Creation vs. Evolution

[nebula]

The thing is evolutionists do have a supposed answer for where the new information in animals comes from, CHANCE. Your argument that you think there is a program in organisms that God designed to give them the information they need to "adapt" is so close to the theory of evolution that it's just negligible. I don't think you'll ever get anywhere with an Evolutionist starting out with the argument that yes Evolution occurs, but God makes it work. They're theory is time plus chance equals anything, not time plus god equals anything.

Well, like I pointed out somewhere in what I posted last night, a miracle of God can pop right in front of an atheists' eyes and they still won't believe in God.

For clarity, I said it may be possible God created programming within organisms to adapt to environmental change. I totally disagree with the idea of "chance." But if you want to get through to someone, you more often than not have to take the slow and subtle route. If you can present an acceptable argument that a guiding hand in change makes more sense than "gee, aren't we lucky," even if they don't believe it, there will be a seed planted in them that might grow. Which is better than a 100% disagreement that leaves no room for seeds to get planted. I'd rather an athiest be left with a question that they cannot disprove God than to leave an athiest with his close-mindedness.

As I mentioned with the rabbits - change has been documented, at least on the small scale.

And I put my bets on getting somewhere better with an evolutionist by beginning at a point of commonality than by having no points of commonality.

[Guest mscoville]

Howdy Nebula,

As I mentioned with the rabbits - change has been documented, at least on the small scale.

Change for sure, we all see changes, but is it what scientists call micro evolution? Probably not. Since mutations and gene shuffling yadda yadda. I have no doubts that they change.

Later,

Martin

[txpaleo]

See the great thing is I used to be an evolutionist and I'm an archaeologist with a background in Forensics as well as a faunal specialist (animal bones). And your mentor is right as far as being able to pick up bones and tell where they fit in and and possibly telling what it belonged to. But the problem is just because I know where it goes doesn't mean its the right spot for that speices. Very hard to explain in a typing format. I know all the arguments that evolutionist use in order to get there points across and I have a counter for all of them. As for the Neanderthal DNA, I for one don't buy it. Several reasons, some are more logical than others. A right majority of evolutionist and physical anthroplogists don't buy the findings because the sample was too small to be conclusive and if you read the report, there are several out there, most even say that the findings were inconclusive but that the researches were leaning towards this way of thinking...again going back to preconceived ides. The other fact that I question is the removal of DNA from a supposed rock. Fossils are rocks and therefore have no remaining living tissue or red blood cells or DNA. If it does still have any of these then it is not a fossil and cannot be the age that they want us to believe. Its a catch 22 that alot of people haven't caught onto yet.

Truthfully Neandertal is nothing more than a modified Home erectus caused from the mechanical stress of migration from Africa up into the cold climates of Europe. You can still see this skeletal trait when you compare the Inuit (Eskimo) with the African Bushman. Shorter statue as well as thicker skeletal bones. Eskimos have a skeletal structure that is identical to that of Neandertal and that comes from secular physical and forensic anthrolopologist not from the creationist. So we see the same types of skeletons based on living environments that Homo erectus and Neanderthal. Heres another good one. The Neanderthal skeletons found in Israel are not as robust as those in Europe, because they didn't have the cold to contend with like their counterparts. But they still encountered slight change from the heavy mechanical stress from huge amounts of walking (Go forth and multiply). That study about mechanical stress also comes from physical anthro textbooks so its a secular finding not religious.

Oh the other thing about Lucy..a physical anthro by the name of Peter Schmiddid some studies on her as well as Cat scans and MRI and his conclusion was that she was put together wrong. He says that her bone structure isn't correct. If it was correct then the ribs are too heavy and the upper thorax is too small to take in oxygen to cool her. This would have made Lucy pant like a dog in order to cool herself off. Also he points out that she was not bipedal but based on her construction would have rotated her hips much like a gorrilla.

Other studies have shown that instead of a female Lucy is probably a male due to the lack of a ventral arc, but also due to the fact that Lucy's pelvis is too small for childbirth and a newborn "human" baby would have been crushed at birth.

More food for thought.

God Bless

Steve Baird

www.bairdclan.com

[nebula]

As I mentioned with the rabbits - change has been documented, at least on the small scale.

Change for sure, we all see changes, but is it what scientists call micro evolution?

Actually, it is.

You know micro = small. :tongue:

[nebula]

txpaleo -

What the Documentary said about Lucy's hip was that they looked to see if the hip had been broken (ie before becoming fossilized, an animal had stepped on it) and fossilized in the broken shape. Doing some studies/tests/something like that (recast mofel?) showed that this is indeed what happened. Have you accounted for this?

