believe in "creationism." I can live with that. I just feel the need to point out at times that I don't like the label because so many identify it as meaning one is into creation-science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't view creation-science as true science or anywhere near adequate theology. I hold God works in and through evolution. I believe that evolution would be impossible without God.

Francis Collins is a Creation Scientist because Creation Science has one common element at it's core: Making Money. So we may want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Hoghead1]

Francis Collins is a Creation Scientist because Creation Science has one common element at it's core: Making Money. So we may want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Sorry, I don't follow you here. What exactly is your point? What specifically are you saying we shouldn't throw out?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, I well know that no matter what I say, others may choose to label me as a 'creationist" or say I believe in "creationism." I can live with that. I just feel the need to point out at times that I don't like the label because so many identify it as meaning one is into creation-science.

According to Collins: "Why did you write this book?"
"I encounter many young people who have been raised in homes where faith was practiced and who have encountered the evidence from science about the age of the earth and about evolution and who are in crisis. They are led to believe by what they are hearing from atheistic scientists on the one hand and fundamentalist believers on the other that they have to make a choice. This is a terrible thing to ask of a young person."

Perhaps you and me and Collins all struggle with this. I took FOUR teacher training classes at the Bible college so I could learn how to better communicate with people. Still the main point I try to make is that there is no conflict or contradictions between Science and the Bible. Even Science can verify the Bible.

When my son was in High School and they tried to drag him into a debate & he told them that he simply did not have time. He saw no conflict between the Bible and Science and he was to busy to get into a discussion with those who do want to try to establish that there is some sort of imagined conflict or contradiction.

He wants to get ahead in life and he does not want to be held back by the people that are destined to work at McDonalds.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sorry, I don't follow you here. What exactly is your point? What specifically are you saying we shouldn't throw out?

We should not throw out the truth. That is what the devil wants us to do. He will mix truth and error together in an attempt to get people to reject the truth. This is why we are called to come out from among them and be Holy.

 

[Hoghead1]

According to Collins: "Why did you write this book?"
"I encounter many young people who have been raised in homes where faith was practiced and who have encountered the evidence from science about the age of the earth and about evolution and who are in crisis. They are led to believe by what they are hearing from atheistic scientists on the one hand and fundamentalist believers on the other that they have to make a choice. This is a terrible thing to ask of a young person."

Perhaps you and me and Collins all struggle with this. I took FOUR teacher training classes at the Bible college so I could learn how to better communicate with people. Still the main point I try to make is that there is no conflict or contradictions between Science and the Bible. Even Science can verify the Bible.

When my son was in High School and they tried to drag him into a debate & he told them that he simply did not have time. He saw no conflict between the Bible and Science and he was to busy to get into a discussion with those who do want to try to establish that there is some sort of imagined conflict or contradiction.

He wants to get ahead in life and he does not want to be held back by the people that are destined to work at McDonalds.

I am inclined to agree that there is no conflict between the Bible and science, provided one clearly understands that the Bible was not intended to b e a science book or reveal advanced scientific truths. Therefore, it's unfair to pit the Bible against science or visa versa. Beethoven's Sixth is based on his encounter with nature. it is a great work. It reveals truths about nature. However, it is definitely not a scientific work. To me, it would make no sense to ask if science can verify Beethoven's Sixth.

 

[Hoghead1]

We should not throw out the truth. That is what the devil wants us to do. He will mix truth and error together in an attempt to get people to reject the truth. This is why we are called to come out from among them and be Holy.

Well, I guess I'm OK with that. That's precisely why I reject creation-science, because it know it is all invalid.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, wasn't it Behe who testified in court that, according to his definition of 'science', the column in newspapers called 'The stars can tell' can be classified as 'science'?

When you're into magic, the sky's the limit. Or in this case, not really the limit.

Unless you follow Biblical teaching which say that the stars are just holes in the solid dome of the sky, I guess.

 

[Loudmouth]

Francis Collins is a Creation Scientist because Creation Science has one common element at it's core: Making Money. So we may want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Is character assassination all you have left?

