Evolution or Creationism?

[Justatruthseeker]

This is something that puzzles me; biologists and palaeontologists have often had quite violent arguments about whether different fossils are members of a single species or genus (perhaps a very variable species), or whether they represent two or more distinct species or genera. Even creationists differ over whether certain fossils are humans or apes. If species and genera were perfectly well defined, there could not be these differences of opinion. The fact that there are these differences suggests to me that the boundary lines between species and genera are blurred rather than being sharply defined, and that, in turn, suggests that species are not immutable, that one species can evolve into another.

I could also ask where the oldest fossil T-Rex came from. Did it have parents, and, if so, did they also belong to the species T-Rex?

And I would suggest that that T-Rex did indeed have parents - Just as the Chinook has parents - both male and female. And that those parents in your theory are just listed incorrectly as separate species is all.

It is not surprising at all that the Husky and English Mastiff would be found further back in the record than the Chinook, with the Chinook suddenly appearing in the record after a long period of time (especially if man had not quickened the process). The difference is that today where you can observe them - you know they are all the same species - same Kind - and so can not show your evolutionary tree of species turning into other species. Instead you must rely on imaginary processes never once observed or hinted at in any science.

Whether that is the fossil record or genetics in which we all know that reproduction only leads to different breeds of the same species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Au contraire.

My family album is an example of microevolution, not macroevolution, where the game of connect-the-dots applies.

So do evolutionists -- only they "readjust" to compensate for said contradictions, under the guise of "further discoveries."

There is no theory of creationism because there is no evidence to support it; and there is no evidence to support it because no evidence was generated; and no evidence was generated because creatio ex nihilo doesn't generate any.

Wrong again, there is no difference between micro and macro. And you did not understand the analogy to boot.

The difference between the two is that like most actual scientific theories, minor errors, and that is all that has ever been found, leads to corrections in the theory. Creationism has no consistent explanation of the fossil record that has not been thoroughly refuted. That is why there is no "theory of creationism". It does not exist because creationism is simply wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no evidence let alone massive evidence of how life first was able to reproduce. There is no evidence let alone massive evidence of the human mind being a product of evolution. Evolutionary psychology is a "whole field" with no evidence for it.

Since the first life was single celled and the examples that did die, many did not since single celled life does not have to die, it reproduces by fission, we would not have evidence of the first, aside form our shared biochemistry. So it is incorrect to say "there is no evidence".

Second, yes we do have evidence that the "mind" is a product of evolution. That the brain and mind are one is fairly obvious. Damage to the brain very frequently results in damage to the "mind". We can even see what parts of the brain are used for what thought processes today. The connection between the two has been amply demonstrated.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

There is no evidence of how life was able to FIRST reproduce. You are shifting it down the line a step by claiming there is evidence of life reproducing.

No, I'm saying if it hadn't reproduced you and I wouldn't be here. But I'm not sure why you're worried about it to be honest. As the first step n the process was something like a self-replicating molecule, we aren't going to find direct evidence of what occurred three and a half billion years ago.

Provide the evidence that mind and brain are the same.

Cut off the fuel supply to your brain and see what happens to your mind.

You would need evidence as well to show that the complex brain evolved and we find the first in the Cambrian Era with no precursor in the fossil evidence.

The cambrian explosion? That covers a large time period you know. Lots of things appeared then. Are you positing that your god was lending a hand?

Our brains are not so different from those of animals that have no consciousness nor the level of intelligence that we have.

But they are different.

Where is the evidence that evolution alone provided our abilities when our brain is not that much different than that of others in the ape family?

"Not much different" is too vague. From the tone of your argument one would almost imagine our brains were identical. But that's not true now is it.

And you want evidence that your mind is the product of your brain? Well, stick a few selected chemicals in your brain and see how it alters your consciousness. LSD is always a popular one, that should have you claiming you can hear colours and that time tastes like strawberry ice-cream, but a few glasses of wine should give you the general idea. Failing that, go and talk to a few people with serious brain damage and compare your mind with theirs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists can only pretend the fossil record supports them. Show me a T-Rex in the fossil record that is not a T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest? Show me any of the species in the fossil record that are not the same from the first to the last fossil found for that species?

