Created by extra-terrestrials

[gluadys]

No one can really experiment the big bang or evolution. You cannot really observe the intial big bang;morever, that leaves to question where did that dot of all matter come from? Concerning evolution the fossil record shows NO EVOLUTION, over time it shows completely different species popping up but NO Inter-evolution species. Consider the facts that dinosaurs(mainly fish and insects) thought to be extinct still exist today in the VERY SAME FORM as millions of years ago. I would go on but I don't think this thread is about evolution or big bang it's about Aliens....

You are truly speaking from ignorance. And I suspect from ignorance reinforced by false information.

The fossil record has been such good evidence for evolution that researchers are now predicting what sort of fossils will be found before they are discovered. Feathered dinosaurs, for example, were predicted a decade before they were actually found. And Tiktaalik roseae was found as a result of a prediction of where an intermediate between fish and tetrapods would be found.

btw dinosaurs were neither fish nor insects.

No one can really observe evolution. Darwin merely shaw differences in species and made a theory as to how they came about (that is a simple statement). Now tell me did modern animals evolve from dinosaurs before or after the dinosaurs went extinct?

Scientists observe evolution daily. Again I expect you have false information about evolution if you think this is not possible. Possibly you conflate evolution with common descent. Connected topics but not quite the same thing.

Indeed, Darwin's genius was to figure out not only that there are differences in species (that was known for thousands of years from simple observation), but to work out a mechanism which could account not only for the differences themselves, but for the way they are distributed geographically and through the fossil record.

Most modern animals did not evolve from dinosaurs at all. Birds are living dinosaurs.

 

[Jerrell]

You are truly speaking from ignorance. And I suspect from ignorance reinforced by false information.

The fossil record has been such good evidence for evolution that researchers are now predicting what sort of fossils will be found before they are discovered. Feathered dinosaurs, for example, were predicted a decade before they were actually found. And Tiktaalik roseae was found as a result of a prediction of where an intermediate between fish and tetrapods would be found.

btw dinosaurs were neither fish nor insects.



Scientists observe evolution daily. Again I expect you have false information about evolution if you think this is not possible. Possibly you conflate evolution with common descent. Connected topics but not quite the same thing.

Indeed, Darwin's genius was to figure out not only that there are differences in species (that was known for thousands of years from simple observation), but to work out a mechanism which could account not only for the differences themselves, but for the way they are distributed geographically and through the fossil record.

Most modern animals did not evolve from dinosaurs at all. Birds are living dinosaurs.

If I am speaking from ignorace please provide proof of more than one if any Inter-evolution species. Because when I studied the fossil record what I saw was an explosion in species and the sudden appearance of whole creatures. That is not proof for evolution.

Secondly you are using the term evolution loosley. When I use it I am talking about "evolution from one species into another species". I think what you are talking about is adaptation. Adaptation is not proof for evolution as I term it. We cannot observe evolution daily. But we can observe adaptation which I certainly Do believe in. I do not beleive adaptation coupled with genetic mutations overtime will produce evolution from one species to the next.

I know that scientist say birds evolved from dinosaurs...I respect Darwin fully and I love science. But the theory of Evolution as based upon Fossils is flimsy.

 

[Jerrell]

I forgot to mention Natural Selection.

 

[Jerrell]

I am reminded of the Coelacanth

Thought to be extinct for over 75 Million years the fish is thought to be 450 million years old. Yet they were discovered in 1953 in the very same form as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. No evolution.

 

[Mallon]

No one can really experiment the big bang or evolution. You cannot really observe the intial big bang;

Just because we cannot observe the initial Big Bang doesn't mean we can't study its ongoing effects. We can learn all sorts of things about the Big Bang from the evidence it has left behind. Again, like forensic science.

morever, that leaves to question where did that dot of all matter come from?

Do unanswered questions bother you?

Concerning evolution the fossil record shows NO EVOLUTION, over time it shows completely different species popping up but NO Inter-evolution species.

Heh heh heh. You're telling this to a guy who studies evolution in the fossil record for a living.
Of course the fossil record shows evidence of evolution. Denying that doesn't make it go away.

Consider the facts that dinosaurs(mainly fish and insects) thought to be extinct still exist today in the VERY SAME FORM as millions of years ago. I would go on but I don't think this thread is about evolution or big bang it's about Aliens....

1) Fish and insects are not dinosaurs. The word dinosaur is restricted to a group of upright, archosaurian reptiles that lived from the Triassic onwards, and includes birds.
2) The fact that we have animals in existence today that have recognizable ancestors in the fossil record in no way negates evolution. There is no law that says life cannot evolve slowly, especially when selective pressure is low. That being said, the insects and coelacanths that we find today are not the same species that we find in the fossil record. They are evolved versions of fossil species.

If you don't want to discuss this further here, feel free to begin a new thread.