 

[stevevw]

No, you are not quite following what I said. The fact that birds are birds does not negate the fact that birds have evolved into different species. Evolution does not assume that a dino turned into a bird or visa verse. There are many intermediate steps here. That is what you are forgetting.

I'm not forgetting that there are many transitional steps and that is what makes it hard to believe. That there would be so many intermediate steps that are slightly morphing into some different creature. Yet evolution admits that it has got it wrong when it comes to what is a normal variation within the same species and what is a transitional step towards a different creature.

For variation what can be a predominate feature in one generation ie taller can be the opposite in the following generation and is a versa. There are no records of this gradual change for one creature to another. At best a few examples can be found but you would expect 100s just for one type of animal. Even the few that are found there is no defining evidence to say they are not just variations of the same kind just like dogs or cats. It is only assumed that they are transitional steps because evolution itself is assumed. But the many differences are overlooked and explained away for one reason of another ie convergent evolution or missing fossils.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not forgetting that there are many transitional steps and that is what makes it hard to believe. That there would be so many intermediate steps that are slightly morphing into some different creature. Yet evolution admits that it has got it wrong when it comes to what is a normal variation within the same species and what is a transitional step towards a different creature.

You are saying that they do have it right, that those 5 specimens do belong to the same transitional hominid species. You also agree with them that they do not belong to the species of anatomically modern humans, which is us.

If you disagree with their conclusions, then you need to explain why you keep using them as a reference.

For variation what can be a predominate feature in one generation ie taller can be the opposite in the following generation and is a versa. There are no records of this gradual change for one creature to another.

Yes, there are.

At best a few examples can be found but you would expect 100s just for one type of animal.

Why?

Even the few that are found there is no defining evidence to say they are not just variations of the same kind just like dogs or cats.

Yes, there is evidence. They all lie outside the variation seen in anatomically modern humans and other modern ape species.

It is only assumed that they are transitional steps because evolution itself is assumed.

It isn't assumed that they have a mixture of features from anatomically modern humans and basal apes. We can directly observe the mixture of those characteristics.

 

[stevevw]

You are saying that they do have it right, that those 5 specimens do belong to the same transitional hominid species. You also agree with them that they do not belong to the species of anatomically modern humans, which is us.

If you disagree with their conclusions, then you need to explain why you keep using them as a reference.



Yes, there are.

Who is them. If you are referring to the articles on the Georgian skulls they are saying that different shaped skulls which were once regarded as different species are actually variations of the same species. Theres nothing wrong with agreeing with that and then disagreeing with their other conclusions that those same skulls are different again to modern humans. It just adds to the difference in views as to what each shaped skull represents. Thats the problem in that there is so much conjecture about what constitutes a particular species and what is variation of the same creatures.

For example the same logic used for the Georgian skulls would have it that skulls A,B,C,D,and E above belong to the same species and the difference you see in shapes is well within the variations of normal features for the one species. In fact looking at those skulls you could say the entire top row and even a couple on the bottom could belong to the same species. The difference in shape is no greater than the difference of say dogs or any creature like modern humans. We see people with long chins, high foreheads, big cheek bones, long necks, big round heads, small pin heads, elongated heads, wide heads in today's people.

In fact there are some shapes in modern skulls that are similar to ancient skulls. Some have said that the Neanderthals and homo erectus are just ancient robust humans. Humans were more native and robust in earlier times because they were isolated and didn't mix much. But now the shapes are more blended because we have mixed more. If you look at the indiginous people of different countries you will see that they still look robust and have ancient features similar to homo erectus. So all the shapes from homo erectus to homo sapiens may be just one species with great variation.

Why?

Because unless evolution can produce big changes in one go it would take many stages to change a dino into a bird or a dog like Pakicetus into an aquatic whale. In fact the difference in size between Pakicetus and a whale is more than 100 fold just in size. Each generation could only step up a small amount of size. But its not just the obvious that needs to take many changes. The pelvis in whales is in the opposite position to Pakicetus. So it has to transform bone structures in completely different positions as well as many internal structures, nerves, muscles, tendons, brain neurons that will tell each new change in feature how to work and integrate that into the system.

