Just Accidental?

[Segev Moran]

Design is something that is observed everywhere in nature.

And I guess every time a squid changes camouflage it sends a request for a new design?

No design at all here is there?....they all just accidentally appear to be beautifully crafted.

Why do you say accidentally?
Evolution is not accidental...
It is not accidental that we can actually predict how a species might evolve based on the environment it is in.
We can predict locations where we can find fossils and how they will probably look based on the knowledge of how the evolution process works.

How many beautiful flukes do you think science can claim before it looks completely ridiculous?

If you learned science, you'de figure that nothing is a "fluke"... It is an outcome of a long long process.

As far as I am aware, volcanoes act as a kind of valve on a pressure cooker. One wonders what would happen if pressure built up inside the earth and it had nowhere to go......boom...no planet?

Lol... So Volcanos are made to release pressure? or are they made due to pressure?

Name me some beneficial things that happen for no purpose.....

I don't think it is relevant because you see things the other way around.

You see eyes, for example, as something that was created so you can see, when the fact is you can see because you have eyes.
So no matter what I'll write as purposeless, you will see it the other way around.

Your way of thinking is childish in a sense. If you'll ask a kid what is the purpose of trees, for example, you might come up with an answer like: "So that birds can have a place for their nest".
You do realize (I hope), that a tree is a purposeless thing unless us, humans, decide it has a purpose.
The tree was there, long before birds.
The tree was not made for a purpose, rather beings and things that rely on trees are so because this is how they evolved.

Imagine you are stranded on an island.
If you find there some dry wood and make a fire, will you think that the dry wood was there for you to make a fire? or that you can make a fire because it happens to be dry wood on that island?

How do creatures who have never seen, know how to develop sight.....or those who have never heard to develop hearing.....when did the sense of smell just decide to drop in?

You ask great questions! to all , btw, you can have an answer if you'll truly learn the evolution process.
Creatures didn't just suddenly start seeing! it was developed over a very long time period.
The beginning of the eye was a sensor that would react to sunlight. so creatures would only be able to distinguish between light and dark (Some creatures never evolved more than that btw, and you can find them even today). with the years, the sensors became a bit curved.. so the creature had a sense of light direction and so on until it developed to be what you refer to as sight.

R. Dawkins gives a beautiful description of the process.

If you want to believe that, then be my guest....

Thanks

it makes not a lick of logical sense to me.

I Can see that, And I can understand why.
Try changing your way of thinking (Just for the sports of it).
Instead of thinking that everything was created with a purpose, try learning what is the reason this thing exists in the first place. (Reason in a sense of what caused it to exists)

It is my experience that design always requires a designer...and that goes for everything I use in my life.If it is purposeful, it is designed for that purpose. That is just logical.

It is logical if you look at "man-made" things.
It is logical if you talk about artificially constructed structures and tools.
It is the opposite of logic if you cast it on nature.

Can you tell me what is the purpose of earthquakes?
Can you tell me the purpose of an Eclipse?
Can you tell me the purpose of comets?
What is the purpose of Solar systems?

I Can invent a purpose to anything.
I Can say that the purpose of the moon is to guard my soul when I go to sleep at night.. Viola! a new God was made
The fact is, the moon has no purpose! it wasn't created to serve a role... It was created the way it was because a series of events led to it that it will be created.

Adaptation is not macro-evolution. I do not even see it remotely connected.

That's because you seem to have zero understanding what evolution is. Please, Please.. Just give it a try.. really go and learn what evolution is, how it works, what it predicts, what are the findings and experiments made to prove it is true.

but no proof exists for one kind of creature morphing into another over millions of years.

There are thousands of proofs.
There are proofs that were found after the study of evolution predicted they should be found (Or evoultion will be proved wrong).

There are fossil proofs.
There are DNA proofs.
There are living creatures proofs.
And many, many more.

NO! There is no half zebra half donkey fossils...
There are no half duck half dog creature!
This is not evolution.. this is cartoons!
There are thousands of fossils showing transitional stages of species that are showing the way a species evolved to another kind.

A Giraffe!!! has a biological structure in her neck that is of the same structure as fish!
(Which is btw, far from being the most efficient structure for a giraffe)

Just study the purview before stating it is false!

Cheers

 

[sayak83]

@Segev Moran

Your way of thinking is childish in a sense. If you'll ask a kid what is the purpose of trees, for example, you might come up with an answer like: "So that birds can have a place for their nest".

