“Cosmological evolution is not the same as Darwin's theory of organic evolution. How many times would you say you've been corrected about that? Seriously--How many times, approximately? Just 10 times? A hundred? A thousand times? And still you repeat it!” C. H.
You say, “Let’s have a debate about the validity of Darwinian evolution,” and when you find yourself in a corner with no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, you change the subject of the debate. Suddenly, it’s not Darwinian evolution, but “cosmological” evolution. But I’m staying with the subject.
You have faith in an unscientific theory (Darwinian evolution) that is in great error, and one which cannot be supported with anything but conjecture. Evolution is nothing but a long and winding rabbit trail that leads nowhere. You have no explanation as to the origin of creation (how it began), why it began, or where the materials came from for the beginning. It is a senseless theory, and only the gullible believe. Evolutionists are as gullible as those who see the face of Mary in a tree knot or a piece of pizza.
All forms of the evolution are a non issue when compared to your eternal salvation. So set it aside for a moment and think about where you will spend eternity. Think about this precious gift of life. Think about your mortality. Think about your sins, and then think about what God did on the cross to save you from their eternal consequences.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Debate and Switch
113 comments:
"Think about your sins, and then think about what God did on the cross to save you from their eternal consequences."
Ray,
The concept of sin is a word that was contrived by an earlier culture.
It was different back then.
I do not writhe in the suffering that you do over everyday natural experiences.
I am the one that is "Free From Sin," You are the one who constantly obsesses about it.
Ray you say "precious gift of life", precious gift. Now thats an understatement! Knowing what I now know, now that God lives in my heart and gives me a peace that still defies me on how to decribe the experience.
I go for years being trapped in satanism, only knowing pain, anger, not knowing true love, having no compassion for anyone else and I mean anyone.
I remember the day of my salvation vividly. Knealing in the darkness with my 9mm pressed tightly to my chest with the hammer pulled back, when I started to the trigger I asked God if He would have mercy on me and come into my heart and just then, right then and there I felt a warmest the size of a small seed in the midst of a great empty cavern, my heart.
My heart and soul was like a great empty cavern without light. When I repented of my sins against the most high God and summited my life to God (there are three who bear witness in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one).
Read and listen to God for yourself
Isaiah 44:6-8
6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. 7 And who can proclaim as I do?
Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people.
And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them. 8 Do not fear, nor be araid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?
You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.’”
By the way, I just wanted to interject that any of you, bleevers or non-bleevers alike, if you will donate your body to me on your death I would appeciate it as I am studying to become a Haruspex.
Thaks for your cooperation in advance, /d
another great post Ray!
I'm not even gonna bother debating you on fossils, because all science is completely lost on you.
You need to go to the doctor to have those ear plugs removed.
Ray: "and only the gullible believe."
Yes, only the gullible believe in eternal salvation...
And Ray why should you think life is precious, if it is eternal?? Come now, I say life is just chemical reactions, chance, and natural selection, but that isn't what is precious. Awareness, your's and mine, is precious, and when we die that fades away.
Plus, you shouldn't lie about the transitional fossils. How many times have people told you, given you names and examples??
Ray, you're an ignoramous. That's bad enough, but you're spreading your wilfull ignorance, and that's unforgivable. Please, please, please go back to college and learn about the subjects on which you claim to know something. Because you don't.
Yes, even though my previous post mispelled "ignoramus", you're still one. Please try to understand a subject before you speak on it.
The so-called transitional fossils are bones with an evolutionary story attached to them. Without the theory of evolution firmly placed in mind, the fossil would be categorized as an existing or extinct species. But through the lens of the theory of evolution, suddenly these fossils become transitional. There is no empirical way to prove that said fossils are transitional. The theory is a made-up story. We don't even know if the creatures that those fossils once were, had offspring, yet some are willing to proclaim that there's no arguing against this 'proof' for the theory of evolution.
Ray, you are an idiot.
The Theory of Evolution is not connected in any way with abiogenesis. Your continued failure to understand that does not invalidate the argument. Asking the Theory of Evolution to explain abiogenesis is like asking the Theory of Plate Tectonics to explain quantum theory.
Evolutionists are as gullible as those who see the face of Mary in a tree knot or a piece of pizza.
No, I think you theists have pretty much cornered the marker on nuttery, thanks.
Think about your sins, and then think about what God did on the cross to save you from their eternal consequences.
[Citation needed]
Ray, please show me a post on your blog that shows a non-Christian apparently being cornered without evidence , and changing the topic of biological evolution into the evolution of stars and planets etc, thinking they are the same thing.
They are absolutely different field in science, they only share a common name.
cosmological evolution does not have bodies that reproduce, it doesn't undergo natural selection.
Those are just two major differences in the two fields.
Hey Ray
How would you convince a deist that Christianity is correct.
They believe in God, they accept all major tenants of science to be true, they hold the view that God created the universe with the correct properties in order to form life.
But they don't believe the same God is personal.
Oh and there is no afterlife, only this life.
I think your standard toolkit of evangelizing tricks is going to been adjusting for a person like that.
In fact, i consider myself agnostic, but i don't rule out a God described above, because i cannot prove or disprove such a God.
I was just discussing the claims of the gospels with an obviously intelligent Christian who asked, essentially: if the Gospel claims about the resurrection were false, why weren't they decisively refuted in real time by those who knew better?
It seems like such a reasonable question, until you consider the limitless ability of human beings (not just Christians, of course) to see what they want to see and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Like here, for example. Ray made his demand for species-to-species transitionals months ago. He was answered, and given examples. Again and again and again and again and again.
His reply was that these examples don't count because... because... because... they have long, funny-sounding Latin names.
And now here Ray is again, having been decisively refuted in real time by those who know better, and proceeding confidently to restate the same stupid claim in the same stupid words as if none of this had ever happened -- even though you can still find the evidence of how Ray's colossally ignorant bluff was exposed with a simple browse through the April archives of this website. (Look for example at the entry "A Skeptic's Question" from April, and find the comment by Nick.)