Where is your evidence of ToE in the fossil record?????? Gonna show me the bones of a completely different species now and ask us all to use our imaginations and pretend it became something else???

Which one could accept as theoretically viable if you observed anything other than Kind after Kind in the here and now. But sadly we all understand how reproduction works - and all that is ever produced is different breeds of that same exact species. So that you confuse different "breeds" of some animals in the fossil record as being different species is understandable, but still confusion on your part.

You do realize that all of the T-Rex skeletons in the world can be counted on only six fingers, if you are smart enough, don't you? And as I have pointed out before you do not understand the nature of evidence, a downfall of yours that I have offered to help without bringing evolution in to the subject at all. Fossilization of land species is extremely rare. Ocean based fossils not so much. There are incredibly good fossil assemblages for certain lines in the oceans. An expert on echinoderms can earn a pretty penny from oil companies since they are one of the fossil markers of certain beds that are associated with oil.

Your demand shows that you have no understanding of fossilization or what one would expect to see. A very recent example is the reason that we do have quite a few of our directly apey ancestors and relative few for chimpanzees is that we live in different environments. Our ancestors moved into the drier savannas, chimpanzees stayed in the moister forests. Bones and everything tend to rot much more quickly in a damp environment, therefore what was an extremely event for us resulted in what may be a never happening event for them, the preservation of bones.

You want to change the required evidence because you have no answer for the evidence that does exist. Sorry, but we do. The only view with scientific evidence behind it is that of evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since the first life was single celled and the examples that did die, many did not since single celled life does not have to die, it reproduces by fission, we would not have evidence of the first, aside form our shared biochemistry. So it is incorrect to say "there is no evidence".

It isn't incorrect to say. We have been trying to come up with a way life reproduced for over one hundred years to no avail. There are very specific reasons for that which come down to the chicken or the egg scenario.

Second, yes we do have evidence that the "mind" is a product of evolution.

Place evidence here:

That the brain and mind are one is fairly obvious. Damage to the brain very frequently results in damage to the "mind".

Yet half the brain can be taken out with the human's ability to carry on without drastic and complete lack of intelligence and reasoning power. How do you explain that 1/2 the brain can be removed?

We can even see what parts of the brain are used for what thought processes today. The connection between the two has been amply demonstrated.

Provide the evidence that this connection can be felt, heard, tasted, seen by those demonstrating where these thoughts occur. You might understand that there is a part of the brain that is shown to be effected but that is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't incorrect to say. We have been trying to come up with a way life reproduced for over one hundred years to no avail. There are very specific reasons for that which come down to the chicken or the egg scenario.

What are you talking about? And experiments for abiogenesis have been going on for roughly 60 years and many have been rather successful. You have been listening to dishonest creationists.

Place evidence here:

I already gave you evidence as did Mr Strawberry. Why give you more when you did not understand the given evidence?

Yet half the brain can be taken out with the human's ability to carry on without drastic and complete lack of intelligence and reasoning power. How do you explain that 1/2 the brain can be removed?

The human body has bilateral symmetry.

Provide the evidence that this connection can be felt, heard, tasted, seen by those demonstrating where these thoughts occur. You might understand that there is a part of the brain that is shown to be effected but that is all.

Now you are being ridiculous. You did not understand the evidence given to you, why should anyone go to extremes to please you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I'm saying if it hadn't reproduced you and I wouldn't be here. But I'm not sure why you're worried about it to be honest. As the first step n the process was something like a self-replicating molecule, we aren't going to find direct evidence of what occurred three and a half billion years ago.

Except we know life can only come from non-life. Tell me - how and why magically did those same protons, neutrons and electrons that exist as dust - suddenly start to behave by a completely new law of physics than we observe then doing today? What makes the same proton in that rock behave differently than that same proton that makes up you? Since to all of our observation there is no difference between those protons? Or electrons?? Or neutrons???