I wonder if most children think that way or not. I certainly did not. I just translated the question "what is the purpose of trees?" in my own native language, and the sentence came out to be ridiculous (similar to what is the color of numbers?) .

[For Indians (Hindi and Bengali) :- पेड़ों का उद्देश्य क्या है? "গাছের উদ্দেশ্য কী?]

It is good reason to wonder how deep the Abrahamic world presumptions have seeped in to shape the stricture of the Latin languages themselves (and probably Arabic and Hebrew too).

On a more hilarious note:- Sparrow and crows certainly believe that the only reason people have made roofs and barns is because they can nest in them and the only reason people have made strung telegraph poles is because they can swing on them.

In Greek, Indian and Chinese religions "Why things are the way they are?" is answered through origin myths (remember Pandora's box to explain disease or Persophone's abduction by Hades to explain the seasons?) of activity by celestial powers rather than goal directed purposes by an architect. Science, an heir to the natural philosophy developed by Greeks, Indians and Chinese Confucians ...naturalize these celestial powers but still explain the world through origin narratives conceived as interplay of these now naturalized powers of the world.

 

[Deeje]

No, you haven't answered why you think life couldn't have evolved by chance because it would require a string of fortunate unguided accidents while you have no problem accepting that you are here by chance due to a string of fortunate unguided accidents. Why the double standard?

That's easy.....the double standard, like evolution, is all in your own mind. I am an unplanned life, but the process that produced me is not....get it? Life is not an accident.....it didn't just "poof" into existence by some fluke, millions of years ago. Reproduction is miraculous, regardless of whether you believe it happened by chance or it was intelligently designed. The more science learns about the process, the more incredible it becomes.

 

[Deeje]

What!? You say you are a creationist and then you contradict both answersingenesis and the Institute for Creation Research?

Please try to keep up....I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist. I do not subscribe to the 7 literal day scenario because that disagrees with what science actually knows....as opposed to what it thinks it knows.

"If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people."
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/

Again, are they playing dumb?

This makes no logical sense.

The creative "days" may well have been epochs. The Bible merely says that each creative period had a beginning and an end, it doesn't say how long each period was or even if they were all the same length. The Creator is not constrained by time, so why do humans want to place limitations on him? He is "Almighty" because there is not a power in existence that can be equal to him.

The Gospel message is not undermined except by willful ignorance. Humankind were created at the very end of the last "day". The "fall" began at the start of the seventh "day"....a period of time set aside by the Creator to allow for issues to be raised in connection with his free willed creation. At the end of the sixth day, all was going exactly to plan....God even declared that he was more satisfied at the end of this period than any other.

I do not believe that the seventh day has ended, because at the conclusion of the seventh day God will again declare that "everything is very good". Look at Genesis and see that there is no conclusion to the seventh day mentioned. God only rested from his creative works, not from seeing his purpose through to its completion. (Isaiah 55:11) There is lots more to come.

"What can we conclude concerning the length of the "days" of creation? The usage of the word "day," with a number, means a 24-hour period."

Rubbish! Genesis 2:4 uses the same word to describe a summation of the whole creative process....
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (ASV)

Yes, where did your god come from in the first place if life can only come from pre-existing life? Isn't your god alive?

We have discussed this too.....do you have memory issues? Life comes from pre-existing life on earth with biological creatures, but the Creator is a lifeform that is not biological. Science cannot quantify him so they take the position that he can't exist because their limited knowledge and understanding won't allow them to.

 

[ArtieE]

That's easy.....the double standard, like evolution, is all in your own mind. I am an unplanned life, but the process that produced me is not....get it?

But since you were unplanned and are here against incredible odds why couldn't the process that produced life also be unplanned? Hence the double standard.

Life is not an accident.....it didn't just "poof" into existence by some fluke, millions of years ago.

That is something you and the abiogenesis people totally agree on. Life is not an accident and wasn't just poofed into existence by a god but is the result of the natural process of chemical evolution.

 

[ArtieE]

Please try to keep up....I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist.

Then you believe that living organisms were designed but not created?

I do not subscribe to the 7 literal day scenario because that disagrees with what science actually knows....as opposed to what it thinks it knows.

But what science says disagrees with the Bible just like the scientific Theory of Evolution does.

Again, are they playing dumb?

This makes no logical sense.

Actually when I see it from their perspective it makes perfect logical sense.

The creative "days" may well have been epochs.