And despite this, not one of Ray's supporters here is even going to suggest that Ray is wrong, let alone that he has been shown to be wrong and is deceitfully pretending otherwise. Because they don't want it to be true.
"Evolution is nothing but a long and winding rabbit trail that leads nowhere."
Ray,
I could not have said it any better. The conjectures get worse and worse, as you go this rabbit trail.
Even 'Alice in Wonderland' would have a nervous breakdown trying to understand the logic of Darwin evolution.
The Scientology epidemic is even worse! Space clams from 'outer space' evolved into man? LOL
Ron L. Hubbard freely admitted that he fabricated the religion in order to get rich! That man will suffer a great judgment for leading so many away from Jesus Christ for the love of money.
Readers, get the Real Story on my blogs, or webpage! HBKS video.
"It was the message 'Hell's Best Kept Secret' that set me on fire to evangelize the world.
I wouldn't be where I am or who I am today without God having spoken to me through that message.
I spent 3 years doing non-stop tract and personal evangelism from the time I first heard the message at 15 years of age until I left to go to Peru and China in 2002 after graduating from high school.
I have now been a missionary for about 5 years . . . in the foothills of Tibet ministering to Buddhists and Muslims. I have prayed and longed for the day that 'Hell's Best Kept Secret' would no longer be the secret that it once was, and I am overjoyed to see all that God has done and is still doing!!!!" -- Eugene West
Amen Brother West! Such a Blessing!
I kinda find it funny that Ray wants us to believe in something that IS JUST AS UNSCIENTIFIC, if not MORE than Darwin's theory. Religion isn't about science. It's about having faith in something based on a book that may or may not be correct on the thing called God.
And even if there is some guy up there in the sky playing Chess with our lives, each and every theist, Christian, Muslim, etc. etc. cannot prove the existence of their God during their time alive.
Not praying for you guys! Just live your life how you want to and just hope you're picked the right direction.
You say, “Let’s have a debate about the validity of Darwinian evolution,” and when you find yourself in a corner with no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, you change the subject of the debate.
Please provide specific references to such events. Please explain why you request "species-to-species" examples in the fossil record given that speciation has been observed in existing lineages. Please also explain why such a request is not inherently intellectually dishonest given that it has been explained to you on more than one occasion that it is not necessary to demonstrate specific "species-to-species" transition within the fossil record in order to establish reasonable confidence in the validity of the theory of evolution.
You have faith in an unscientific theory (Darwinian evolution) that is in great error, and one which cannot be supported with anything but conjecture.
Your assertion is false. You have demonstrated no "error" with the theory of evolution, and you have repeatedly ignored references to evidence in both the fossil record and in DNA that supports the validity of the theory of evolution. Additionally, your use of the term "Darwinian evolution" in reference to the theory of evolution itself suggests that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution, as it implies that you are unaware that the theory has been significantly refined and altered since the time of Charles Darwin.
Evolution is nothing but a long and winding rabbit trail that leads nowhere.
Your assertion has yet to be demonstrated to be correct.
You have no explanation as to the origin of creation (how it began), why it began, or where the materials came from for the beginning.
As the theory of evolution does not address such events, nor was it originally authored to address such events, your statement is fundamentally meaningless.
It is a senseless theory, and only the gullible believe. Evolutionists are as gullible as those who see the face of Mary in a tree knot or a piece of pizza.
Your appeal to the "poisoning the well fallacy" demonstrates only that you have not adequately studied logic; it does not demonstrate any actual flaw in the theory of evolution.
All forms of the evolution are a non issue when compared to your eternal salvation. So set it aside for a moment and think about where you will spend eternity. Think about this precious gift of life. Think about your mortality. Think about your sins, and then think about what God did on the cross to save you from their eternal consequences.
These unsubstantiated assertions constitute a non-sequitur with respect to your previous statements.
Here is a list of a small fraction of the transitional fossils we have discovered (from Evolution of the Vertebrates):
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache)
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus.
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
Protacanthopterygians
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.)
Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds).
Transition from reptiles to mammals:
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end]
Transition from reptiles to birds:
Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
[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.]
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
Homo habilis.
Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.]
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.]
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.)
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
[Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.
And then there's this little thing called DNA, but that was probably just invented by Satan to trick those evil scientists.
Ray Comfort wrote...
"All forms of the evolution are a non issue when compared to your eternal salvation."
And you accuse us of changing the subject? Ha!
and the room falls silent
Ray said:
You say, “Let’s have a debate about the validity of Darwinian evolution,” and when you find yourself in a corner with no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, you change the subject of the debate. Suddenly, it’s not Darwinian evolution, but “cosmological” evolution. But I’m staying with the subject.
endquote
Any number of times this evidence has been put forward and you ignore it. When asked for evidence you ignore that also. When confornted with evidence you say it does not mean what we think it does.
I think it is time to call Poe here.
You have you talking heas like Terry,Shiver,Sye and the ret consitantly saying 'great post' 'amen" etc etc. They have showered so much sunshine on you that you do not see what is real any longer.
I bid you good day
<< Remy-Grace said... Here is a list of a small fraction of the transitional fossils we have discovered (from Evolution of the Vertebrates): >>
Remy-Grace...These are not "species to species" transitional forms (if they are, and you have found "the missing link," call Time and National Geographic magazines. You will make the front cover).
:D lol, face of Mary in a piece of pizza (or moldy bread, for that matter).
I don't think evolutionists are gullible. I think they know the truth (Rom 1:20-21). I agree with whoever it was (probably Ravi Zacharias) that said that the evolutionist/atheist/whatever-ist just does not want to face the changes s/he will have to make if s/he has to admit that God exists. Anyone who admits that God exists will soon discover that we are made in His image, and will then have to begin to value every other human being as more than a random monkey's great nephew or niece. Suddenly, things like stealing, adultery, murder, covetousness (etc Exodus 20) will seem so, so wrong...
