God used Evolution to create man

[Euler]

In the history of man, we have not seen any new developments or changes of human men to something different. I believe we may have taller periods, shorter, etc. But all in all still men and women. I don't see any animals changing in any way to form new species.

Then you need to get out more, or get better glasses. Many examples are on record, both in the lab and in the field, of speciation.

Dozens? That just won't cut it. There would need to be thousands of transitional stages to justify the thousands of different species that "evolved".

The "dozens" referred to the evidence streams for the extinctions, which is what you asked for.

Na, but the spotty number of fossils for the continual evolution from single cell organisms to the vast number of species of animals and creatures we have today would have to show much more steps than what is in existence.

Given the process involved in fossilization, why?

Alligators and Crocodiles - The crocodile family is thought to have lived 230 million years ago and remains virtually unchanged since that time.
Army Ants - date back 100 million years to the time of the dinosaur
Cockroaches - dates back 350 million years
Coelacanth - Dates back 400 million years.
Crinoid or Sea Lilly have been found in sedminents dating back 150 million years and yet the modern living variety is virtually identical.
Cycads date back 240 million years ago
Dragonfly dates back 230 million years, but is unchanged in almost every detail.
Ginkgo tree belongs to the family Ginkgoaceae which dates back to 270 million years. They were thought to be extinct until they were discovered in 1691 in the Japan.
Horseshoe Crab - Believed to have lived 300 million years ago, but remain almost identical today.
Nautilus - believed to have lived 500 million years ago, but remains almost completely unchanged.
Sturgeon is claimed to be 250 million years old, and living since the time of the dinosaurs.

These examples are believed to be millions or billions of years old. I don't beleive that any are older that 6 thousand or so. Is millions and billions of years good enough for you?

All of those have undergone some form of evolutionary change. But even if they hadn't, so what?

How is this relevant?



Again, how is this any kind of argument? Ignorance is bliss??

You don't have to know the origins of something to gain an understanding of how it works.

Are you saying that paranormal events, ghosts, intelligent life from other dimensions, demonic activity is not a fact?

Correct.

 

[Euler]

Jacksbratt said "So you have know way to explain how life started or got here or began."
​

I just love that answer. "It happened so we don't have to explain how"
"It's a mystery but we don't care, whats the next step we are assuming"

Science attempts to "prove" nothing.[/quotes]

This makes it very easy to back your argument with science I guess.
"My argument is solidly backed by science that proves nothing"

It's sad to see the US slipping so far behind the rest of the world in math and science, but when one reads comments like yours, it's very easy to see why.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IF the only life evolution speaks of is still unexplainable by evolution, then how are you going to deal with other dimensions, the existence of a soul or spirit. How in the world are you going to explain the beginning of them too?

We don't need to explain the origins of things that aren't even demonstrated to exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution

"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ....."
"[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school"."
​

Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.

I notice that you didn't address anything I said. Why is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

In the history of man, we have not seen any new developments or changes of human men to something different.

If you watch a construction site for 5 minutes and don't see a new building appear, do you doubt the ability of man to build buildings?

Dozens? That just won't cut it. There would need to be thousands of transitional stages to justify the thousands of different species that "evolved".

And you have pulled out all of the fossils from the ground? The transitional species Tiktaalik took 3 years to find, and that was just one species. Why do you expect us to have thousands of transitional species when we have searched such a tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record?

What you do ignore is that every fossil we have found supports evolution. All of the transitionals fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. Why do you ask for more transitionals when you ignore the ones we do have?

Alligators and Crocodiles - The crocodile family is thought to have lived 230 million years ago and remains virtually unchanged since that time.
Army Ants - date back 100 million years to the time of the dinosaur
Cockroaches - dates back 350 million years
Coelacanth - Dates back 400 million years.
Crinoid or Sea Lilly have been found in sedminents dating back 150 million years and yet the modern living variety is virtually identical.
Cycads date back 240 million years ago
Dragonfly dates back 230 million years, but is unchanged in almost every detail.
Ginkgo tree belongs to the family Ginkgoaceae which dates back to 270 million years. They were thought to be extinct until they were discovered in 1691 in the Japan.
Horseshoe Crab - Believed to have lived 300 million years ago, but remain almost identical today.
Nautilus - believed to have lived 500 million years ago, but remains almost completely unchanged.
Sturgeon is claimed to be 250 million years old, and living since the time of the dinosaurs.