Days with mornings and evenings could have been epochs? Now you are really bending over backwards to try to make the Bible agree with modern science. Just read the articles I quoted one more time.

We have discussed this too.....do you have memory issues?

Just reminding you that you contradict yourself.

Life comes from pre-existing life on earth with biological creatures, but the Creator is a lifeform that is not biological.

Oh. So non-biological lifeforms don't have to come from earlier non-biological lifeforms. Can you show me some sources who support that or is that something you just made up on the spot?

And by the way, earlier in this post you stated that you are not a creationist but at the end of the post you state that "the Creator is a lifeform". So you are not a creationist but do believe in a Creator?

 

[Deeje]

So I was correct in my assumption then. And as a side note understand that your eyes and common sense are two of the worst tools for obtaining truth. If they were not then magic tricks wouldn't be amusing.

You think God is a magician?

Magic tricks are really only illusions....like evolution. Smoke and mirrors.

My eyes and ears and sense of smell, touch and taste are not the product of random accidents.....they are purposefully designed to enhance my life. If I don't have them, then I will adapt to life, not having them...that will be normal to me. Now tell me how organisms with no power of reason, can talk themselves into gaining 5 amazing senses through ransom mutations? If you have never seen anything, how do you know that seeing is advantageous...or hearing or use of any of the other senses?

There seems to be a dischord with your group overall. Some are Ken Ham believers and some are closer to what is evolutionary theists. You seem somewhere in the middle.

I subscribe to the Bible's teachings, not men's musings. The one thing I hate to hear when anyone is expounding on a viewpoint is "I think"......I couldn't care less what people think if it is out of sinc with the scriptures.They tell me all I need to know.

Few questions at this piont however. First is why would an omnipotent and all knowing god require "experimental" life? Why would he make it look just like they evolved if they did not evolve? Was he attempting to trick mankind? A common explanation from the Ken Ham group is that the devil did it.

An all knowing God is also an intelligent Creator...an amazing artist. It means that he loves to play with color and design....creation attests to that. How much variety is there?...and all accidental according to you.

God did not create any of it to "look like it evolved"...humans have read that into his creation. The only "trick" is the one that leads people to false conclusions. Humans created evolution.

What of neanderthal and denisovan populations? They were species of homo that were clearly not seperate from humans. They bred with humans. You have neanderthal DNA in you right now. What of homo rhodesiensis which is FAR FAR FAR more similar to humans than to chimpanzees? Why do we see them exist for a relatively short period of time before disappearing and leaving only extremely similar species behind? Why did god make a buildup of chimplike animals around 5 million years ago but suddenly made an animal with a similar features to its previous ancestors but had a human like hip 4 million years ago which lived till just about 2 million years ago however suddenly alongside another extremely similar creatuer who is first seen 2.8 million years ago. However this little guy had smaller molars (more human like), continued to keep the human like hip which was slightly more human like. It also had a bigger brain and have been found with stone tools. That was called H. Habilis. That species seemed to have died out around the same time H. Erectus showed up around 1.8 million years ago. This guy had all of the same stuff. Slightly more human hip than the last guy, slightly larger brain than the last guy. H. Habilis which lived right around the same time and side by side was extremely similar but had even slightly larger brains Its beginings however were after H. erectus. H. Habils had locking knee joings (just like humans whom no other animal living today has marking this species and those that follow it to be the only ones in the animal kingdom with this exact trait. Some quadrapeds have similar mechanisms but it is not the same mechanism.) This species also is noted for having a shifted foramen magnum to be almost exactly where humans's foramen magnum is located.

Then we get to H. Rhodesiensis who lived less than a million years ago. Extremely human like. Same limb structure. Only slightly smaller brain than a human. Jaw and teeth bones similar to humans and flat human like face structure.

Beyond them just slightly after is Neanderthal and Denisovans. Human like species who are often considered sub-species of H. Sapiens. that lived alongside us and in many cases breeded with us.

You say that so authoritatively....

"Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to “modern man,” Homo sapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homo habilis and Homo erectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,” states Meave Leakey, one of the authors of the report."

http://creationwiki.org/Recent_controversy_in_hominid_ancestry

Neanderthal man was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.” As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look. Who noticed?

