Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And to add a point. Transitional does not mean ancestral. So even if you have no offspring you will, assuming that people do not go extinct, will be a transitional species.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution vs Creationism?
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That's assuming you believe that humans are transitioning by "natural selection" to another type of organism.
gnostic
The Lost One
Science required clear explanations that can be tested, hence it needs to meet certain requirements: Falsifiability, Scientific Method & Peer Review.
Evolution meet those criteria. It is explained various mechanisms, where changes over time, hence biodiversity of life.
Creation stories found in scriptures, like the Bible's Genesis and Qur'an would only very loosely describe animals (including humans) and plants, with no explanation on their biology.
That creationists think this is enough details, and get shot down repeatedly, and they persisted with making complete fools of themselves.
It is rather silly that we are still having the same arguments over and over again, because creationists cannot learn sciences, and don't want to learn sciences.
So all you can do, is correct them, hoping that one day they will learn that creationism isn't science, and their scriptures and beliefs aren't science...but I think you would have better chances on teaching ostriches science than creationists.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
All fossils are transitional.
Off course, if your idea of a transitional is akin to a "crockoduck", then off course no transitionals exist.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A rare exception would be some of the fossils of nonavian dinosaurs on the day of the K-Pg discontinuity.All fossils are transitional.
Off course, if your idea of a transitional is akin to a "crockoduck", then off course no transitionals exist.
They would be " terminal" species.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Actually, the evolution that Ken Ham believes in, is a version of evolution on mega steroids.
His "theory" requires a speciation rate of ~20 new species evolving EVERY DAY.
No. Evolution is not a process that requires any "creation".
It rather is a process that inevitably occurs as a result of self-replicating systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition over limited resources. It's inevitable.
People sometimes compare evolution to gravity. Usually in terms of support for the theories.
But evolution is not "like" gravity.
Gravity is a force that ultimately causes things to fall.
Evolution is more like falling, in that sense.
Falling is what inevitably happens when you have massive objects that exert gravity.
Evolution is what inevitably happens when you have systems in competition replicate with variation.
Neither "falling" nor "evolution" requires any "creating".
Instead, it inevitably occurs due to circumstantial conditions.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I can't count any more the number of times I explained to you that in evolution, species never become "another type" of organism.
You know you aren't talking with intellectually honest people when they insist on repeating their mistakes that were exposed and corrected dozens of times over.
No, no one has to assume anything.......we are all in transition, changing every second we live...you don't have to except 'natural selection' to realize all individuals are changing physically, constantly.
The trouble is that the bible says the proto-critters were each specifically created. So for bible literalists, there's no alternative.
Why is it hard for those who follow the bible to understand the authors of scripture had human handwriting....Scripture was probably written the same way as a TV show....there were committees of authorities who wrestled with what would be appropriate to write to encourage membership in Hebrew groups and what could influence Hebrew culture....Not to mention there were two versions of the 'Garden of Eden' story due to one version written in the south of Israel (Judah) and one in the north of Israel, two different kingdoms.. As for the Christian NT, Christians were taught the authors were 'Inspired' by God. The accepted definition for 'inspired' is not what Christians were taught. The Christian definition is 'Inspired' meaning the words were directly written by God....It has been established 'Matthew and Luke ' used the writing of Mark as a template for their Epistles. Matthew and Luke were not following some kind of inspiration but they needed a primer which was the writings of Mark.My response to 'blu 2' does not mean there is no God....I am suggesting previous scripture just makes it harder to search for an illusive entity or just a pipe dream, GOD.
I was addressing the problem raised in the OP.
My own view is that the Tanakh is a remarkable set of documents recording not only ancient thought but its evolution (and the evolution of their God) across time. Naturally it was written and edited by humans, and though when who what how and why can be difficult questions, they're well worth asking.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The reason the debate continues is because the dividing line between evolution and creation is not where it should be.
Let me give a contemporary example. The modern gender debate allows for the possibility, that the natural sexual genetics, one is born with, does not necessary reflect our conscious orientation. If the DNA says male, some claim they are female or vice versa. If we extrapolate this, it means that human DNA, alone, does not create a one size fits all stereo-type of all humans. We also have conscious choice and will.