If a lineage is well adapted there is no reason for it to change.

 

[freezerman2000]

How can I, without giving the Bible what you would call a "black eye"?

I'll do it anyway.

They came into existence ex nihilo, IMO -- and that means abiogenesis is a joke.

And what's with "you tell me"?

Afraid to say, "I don't know"?

It seems you certainly want me to do it.

Take your own advice, please.

There is nothing in Genesis that supports your claim or opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing in Genesis that supports your claim or opinion.

Then you tell me how the angels came into existence?

Which came first, in your opinion: abiogenesis or angels?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you tell me how the angels came into existence?

The same way Santa Claus did.

 

[freezerman2000]

Then you tell me how the angels came into existence?

Which came first, in your opinion: abiogenesis or angels?

First question..I don't know and neither do you(opinions do not count)
second.. Angels (my opinion is that..opinion,not definitive truth) We don't know if AG was in fact the spark of life or not,but until that theory is falsified,it is a viable option in the search for life's origins.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you need to get out more, or get better glasses. Many examples are on record, both in the lab and in the field, of speciation.

However, that is not evolution. It is variation within the species.

 

[madaz]

Evolution uses science and <snip>"

Evolution IS a science.

<snip>creation uses science to back their Bible. ".

The last few hundred years has seen a rift between science and bible literalists growing larger by the year, so good luck with that idea.

Both camps use the sciences.
But in different ways...".

Agreed, creationists use science in devious ways to advocate their nonsense to the vulnerable, gullible and the uneducated.

Evolutionists are the ones that are always saying that "science proves nothing""

Only in the same sense that evidence alone proves nothing. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires more than one component.

Nothing is certain.

If this is true then neither evolution or creation should use science to prove their idea of the origin of life and all the beings on the earth because "science proves nothing".

Evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of life, it's not meant to, that is a completely different discipline.

 

[pgardner2358]

Reproduction was not God's intention. That is a result of Sin and separation from the Father which ended special creation.

Excuse me but in every credible version of the Bible that I know of God told man to "be fruitful and multiply" BEFORE the fall.

 

[morse86]

Reproduction was not God's intention. That is a result of Sin and separation from the Father which ended special creation.

That is not what God said.

Genesis 1:28:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

[Euler]

However, that is not evolution. It is variation within the species.

Completely false. Speciation is variation BEYOND the species. And evolution, at its simplest, is mutation + selection + time.

 

[madaz]

Reproduction was not God's intention. That is a result of Sin and separation from the Father which ended special creation.

This statement is so preposterous I'm going to add it to my collection.

 

[AV1611VET]

This statement is so preposterous I'm going to add it to my collection.

It's interesting that someone with 1.17 posts per day would be collecting other peoples' remarks.

Almost as if you're scared someone will collect one of yours?

 

[madaz]

It's interesting that someone with 1.17 posts per day would be collecting other peoples' remarks.

Almost as if you're scared someone will collect one of yours?

I post once a day? Geez I really need to get a life. Would you believe some people here post 3 or more!!!

I change my sig almost daily AV, I think I have a few from you too my friend.

Oh! I'd be flattered if someone quoted me.

 

[EternalDragon]

Completely false. Speciation is variation BEYOND the species. And evolution, at its simplest, is mutation + selection + time.

Beyond the species? You are dreaming or making stuff up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Beyond the species? You are dreaming or making stuff up.

That is what the word means, regardless as to how you personally feel about it

 

[DogmaHunter]

Beyond the species? You are dreaming or making stuff up.

Speciation:

noun, Biology
1.the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.



Species:
2.
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.




So yes, speciation is a process that takes variation BEYOND the species level. Dictionaries are quite handy sometimes.