Challenge to Evolutionsts

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's correct, problem is that media sources who hype it will usually not do retractions.

For the most part, this is a problem with the media, not with science. The folks who actual do the scientific work and write school textbooks use the science as their base, not what non-scientifically-trained journalists write about it.

 

[camanintx]

Is it just me or are we talking in circles?

More like we're talking past each other. I asked specific questions and you replied by restating your original hypothesis.

I will try a different angle in hopes it progresses our discussion. Our freewill is not random. It defines who we are, and God knows what we will choose under all circumstances, in the same way we understand that by letting go of a ball, it will fall to the ground. In stating we have freewill, means that we have our own agent which is not enslaved to external laws of nature. It is our own identity. Every decision we make through our life defines who we are. God understands this identity and how it will act under any circumstance.

The question is not about what drives us to make certain decisions, but whether information about those decisions (effect) can exist independently of the action (cause). You say that our free will is not random, and for the big decisions we make I would agree with you, but when it comes to the little choices we make every day (should I have chicken or beef?) that assumption doesn't hold.

Again, let's take a simple scenario and discuss what could happen. Assume that God appears to me and says that tomorrow I will have chicken for lunch. If I have free will, can I choose to have beef instead? If the answer is yes, then what happens to God's knowledge that will have chicken? If the answer is no, then how can you say that I have free will?

I'm not saying that my decision must be dependent on God's knowledge, just that if God can possess this knowledge outside of time, then it can affect my decision. When an effect can influence it's cause, then you get a paradox.

 

[Aasimar]

Cause their cool?





Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

QZ 43:1 Cheetos™ are an abomination unto the lord and their consumption is punishable by death.

KF 14:3 Just cause it's written don't make it so

 

[McBell]

Cause their cool?
Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

What, you could not find a premade answer for this question?

 

[Evolution_Not]

What, you could not find a premade answer for this question?

Obviously you have one. Could this be transitional fossils showing how something became something else? Say how a reptile became a bird?








1 Cor 1:18
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

[Evolution_Not]

QZ 43:1 Cheetos™ are an abomination unto the lord and their consumption is punishable by death.

KF 14:3 Just cause it's written don't make it so

The Lord don't like stale cheetos



Rom 1:20-23
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously you have one. Could this be transitional fossils showing how something became something else? Say how a reptile became a bird?

You want pictures of the transitional fossils between reptiles and birds?

 

[Autodidact]

Hope that helps.

 

[dance-above]

Something to think about. If birds have nest and foxes have holes, where does the son of man lay his head? Explain what went wrong with human evolution. we are not completely evolved to our enviroment. Besides wouldn't an enviroment need to be completely stable for very long time for something to evolve to it? We the human are in no way one of the animal species. For instance why do we stand upright? Why do we have to have clothing we grow our own food? And you really think there is no God?

 

[Sunstone]

Something to think about. If birds have nest and foxes have holes, where does the son of man lay his head?

That should be more than obvious.

Explain what went wrong with human evolution.

Since when did evolution have anything to do with right and wrong?

 

[Evolution_Not]

You want pictures of the transitional fossils between reptiles and birds?

And the name(s) of the fossil in the pictures is what?
Do you have pictures of what it was prior to this?

 

[Evolution_Not]

Any one-how do you seperate message at bottom of your post from the rest of your post i.e.
"Impeach bush & cheny"

 

[McBell]

Any one-how do you seperate message at bottom of your post from the rest of your post i.e.
"Impeach bush & cheny"

Click on 'User CP'

on the left hand side, under 'Control Panel' click on 'Edit Signature'

In what looks like a reply box put what you want to appear below the line in your posts.

Click on the 'Save Signature' button.

 

[Autodidact]

Something to think about. If birds have nest and foxes have holes, where does the son of man lay his head?

More importantly, what does this have to do with this thread?

Explain what went wrong with human evolution. we are not completely evolved to our enviroment.

Do you know anything at all about what the theory of evolution says? There is really no such thing as: completely evolved. We're sufficiently evolved to survive; otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Besides wouldn't an enviroment need to be completely stable for very long time for something to evolve to it?

No.

We the human are in no way one of the animal species.

Really? Are you aware of the many, many, many, similarities that we share with other animals?

For instance why do we stand upright?

Why not?

Why do we have to have clothing we grow our own food?

Because we have evolved large brains that enable us to do so.

And you really think there is no God?

What does this question have to do with this thread? This thread is not about the existence of God. Listen very carefully, in fact, repeat this out loud to yourself. Evolution is NOT the theory that there is no God. That's right, evolution is NOT the theory that there is no God. If you have trouble grasping this, I can explain it in more detail.

 

[Autodidact]

And the name(s) of the fossil in the pictures is what?
Do you have pictures of what it was prior to this?

Hope this answers your first question:

Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds

In the mid-1800's, this was one of the most significant gaps in vertebrate fossil evolution. No transitional fossils at all were known, and the two groups seemed impossibly different. Then the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups were in fact related. Since then, some other reptile-bird links have been found. On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils. I have not included Mononychus (as it appears to be a digger, not a flier, well off the line to modern birds). See Feduccia (1980) and Rayner (1989) for more discussion of the evolution of flight, and Chris Nedin's excellent Archeopteryx FAQ for more info on that critter.

• Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
• Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
• Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.

GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

• One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
• Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
• Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
• "Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
• Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
• Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.

[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]

from here. An excellent resource for questions about evolution.

I don't understand your second question. Do you know that individuals don't evolve, species do?