Cut off the fuel supply to your brain and see what happens to your mind.

Won't it still exist, just in another form since energy can neither be created nor destroyed? And that is what makes consciousness - energy. It's how your brain works.

The cambrian explosion? That covers a large time period you know. Lots of things appeared then. Are you positing that your god was lending a hand?

Are you positive He wasn't - since you have no explanation for how it happened?

But they are different.

Agreed - because one was made in an Image of a being capable of rational thought. Given Knowledge. The other was not given that knowledge - the ability to reason beyond simple tasks for survival.

And you want evidence that your mind is the product of your brain? Well, stick a few selected chemicals in your brain and see how it alters your consciousness. LSD is always a popular one, that should have you claiming you can hear colours and that time tastes like strawberry ice-cream, but a few glasses of wine should give you the general idea. Failing that, go and talk to a few people with serious brain damage and compare your mind with theirs.

Which chemicals merely temporarily interfere with the electrical processes in your brain - altering the energy flow. Yet it does not change who you are, nor does it change your brain. That regions of the brain may be activated beyond your conscious control does not mean you are actually altering the conscious itself. The self returns as the chemicals wear off.

Likewise I premise that were you able to repair the brain, the pathways reactivated would enable those brains to be who they were before, not someone different which they should become if consciousness is merely a product of evolution. Those who have lost the ability of speech through brain damage - do not become a different person because the brain is now different. They are just unable to operate the speech center.

The brain is an information storage device and operating machine. Consciousness happens in the spark between. And such is why we debate over consciousness, because anybodies guess is as good as another at this point in our technology. But we do know that energy - what thought is - can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I'm saying if it hadn't reproduced you and I wouldn't be here. But I'm not sure why you're worried about it to be honest. As the first step n the process was something like a self-replicating molecule, we aren't going to find direct evidence of what occurred three and a half billion years ago.

I am not worried and you yourself have admitted no evidence so we are good.

Cut off the fuel supply to your brain and see what happens to your mind.

I didn't say that the mind would not be effected. That doesn't mean they are one in the same. The mind is over the brain. It utilizes the anatomy of the physical brain to do what it wills to do. If something damages the brain it affects the mind only in how the mind can work inside the changed brain. It is like an antenna for the mind which is very complex and picks up signals but if part of the antenna is damaged the signals will be effected.

The cambrian explosion? That covers a large time period you know. Lots of things appeared then. Are you positing that your god was lending a hand?

Yes, lots of things appeared then that were very complex with no precursors for them. No evidence of a simple to complex brain but a fully complex one appears.

But they are different.

What materials are different and how?

"Not much different" is too vague. From the tone of your argument one would almost imagine our brains were identical. But that's not true now is it.

Perhaps you would like to explain what makes a human brain different from a chimps?

And you want evidence that your mind is the product of your brain? Well, stick a few selected chemicals in your brain and see how it alters your consciousness. LSD is always a popular one, that should have you claiming you can hear colours and that time tastes like strawberry ice-cream, but a few glasses of wine should give you the general idea. Failing that, go and talk to a few people with serious brain damage and compare your mind with theirs.

When we lose an arm, does the mind lose its ability to point a finger or life a glass? Without an arm we can't life a glass nor point a finger but the mind can still think about pointing a finger and lifting a glass. The same is true of the brain. The mind still might "think" one way but the damage or drugs makes the brain react or not to be able to react but that doesn't mean it effects the mind itself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What are you talking about? And experiments for abiogenesis have been going on for roughly 60 years and many have been rather successful. You have been listening to dishonest creationists.

They have not been successful. They are not without an intelligent agent involved either.

I already gave you evidence as did Mr Strawberry. Why give you more when you did not understand the given evidence?

Where?

The human body has bilateral symmetry.

Ok? and?

Now you are being ridiculous. You did not understand the evidence given to you, why should anyone go to extremes to please you?