 

[gluadys]

If I am speaking from ignorace please provide proof of more than one if any Inter-evolution species. Because when I studied the fossil record what I saw was an explosion in species and the sudden appearance of whole creatures. That is not proof for evolution.

Define "inter-evolution" species. I have never heard this term before. Do you mean "intermediate species". The fossil record has plenty of those.

What's wrong with whole creatures? How would half a creature survive? Every species, intermediate or not (actually almost all species are intermediate) are whole creatures.

Are you looking for chimeras as evidence of evolution? Then you are looking in the wrong direction. Evolution actually predicts that you will NOT find chimeras. So a failure to find chimeras in nature IS evidence for evolution.

Secondly you are using the term evolution loosley. When I use it I am talking about "evolution from one species into another species". I think what you are talking about is adaptation. Adaptation is not proof for evolution as I term it. We cannot observe evolution daily. But we can observe adaptation which I certainly Do believe in. I do not beleive adaptation coupled with genetic mutations overtime will produce evolution from one species to the next.

I am using the term "evolution" correctly: namely to refer to the process of species change. Of course, that process has outcomes. Adaptation is one of them. Speciation is another. Common descent is another, and so is the nested hierarchy. But all of this begins with the process called evolution which occurs both within species, and can produce new species.

Adaptation is evidence for evolution because it is produced by evolution.

If you think otherwise, show me how adaptation occurs without evolution.

I know that scientist say birds evolved from dinosaurs...I respect Darwin fully and I love science. But the theory of Evolution as based upon Fossils is flimsy.

The fossil record is a quite solid support for evolution, but even if it were non-existent there is still enough non-fossil evidence to assure the strength of the theory.

 

[Tiberius]

As far as fearing God. To fear God, to adore him is to show that you have great wisdom within yourself. Mainly because you are smart enough to DO WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO and WHAT YOU WERE CREATED TO DO. That is wisdom. However, if we serve God and are saved by the blood of Christ we cannot phatom the knowledge we shall gain when we enter into glory.

Fine, so you think that doing what you are supposed to do is the path to finding things out? Sit down and worship God and you will discover things?

This still makes no sense.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

The whole reason you can beleive in Jesus is because of the worsd written is "that book."

Not 'whole', one of the reasons.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, let's say that the Bible never existed. Would you still believe? How would you know what to believe?

 

[busterdog]

Well, let's say that the Bible never existed. Would you still believe? How would you know what to believe?

Lets assume that Jesus never died for us, what then?

How about if there were no Holy Spirit to speak to us?

How about if God didnt give a flip whether we came to Him or not?

The hypotheticals are endless.

The Word of God exists because God is Love. It is just his nature.

 

[Tiberius]

Busterdog, your last sentence makes no sense that I can see.

 

[Eluria]

What if humans were created by extra-terrestrials from some where else in the universe?

The beings not of our state (ie. divine being/God) create the universe and life evolves. Whats to say this life won't someday be able to create/enginer life itself. Well nothing really, its very likely they would; cant we-humanity enginer life to an extent even presently.

So extra-terrestrials come to Earth and created us, 'in their own image'.

Any thoughts?

I think this is entirely possible. Have you seen the movie Stargate? If not I suggest it, it focuses a lot on this very topic, suggesting even that the pyramids are not man-made. I think I could believe this over creation as stated in the Bible.

 

[busterdog]

Busterdog, your last sentence makes no sense that I can see.

The Word of God exists because God is Love. It is just his nature.

The Word of God exists because God is Love. It is just his nature.

You are confusing "making sense" with lacking a foundation in fact.

As for the foundation in fact you are without any hope of proving me wrong.

And I do not pretend that ordinary human reason can prove me right.

So, "makes no sense" is a rather imprecise way of critiquing my assertion.

Your hypothetical proposition only makes sense if your factual predicate is correct. But, that is matter you accept by faith and is neither sufficiently defeated nor supported by reason and human observation alone.

 

[Jerrell]

Just because we cannot observe the initial Big Bang doesn't mean we can't study its ongoing effects. We can learn all sorts of things about the Big Bang from the evidence it has left behind. Again, like forensic science.


Do unanswered questions bother you?


Heh heh heh. You're telling this to a guy who studies evolution in the fossil record for a living.
Of course the fossil record shows evidence of evolution. Denying that doesn't make it go away.


1) Fish and insects are not dinosaurs. The word dinosaur is restricted to a group of upright, archosaurian reptiles that lived from the Triassic onwards, and includes birds.
2) The fact that we have animals in existence today that have recognizable ancestors in the fossil record in no way negates evolution. There is no law that says life cannot evolve slowly, especially when selective pressure is low. That being said, the insects and coelacanths that we find today are not the same species that we find in the fossil record. They are evolved versions of fossil species.

If you don't want to discuss this further here, feel free to begin a new thread.