The Bible claim that the universe began about 6000 years ago has less to do with human DNA, and more to do with the appearance of new type of consciousness, that had choices that allowed it to depart from the expectations of the DNA. The Bible claim is connected to conscious evolution; freewill and choice. Free will and choice means we are not stuck with the program on our DNA. Science could not even start to unravel nature until this separation of mind; consciousness, and matter; DNA, occurred about 6000 years ago. When they were connected there was no need to seek such answers.
Evolution is concerned with DNA coming and then being first, while Creation is when human conscious choice started to separate humans from the natural expectations of the DNA, so that human DNA alone could no longer tell the entire store of man.
The bible time element of 6000 year ago coordinates with the science based discoveries of the invention of written language and the rise of civilization. These could not be predicted by human DNA alone since the invention of writing appears and was not just a genetic work in progress. There was a transcendent element in the brain that appears, which change the trajectory of humans. The result was the changing of the environment well beyond natural DNA based adaptation.
In the Bible story of Cain and Abel, where Cain was a tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals, when Cain kills Abel, this symbolized farming supersede migratory herding. Thousands of years of migratory herding and gathering were superseded by consciousness due to choices and will. The DNA of Cain would still show migratory herding patterns, but he developed the will to chose to farm, which was totally new to humans. This would change the trajectory of human into modern man.
Cain is sent away by God and laments to God whomever shall come upon him shall kill him. Who were these whomever if Adam and Eve were the first two humans and Cain was their only son, left. The whomever, where the pre-humans with human DNA. They had human DNA but still had a more primitive and natural mindset, connected to their human DNA. They were not quite ready for civilization. Adam and Eve were created in the bible; conscious metamorphosis, that could break the DNA connections to the natural instinct; loss of instinct as will and choice take over.
The invention of written language was also key the rise of science. Spoken language is often spontaneous where the mouth can work faster than the brain. With written language, the pace is slower, and gives us more time to think and deliberate, before the final report is written. Adam was considered one of the first mathematicians and scientists. He was born of the dust of the earth; stone dust from writing on stone tablets. His deliberation in the dust created an expended mind; final report.
The problem that written language created was connected to knowledge of good and evil. This is often subjective, such as two political parties thinking they are good and other is evil. Once written down or carved into stone, such narrow minded and subjective ideas of morality could linger too long and cause repression of natural instincts. The Bible then goes to great lengths to describe the various forms of regressive behavior that were not natural, but could be chosen such as war.
The analogy for Genesis would be like the rise of conscious computers, becoming the new zero point in science due to profound changes, with not all the changes, good or healthy. It would begin like the Wild West and slowly come full circle until this new tool is tamed and used for good.
That's not my question
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This is false and a misrepresentation of the science of genetics.
That's nothing in "consciousness" or "free will" that contradicts anything about genetics.
These things are produced by your brain. And your brain is genetically determined.
As for LBGT stuff, you seem to assume that it is uniquely human?
Or that it is a something that didn't exist prior to 6000 years ago?
I'm skipping the rest of your post, since all of it simply builds and the above premise, which I already disagree with. So naturally I'll disagree with everything that flows from said premise.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes it is.
You asked which of those fossils represents transitionals.
The answer is "all of them".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The answer, sadly, is that the only reason for that, are certain dogmatic religious beliefs that aren't compatible with it. And as it goes with dogma, it is unquestionable. So evolution HAS TO BE incorrect to those believers. Evidence doesn't matter, because their own beliefs aren't based on evidence.
Evidence is not what they justify their dogmatic beliefs with, so naturally it also won't convince them that they are wrong either. No matter how much of it you throw at them.
As Dr House once said: You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.
Yes. In a real sense, ALL species are transitional.
Another species, yes. Given enough time, we will change gradually into a (or maybe two or more) new species.
Then what *is* your question?
We have fossils for the transition from fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to early mammal, from dinosaur to bird, not to mention many lower level transitions.
But evolution happens as a mosaic of related species developing and then being pared down. So, there were numerous human species over the last couple of million years and they were pared down to just the one we have now.
There were numerous related dinosaurs that diversified and *one* line of which became modern birds. There were numerous related reptiles that diversified, one line of which became modern mammals.
So picking exactly which species are ancestral to which later species is often not possible: we simply don't have the resolution to do that.
But yes, we have many, many transitional fossils in the sense that they show a change from earlier species to later species.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it was. Perhaps you meant to ask a different one.
Did you mean "ancestral" instead of transitional?