evolution/creation question

[TomUK]

i was wondering how compatible evolution was with creation earlier. is it consistent to believe that god created the world just as the bible says, but then post creation we were all (us and other animals) subject to evolution?

 

[Bulldog]

To believe that the world was created "as the Bible says" you would probabaly believe that Genesis is literal. Taking a literal approach to Genesis contradicts evolution.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

(emph. added)

 

[Ark-Guy]

Science and the bible shows that micro-evolution is possible while macro-evolution is still a pipe dream.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Science and the bible shows that micro-evolution is possible while macro-evolution is still a pipe dream.

Micro+Micro+....+Micro = Macro.


Micro observed.

Macro observed.

No difference between the two unlike what YEC's like to pretend.

 

[gluadys]

i was wondering how compatible evolution was with creation earlier. is it consistent to believe that god created the world just as the bible says, but then post creation we were all (us and other animals) subject to evolution?

If you are assuming that all creatures were created simultaneously (practically speaking over the course of 4 days) and then differentiated, no.

The fossil record shows different creatures appearing at different times, millions and even billions of years apart. For example, the first fossil record of living things is of bacteria. While the bacteria themselves evolved and diverged into many genera, families, orders, classes and phyla (macro-evolution), there is no record of any other form of life for 2 billion years. And no record of any multi-cellular form of life for another 700-800 million years.

Furthermore, the earliest multi-cellular forms of life which show up are very different from the species we see today--even when they are clearly in the same phylum, class or order. But in many cases there are transitional forms which indicate those species were ancestral to species which exist today.

So the fossil record supports the gradual appearance of different forms of life, some of them ancestral to today's life-forms, not a simultaneous appearance of many created forms either recently or anciently.

 

[gluadys]

To believe that the world was created "as the Bible says" you would probabaly believe that Genesis is literal. Taking a literal approach to Genesis contradicts evolution.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

(emph. added)

Are you aware that the branching nature of evolutionary change imposes historical constraints on the direction of subsequent evolution such that, once a "kind" exists, all subsequent evolutionary change within that branch will never be of a different "kind"?

e.g. Once eukaryotes come into existence, all further evolution in this lineage consists of more eukaryotes. Once tetrapods come into existence, all further evolution in this lineage consists of more tetrapods. Even when the forelimbs become arms or wings, or flippers or disappear altogether (as in snakes), the creatures in this lineage are tetrapods and have the DNA and morphology to indicate that. Once canines come into existence, all further evolution in this lineage consists of more canines.

The whole notion that evolution is about one established "kind" turning into another "kind" is bogus. What evolution does is explain how current "kinds" emerged in the first place and how they relate to each other.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Micro+Micro+....+Micro = Macro.


Micro observed.

Macro observed.

No difference between the two unlike what YEC's like to pretend.

Captain Jack needs a clue. Captain Jack nees to study.

 

[Ark-Guy]

In the following post, gluadys has been shown to have been incorrect.

If you are assuming that all creatures were created simultaneously (practically speaking over the course of 4 days) and then differentiated, no.

The fossil record shows different creatures appearing at different times, millions and even billions of years apart. For example, the first fossil record of living things is of bacteria. While the bacteria themselves evolved and diverged into many genera, families, orders, classes and phyla (macro-evolution), there is no record of any other form of life for 2 billion years. And no record of any multi-cellular form of life for another 700-800 million years.

Furthermore, the earliest multi-cellular forms of life which show up are very different from the species we see today--even when they are clearly in the same phylum, class or order. But in many cases there are transitional forms which indicate those species were ancestral to species which exist today.

So the fossil record supports the gradual appearance of different forms of life, some of them ancestral to today's life-forms, not a simultaneous appearance of many created forms either recently or anciently.

The following is another Secret of Evolutionism.​

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

In answering the question we must ask the question:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

You don't even understand what the Cambrian explosion is!

 

[Ark-Guy]

You don't even understand what the Cambrian explosion is!

Long sigh.

Does this guy captain jack post for the sake of posting????

He needs to be on my ignore list

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Same as ever Ark Guy. Put people on ignore - the refuge of the close minded.

You haven't changed have you?

I predict you'll last about 3 weeks this time.

 

[Ark-Guy]

I predict you will be banned by 3 weeks Sparrow.

 

[gluadys]

In the following post, gluadys has been shown to have been incorrect.

Not so. The fossil record does not show ALL species appearing within a week either recently or anciently. Instead different species appear at different times and those times can be millions, hundreds of millions, even billions of years apart.

Yes, on occasion, many new species appear for the first time in the same time-frame. But these are still very different from species which appeared earlier and species which appeared later.

A lot of new species appear in the Cambrian, but a lot of species appeared long before the Cambrian, and the Cambrian species are all very different from the species of the Quaternary.

Nothing you posted suggests that this is untrue. The appearance of new forms is a process that spans many ages. In any one age, the species that appear in that age may appear "suddenly". But that is an entirely different thing than saying all species appeared within a week.

 

[Bushido216]

To believe that the world was created "as the Bible says" you would probabaly believe that Genesis is literal. Taking a literal approach to Genesis contradicts evolution.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

(emph. added)

All that shows is that macro-mutations don't occur. Micro-mutations can. Basically, Galton's polyhedron is rounded here.

And, Ark Guy, I said mutations, not evolution, so don't misquote me.

 

[Bushido216]

I predict you will be banned by 3 weeks Sparrow.

Ban Record

Ark Guy: 1
CJS: 0

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

For the record, it seems that whenever we, evolutionists, speak, we are subject to intentional strawmen and flat out ignorance. Therefore, has victory not already been won for evolution in its standing against the test of time?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

By the way, are you Ark-Guy, similar to the other: Ark Guy?

 

[Bushido216]

Yes.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Not so. The fossil record does not show ALL species appearing within a week either recently or anciently. Instead different species appear at different times and those times can be millions, hundreds of millions, even billions of years apart.

Yes, on occasion, many new species appear for the first time in the same time-frame. But these are still very different from species which appeared earlier and species which appeared later.

A lot of new species appear in the Cambrian, but a lot of species appeared long before the Cambrian, and the Cambrian species are all very different from the species of the Quaternary.

Nothing you posted suggests that this is untrue. The appearance of new forms is a process that spans many ages. In any one age, the species that appear in that age may appear "suddenly". But that is an entirely different thing than saying all species appeared within a week.

I would ask yoou for your references...but I know you won't be able to produce them.

 

[Ark-Guy]

All that shows is that macro-mutations don't occur. Micro-mutations can. Basically, Galton's polyhedron is rounded here.

And, Ark Guy, I said mutations, not evolution, so don't misquote me.

If I misquoted you then I apologize..but you should also realize that all though muttations do occur it is impossible for them to add up over time to produce the change the evos claim occured.


Just think about how many mutations were required to develope the echo-location system in the dolphin.