By the word dinosaur I was referring to Every animal living during that time period.

When I studied the fossil record it is VERY surprising that alot of animals found in the fossil record look exactaly like the animals that live today. With no evolution showing. There are no evolved versions. Just like in the Cambrian Period very comples animals just APPEARED out of nowhere, no ancestors to be found. Even the mosquito can be found in the fossil record. It is exactaly like it was millions if not billions of years ago.

Evolution cannot account for the creation of new species. But I do believe in adaptation, when a certain species survives and reproduces allowing their traits to move on to the next generation. This can produce different races within a species but not a new species or different animal. I doubt that if a rabbit goes swimming everyday that over a few million years it will have fins and a gill. Or perhaps you want to sound scientific when you describe evolution and say "there are small gradual changes over time." Blah...Blah....in other words evolution comes about due to mutation coupled with other factors. 99.9% of mutations never turn out good...

 

[Jerrell]

Fine, so you think that doing what you are supposed to do is the path to finding things out? Sit down and worship God and you will discover things?

This still makes no sense.

Unless God draws you, you will not understand. But if he calls and you do not answer it will be your own fault.

 

[gluadys]

By the word dinosaur I was referring to Every animal living during that time period.

Is your name Humpty-Dumpty? Why do you claim the right to re-write the dictionary?

When I studied the fossil record it is VERY surprising that alot of animals found in the fossil record look exactaly like the animals that live today.

Are you a paleontologist? Have you actually studied fossils or only looked at pictures of them? Do you know the differences to look for?

A real paleontologist will show you why those ancient fossils are not the same species we see today.

Or perhaps you want to sound scientific when you describe evolution and say "there are small gradual changes over time." Blah...Blah....in other words evolution comes about due to mutation coupled with other factors.

For once you are right. No one ever claimed that evolution was due to mutation alone.

99.9% of mutations never turn out good...

Most mutations have very little effect and are harmless if not helpful. After all, you have over 100 mutations in your genome. If you are like most people, you probably have never noticed them.

 

[Mallon]

By the word dinosaur I was referring to Every animal living during that time period.

I understand. My point is that you are wrong in doing so. Referring to every extinct species as a "dinosaur" makes about as much sense as calling them all mammoths or dodos or Sardinian Pikas. Again, "dinosaur" refers to a very specific group of archosaurian reptiles. If you want catch-all term, try "fossil".

When I studied the fossil record it is VERY surprising that alot of animals found in the fossil record look exactaly like the animals that live today. With no evolution showing. There are no evolved versions.

With all due respect, Jarrell, when you make rookie mistakes like calling all extinct species "dinosaurs", I have to wonder how much effort you really put into studying the fossil record. I'll bite, though: which strata did you study? Which taxa?
I'm asking because in my experience, there is no fossil species that looks "exactly" like its living descendant. As I said, even the insects and fish that you mention are not the same species. There are undoubted morphological differences.

Just like in the Cambrian Period very comples animals just APPEARED out of nowhere, no ancestors to be found.

That's a popular myth. And while it might have been true 100 years ago, we have found ancestors to some Burgess Shale species in the Ediacaran. You must have missed this in your study.

Even the mosquito can be found in the fossil record.

There are 3000 species of mosquito in the world today. Which one are you referring to?

It is exactaly like it was millions if not billions of years ago.

No, it's not. Here's proof:
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1603%2F0013-8746(2004)097%5B0882%3ATEFMDC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Evolution cannot account for the creation of new species.

Of course it can. Heck, we see new species evolve even today under standard evolutionary scenarios. Here's an example I've picked out of the blue:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.phphttp://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/still-just-a-li.html

But I do believe in adaptation, when a certain species survives and reproduces allowing their traits to move on to the next generation. This can produce different races within a species but not a new species or different animal.

That all sounds very nice, but what do you mean by it? What definition of species are you using? How do you define race? What is a "different animal"? Until you define your terms, it strikes me that you are being equivocal simply for the sake of not getting caught in a lie (not of your own making, I might add).

I doubt that if a rabbit goes swimming everyday that over a few million years it will have fins and a gill.

Me too. For one, a single rabbit cannot possibly live for millions of years. Then again, this isn't how evolution actually happens. You're picking on a strawman version of evolution. No wonder you don't accept evolution -- you don't understand it!

99.9% of mutations never turn out good...

Interesting choice of figure. What about the other 0.1%?

 

[Jerrell]

This Thread is not about Evolution so let's leave it alone.

 

[Mallon]

This Thread is not about Evolution so let's leave it alone.

Okie dokie. If you want to respond to anything gluadys or I have said, feel free to begin a new thread.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

Well, let's say that the Bible never existed. Would you still believe? How would you know what to believe?

Sorry but I dont see how this has anything to do with anything i said.

Writings are always going to exist. Simple as that. 'Important' things that happen get recorded.