| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
07 Nov 2006 09:48:32 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution |
scarp1234567@yahoo.co.uk
Re: Evolution
For a long while I thought the arguement between evolution and creation
was dead. Since there was absolutely no progress in term of evolution
research. The advancement of molecular genetic does not prove or
disprove evolution. In a certain extend, biologists such as myself,
accept that changes can happen to genome and change the phenotype of a
certain organisms, and that is inheritable. But you can call it
evolution, just because a species has changed.
So, what does it tell us? Is there a God? In recent publication by
Professor Richard Dawkins, a very prominent biologist, called 'The God
Delusion', he used sciences to attack every bit of religion. For
recent times, he has been crusading to take God away from our lives.
On the other end of the scale, the Bible belt of America is advocating
the teaching of intelligent design as a science. The problem is, as a
scientific sound theory, it has to be reproducible.
Now, it is down to belief. Do I or do you believe in God and His
creation? The point here is, no matter the answer, it does change any
fact that God created the universe, or not.
Hello,
Evolution's strongest proof would be in the fossil record. It is sadly
lacking here. But the creation account is the strongest here. So if we
are going to be scientific, then we should support the strongest data,
right?
To cut to the chase, evolution says life evolved from previous life
over millions of years. Thus thousands and thousands of transitional
life forms once would have existed to eventually produce all the
thousands and thousands of different life forms today. (as well as
those extinct)
On the other hand, the creation account says that each different life
form was created whole and complete on the spot. Thus were would be no
transitional life forms in the fossil record. They would show up full
and complete.
So what does the fossil record show? It shows life forms quickly
showing up in the fossil record as whole and complete organisms. Even
Darwin had problems with those needed transitional life forms. He
stated:
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Yes that "very obvious difficulty" still exists today in that THEORY
of evolution. Now if a "theory" fails to find the strongest evidence
to support it, doesn't it sound reasonable to have doubts about the
theory's credibility?
True, religionists have to have a lot of faith to believe in their
religion, but one would expect those of science to stay with the
scientific proof, not go by faith. And the science (fossil record)
supports the creation account over the evolutionary theory. If it
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then.....
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
..
.
|
|
| User: "Charles Lindsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution |
08 Nov 2006 06:51:01 AM |
|
|
In <uh91l2heotcrt1ut7ektufqhpk92b2kor9@4ax.com> James <bireda@allvantage.com> writes:
To cut to the chase, evolution says life evolved from previous life
over millions of years. Thus thousands and thousands of transitional
life forms once would have existed to eventually produce all the
thousands and thousands of different life forms today. (as well as
those extinct)
On the other hand, the creation account says that each different life
form was created whole and complete on the spot. Thus were would be no
transitional life forms in the fossil record. They would show up full
and complete.
So what does the fossil record show? It shows life forms quickly
showing up in the fossil record as whole and complete organisms. Even
Darwin had problems with those needed transitional life forms. He
stated:
"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious
difficulty." (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54).
Yes, but if you think about it carefully, long gaps in the fossil record
are exactly what you would expect to see if evolution is working.
If there is a population of millions of some creature all thriving and
reproducing, then their will be millions of dead bodies produced and you
will find lots of fossils of them.
But such a large population will not evolve, because even if some
favourable mutation appears in a single creature, you would have to wait
for millions of generations before that mutation had become widespread
throughout the population.
So it is only when you have a small population of some species that is
under pressure and in danger of extinction (because its environment has
changed or some new predator has appeared) that a favourable mutation will
have any chance of propagating to become present in the majority of the
population (at which point the population may well start to expand to the
millions and so stop evolving further).
For that reason, you don't expect the intermediate species to show up in
the fossil record because their populations were so small and, likewise
their number of dead bodies, that you cannot expect to find many of their
fossils lying around.
However, as people continue to look further for fossils of these "missing
links", they do turn up from time to time (as was reported recently for a
fossil somewhere between Australopithecus and Lucy).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kendall K. Down" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution |
08 Nov 2006 12:32:50 PM |
|
|
In message <J8Ex11.I1I@clerew.man.ac.uk>
"Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
So it is only when you have a small population of some species that is
under pressure and in danger of extinction (because its environment has
changed or some new predator has appeared) that a favourable mutation will
have any chance of propagating to become present in the majority of the
population (at which point the population may well start to expand to the
millions and so stop evolving further).
Odd, isn't it, that not only have we *not* seen any examples of this in all
the animal populations under pressure at the present time, but scientists -
evolutionists for the most part - are working desperately to relieve the
pressures that are causing so many animals to go extinct. Clearly, in the
case of evolution, faith and works are in direct contradiction.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gareth McCaughan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution |
09 Nov 2006 04:29:49 PM |
|
|
Ken Down wrote:
In message <J8Ex11.I1I@clerew.man.ac.uk>
"Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
So it is only when you have a small population of some species that is
under pressure and in danger of extinction (because its environment has
changed or some new predator has appeared) that a favourable mutation will
have any chance of propagating to become present in the majority of the
population (at which point the population may well start to expand to the
millions and so stop evolving further).
Odd, isn't it, that not only have we *not* seen any examples of this in all
the animal populations under pressure at the present time, but scientists -
evolutionists for the most part - are working desperately to relieve the
pressures that are causing so many animals to go extinct. Clearly, in the
case of evolution, faith and works are in direct contradiction.
Most species in great danger of extinction go extinct. Film at 11.
Anyway, your claim is false: pesticide resistance provides many
annoying counterexamples.
--
Gareth McCaughan
...sig under construc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kendall K. Down" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution |
10 Nov 2006 02:19:14 AM |
|
|
In message <87psbwckyq.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@pobox.com> wrote:
Anyway, your claim is false: pesticide resistance provides many
annoying counterexamples.
Ah yes - but could you remind me? How many of these pesticide resistant
creatures have become something else? I know I'm not a scientist, but I was
always under the impression that a pesticide resistant mosquito was still a
mosquito. Perhaps you have examples of them becoming butterflies or
something?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gareth McCaughan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution |
12 Nov 2006 06:32:37 PM |
|
|
Ken Down wrote:
In message <87psbwckyq.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@pobox.com> wrote:
Anyway, your claim is false: pesticide resistance provides many
annoying counterexamples.
Ah yes - but could you remind me? How many of these pesticide resistant
creatures have become something else? I know I'm not a scientist, but I was
always under the impression that a pesticide resistant mosquito was still a
mosquito. Perhaps you have examples of them becoming butterflies or
something?
You are, of course, changing the subject. Here is what you
were claiming there to be no examples of:
| So it is only when you have a small population of some species that is
| under pressure and in danger of extinction (because its environment has
| changed or some new predator has appeared) that a favourable mutation will
| have any chance of propagating to become present in the majority of the
| population (at which point the population may well start to expand to the
| millions and so stop evolving further).
You already know, having had it pointed out many times before
in uk.r.c, why your question about creatures having "become
something else" isn't the embarrassment to evolutionists that
you doubtless hope naive readers will think it is. Someone
who cared more about truth than about rhetoric might on that
account have refrained, but no matter.
(In case anyone has been taken in, I'll remark that the
reason why Ken's question is stupid is the same reason
as "if God exists, why didn't we find him when we went
out into space?" is stupid, and the same reason as "if
the stars are real, how come no one has ever been to them
and come back with photos?" is stupid, and the same reason
as "if there are infinitely many prime numbers, why
has no one ever written down one that has more than
a billion billion digits?".)
--
Gareth McCaughan
...sig under construc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