So you are telling me that god decided to do all of that? Slightly modify chimp ilke species down two seperate lines (one for chimps and one for humans) but killed them all off and made Adam and Eve out of the dirt? Even though we know that DNA and allel changes happen? Even though we understand how evolution takes place? Even though you and most other creationists believe in "microevolution"? Even though it would only take a microevolution level of change to get us to our most recent ancestors you still believe them to be at totally seperate species?

Here is a quote from "Cosmos" outlining the difficulty of tracing human evolution......

"Tracing a direct line of ancestry back along this branch is difficult because the fossil record is a patchy mosaic of incomplete skeletons. Few early humans died at the right time and place for their remains to be preserved.

Entire species probably became extinct without leaving a single toe bone for us to dig up in the smattering of places we are looking. And species that have been discovered are just as likely ancient “cousins” – offshoots of the branch leading to us – as they are great, great, great, etc. grandparents.

The fossil record between two and three million years ago – when our oldest Homo ancestors emerged – is particularly sparse, says Spoor, making it “one of the least understood parts of human evolution.”

Our earliest Homo ancestors most likely descended from Australopithecus afarensis, best known for the 3.2-million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found in Ethiopia’s Afar region.

A jawbone found in Ledi-Geraru, also in the Afar – marks the debut of Homo in the fossil record at 2.8 million years ago. By the time the fossil record begins to pick up around two million years ago, there were at least three early Homo species loping around Eastern Africa – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo erectus."

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/where-did-we-come-from-a-primer-on-early-human-evolution

Seriously, MoR, the evidence is sadly lacking in anything much more convincing than a jawbone or incomplete skeletons.

From creation's viewpoint, obviously God decided on a species that he would endow with qualities that no other living beings possessed. He wanted caretakers for the planet, so why not streamline the basic design of one of his creatures and give them something special so that they could represent him on the earth and care for all the rest? Sounds reasonable to me.

You see the similarity of skulls between us and other apes (as we are apes) as well as our hand structures, hip and joint structures and don't see us even as the same "kind"? But you believe zebras and horses to be of the same "kind" despite being more genetically distant than us and chimpanzees?

Humans cannot interbreed with apes. The gulf between us is unbridgeably huge.
Zebras and horses can interbreed as can lions and tigers, though they would not do so in the wild, and their offspring are invariably sterile. It is obvious that God designed creatures to breed only with their own "kind".

The universe is vast and mind boggling. That isn't evidence of a creator. Stating that a creator is creative doesn't give any kind of evidence to the idea that one magical being made it all.

Your higher power is pure faith. Evolution is based on evidence. We have fossils we have DNA evidence, we have archealogical evidence, we have geological evidence, we have anatomical evidence.

By your own admission, "the universe is vast and mind boggling".....imagine the power that created it. If this power is God, then how do you expect to measure him by merely human estimations? The "evidence" you refer to is not confirming what you want to believe, not archeologically, not geologically and not anatomically....so you must have more faith than me if you think all this amazingly designed "something" came from undirected "nothing".

Abiogensis isn't confirmed or totally known. In fact we have dozens of different theories on exatly how it happened. Other than the frindge theories that aren't given much credit it is mostly agreed upon that it happened in three stages.
1. Origin of biological monomers which can and do happen spontaneously.
2. The origin of biological polymers. Also can be done in a lab though significantly more complex than step 1.
3. The evolution (not biological at the begining but biological at the end) from advanced biological polymers into functional cells. The bilipid membrane is easily formed and can be created a lab.

This is both possible and probable despite not being there to see it happen. Possible trumps magic every day in science. Probable even more so.

LOL....your "possibles" are way more "magical" than my "probables". At least I have an intelligence directing all the processes......you have an unintelligent Mr Nobody.

 

[Deeje]

Then you believe that living organisms were designed but not created?

When did I say that?

But what science says disagrees with the Bible just like the scientific Theory of Evolution does

True science does not disagree with the Bible at all. Just silly man made theories with very little evidence and lots of supposition.

Actually when I see it from their perspective it makes perfect logical sense.Days with mornings and evenings could have been epochs? Now you are really bending over backwards to try to make the Bible agree with modern science.

There was evening before morning, did you never notice? The Jewish day began at sundown. We use the word "day" to mean an era....."in my grandfather's day"....or using a metaphor like "the dawn of a new era"....figures of speech are right through the Bible.

Just read the articles I quoted one more time.

I have quoted all the nonsense I am going to. Your articles are a joke. Read back over this thread and see for yourself.
They do not say what you assume that they do. The power of suggestion works on weak minds apparently....