There are thousands of changes that need to happen. But random mutations along with natural selection cant make those big changes all of a sudden. In fact they have trouble making those sorts of changes period. The amount of time and coordinated change needed as well as having viable and functional changes that come together at the same time in too much of an orchestrated process for evolution to deal with. It hasn't been observed and explained in detail how it can even happen let alone happen.

Yes, there is evidence. They all lie outside the variation seen in anatomically modern humans and other modern ape species.

That is what evolution has stated before only to be found wanting. Even supporters of evolution disagree what is ape and what is human. For all we know we are just looking at an awful lot of variations of apes and the different monkey type creatures and an awful lot of variation of humans. Just two species with a lot of variation.

[/quote]It isn't assumed that they have a mixture of features from anatomically modern humans and basal apes. We can directly observe the mixture of those characteristics.[/QUOTE]The observed characteristics are still debated and disagreed upon even today. Some say that Australopithecus for example is just a extinct ape that we dont see around today. Just like some of the different shaped creatures we have discovered that are unique and different.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who is them.

Specimens with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features, otherwise known as transitional fossils.

If you are referring to the articles on the Georgian skulls they are saying that different shaped skulls which were once regarded as different species are actually variations of the same species.

Yes, they are saying that they are all H. erectus, which is a transitional species. How many times do I need to repeat this?

Theres nothing wrong with agreeing with that and then disagreeing with their other conclusions that those same skulls are different again to modern humans. It just adds to the difference in views as to what each shaped skull represents.

They all agree that these fossils are transitional.

For example the same logic used for the Georgian skulls would have it that skulls A,B,C,D,and E above belong to the same species . . .

No, it isn't the same logic. First, A is a modern chimp, so obviously not the same species. B is an Australopithecine which has a pelvis unlike any chimp, and very much like a modern human.

We are on the far left. Chimps are on the far right. B is 2nd from the left. As you can see, it would not be the same species as A. So already, you have some serious problems with your argument.

We see people with long chins, high foreheads, big cheek bones, long necks, big round heads, small pin heads, elongated heads, wide heads in today's people.

There is no modern human that has those features. None.

Those pictures are perfect. Notice how high the top of the cranium is, how it towers above the eye brow ridge. Now, look at H. erectus:

Notice how the forehead slopes straight back and is almost level with the eye brow ridges. That is not a modern human. There is also the larger, forward jutting jaw and the lack of a process on the chin. Your argument is thoroughly refuted.

There are thousands of changes that need to happen. But random mutations along with natural selection cant make those big changes all of a sudden.

You haven't shown that there needs to be big changes all of the sudden. That is just a bare assertion.

In fact they have trouble making those sorts of changes period. The amount of time and coordinated change needed as well as having viable and functional changes that come together at the same time in too much of an orchestrated process for evolution to deal with. It hasn't been observed and explained in detail how it can even happen let alone happen.

It has been explained. Take humans and chimps. The changes needed for the differences between humans and chimps are the 40 million mutations that separate us. That is just a 1% change in each lineage.

The observed characteristics are still debated and disagreed upon even today. Some say that Australopithecus for example is just a extinct ape that we dont see around today. Just like some of the different shaped creatures we have discovered that are unique and different.

There is no debate.

 

[stevevw]

This one is funny. So, according to you, and unlike the palaeontologists, Archies were just perching birds with no transitional features...Unlike ostriches, Archies had a bony tail (like dinosaurs)...but, somehow, Archies were not transitional between dino's and birds....And like ostriches and chickens, certain species of pregnant female egg laying dino's and Archies had medullary bones. What a coincidence.