You say, “Let’s have a debate about the validity of Darwinian evolution,” and when you find yourself in a corner with no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record, you change the subject of the debate. Suddenly, it’s not Darwinian evolution, but “cosmological” evolution
It more like:
Creationists say, “Let’s have a debate about the validity of Darwinian evolution,” and when they find themselves in a corner after being shown transitional forms in the fossil record, they change the subject of the debate. Suddenly, it’s not Darwinian evolution, but “cosmological” evolution.
Or sometimes they start making weird statements about "species to species" transitionals (whatever that is supposed to be)
@ Remy-Grace, lol, here is the full extent of "that which was from the beginning..."
IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.. Genesis 1:1.
@ mudskipper,
You need to get with the times, Playstation 2 is 'old' and out of date. Jesus Christ will not give you a Playstation 2 to play with in Hell.
Repent while you can sinner!
Atheism is a hopeless religion.
No point to it, you hope to pass into a nothingness.? Insane!
Conjectures of 'nothing', foolish!
@ dale, you said "if you will donate your body to me on your death I would appeciate it as I am studying to become a Haruspex."
Haruspex
'A priest in ancient Rome who practiced divination by the inspection of the entrails of animals'
Sorry dale, humans are not animals and no one should participate in some 'bizzare' pagan ritual.
Its called idol worship. You violated the 1st commandment of 10!
Haven't you figured it out yet?
God Rules! Jesus died for your sins on the Cross, and satan is bound for the Lake of Fire.
Make your choice while you still have time! Save yourself some PAIN!
See Ray's video HBKS! My blogs have the FREE play. Ciao!!!
Blogger Remy-Grace said...
Here is a list of a small fraction of the transitional fossils we have discovered (from Evolution of the Vertebrates):
I try to not engage in sarcasm but,what the heck.... your extensive list of incredible evidence has caused me to seriously question my faith in the Genesis account of creation...not!!I guess you figured that no one would notice the "Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats"type comments.What a load of rubbish!! Unless I am completely out to lunch I was under the impression that classical evolutionary theory was ultimately about one species evolving into another....You have some interesting examples of "adaptation" within species but nothing more.Give us a break little buddy!! Keep looking up.Blessings RD
Dale,
With all sincerity, you are as you say "free from sin" because you are dead in your sins. The Bible defines you as spiritually dead in that it says you have a "heart of stone" that is not responsive to God or sin. You have no more hope of finding Christ as supremely valuable and sin as abhorrently vile than a stone figure has of feeling my presence. And yet, there are true Christians today because God truly does work miracles in causing men to be "born again."
Let's not get caught up in words, but you are actually a "slave to sin" and unless God intervenes you will never become a slave to righteousness. You are a slave of the one who comes to destroy but if mercy would be manifested you will come to be a son of the Most High God who brings you the greatest blessing in the universe--namely, Himself.
I cannot speak for every defender of mainstream science here, but when I encountered your request for a "species-to-species transitional," I did not insist that this was somehow a question of cosmological evolution, but instead referred you to Gould's discussion of the transitional series from _Cerion excelsior_ to _Cerion rubicundum_. At the risk of being accused of flooding you with big words, I also suggested that you look up the Pearson, et al. paper Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa.
You never responded to this suggestion.
A couple of years ago, when the movie The Da Vinci Code was still in the theaters, the journal First Things ran an article on conspiracy theories about art and literature. The author pointed out that such theories appeal to both vanity and laziness: vanity, because one can congratulate oneself on having seen through the lies that blind virtually all the experts in the field, and laziness, because one can achieve this height of self-conceit by memorizing a few catch phrases and quasi-facts, and ignore the vast bulk of background knowledge of symbolism and historical allusions needed to properly evaluate, say, Renaissance painting.
Since First Things has a weakness for intelligent design "theory," it did not notice that the same thing applies to creationism and ID. You are a prime example of how creationism enables the creationist to indulge both his vanity and his laziness. You prattle on about the "gullibility" and "senselessness" of evolutioniss, congratulating yourself on your own sense and skepticism, and you cannot even be bothered to figure out what the differences are between cosmology and biology, or what you even mean by "species-to-species transition" (much less address examples offered to you).
Now, as to your specific complaints: it is true that current theory does not explain, at least with any great confidence, where energy originally came from. Saying that they were miraculously magicked into existence is not, however, a vast improvement in scientific explanations. The Big Bang theory has pretty good explanations of where the original matter came from (given the original energy), and stellar nucleosynthesis explains where elements heavier than hydrogen and helium came from.
There are, of course, a great many transitional fossils -- there are even some between species within a genus, which is, after all, what you asked for. But there are also many lines of evidence besides fossils for evolution (which also, of course, provide means of testing evolution). I've mentioned before shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates, or in whales and artiodactyls; you show no interest in such things. One could also discuss biogeography, or the nested hierarchy of anatomical and molecular homologies. But you don't really want to discuss evidence; you want to rant that it does not exist (and please don't bother you with facts: trust me, Ray, it's going to be a long time before we let you live down the article in which you complained that we offered you too many examples of transitional fossils).
You say that evolution is unimportant, next to the question of eternal salvation. One might wonder, then, why you spend so much time demonstrating your ignorance of the theory and your inability to think rationally about it. But then, one might wonder why, having accused evolutionist of being gullible and totally lacking evidence for their views, you so signally fail to offer any evidence for your own.
We should make a FABNAQ ("Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions") file for Ray. On this topic alone it would include:
1) How do you define a "transitional fossil"?
2) What would constitute sufficient evidence that a fossil met that definition?
3) Since even young-earth creationists concede that speciation takes place (they call it "microevolution"), what is the point of the "s-to-s-tf" challenge? Even if nobody could meet the challenge, what would that show?