Oh. So non-biological lifeforms don't have to come from earlier non-biological lifeforms. Can you show me some sources who support that or is that something you just made up on the spot?

Your own biology classes would have established that all life springs from pre-existing life.....this rule is only ever denied when evolution is mentioned. Funny that.

And by the way, earlier in this post you stated that you are not a creationist but at the end of the post you state that "the Creator is a lifeform". So you are not a creationist but do believe in a Creator?

Yes...I do not subscribe to a literal 7 day, young earth creation...but still hold to the creation being the product of an Intelligent Designer, over a very long period of time.

 

[ArtieE]

When did I say that?

When you said and I quote: "I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist." You believe in a Creator and that living organisms were created but you are not a creationist?

There was evening before morning, did you never notice? The Jewish day began at sundown. We use the word "day" to mean an era....."in my grandfather's day"....or using a metaphor like "the dawn of a new era"....figures of speech are right through the Bible.

That was all taken into consideration in the articles I quoted. In detail. Did you actually read them at all?

Your own biology classes would have established that all life springs from pre-existing life.....this rule is only ever denied when evolution is mentioned. Funny that.

LOL have you ever taken biology classes? Biological evolution says nothing about where life came from it only describes how it evolved. Hence the name (biological) evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory of how atoms and molecules assembled into more and more complicated structures until the structures got the properties we require them to have in order to call them living. Do you know the difference between chemical evolution and biological evolution?

Yes...I do not subscribe to a literal 7 day, young earth creation...but still hold to the creation being the product of an Intelligent Designer, over a very long period of time.

Then how can you possibly say "I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist" and say that creation is the product of an Intelligent Designer?

 

[Shad]

Firstly, the creative process did NOT take place in 7 literal 24 hour days.....so let's just lose that bit of nonsense shall we? What does that leave us with? According to Genesis.....the time of "the beginning" is not stipulated, but merely stated. So at some point in the infinite past, material creation was brought into existence. There was a time when matter did not exist and this is something that science and ID proponents can agree upon. Creation had a beginning.

Modify the story to fit the facts, nothing more. More so there are issues with causality as time is part of the universe not merely a ticking of a clock

Secondly, there is also no timeframe between creation of the universe and preparation for Earth's habitation from a "formless and waste" state. This allows for an "old earth". Which also allows for the beings that were placed on this planet to also have old origins. The Creator individually crafted each creature, from the smallest to the largest. He appears to have experimented with different species, some of which he apparently allowed to become extinct before deciding on which species would precede the appearance of man.
We know for sure that dinosaurs never inhabited the earth at the same time as man. We also know that the ability to procreate was given to each individual creature so that populations would be maintained as he purposed.

Which is a completely useless exercise for an all powerful being that can make any scenario that is logically possible. All you have established that God is not capable of creating the results of chemical reactions. God can not create fossil fuels (chemical composition) but must use a mechanism like any other limited lifeform. Experimentation suggestions that God can not know the results of a possible outcome. You say God selected species to precede man yet are oblivious to the the implication that the very idea of preceding is to draw a connection from one species to another. A connection evolution establishes.

Experiments are useless for a being that not only knows of all possible outcomes but the very outcome that is an actuality. This contradicts the notion that prophecy being reliable.

I don't believe that cavemen (as early humans) ever existed. I believe that humans were always intelligent and resourceful but that some peoples became separated and isolated from the mainstream and became more primitive as a regressive step, rather than a progressive one. Primitive peoples still exist even in this modern world, isolated and removed from modern life. What does this prove?

You treating technology, industrial and social development of nations and people as if this is a criteria for biological development. It isn't. All you have done is openly declare people that are not as developed as the modern world are biological inferior based on non-biological developments. The less developed a people or nation reflects a biological regression. You label all the previous species as cavemen but this is distortion of the post you replied to.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You think God is a magician?

Magic tricks are really only illusions....like evolution. Smoke and mirrors.

My eyes and ears and sense of smell, touch and taste are not the product of random accidents.....they are purposefully designed to enhance my life. If I don't have them, then I will adapt to life, not having them...that will be normal to me. Now tell me how organisms with no power of reason, can talk themselves into gaining 5 amazing senses through ransom mutations? If you have never seen anything, how do you know that seeing is advantageous...or hearing or use of any of the other senses?