Wouldn't that coincidence normally be called convergent evolution is other cases. What about the platypus. What about the differences between therapods and birds that just about make it impossible for them to become birds. Thats right they only look for what they need and forget the rest. Observational evidence is always flimsy as it depends on human interpretation which can be biased towards what they want to find. It is fallible and open to too much scrutiny.


Archaeopteryx has been used as an example of bird dino evolution because it seemed like a dino with feathers, wings and teeth. Yet it has been shown that some of the features on Archaeopteryx are too bird like. t has a wish bone and bird like feet. This means it’s not just a feathered dino but something quite different. Bird feet have reversed toes used for perching in branches and something no dinosaurs has been seen to have. Dinosaurs had a characteristic joint in their lower jaws for grasping prey and this has never been found in birds.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/280/5362/355.full

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

So how do birds which are suppose to come from dinos predate them.
Scientists Say Birds Predated Dinosaurs
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98819&page=1

Dino's and birds have different sets of digits in their feet. Birds have digits 1,2 and 3 and dinos have digits 2,3 and 4.
Latest study: scientists say no evidence exists that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds
Taken together the fossils do not appear to provide indisputable evidence for the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Indeed, birds appear in the fossil record lower than their supposed ancestors, not higher as we might expect
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm

The respiratory system of birds is completely different to dinos and the transition that would have to happen to change this is impossible and would kill the dinos in the process. There would have to be major changes in the positions of bones as well.
Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19459194

 

[Loudmouth]

Wouldn't that coincidence normally be called convergent evolution is other cases.

No, it wouldn't. Sorry, but you don't get to ignore transitional fossils by throwing the word "convergent" about.

What about the platypus.

What about them?

What about the differences between therapods and birds that just about make it impossible for them to become birds.

What features are those?

Archaeopteryx has been used as an example of bird dino evolution because it seemed like a dino with feathers, wings and teeth. Yet it has been shown that some of the features on Archaeopteryx are too bird like. t has a wish bone and bird like feet. This means it’s not just a feathered dino but something quite different. Bird feet have reversed toes used for perching in branches and something no dinosaurs has been seen to have. Dinosaurs had a characteristic joint in their lower jaws for grasping prey and this has never been found in birds.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/280/5362/355.full

A mixture of dino and bird features . . . just what one would expect to see in a transitional fossil.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

One research group does not a consensus make.

 

[stevevw]

No, it wouldn't. Sorry, but you don't get to ignore transitional fossils by throwing the word "convergent" about.

What transitions, the point is you are showing a feature here and there that happens to be similar in another creature. All creatures on earth have similarities and some are more similar to each other then others. Thats because all life is made from the same stuff because they all live in the same environment and need the same stuff. But just because we have similarities doesn't mean all life evolved from a universal common ancestor. A few similarities in a couple of different creatures doesn't mean one evolved from the other. There are many examples of creatures that have similarities even more so then the ones that are suppose to have evolved from each other and are distantly related according to evolution but they call that convergent evolution.

When we look closer at the examples of transitionals given by evolution we can then see that there are many differences which evolution conveniently ignore. Some features in one creature are so different that we never observe them in the other for which they were suppose to have evolved from and we are to believe that feature suddenly appeared overnight fully formed. That doesn't even consider the processes for changing the smaller intricate aspects of those changes that go along with it that all have to coordinate to make the change work and be integrated into the body. Others so different that it is impossible for the feature to have changed from one form to the other without killing the animal or just being too structurally impossible because there's too many changes needed in the time evolution states.

What about them?

This is an example though it is extreme which shows that similar features seen in other animals can be found in one that may be distantly related and not even on the same evolutionary branch according to darwins theory.

What features are those?

I have already explained this. The respiratory system is completely different and the processes needed to change it from dino to bird would kill the animal. But besides that the amount of steps needed to change it would take forever and is beyond Darwinian theory. They couldn't begin to explain how it happened let alone prove it. The toes in dinos are numbered different to birds and you cant just switch something like that along the way. You would have to show how and why this would happen. The perching feet are different and yet we can see from all these differences no evidence for a transition and just the sudden appearance of the difference like it was always the case. Like I said all animals have some similarities but its the differences that will tell the true story because they are the ones that need to be explained for how they changed from one to another and evolution cannot do this in any credible way. They leave major gaps in their explanations because there are major gaps in the evidence. Explanations dont have creative power they just try to describe how something may have happened according to a view.