Erikloza complained,
The so-called transitional fossils are bones with an evolutionary story attached to them. Without the theory of evolution firmly placed in mind, the fossil would be categorized as an existing or extinct species. But through the lens of the theory of evolution, suddenly these fossils become transitional. There is no empirical way to prove that said fossils are transitional. The theory is a made-up story. We don't even know if the creatures that those fossils once were, had offspring, yet some are willing to proclaim that there's no arguing against this 'proof' for the theory of evolution.
Actually, as I was explaining to Ray, there are a few cases where numerous fossils exist in a series that clearly spans a transition between two well-defined species.
But note that your complaint and Ray's contradict one another. Ray's complaint assumes that you could clearly tell that something is a transitional fossil, if only it really existed, while yours is that one could never tell whether a fossil is transitional or not. If Ray's right, then you're wrong; if you're right, then it is pointless to complain that evolutionists can't produce transitional fossils (no one can produce something that by definition could not exist no matter how true evolution was).
Ray's right and you're wrong, by the way. While there is no way to show that any given fossil organism had descendants (indeed, there is no way to show, in most cases, that a fossil belonged to a species that had descendants: there is no way to distinguish a fossil of a direct ancestor from a fossil of a closely related species that went extinct without descendants, and we would expect evolution to produce many such species for every successful lineage), one can say that if evolution really happened, then we can expect that at one time a species existed that was intermediate in certain features between two different species. Then one can tell whether a fossil species was intermediate that way, even if one cannot tell whether it was a direct ancestor of anything else.
For example, I remember a few years back when a bunch of feathered dinosaur fossils started turning up in China. Creationists were very disturbed, hurling accusations of fraud and ecstatic when, in one case, these accusations turned out to be true (not that it helped: a fake transitional fossil, "Archaeoraptor," turned out to be assembled of parts of two genuine transitional fossils, Microraptor and Yanornis.
These creationists understood that, whether or not these fossil species had any living descendants (and Microraptor, at least, almost surely has not), they were exactly the sort of animals that we would expect to have existed if birds evolved from coelurosaur dinosaurs. Of course, such fossils are consistent with special creation, but there's no particular reason to expect them, and they're no more consistent with special creation than are, say, centaurs, or minotaurs, or various other fabulous beasts that we definitely would not expect evolution to produce.
Oh, and once again: very few evolutionists would say that fossils are the main evidence for evolution. The principal line of evidence for evolution involve the patterns of similarities and differences among living species.
@ Ray:
These are not "species to species" transitional forms.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Could you please explain what you imagine a species-to-species transitional form would be, and what you would accept as a satisfactory example of such?
"Ray Comfort said...Remy-Grace...These are not "species to species" transitional forms (if they are, and you have found "the missing link," call Time and National Geographic magazines. You will make the front cover)."
Ray, this is a strawman argument and you know it. It is completely and utterly disingenuous to ask for a "species to species" transition when no scientist has ever inferred that such a leap has EVER occurred. I mean honestly what do you want 1 generation speciation? That is completely absurd.
There are countless examples of speciation that have been OBSERVED. Either you are deliberately ignoring the evidence or do not know where to look, I can't decide which is worse.
dale said...
"By the way, I just wanted to interject that any of you, bleevers or non-bleevers alike, if you will donate your body to me on your death I would appeciate it as I am studying to become a Haruspex.
Thaks for your cooperation in advance, /d"
dale, do you think you are funny? It honestly grieves me when I see just how lost I once was.
captain howdy said...
"You know, Ray--
When you believe in invisible monsters that mess with people, you lose a lot of credibility when you lecture the rest of us on the theory of evolution.
It's kind of like trying to get into a discussion on astronomy with somebody only to find that they believe the world rests on the back of an invisible turtle."
LOL, I know what you mean, that was the prevailing theory at the time, and can you believe now adays many people actually believe people and all life evolved from single celled organisms, ha, too funny. They actually believe there is proof of this, they pick up bone and say see, this is your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather.
The so-called transitional fossils are bones with an evolutionary story attached to them. Without the theory of evolution firmly placed in mind, the fossil would be categorized as an existing or extinct species. But through the lens of the theory of evolution, suddenly these fossils become transitional.
You imply a dichotomy where none exists. Transitional fossils are fossils of existing or extinct species. That they are of existing or extinct species does not alter the fact that they are also transitional.
There is no empirical way to prove that said fossils are transitional.
I believe that you have failed to understand the significance of finds of transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are a prediction of the theory of evolution. Their discovery validates the theory, as they validate predictions derived directly from the theory. While it is possible that they are not actually "transitional", the fact remains that the theory of evolution predicted their existence before they were found and that the theory of evolution offers a coherent explanation as to why they appear as they do and why they appear where they do.
The theory is a made-up story.
Please substantiate this assertion.
We don't even know if the creatures that those fossils once were, had offspring, yet some are willing to proclaim that there's no arguing against this 'proof' for the theory of evolution.
How, exactly, does your noting an inability to demonstrate that a given fossil specimen represents an individual who produced offspring constitute a meaningful argument?
I could not have said it any better. The conjectures get worse and worse, as you go this rabbit trail.
Please explain the extent of research that you have conducted regarding the theory of evolution that has allowed you to reach such a conclusion. Explain the observations of ERV patterns found across species matching previously established lineages of descent rather than contradicting them.
Remy-Grace...These are not "species to species" transitional forms (if they are, and you have found "the missing link," call Time and National Geographic magazines. You will make the front cover).
Please clarify your terms. Explain what you mean, specifically, when you refer to "species to species transitional forms". Define the term, and demonstrate that such finds were predicted by evolutionary biologists.
Whoever had sent you the email claiming not to confuse scientific theories was correct to assert that you often do. Seriously.
Abiogenesis... google it.
Ray,
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and search
National Geographic>Evolution
Or
Times> Evolution
?