Actually they were developed through evolution of sensory cells that have been honed over the years of allele changes. But I doubt you accept that. But can you at least accept the fact that your senses are not perfectly designed? They are flawed at best. We can only sense a minute number of things that actually exist int he universe. Ultraviolet light? Infared light? radiation? Nah. Can we see the very very very very small? No. Can we accurately see the very very far away? No. We have had to build instruments to do this for us. If you believe god endowed us with senses then we have already surpassed god in that.

But they are easily tricked. They don't pick up enough information. They give us just enough to scavenge for food not to decipher the mysteries of the cosmos.

I subscribe to the Bible's teachings, not men's musings. The one thing I hate to hear when anyone is expounding on a viewpoint is "I think"......I couldn't care less what people think if it is out of sinc with the scriptures.They tell me all I need to know.

The bible is made of men's musings. As was the Koran, Torah and every other "religious text"

An all knowing God is also an intelligent Creator...an amazing artist. It means that he loves to play with color and design....creation attests to that. How much variety is there?...and all accidental according to you.

God did not create any of it to "look like it evolved"...humans have read that into his creation. The only "trick" is the one that leads people to false conclusions. Humans created evolution.

But your evidence for god is that it "looks like we were created"? Funny.

You say that so authoritatively....

"Scientists often portray the final “stages” of “human evolution” as a progression from Homo habilis to Homo erectus to “modern man,” Homo sapiens. Two fossils found within walking distance of each other in Kenya, however, have now been interpreted as indicating that the two species Homo habilis and Homo erectus, thought to be human ancestors, lived at the same time. “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,” states Meave Leakey, one of the authors of the report."

http://creationwiki.org/Recent_controversy_in_hominid_ancestry

Neanderthal man was undoubtedly human. At first he was pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. Now it is known that this mistaken reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, confirming that he was not much different from modern humans. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle stated: “There is no evidence that Neanderthal man was in any way inferior to ourselves.” As a result, recent drawings of Neanderthals have taken on a more modern look. Who noticed?

Can you find a different source to her than creationiowiki? Something actually legitimate?

Here is a quote from "Cosmos" outlining the difficulty of tracing human evolution......

"Tracing a direct line of ancestry back along this branch is difficult because the fossil record is a patchy mosaic of incomplete skeletons. Few early humans died at the right time and place for their remains to be preserved.

Entire species probably became extinct without leaving a single toe bone for us to dig up in the smattering of places we are looking. And species that have been discovered are just as likely ancient “cousins” – offshoots of the branch leading to us – as they are great, great, great, etc. grandparents.

The fossil record between two and three million years ago – when our oldest Homo ancestors emerged – is particularly sparse, says Spoor, making it “one of the least understood parts of human evolution.”

Our earliest Homo ancestors most likely descended from Australopithecus afarensis, best known for the 3.2-million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found in Ethiopia’s Afar region.

A jawbone found in Ledi-Geraru, also in the Afar – marks the debut of Homo in the fossil record at 2.8 million years ago. By the time the fossil record begins to pick up around two million years ago, there were at least three early Homo species loping around Eastern Africa – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo erectus."

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/where-did-we-come-from-a-primer-on-early-human-evolution

Seriously, MoR, the evidence is sadly lacking in anything much more convincing than a jawbone or incomplete skeletons.

There are more than likely dozens of species that we have never discovered because they do not have remains to discover. We have found skulls and ample evidence of the ones listed above. We have a nearly complete skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis. We have many incomplete skeletons but we have many good sources as well.

They most likely are our cousins rather than direct ancestors but this doesn't sway the point in the slightest. They shared a more recent common ancestor with us. Specifically ancestors that gained new and specifically human traits.

You realize that they didn't come up with H Habilis, H Rudolfensis and H erectus with just a single Jawbone correct? It was the first of several fossils.

From creation's viewpoint, obviously God decided on a species that he would endow with qualities that no other living beings possessed. He wanted caretakers for the planet, so why not streamline the basic design of one of his creatures and give them something special so that they could represent him on the earth and care for all the rest? Sounds reasonable to me.

To a creationist's viewpoint so long as the answer is god the rest doesn't matter. This is evidenced by the fact you have everything from YEC to theistic evolutionists. There is a creationist viewpoint for each and every branch of Christianity if not more. What this generally means is that they are making things up to suit their personal beliefs.

Also for it to "make sense" you need EVIDENCE. What is a single shred of evidence of creationism?