Oh now here we go again...I just don't understand the evidence you've given me although there is no evidence included here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What are you talking about? And experiments for abiogenesis have been going on for roughly 60 years and many have been rather successful. You have been listening to dishonest creationists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

"spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

So I guess if you choose to follow an obsolete line of reasoning have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow your flat earth theory.

The human body has bilateral symmetry.

The sponge has Asymmetrical. So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have not been successful. They are not without an intelligent agent involved either.

Of course they have been. There have been many successful experiments in abiogenesis.

Where?

In the previous posts, please read them.

Ok? and?

You can lose one eye and still see, you can lose one ear and still hear. If done carefully you can lose up to half of your brain and still think.

Oh now here we go again...I just don't understand the evidence you've given me although there is no evidence included here.

Which is perhaps why you should learn what evidence is in the first place. Almost all creationists have a very poor grasp of the concept of what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

"spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

So I guess if you choose to follow an obsolete line of reasoning have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow your flat earth theory.



The sponge has Asymmetrical. So what?

Now you are being openly dishonest. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same, they are not even related. There was no scientific mechanism for spontaneous generation, there is one for abiogenesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course they have been. There have been many successful experiments in abiogenesis.

Dream on.

In the previous posts, please read them.

Exactly...no evidence

You can lose one eye and still see, you can lose one ear and still hear. If done carefully you can lose up to half of your brain and still think.

The eye that is lost can't see, the ear can't hear but if the mind is the brain why can 1/2 a brain still think?







Which is perhaps why you should learn what evidence is in the first place. Almost all creationists have a very poor grasp of the concept of what is and what is not evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course they have been. There have been many successful experiments in abiogenesis.

Name one?

In the previous posts, please read them.

We did, that's why we are still asking for them, since you haven't provided any yet but supposition.

You can lose one eye and still see, you can lose one ear and still hear. If done carefully you can lose up to half of your brain and still think.

So then if consciousness is a product of the body - you should be a different person since half of who you were is gone, correct?

Which is perhaps why you should learn what evidence is in the first place. Almost all creationists have a very poor grasp of the concept of what is and what is not evidence.

Because you show us T-Rex that are T-Rex as far back as one cares to go - and then ask we believe T-Rex was constantly in a state of flux - or I guess that it spontaneously came about since Abiogenesis is your thing.

Or that T-Rex magically came about from another species - even if any descendants today (reality) would still be the same species - just different infraspecific taxa.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now you are being openly dishonest. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same, they are not even related. There was no scientific mechanism for spontaneous generation, there is one for abiogenesis.

"Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]), or biopoiesis,[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

So how does your non-life to life not constitute formation of living organisms without decent from similar organisms??????

 

[Tellastory]

That is assuming we accept an incorrect translation of the Hebrew "hayah".

In the oldest manuscripts there is a mark of a pause between the first and second verse.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The first verse is just a highlight before getting into how God had done everything.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

Verse two is testifying to the nonexistence of the planet earth before going into how it was created.

Death was not in the world until Adam had sinned, and so there was no death before Adam, and thus there was no life before the Biblical creation week because the earth wasn't made yet as it was made during the Biblical creation week.

So dinosaurs were made with man as the behemoth as described in the Book of Job in chapter 40 starting at verse 15 is a dinosaur, having a tail that is like a cedar which is a tree.

As many extinction level events that has been theorized, there was only one and that was the Biblical global flood. The impacts of meteors and asteroids on the earth & on the moon happened at the same time which served as a catalyst for the global flood.

Imagining the impact happening all at one time on earth while the impacts on the moon which started its slow moving away from the planet earth, and thus affecting the tide of the surrounding waters around that one land continent, to force the water from the deep to rise up through the one land continent as well as to cause the mist that watered the earth to condense for the first time to form clouds to rain upon the earth, we can see where all that flood waters came from.