Ray Comfort said...
Remy-Grace...These are not "species to species" transitional forms (if they are, and you have found "the missing link," call Time and National Geographic magazines. You will make the front cover).
Ray, I thought that lying was forbidden by your 10 commandments. Why are you knowingly telling lies? You have been given countless examples of transitional fossils on this website alone.
As for them not being 'Species to Species transitional fossils', you know very well that these don't exists, and if you could find one, it would instantly blow the evolution theory out of the water. Nothing could discredit this theory faster than a species to species transitional fossil. So the fact that we don't have those is proof FOR the evolution theory, not against it. Evolution is a gradual process where some members of a species slowly over many generations, change and transform into a different species. Try googling 'Ring species' for a few good examples, not in the fossil records, but animals that are currently living on this earth, in fact a very good example is the salamanders in the San Joaquin Valley. Try explaining those.
As for speciation in general, there are lots of books about speciation. And still you claim they are all false. If that's not lying it's plain old stupidity.
You really undermine your own credibility by making all these unfounded claims. Sure there are some fundies that may agree with you, but they would probably believe you if you told they that you had a pet brontosaurus called Dino living in your back garden.
Then again, please continue, nothing can transform a believer into an atheist faster than a link to this website. When they see the nonsense that is spewed here in the name of Christianity they can't wait to distance themselves from it. (I've seen this happen in person)
Have a nice day,
C3P0R2D2 (Richard)
Ray,
A sincere question.. I know there must be a way, so how do we harmonize Genesis 32 verse 30 and Exodus 33 verse 20?
Thanks.
Family Research Institute has released a report on mortality and morbidity among gay populations, compared to the general population. I'm gonna check it out..
Oops, sorry.. It's the FDA that have done the study, not FRI.. My bad. The FDA released the stats to explain why they have banned gay men from donating blood.
I find it odd how by you refuting evolution, you are some how refuting science. How do the ah-theists come to this conclusion? And it is just plain silly to put all your eggs into a basket that has no absolutes, because you cant say you are 100% correct no matter how much you push the issue. No atheist here would say evolution 100% is the answer, because they have no basis on making such a claim. What "evidence" they have could be completely refuted down the line, if it were the case; however, it is not. Whereas theist have the almost luxury of knowing a personal God whom in His Righteous Mercy can offer us plenty of absolutes.
Ray, my experience is that evolution only applies to biological systems when the atheist wants it to.
On the other hand, they will apply it not just to life but the universe and everything else when THAT suits them.
Atheists clearly operate by a double standard, and scripturally speaking according to Paul's argument in Romans, they KNOW they are lying at some level.
That is why they see no problem whatsover with operating on the basis of that applies to YOU does not apply to them.
Ray :
You are looking for a crocaduck ( as aborhent as I find that term). And since you willfully ignore anything people are trying to say about evolution you will remain ignorant of it. And you will continue to make uninformed posts about a subject about which you willfully remain ignorant.
Ray Comfort said...
"Remy-Grace...These are not "species to species" transitional forms"
The species "Protapirus", to pick one at random, is a transitional species from the species "Lophiodont" to the species "Miotapirus". In what way exactly are these not transitional species, other than in the, "La, la, la, I'm not listening," sense?
"(if they are, and you have found "the missing link," call Time and National Geographic magazines. You will make the front cover)."
Turns out that Time and National Geographic already knew. Quite a lot of people already knew, in fact. What missing link are you looking for, other than the one that links evidence to conclusions, which seems to continually evade you?
Ray, please, once again define what YOU mean by species to species transitional forms. HINT. If YOU mean something from one kingdom, phylum, class, order or genus changing into something else already existing from another kingdom, phylum, class, order or genus then you are never going to see it. Because this is not what speciation is.
But then you've been told this over and over again.
Ok, the reality break is over. Go back to your delusions, Ray and acolytes.
Ray,
You said,
"Remy-Grace...These are not "species to species" transitional forms (if they are, and you have found "the missing link," call Time and National Geographic magazines. You will make the front cover)."
The transitional fossils have already made the cover of Time.
Your ignorance is showing again. You refer to "the missing link" as if there is one fossil that will tie everything together. That is merely your desparate attempt at obfuscation.
The more you try to refute evolution without any knowledge of the science behind it, the more you show that it is, in fact, the only way to explain how all the different species came to be.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
When they find a fossil that has traits of say fish and amphibians creationists like to claim that creates two more gaps.
You don't even have a valid competing theory or hypothesis to offer. All you have is a philosophical argument, that you must believe with blind faith, that a supernatural power spoke everything into existence, from nothing, literally in the blink of an eye. So quaint!
You are a case study in cognitive dissonance.
It seems that you dwell on evolution to draw attention away from all the other myths you want to believe are true, like the flood myth, the Tower of Babel myth, Jonah, Exodus, et, & et.
You are failing miserably.
Ray,
I'd lay odds that you didn't even read or try to understand Remy-Grace's comments.
On what grounds are you stating that none of the exaples are species to species transitions when they clearly are?
What do you base that on?
You can't make the evidence go away just because you don't like it.
This is wondering off-track slightly but I think the point is pertinent:
at the top of the blog ray posts the following comment:
"Only 10% of the world's population claim atheism. It looks like you've managed to
attract most of that population to a single blog! Truly amazing."
- a truely cretinous statement.
Now, the worlds population is currently a smidge under 6.7 billion (thats 6700000000 folks!) so 10% of that is 670 million (or 2 thirds of a billion or, for those who need it spelling out, 670000000). Now I don't know how many people have posted on, or visited, this blog over its life but I'd be prepared to risk both my bank account and an eternal stint in Hell to bet that the total number is somewhat short of that figure, let alone the total number of athiests.
Now, why am I making a point about this?
Well, that statement somewhat typifies the analytical and comprehension skills of your average fundimental Christian.