Humans cannot interbreed with apes. The gulf between us is unbridgeably huge.
Zebras and horses can interbreed as can lions and tigers, though they would not do so in the wild, and their offspring are invariably sterile. It is obvious that God designed creatures to breed only with their own "kind".

Not necessarily on the genetic level. The largest difference is in gestation period womb shape. But either way it makes no difference to the point being said. What is the evidence that god designed it that way?

By your own admission, "the universe is vast and mind boggling".....imagine the power that created it. If this power is God, then how do you expect to measure him by merely human estimations? The "evidence" you refer to is not confirming what you want to believe, not archeologically, not geologically and not anatomically....so you must have more faith than me if you think all this amazingly designed "something" came from undirected "nothing".

Probably pretty crazy. I hope its amazing. I doubt its a god. If it is a god I am 100% it was not the god of Abraham.

LOL....your "possibles" are way more "magical" than my "probables". At least I have an intelligence directing all the processes......you have an unintelligent Mr Nobody.

And that makes your position somehow better? What is the evidence of intelligent direction? Why does prayer not yield results? Where has god ever taken a hand in directing anything ever?

Do you realize if we were debating why it rains you would be claiming that your god makes it rain and that my position is simply made up of an unintelligent mr nobody? And that you are scoffing the actual truth while clinging to the continually wrong and fallacious argument that claiming intelligence is required makes your argument somehow more valid?

 

[sayak83]

Can you find a different source to her than creationiowiki? Something actually legitimate?



There are more than likely dozens of species that we have never discovered because they do not have remains to discover. We have found skulls and ample evidence of the ones listed above. We have a nearly complete skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis. We have many incomplete skeletons but we have many good sources as well.

They most likely are our cousins rather than direct ancestors but this doesn't sway the point in the slightest. They shared a more recent common ancestor with us. Specifically ancestors that gained new and specifically human traits.

You realize that they didn't come up with H Habilis, H Rudolfensis and H erectus with just a single Jawbone correct? It was the first of several fossils.

Just a friendly suggestion. It is a typical tactic of people like Deeje to ignore previous replies as if they never existed and ask same questions again and again as if they have never been provided with good answers. The transition from late Australopithecus (Lucy descendants) to early Homo (Turkana boy ancestors) is replete with excellent fossil record. Deeje obviously chooses to forget the number of times this has been pointed out to him. But the thread on human evolution contains the major snapshots, to be easily linked to when Deeje asks this question again and again and again...

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-science-of-human-evolution.191162/page-3#post-4941870

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you acting dumb...or are you not acting?

I thought I answered this several times already....."I" am not important. If another sperm had reached the egg first I would have been somebody else. My life was not foreordained or predestined....I was just the fortunate end result of the process that the Creator put in place when he made humans and told them to have children. This makes me so grateful for my life.....being born is a miracle! The odds against any of us being here at all is monumental.

He appears to be demonstrating that your position is illogical and contradictory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please try to keep up....I have said numerous times that I am not a creationist. I do not subscribe to the 7 literal day scenario because that disagrees with what science actually knows....as opposed to what it thinks it knows.

Again, are they playing dumb?

This makes no logical sense.

The creative "days" may well have been epochs. The Bible merely says that each creative period had a beginning and an end, it doesn't say how long each period was or even if they were all the same length. The Creator is not constrained by time, so why do humans want to place limitations on him? He is "Almighty" because there is not a power in existence that can be equal to him.

The Gospel message is not undermined except by willful ignorance. Humankind were created at the very end of the last "day". The "fall" began at the start of the seventh "day"....a period of time set aside by the Creator to allow for issues to be raised in connection with his free willed creation. At the end of the sixth day, all was going exactly to plan....God even declared that he was more satisfied at the end of this period than any other.

I do not believe that the seventh day has ended, because at the conclusion of the seventh day God will again declare that "everything is very good". Look at Genesis and see that there is no conclusion to the seventh day mentioned. God only rested from his creative works, not from seeing his purpose through to its completion. (Isaiah 55:11) There is lots more to come.

Rubbish! Genesis 2:4 uses the same word to describe a summation of the whole creative process....
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (ASV)



We have discussed this too.....do you have memory issues? Life comes from pre-existing life on earth with biological creatures, but the Creator is a lifeform that is not biological. Science cannot quantify him so they take the position that he can't exist because their limited knowledge and understanding won't allow them to.

That's not an answer, rather, it's a deflection.

I've asked you the same question many times as well.

