Creationists: What have you studied re: evolution? What resources have you specifically used?

[pitabread]

There is no evidence of early lifeforms in the fossil record, soft body lifeforms cannot form fossils. That lack of evidence means that science is unable to comment on early life forms.

There are soft body fossils. The earliest of which date back ~3.5 billion years IIRC.

 

[NBB]

Who said this? I've read lots of material on evolution and can't recall offhand ever reading something like that.

You know the asteroid hits and a amoeba is born (i know this is not evo but still) and then it 'grows' to a human by the process of evolution, where is the soul in this? or the creator? Like Stephen Hawking would say: a creator is not needed.
Also all explanation for intelligence are fiercly defended as being from the brain only. I am not saying so strange stuff.

 

[Rachel20]

Mathematics cannot make any statement of truth or fact.

I was thinking along the lines of probabilities given the time limitations - was there enough time for it all to happen? But you would need working assumptions about the time required to go from that first level to the next, to the next, etc... and it's conceivable the calculations could be done. But ... as you said, there may not be enough information.

 

[Speedwell]

Just out of the mouth of evolutionists.
Whats your view on this though?

Not from any of the "evolutionists" here. Science undergraduates take (in my day anyway--I hope they still do) a philosophy of science course in which they learn that nothing which science has discovered or in principle could discover can disprove the existence of God or His authorship of our being.

 

[pitabread]

You know the asteroid hits and a amoeba is born (i know this is not evo but still) and then it 'grows' to a human by the process of evolution, where is the soul in this? or the creator? Like Stephen Hawking would say: a creator is not needed.

When did Stephen Hawking say that? Also, Stephen Hawking is not a biologist.

As for things like the concept of the soul, that's not a subject science can comment on. So again, who specifically said that we're just a "piece of meat"?

It seems to me you're just conflating the subject of evolution with the subject of atheism. Which again, makes me wonder where exactly these ideas are coming from?

 

[NBB]

When did Stephen Hawking say that? Also, Stephen Hawking is not a biologist.

As for things like the concept of the soul, that's not a subject science can comment on. So again, who specifically said that we're just a "piece of meat"?

All people mostly in this world believes we are a brain only. You have even your feelings in there.
Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary'

 

[Speedwell]

All people mostly in this world believes we are a brain only. Yes
Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary'

Most people believe we are just brains? Like in jars or something?

 

[pitabread]

All people mostly in this world believes we are a brain only.

Is that true though? I always thought (at least based on polling) most people do accept a certain amount of spirituality.

Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary'

Fair enough, thank you. Although it doesn't sound like Hawking is saying anything about biology there.

 

[NBB]

Most people believe we are just brains? Like in jars or something?

you are your person, your body you just use it and its the carcass.

 

[klutedavid]

There are soft body fossils. The earliest of which date back ~3.7 billion years IIRC.

For animals without skeletons, like worms or jellyfish, fossilization is a very rare event. When paleontologists find a well-preserved fossil of a soft-bodied animal, it's an occasion for celebration. (americangeosciences.org)

These early lifeforms are not worms but mere lifeforms consisting of cells. I will repeat what I said earlier.

It is impossible for the earliest lifeforms to form fossils!

 

[pitabread]

It is impossible for the earliest lifeforms to form fossils!

It's not strictly impossible. They can form fossil impressions. As I said, the earliest life forms in the fossil record are impressions of single celled organisms.

 

[klutedavid]

It's not strictly impossible. They can form fossil impressions. As I said, the earliest life forms in the fossil record are impressions of single celled organisms.

A fossil of a single cell in an ancient fossil record, now that would be something to see. Empiricism is bounded at the upper and lower levels by the available evidence.

 

[pitabread]

A fossil of a single cell in an ancient fossil record, now that would be something to see.

There are fossils of such organisms. For example: Fossil Record of the Bacteria

 

[driewerf]

If you're a creationist (e.g. one who rejects evolution as an explanation for diversity of life on Earth) and you've studied the subject, what have you specifically studied? Have you taken any courses in biology (e.g. high school, college, online)? Have you read any books on evolution? Which ones? Do you use online publications? Have you read any scientific journals?

In short, as a creationist, what resources have you used to learn about evolution?

This thread has grown to page three, and not a single creationist has mentioned a source.
I am not a creationist, but just for redirecting this thread toward its original purpose, here I go.
I have a master degree in chemistry.So, besides classical chemistry, I also saw a lot of biochemistry and molecular biology. During my student years I came across the books of Stephen Jay Gould, the first one being "the panda's thumb". That was my first serious introduction to the ToE. I read most, if not all, the material written by Gould and later by Richard Dawkins. (Later in life I grew some distance between Dawkins and me.) i have been watching a lot of documentaries and educational clips on Youtube (Aron Ra, Potholer54, Kurzgesagt, PBS Eons). I have read different popular science books on the subject and started recently a formal textbook on biology (Life, an introduction to Biology, by George Gaylord Simpson, William S. Beck, third edition).

Dear pitabread, I hope this leads your thread back on track.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm...OK then, what god do you worship? Because I believe all 'atheist' means is 'no god'.

Most atheists are agnostic in terms of belief.

Actually atheism means without theism or without a belief in god. It does not outright say "no god"

 

[Subduction Zone]

A fossil of a single cell in an ancient fossil record, now that would be something to see. Empiricism is bounded at the upper and lower levels by the available evidence.

How ancient?

You can see quite a few of them here:

 

[klutedavid]

How ancient?

You can see quite a few of them here:

We were discussing the earliest lifeforms not recent lifeforms. Someone is not reading the previous posts.

The famous White Cliffs of Dover, an exposure of Middle and Upper Chalk dating from the Late Cretaceous epoch, 89-85 million years ago. (discoveringfossils.co.uk)

The dinosaurs are older than the Cretaceous epoch.

Try again.

 

[klutedavid]

This thread has grown to page three, and not a single creationist has mentioned a source.

See post #57.

 

[klutedavid]

It's not strictly impossible. They can form fossil impressions. As I said, the earliest life forms in the fossil record are impressions of single celled organisms.

At last an expert on early lifeforms.

Fossilisation is a rare event, and most fossils are destroyed by erosion or metamorphism before they can be observed. Hence the fossil record is very incomplete, increasingly so further back in time. (wikipedia.fossil.evidence)

We are interested in the earliest lifeforms, the first lifeform is the holy grail in Paleontology.

 

[pitabread]

At last an expert on early lifeforms.

I never said I was an expert. Just someone who can look up readily available information on the earliest fossilized lifeforms.

I found it odd when you claimed there was no fossils of such.

We are interested in the earliest lifeforms, the first lifeform is the holy grail in Paleontology.

You'll likely never find *the* first lifeform. But there are fossil indicators of lifeforms going back ~3.5 billion years or so. This wikipedia page has a handful of examples: Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

At any rate, I'm not really sure the point of this discussion other than to correct your original claim that there are no fossils of early life on Earth.

Now that we're done that, perhaps we can go back to the original topic of the thread.