You really can't see beyond the end of your nose. the world out there is vast but you have no understanding or comprehension what is outside your direct experience. It doesn't even occur to you that there are 6.7 billion people out there - your tiny (descriptive compared with the size of the planet - not meant to be an insult) brains don't even consider it. you 'know what you know' and you're happy with that.
The problem is that you apply the same to your bizzaire and incomprehensible religious beliefs. You were brainwashed when young about religion and everyone around you in the world that you experience believes in it too so you can't comprehend anything else - you don't even try to - you're far to comfortable in the universe you experience directly.
in fact the story book you place so much store in was written by people with an even more limited world view - which is probably why you find it so comfortable.
Come on, just once, open your minds a little. Try to imagine beyond the edge of your known world and try to comprehend the world and universe about you - its not comfortable but if you do you might get an inkling of an idea as to why many (670 million is many) people don't think that 'goddidit' is a satisfactory answer.
Phil
P.S.
Sye, before you start:
I have never counted them or met them or seen the entire world's population myself and if i had I'm sure you would still question how i knew they were a) people and b) actually there.
there you go I've done it for you to save you the time having to be an idiot yourself.
Sye,
It occurs to me that this is going to take way to long to do. So let me simply lay out some of my questions and you can respond in turn – I’ll comment using ANDREW:. Now my goal is not necessarily to solve the underlying problem at this point, but to find a common ground between the two of us and find out where we go separate way if at all.
So my first question was:
1.) Are things like trees and rocks absolute?
ANDREW: I’m assuming that you’ll respond to this by saying no, and I’d of course agree with this. Of course a tree by itself is a finite thing; you can say that about anything we come in contact with in the objective world. In the vary least it is relative to time.
2.) Would you agree that the mathematical statement, 1+1=2, is absolute?
ANDREW: Again I’m assuming you’ll say yes to this as of course you believe mathematics to be absolute. I don’t completely disagree with that, but I’ll get to that later.
3.) Would you say that the symbol “TREE” and the symbol “1” are meaningful by themselves? What I mean to flesh out by this is something like this; surely we can answer yes to both of these as 1 is simply representative of an idea about quantity and tree is representative of an actual tree. However, both take they’re existence from the physical world. That is quantity, whatever quantity that may be, exists by itself as a symbol by virtue of that fact that the original ideas about quantity were taken from the observation of the physical world. So the statement, 1+1=2, is really all by itself meaningless until applied to the physical world. Again, certainly we can say it represents an idea quantity, but not without the empirical world.
ANDREW: I’m assuming you may answer yes to this, when I’d consider the answer to be no. I don’t believe that by themselves these things are meaningful.
4.) If I have two rocks in my hands and I say “THIS ROCK” + “THIS ROCKS” = “TWO ROCKS”. Is that statement absolute, or as you say, not relative?
ANDREW: I’m assuming again you’ll answer yes. However I’d go one step further and say that in one sense it’s not absolute in that rocks can be said to not be absolute (as stated above), however the concept of quantity that can add any two objects is. However, as already stated, it would of course be contingent upon the empirical non absolute world for it’s idea, #3. But such contingencies can be left to mere arm waving at this point since the physical world at this point is all around us.
5.) Lets now consider the other platform, that being LOGIC.
ANDREW: The interesting thing about logic, as with mathematics, is that it again do not exist in the physical world per se. That is I can’t see it taste it feel it and so on. They are merely concepts that represent the relationship between things in the physical world, non absolute relative world. However again, like with the concept of quantity, if we take the concept of space and time a priori, then the symbolism of logic and math can be applied to it in a way you’d consider absolute.
For example, Gravity. In this case gravity simply states that where there is mass (and again #3, where there is quantity) there will be gravity. We can even go so far as to say in the far reaches of space there is at least a minimal about of what we call gravity as the universe is full of mass. So gravity is absolute as we experience it, but again is contingent upon the finiteness of the universe.
6.) There is scientific reason to believe that the universe is not itself an eternal entity. Even the bible tells us that the world [universe] will some day come to an end. In this case is not gravity then, not absolute?
ANDREW: Now we can take this apart in the following way and say; so long as there exists the empirical world the concept of gravity at least, will be in existence by virtue of mass. Now of course given our relative mass we may experience it differently, and in this way gravity is relative, but the principles that govern it are absolute.
7.) Lets let these things flesh themselves out between the two of us and let me introduce another concept not yet discussed; namely, GOD. If it’s one thing that can be certain amongst believers is that, even though we may all believe in God, our idea of what, who, He might be is different. I’d like to dissect what that is.
A.) Would you say that our existence is finite? (and by our I don’t mean humanity but the universe as a whole)
ANDREW: I would answer yes to this, I assume you’d say the same.
B.) Would have you say that at the base the nature of God’s existence is infinite? Lets not yet consider the nature of his actual being, but can he said to be infinite?
C.) Would you say that God’s existence is infinite in a spatio temporal way?
D.) Or, is the infinite nature of God infinite in only a non spatio temporal / transcendent way?
C.) Since you believe Jesus to be the manifestation of God in the flesh, does this represent a spatio temporal aspect of God?
D.) Since God flooded the earth (for example) does this also represent a spatio temporal aspect of God.?
E.) If you answered “D” above regarding the nature of God and no to “C”, and we agree that God interacts in the spatio tempral world, then does this mean that Gods nature with the universe is then finite?
F.) If you answered yes to “C”, that God’s nature is infinite in a spacio temporal way, and you answered yes that our existence is finite; then how (on the basis of logic) can a infinite spatio temporal form exists juxtaposed with a finite form without in fact being also that finite form?
G.) If this then means that perhaps God is not infinite in a spatio temporal way, then does this then mean that God’s spatio temporal capacity is not infinite?
H.) Further, if his capacity is not infinite in a spacio temporal way, then would this not suggest that he is not absolute. At least spatio temporally.