A mixture of dino and bird features . . . just what one would expect to see in a transitional fossil.

The platypus has a mixture of many creatures does that mean it came from those many creatures. As stated before distantly related creatures which dont evolved from each other have many similar features or a combination of features of two different animals but they havnt evolved from each other. All life has similar features and we would expect to see that in life because all life occupies the same environment where the same features are needed. Some more then others. Its the differences we need to look at which will determine the truth.

One research group does not a consensus make.

That is only one example I have posted and there are many more. But even so it only takes one example that shows differences that raise a big question mark over how it would be possible to happen. You cant just explain that away by saying its just one example. The other problem being that taken with other research which is more relevant for proving whether evolution is valid such as genetics and developmental biology and other evidence such as modern birds being around with dinos it builds a stronger case.

 

[Hoghead1]

What transitions, the point is you are showing a feature here and there that happens to be similar in another creature. All creatures on earth have similarities and some are more similar to each other then others. Thats because all life is made from the same stuff because they all live in the same environment and need the same stuff. But just because we have similarities doesn't mean all life evolved from a universal common ancestor. A few similarities in a couple of different creatures doesn't mean one evolved from the other. There are many examples of creatures that have similarities even more so then the ones that are suppose to have evolved from each other and are distantly related according to evolution but they call that convergent evolution.

When we look closer at the examples of transitionals given by evolution we can then see that there are many differences which evolution conveniently ignore. Some features in one creature are so different that we never observe them in the other for which they were suppose to have evolved from and we are to believe that feature suddenly appeared overnight fully formed. That doesn't even consider the processes for changing the smaller intricate aspects of those changes that go along with it that all have to coordinate to make the change work and be integrated into the body. Others so different that it is impossible for the feature to have changed from one form to the other without killing the animal or just being too structurally impossible because there's too many changes needed in the time evolution states.

This is an example though it is extreme which shows that similar features seen in other animals can be found in one that may be distantly related and not even on the same evolutionary branch according to darwins theory.

I have already explained this. The respiratory system is completely different and the processes needed to change it from dino to bird would kill the animal. But besides that the amount of steps needed to change it would take forever and is beyond Darwinian theory. They couldn't begin to explain how it happened let alone prove it. The toes in dinos are numbered different to birds and you cant just switch something like that along the way. You would have to show how and why this would happen. The perching feet are different and yet we can see from all these differences no evidence for a transition and just the sudden appearance of the difference like it was always the case. Like I said all animals have some similarities but its the differences that will tell the true story because they are the ones that need to be explained for how they changed from one to another and evolution cannot do this in any credible way. They leave major gaps in their explanations because there are major gaps in the evidence. Explanations dont have creative power they just try to describe how something may have happened according to a view.

The platypus has a mixture of many creatures does that mean it came from those many creatures. As stated before distantly related creatures which dont evolved from each other have many similar features or a combination of features of two different animals but they havnt evolved from each other. All life has similar features and we would expect to see that in life because all life occupies the same environment where the same features are needed. Some more then others. Its the differences we need to look at which will determine the truth.

That is only one example I have posted and there are many more. But even so it only takes one example that shows differences that raise a big question mark over how it would be possible to happen. You cant just explain that away by saying its just one example. The other problem being that taken with other research which is more relevant for proving whether evolution is valid such as genetics and developmental biology and other evidence such as modern birds being around with dinos it builds a stronger case.

I find your argument quite weak. First, it assumes that you, a lay person, know far more about it than all these scientists. Secondly, the fact that animals resemble one another is not explained away by saying they are all from the same environment, as many aren't. Also, animals from the same environment may not resemble one another at all, as they may not be directly related.