Keep in mind, I'm not here to argue for evolution. I'm more concerned with how arguments are presented, and if you bring an argument that doesn't account for everything in a debate with more knowledgable people, you'll get creamed.

Compared to what I've been involved with, I can envision several ways you opened yourself up for being slammed. This is one example (and my presentation was a bit weak compared to how others would express it). I hope you have some good evidence backed-up in your reserve for your argument concerning the Neanderthals, for another example. I'm in no place to contradict or defend such, but, based on experience, I see how the presentatin you just gave could be dissected down to fantasy.

I don't mean to be downplaying you and your research - I am just pointing out you need to take care how you present your claims. Maybe you felt it would take too much space here or something, but you need quotes from the experts, explanations of the process behind how the conclusions were made and such, something that shows you are really on top of the issues, not presenting what can be accused of being opinions without the facts.

Understand what I'm getting at?

[Guest mscoville]

Yo Neb,

QUOTE (mscoville @ Mar 25 2004, 03:33 PM)

QUOTE 

As I mentioned with the rabbits - change has been documented, at least on the small scale.

Change for sure, we all see changes, but is it what scientists call micro evolution? 

Actually, it is.

You know micro = small. 

Ha, well I know that it means small, but it's still not evolution. It's adaptation within the given gene information of the animal. Evolution is not just change over time, like I mentioned it's actually the addition of new information to the genes of an animal, which is not documented, so the answer is no. Can you dig?

~ The Fonz

[nebula]

Err . . . no.

Definition of "evolution" from dictionary.com

ev

[Guest mscoville]

HOOOWDY!

Do you think that's what most scientists think? That it's just change, or do they think it's positive change? I think what you see as evolution is not quite the same thing scientists think, which is why it's hard to get through to them. The first of the definitions is what I believe most scientists think of, only without the word "Usually". If you can produce the documentation of added information in the the gene of an adapted Rabbit, you'll be doing a lot for the science world, I'm not sure that's really documented. They may change, but not with new information in their genes, it's just the shuffling of existing information. That's all that's observed in any animal. Do you see what I'm saying? Have a good day and God Bless.

~ Martin

[Guest be_real]

I'm new and confused. So there isn't proof for evolution. Where is the proof for your bible? Sometimes I don't understand why people even debate about this, is it really going to matter in the end anyway?

[nebula]

HOOOWDY!

        Do you think that's what most scientists think? That it's just change, or do they think it's positive change? I think what you see as evolution is not quite the same thing scientists think, which is why it's hard to get through to them. The first of the definitions is what I believe most scientists think of, only without the word "Usually".  If you can produce the documentation of added information in the the gene of an adapted Rabbit, you'll be doing a lot for the science world, I'm not sure that's really documented. They may change, but not with new information in their genes, it's just the shuffling of existing information. That's all that's observed in any animal. Do you see what I'm saying? Have a good day and God Bless.

        ~ Martin

I'm not following your line of thought. Or you're not following mine.

What I have presented is what I have been learning in going through the evolution unit in class. The bottom line of "evolution" is that "things change." If you believe evolution is just about the theory of life arising from slime to fish to amphibian etc., then you do not understand the entire spectrum of the picture. This is where Creationists arguments screw up in the arguments. The process of "speciation" is a type of evolution. Speciation has had enough chances to be observed that it's considered a given. Of course, this is "rabbit A" becoming "rabbit B." The idea of rabbit becoming something-other-than-a-rabbit has not been observed, though. This is where evolutionists assume that such things have happened in the past (some mammal population over time changed to become what we now call rabbits). In studying traits, I can see how they would come to conclude this, though, having no room for "divine intervention" of any kind. There does seem to be a line of progression. For instance, the oldest primate fossils, of which the Prosimian class of primates are characterised, have characteristics that look like part monkey-part rodent. (Check out this cutie and this one or this funny looking critter or here (for a size perspective) for examples. BTW, the first two are lemurs and the second two are tarsiers.)

In fact, the whole modern biological classification system is based on the notion of "evolved traits" (thus bats are categorized with mammals rather than birds because they give birth to live young and lactate); and classifying organisms on this system has produced better results than previous classification systems based on qualities or observed traits.

You can argue with me all you want, but that's how it's laid out. You can check out the classification system by doing an internet search to see this.

This is why I want to see people arguing for Creation who actually work in the field. I'd like to see them work with stuff that involves time frames and classification and traits and all this stuff showing how they have used non-evolutionary concepts into the field and produced workable results - or better results than what evolutionary thought has produced.

This will be the only real way for Creationists to make headways - not by trying to show everyone else's results are wrong through study but through use.

Can anyone grasp this?