I.) In other words, God is either everything and absolute, or finite and non absolute?
I have a serious question for Ray, and all you other YECs: if you really think you have the scientific evidence to disprove evolution, then why don’t you publish it in PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL (this blog doesn’t count as one—sorry) and let your case stand or fall on its own merits? Evolution would be incredibly easy to disprove (just ONE out of place fossil would do it—human skeletons in the Cambrian layer for example) If you really had this type of evidence you could win the Nobel Prize and convert millions of atheists. So what’s with the holdup?
Reddog said… “your extensive list of incredible evidence has caused me to seriously question my faith in the Genesis account of creation...not!!”
Uhhhh.... wow. So no extensive amount of credible evidence will cause you to question your beliefs? And you’re BRAGGING about that? Wow. Just wow.
@Phil
Ray was raised in a nominally Jewish home - that is, not religious. He wasn't 'brainwashed' as you say until the age of 22, when he read the Bible for himself.
I'm sure you will want to make a note of that, so you can belittle his beliefs more accurately.
I wasn't an athiest in the sense of having absolute knowledge of a godless reality; however, I did 'hate' God, both emotionally and in action. If a man says he loves his wife, but he neglects her, beats her, sleeps around or whatever, he may 'love' her as in having a warm feeling about her, or desiring her, or feeling attached to her, but his actions show he doesn't love her (love meaning putting another's needs above your own, even to the point of death). I hated God in my mind, hoping He didn't exist. In order to hate, you don't have to actively seek to punish the object of hatred; neglect and indifference are also passive forms of hatred. If someone refuses to acknowledge God, or concedes the possibility of His existence yet ignores Him, this is living as a God-hater. And, yes, that makes Christians Allah-haters, Buddha-haters, Shiva-haters etc. by that reasoning.
Mudskipper,
*sigh* I'm going to get tagged as a complainer, but I have to say something. First, thanks for taking down the little child rolling down the steps. But you've replace it with an image that blasphemes Jesus Christ. Please use a respectable image. Thank you.
Steven,
Thanks for your response to my complaint. I think that, when one looks at fossils, you have to have your viewpoint either for or against the theory of evolution, in place beforehand. The bones will not convince you one way or the other. Let's say, for argument's sake, that there are fossils that show a dinosaur with feathers. If I am a creationist, I can say, "There once existed a dinosaur with feathers,created by God." If I am an evolutionist, I can say, "There's evidence that supports my theory, that dinosaurs evolved into birds." This is why fossils are truly not evidence at all for evolution, because you need to believe in the theory beforehand.
Addressing your last point about the pattern of similarities and differences existing among living species, once again your belief system will determine how you view these similarities and differences. If I am an evolutionist, I may see the genetic similarity between humans and simians as proof that they had a common ancestor. If I am a creationist, I will say that these similarities exist because they had a common Creator and He used similar building blocks. Just as an author uses one alphabet to write different stories, God has used similar building blocks (molecules, atoms) to create both inanimate and animate objects, and there are living creatures that have many similarities.
Of course one huge difference between humans and every other living creature is that we have a moral belief system, can build complex cities, compose classical music, write romantic poems, etc. So while there may be similarities between apes and humans, the differences vastly outweigh them.
A Voice of One Crying in the Desert said,
I find it odd how by you refuting evolution, you are some how refuting science. How do the ah-theists come to this conclusion? And it is just plain silly to put all your eggs into a basket that has no absolutes, because you cant say you are 100% correct no matter how much you push the issue. No atheist here would say evolution 100% is the answer, because they have no basis on making such a claim.
Two points should be made here (I find myself saying that a lot, presumably because creationists often get both their facts and their logic wrong):
First, there is a difference between "absolute truths exist" and "our current beliefs and theories are absolute truths." The creationists on this blog tend to resolutely blur that distinction, tacitly (or explicitly!) assuming that because they're sure of something, they must be right about it. Science has noticed that empirical data does not permit us absolute certainty. Science does not do "proof." It does "best inference from consilience of data" (i.e. what's the best explanation for data from several different lines of investigation). The entire argument "you can't be 100% sure, but I can, therefore my views are more reasonable and more likely to be correct than yours" is an attack on science: it is a rejection of the hypothetico-deductive method and testing against evidence, in favor of dogmatic assertion.
Second, even given the tentativeness with which all scientific statements must be held, there are degrees of certainly. Common descent -- the fact that you share ancestors with macaques and mushrooms -- is as well-established a principle of science as the existence of atoms. Evidence that somehow overturned that assumption would shake up science to a degree that "paradigm shift" wouldn't begin to capture the shock. Theories about how populations change over time, how speciation and adaption occurs, are less certain. Theories about specific phylogenies range from very well-established (chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to orangutans, for example), to fairly sure (whales appear to be more closely related to hippos than to other artiodactyls), to "open to revision as soon as we get some solid data." Evolutionists themselves will tell you that there are many aspects of evolutionary theory that are either incomplete or likely to be revised in the future; again, this is a common situation in science.
What "evidence" they have could be completely refuted down the line, if it were the case; however, it is not. Whereas theist have the almost luxury of knowing a personal God whom in His Righteous Mercy can offer us plenty of absolutes.
The patterns of faunal succession in the fossil record are so well-established and consistent that if, e.g. that famous falsifier "rabbit fossils in the Precambrian" were to show up, the overwhelmingly rational response would be to suspect either a dating error or some means of reworking the fossils into an older layer rather than assuming that this rabbit was originally buried in PreCambrian sediments. The nested hierarchy of life, likewise, is so supported that it's far more parsimonious to seek out explanations, consistent with common descent, for any anomalies that may emerge than to overturn common descent as an explanation. It would take, not one fact that could turn up in a single day, but an entire large body of facts, to outweigh the evidence for evolution at this point.