 

[Orthodox]

Something to think about. If birds have nest and foxes have holes, where does the son of man lay his head?

I can't see the problem here.... the bird makes a nest to sleep in... the fox digs a hole to sleep in... and the human makes a bed to sleep in. All three animals use their brains and bodies to enable a safer and more comfy nap-time.

Explain what went wrong with human evolution. we are not completely evolved to our enviroment.

We have survived haven't we? What do you mean by "completely evolved"?

Besides wouldn't an enviroment need to be completely stable for very long time for something to evolve to it?

Well relatively stable at least. Luckily nature is mostly stable. When you have major long-term changes to an area you do see species go extinct.

We the human are in no way one of the animal species. For instance why do we stand upright? Why do we have to have clothing we grow our own food? And you really think there is no God?

Okay... so because humans are different from other living things in some ways they are not animals (by which I assume you mean they are not a product of evolution but are created in their present form)?

Well, we stand upright ( Fun Fact: so do birds and kangaroos) because we have evolved to. "Why have we evolved to stand upright?", I hear you ask. Well the random mutations that gradually enabled bipedalism were advantageous because they,
1) enabled the animal to see approaching predators more easily (see the mongoose for example).
2) enabled easier access to food found higher up.
3) And, enabled the animal to use fore arms to manipulate and carry objects.

Point number three would be especially useful and would in-fact enable the production and wearing of clothes (which you state as evidence that humans are not animals).

Additionally, hominids even back to homo erectus walked upright. And clothes are not the sole invention of humans either - neanderthals wore them too.

 

[painted wolf]

Bipedalism actually predates the genus Homo buy a fair degree. It was the first thing that set our ancestors apart from the ancestors of the Chimpanzee. It also isn't unique to Hominid apes. Another ape group developed bipedal movement... Oreopithecus bambolii walked upright in a way that was unique. Their feet were splayed out quite unlike ours.

my previous points on bird evolution from this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creation/7696-birds-reptiles.html

Jeholornis (bird): Image: Jeholornis prima [The Dinosauricon]
various dinosaurs: Image: Panoply of "Sinornithosaurs" [The Dinosauricon]
Yandangornis (bird): Image: The peculiar early bird Yandangornis longicaudus [The Dinosauricon]
Microraptor (four winged dinosaur): Image Error [The Dinosauricon]
Rahonavis (bird): Image: The primitive near-bird Rahonavis ostromi, exemplifying the huge arms [The Dinosauricon]
Caudupteryx (dinosaur): Image: Caudipteryx [The Dinosauricon]

These fossils demonstrate that the line between dinosaur and bird is all but non-existant.
if it looks like a bird, grows like bird, acts like a bird, moves like a bird... it must be a dinosaur.

even the "nonavian" dinosaurs were bird like in many ways.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Good point. Hominids were fully bipedal long before they had any hope of beating a baboon in a chess game.

 

[Halcyon]

Good point. Hominids were fully bipedal long before they had any hope of beating a baboon in a chess game.

I don't understand what bipedalism has to do with supposedly "superior" human nature. Chickens are bipedal, and you can't get much dumber than a chicken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dance-above
Something to think about. If birds have nest and foxes have holes, where does the son of man lay his head?

I can't see the problem here.... the bird makes a nest to sleep in... the fox digs a hole to sleep in... and the human makes a bed to sleep in. All three animals use their brains and bodies to enable a safer and more comfy nap-time.

This is referencing a teaching of Jesus from the new testament.

I don't know what interpretation dance-above likes to ascribe to this mystery teaching, but generally I think it implies that humans don't have a place in this world, because we are essentially not of this world. But thats a Gnostic interpretation.

And no, it has nothing to do with evolution in the slightest. What we have here is a case of thinly veiled proselytizing.

 

[dance-above]

I don't understand what bipedalism has to do with supposedly "superior" human nature. Chickens are bipedal, and you can't get much dumber than a chicken.


This is referencing a teaching of Jesus from the new testament.

I don't know what interpretation dance-above likes to ascribe to this mystery teaching, but generally I think it implies that humans don't have a place in this world, because we are essentially not of this world. But thats a Gnostic interpretation.

And no, it has nothing to do with evolution in the slightest. What we have here is a case of thinly veiled proselytizing.

I promise I wasn't in the least trying to proselytize. And yes I did use a quote from Jesus ( A very Smart Being).
We do have some similarities with other creatures, I dont deny that. But we have some very, very big differances. We truly are the only upright Creature and I dont mean just walking on two legs , why is this? because its really not that helpfull compared to the other creatures that use their physical form for their survival and their enviroment ( physically how do we escape the prey or ward them off}
Darwin taught that the creature better suited to their enviroment survived. We have never completely been suited to our enviroment. Which tells me that Darwin did not consider all things.
And yes more than anything we use our brains for our survival. Why so unlike the other creatures? Did nature have a plan? The fact that we are so different would make me wonder whether evolution ( an Idea Of the way we came to be) new what it was doing. Almost like there was an order to the creation. There is no other creature that tries to control any of the other creatures like we do ( authority).
By chance did Moses know this when he wrote about the Order of the creation. By the way just because I speak of someone that is out of the bible dosn't mean Im trying to Proclaim God, although I do Believe in Him. Did we evolve to be smarter than the others for a reason? Was it just for survival? There is alot of question to be Asked, any wise scientist would consider all possabilities.
PS Im sorry if I posted in the wrong Forum. I want do it Again.