One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[pitabread]

Fact is, the notion of a link has widely become unpopular so we will never get the connection affirmed scientifically.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[Speedwell]

Hummm?

You asserted that science is keeping something under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.

 

[pitabread]

Hummm?

To elaborate on Speedwell's comment, transitional fossils exist. Based on the definition of a transitional fossil (e.g. a fossil that contains intermediary characteristics between two or more taxa), such fossils have been found. There is no dispute over that fact.

Those claiming such fossils do not exist are typically professional creationist organizations. And naturally it is in their interest to not provide correct information about the scientific support for evolution, including transitional fossils.

In fact, the only way to suggest that transitional fossils don't exist is to dispute the existence of the fossils themselves. But that just seems silly.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

You asserted that science is keeping something under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.

No, evolution, for the sake of Darwinism.

 

[Speedwell]

No, evolution, for the sake of Darwinism.

You'll have to explain that one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution tells us we come from apes. God did not breathe into the nostrils of apes. It is flawed from start.

Science makes no claims about any gods at all, nor whether they have a creepy habit of breathing into the nostrils of apes.

[Simple comparative anatomy shows that there are no groupings of apes that excludes us but places the rest into a group.]

 

[Maria Billingsley]

To elaborate on Speedwell's comment, transitional fossils exist. Based on the definition of a transitional fossil (e.g. a fossil that contains intermediary characteristics between two or more taxa), such fossils have been found. There is no dispute over that fact.

Those claiming such fossils do not exist are typically professional creationist organizations. And naturally it is in their interest to not provide correct information about the scientific support for evolution, including transitional fossils.

In fact, the only way to suggest that transitional fossils don't exist is to dispute the existence of the fossils themselves. But that just seems silly.

I believe we were speaking about" primate to man " not all fossils.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe we were speaking about" primate to man " not all fossils.

Hard to understand that question, because man is a species of primate. Do you mean, how man became differentiated from the other primates, that transition?

 

[pitabread]

I believe we were speaking about" primate to man " not all fossils.

There are numerous hominid transitional fossils.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Science makes no claims about any gods at all, nor whether they have a creepy habit of breathing into the nostrils of apes.

[Simple comparative anatomy shows that there are no groupings of apes that excludes us but places the rest into a group.]

Agreed

 

[pitabread]

[Simple comparative anatomy shows that there are no groupings of apes that excludes us but places the rest into a group.]

That's the most interesting thing to me about creationist claims that humans were a uniquely created species. If we're supposed to be so unique, why do we share most characteristics with other species?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hard to understand that question, because man is a species of primate. Do you mean, how man became differentiated from the other primates, that transition?

And I am saying humans are not primates in other words , not an animal. This is why Darwinian evolution is flawed from the start.

 

[pitabread]

And I am saying humans are not primates in other words , not an animal. This is why Darwinian evolution is flawed from the start.

Animals are members of the clade Animalia. This includes all organisms that are multicellular, have eukaryotic cells, consume and digest organic material, etc.

Based on the criteria in which Animalia is defined, how would humans be excluded from that?

 

[Speedwell]

That's the most interesting thing to me about creationist claims that humans were a uniquely created species. If we're supposed to be so unique, why do we share most characteristics with other species?

Of course that is possible. It is also possible that the toaster didn't toast my bread this morning, but that God took the fresh piece of bread out of the toaster and replaced it with an already toasted piece while my back was turned making tea.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

That's the most interesting thing to me about creationist claims that humans were a uniquely created species. If we're supposed to be so unique, why do we share most characteristics with other species?

If I may interject in your conversation, scripture tells us we are all made from the " dust of the earth". This has been uncovered by science, we can agree on that. Where the division comes in is the " kind" of that creation from dust. Scripture tells us all creation is made " after it's own kind". This is why animals do not mate out of their own kind and humans do not mate out of their own kind. Even though our DNA is so " close " to certain primates, it is yet so far from the
" same kind". So strictly speaking science with no intelligent design , evolution is flawed. Offspring can not be produced out side of its kind.

 

[pitabread]

If I may interject in your conversation, scripture tells us we are all made from the " dust of the earth". This has been uncovered by science, we can agree on that. Where the division comes in is the " kind" of that creation from dust. Scripture tells us all creation is made " after it's own kind". This is why animals do not mate out of their own kind and humans do not mate out of their own kind. Even though our DNA is so " close " to certain primates, it is yet so far from the
" same kind". So strictly speaking science with no intelligent design , evolution is flawed. Offspring can not be produced out side of our kind.

The way the Bible describes creatures reproducing after their own kind is perfectly in line with evolution. It simply suggests that species are bound by their own ancestry, which is precisely what we expect from biological evolution and the process by which genetic inheritance operates. That Genesis 1 emphasizes reproduction of species in populating the Earth suggests God was using an evolutionary process.

But if one believes humans were independently created, it still doesn't explain why humans are not a strictly unique organism. If we were uniquely created, why do we share so many bits with other organisms?

Evolution explains that. Independent creation does not.

 

[Strathos]

That's the most interesting thing to me about creationist claims that humans were a uniquely created species. If we're supposed to be so unique, why do we share most characteristics with other species?

It's our spirits that are unique. That is what is meant by the breathing of life into Adam.

 

[pitabread]

It's our spirits that are unique. That is what is meant by the breathing of life into Adam.

Sure. But that doesn't rule out an evolutionary process for the physical development of humans.

 

[Strathos]

Sure. But that doesn't rule out an evolutionary process for the physical development of humans.

I know. I was just giving my perspective on the meaning of that verse.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There are numerous hominid transitional fossils.

These fragmented remains are an incomplete jigsaw which is why it keeps changing. The human genome of the homo sapiens sapiens remains unique and science keeps pointing to this fact.