Scientists are testifying that there is an ocean under the earth crust near the earth core, and seeing how the grand canyon is a testament to where the run-offs of all of the water from this global flood went to and it is in the direction of the Mariana Trench, I could see how that ocean got there near the earth core.

Is it purely an imagination? Seems scripture supports what we can see.

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Except we know life can only come from non-life.

Is that a typo?

me - how and why magically did those same protons, neutrons and electrons that exist as dust - suddenly start to behave by a completely new law of physics than we observe then doing today? What makes the same proton in that rock behave differently than that same proton that makes up you? Since to all of our observation there is no difference between those protons? Or electrons?? Or neutrons???

Its environment, and what state it's in.

it still exist, just in another form since energy can neither be created nor destroyed? And that is what makes consciousness - energy. It's how your brain works.

The mind, or consciousness, is a product if the brain. It's one of the things the human brain does. Switch the brain off and you switch consciousness off.

you positive He wasn't - since you have no explanation for how it happened?

Me? You want me to come up with the causes of the cambrian explosion? Look, if you want to shoe-horn your god into that particular period in natural history you need to provide evidence that your god was involved in the evolutionary process half a billion years ago, and I'm not sure that's something that really helps your cause much.

Agreed - because one was made in an Image of a being capable of rational thought. Given Knowledge. The other was not given that knowledge - the ability to reason beyond simple tasks for survival.

So we have oncedeceived arguing the brains are "not so different" and you arguing that the differences are absolutely crucial because god made them that way and that's why we are different. That evolution solves all the problems here doesn't strike you as a reasonable option?

Which chemicals merely temporarily interfere with the electrical processes in your brain - altering the energy flow. Yet it does not change who you are, nor does it change your brain. That regions of the brain may be activated beyond your conscious control does not mean you are actually altering the conscious itself. The self returns as the chemicals wear off.

Of course it affects your consciousness. And your personality. Have you never seen someone's personality change when they get drunk? Actually, alcohol abuse is an interesting example. People with long term alcoholism sometimes develop korsakoff syndrome where their ability to make new memories is damaged beyond repair and they live in a perpetual moment of awakening from a time in their past. Weird, huh? Enough to put anyone off booze.

Likewise I premise that were you able to repair the brain, the pathways reactivated would enable those brains to be who they were before, not someone different which they should become if consciousness is merely a product of evolution. Those who have lost the ability of speech through brain damage - do not become a different person because the brain is now different. They are just unable to operate the speech center.

Well, the undamaged part of the brain is still the same brain, but you do see personality changes in some people with brain damage. I suspect it depends which part of the brain is damaged.

The brain is an information storage device and operating machine. Consciousness happens in the spark between. And such is why we debate over consciousness, because anybodies guess is as good as another at this point in our technology. But we do know that energy - what thought is - can neither be created nor destroyed.

Consciousness is a product of the brain. No brain, no consciousness. That's the equation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name one?

How about the most obvious one. The Miller Urey experiment.

We did, that's why we are still asking for them, since you haven't provided any yet but supposition.

Wrong, try again.

So then if consciousness is a product of the body - you should be a different person since half of who you were is gone, correct?

Wrong, try again.

Because you show us T-Rex that are T-Rex as far back as one cares to go - and then ask we believe T-Rex was constantly in a state of flux - or I guess that it spontaneously came about since Abiogenesis is your thing.

Wrong, try again.

Or that T-Rex magically came about from another species - even if any descendants today (reality) would still be the same species - just different infraspecific taxa.

If you are not even going to try then neither am I. Repeating your nonsensical claims that have been refuted time after time gets tiring at times. So, wrong, try again.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]), or biopoiesis,[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

So how does your non-life to life not constitute formation of living organisms without decent from similar organisms??????

Spontaneous generation was an attempt to explain how life appeared in corpses etc.. It has not scientific explanation to it. Abiogenesis is based upon the laws of chemistry. It explains by using modern science how life would have first appeared. Too bad that you keep yourself willfully ignorant of this topic since some exciting work has been done in it.