 

[gnostic]

That's easy.....the double standard, like evolution, is all in your own mind. I am an unplanned life, but the process that produced me is not....get it? Life is not an accident.....it didn't just "poof" into existence by some fluke, millions of years ago.

H-O-L-Y C-O-W!!!

You really can't help yourself.

You just put straw-man of misinformation after another.

Using straw-man in evolution doesn't help your cause or argument one iota, because it is quite clear that A) you don't understand evolution, and B) you are lying.

Evolution never say "poof", where something came from nothing. That's your straw-man.

Show me some sources of scientific papers that evolution EVER say life come from nothing?

And you are talking about the origin of life, not biological diversity, which is totally different. I have...as others have, tried to explain to you the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but you can't seem to grasp it.

In order for evolution to occur, life have to already exist, for parent(s) to pass their genes to the next generation...therefore, life cannot exist

And where is your sources that life occurred as an accident or fluke. Again, you don't understand Natural Selection. I have already given some examples (bears, tortoises and viruses) on what can cause Natural Selection.

Natural Selection happened where given the environment of the location, the ancestors must pass genes to descendants that are helpful for their survival or die out.

The brown-and-polar-bear example is perfect in demonstrating Natural Selection. The brown bears that began living in the barren polar region, were required to change physically and genetically.

This is Natural Selection at work, not a fluke or accident.

The brown bears would eat anything they can find, from berries to meat, but they seemed to favor river fishes (salmons, trouts). But in the colder season, they need to seek shelter and hibernate.

The polar bears don't need to hibernate, thriving in the icy region, where there main source of food are sea seals.

But before you say a very ignorant (and typically creationist) thing like "brown bear and polar bear are of a bear kind", you need to think how they are different, when and how they diverge?

Equally stupid are micro vs macro- evolution argument, or adaptation is not evolution.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't really care about your excuses or your convenient definitions....that is all they are to me.

At the end of the day, science has a theory....an unprovable theory that is based solely on "evidence" that it itself has 'manufactured' because it has a premise upon which the whole scenario is built.....everything that is "suggested" or "supposed" is based on that first premise....that evolution MUST HAVE taken place. I say hog wash! Forcing suggestions into evidence to theorize how something "might have" happened is a little different to allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Science puts words in the fossils' mouths.

Again, more baseless straw man from you.

Not once, in my reply to you, did I ever give you examples of fossils in regarding to evolution. In my replies...to you...I have given you real life examples of Natural Selection, without ever using fossils -

1. Viruses, and how they become immune or resistant to antibiotics and vaccines.
2. Different species of tortoises on Galápagos islands.
3. Polar bears, how they differ from brown bears, because of regions they lived in.

I don't have to speak of fossils, to show clear examples of Natural Selection.

You can't help yourself by lying to person you are replying to.

Well, good luck to you. I may not have another chance to response to you and other people in this thread or or other, after this coming weekend, because I will be busy until after new year.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The bilipid membrane is easily formed and can be created (in) a lab.

There you go! It needs to be created. That requires intelligence, does it not?

 

[sayak83]

There you go! It needs to be created. That requires intelligence, does it not?

No it does not. Creation does not require an intelligent creator.
Eg:- This steep gorge was created by that swift mountain river.
Volcanic activity created the Hawaii island.
Heavy summer rains created this shallow lake.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Deeje: "That's easy.....the double standard, like evolution, is all in your own mind. I am an unplanned life, but the process that produced me is not....get it? Life is not an accident.....it didn't just "poof" into existence by some fluke, millions of years ago."
-----------—-----------

Evolution never say "poof", where something came from nothing. That's your straw-man.

I do not see the straw man. Where did she say that evolution was the fluke? She did not.

But atheists ultimately do believe, no matter what you call it, that something came from nothing.....that the profound truth, "ex nihilo, nihil fit" is false.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No it does not. Creation does not require an intelligent creator.
Eg:- This steep gorge was created by that swift mountain river.
Volcanic activity created the Hawaii island.
Heavy summer rains created this shallow lake.

Straw man. I was commenting, as you well know, about your bilipid membrane. Talk about moving the goal posts!

 

[sayak83]

Straw man. I was commenting, as you well know, about your bilipid membrane. Talk about moving the goal posts!

No. I am not. The bi-lipid membranes spontaneously assemble into their spherical membranous shapes once they are in water because that is their most inherently stable energy condition. No different from a river running downhill.
They act like soap bubbles do in water.