Back to my point one: your argument depends critically on assuming that certitude and accuracy are the same thing. You can be very certain, and very wrong. Historically, it's not an uncommon situation.
erikloza said,
Steven, Thanks for your response to my complaint. I think that, when one looks at fossils, you have to have your viewpoint either for or against the theory of evolution, in place beforehand. The bones will not convince you one way or the other. Let's say, for argument's sake, that there are fossils that show a dinosaur with feathers. If I am a creationist, I can say, "There once existed a dinosaur with feathers,created by God." If I am an evolutionist, I can say, "There's evidence that supports my theory, that dinosaurs evolved into birds." This is why fossils are truly not evidence at all for evolution, because you need to believe in the theory beforehand.
I think you are wrong here. It is certainly possible, for example, for the fossils to fall into patterns that are impossible to reconcile with evolutionary theory (at least, with the evolutionary theories being advanced since Darwin first published). When Tiktaalik, the primitive tetrapod, was first discovered, it was noted that this particular intermediate form was found in strata that dated to just when such an intermediate form had to live, given the dates of more primitive lobe-finned fishes and slightly more advanced tetrapods. Now, on creationist grounds, paleontologists might just as easily have found fossil dolphin or ichthyosaur in those rocks: there's no reason at all they couldn't have been alive just before those fossils were formed.
If fossils can contradict a theory, they can support it as well, and be evidence for it.
A similar point applies to fossils of modern mammals in, say, the Permian (evolutionists would be shocked; creationists wouldn't be). A similar point applies to all sorts of possible fabulous mixes of species: fossil bats with feather impressions, dinosaurs with mammalian jaws and inner ears, etc. All these things, on creationist grounds, are as likely as fossils that fit into evolutionary expectations, yet paleontologists don't find them.
There isn't much that one can confidently say that creationist expect not to find (although, "well, God created it that way," notwithstanding, creationists seemed very dismayed by feathered theropods), but fossils that straddle dividing lines between "fully-formed humans" and "fully-formed apes" seem to qualify. There are several hominid fossils that creationist experts disagree on, some insisting that they are "obviously" as human as you or I, and others insisting that they are "obviously" just apes like chimps or gorillas).
Note that there is one other way that fossils can support evolution, or at least contradict certain forms of creationism. Different suites of fossils are found in different layers: everything from one species of trilobite replacing another, to trilobites themselves being replaced by other classes of animal. This is known as "faunal succession," and it reveals that the species now on the planet have not always been here, but that a multitude of species -- indeed, a multitude of entire ecosystems -- have appeared and vanished during the history of the Earth. Furthermore, the older the mix of species, the less they look like the species alive today: the living world, over time, has gradually become more and more like it is now. Again, this is consistent with the idea that living species are the descendants, more or less modified over time, of earlier species. It is less consistent with the idea of a Creator wiping out and replacing ecosystems as His ideas of what is fashionable change, and less consistent still with a single, perfect creation that is preserved from destruction or extinction.
One does not have to accept evolution to accept this pattern; it was first noticed (around 200 years ago) by creationists, who gradually modified their views until they became, first old-earth creationists, then progressive creationists, then proto-evolutionists.
Addressing your last point about the pattern of similarities and differences existing among living species, once again your belief system will determine how you view these similarities and differences. If I am an evolutionist, I may see the genetic similarity between humans and simians as proof that they had a common ancestor. If I am a creationist, I will say that these similarities exist because they had a common Creator and He used similar building blocks. Just as an author uses one alphabet to write different stories, God has used similar building blocks (molecules, atoms) to create both inanimate and animate objects, and there are living creatures that have many similarities.
This argument, of course, existed in Darwin's time, and Darwin raised an objection to it: we find, in living things, both similar structures used for dissimilar functions (so-called parahomologous and vestigial organs, such as the wings of bats and the flippers of whales, or the wings of seagulls and the wings of ostriches), and dissimilar structures used for similar functions (such as the panda's thumb -- a modified wrist bone -- and the primate's thumb -- a modified finger). In the latter category we can also put, e.g. the slight differences in the molecule cytochrome-c, an enzyme that serves the same function in humans, pine trees, and bacteria, but which is different in different groups of organisms (even where it is identical, e.g. in humans and chimpanzees, there are minor differences in the gene that codes for it). This is not "common design;" it more closely resembles opportunistic and uncoordinated (between lineages) modifications of structures inherited from common ancestors.
Now I fear I'm going to get a bit offensive. The genetic similarities used to chart relationships among species are pretty much the same sort of thing used to chart relationships among people. The same argument ("similarities indicates common design, not common descent") could just as easily be used to deny common ancestry among different human races as to deny common ancestry among different primate species. Indeed, it has been, from time to time. I do not, please understand, accuse you of harboring any wish to do such a thing; I merely note that when one starts explaining away the evidence by saying "well, God just made it to look that way, but that's not how it really is," there's no obvious stopping point at which evidence has to start counting again.
Of course one huge difference between humans and every other living creature is that we have a moral belief system, can build complex cities, compose classical music, write romantic poems, etc. So while there may be similarities between apes and humans, the differences vastly outweigh them.
Our ability to create and manipulate technology has apparently increased over the course of our evolution, if the increasing sophistication and variety of stone tools found with hominid fossils is any indication. Experiments indicate that other primates have, at least, a rudimentary sense of "fair play" and a willingness to help and exchange favors with members of their band. The mental and moral distinctions between us and other primates are extensive but they are not obviously unbridgeable.
@ Mudskipper:
*sigh* I'm going to get tagged as a complainer, but I have to say something. First, thanks for taking down the little child rolling down the steps. But you've replace it with an image that blasphemes Jesus Christ. Please use a respectable image.
I try to stay away from these icon-related disputes, but in light of Erikloza's extremely reasonable objection, I feel obligated to encourage you to change your current user image . . .
. . .to one that shows Jesus tumbling down a flight of steps.
Ray wrote: “You have faith in an unscientific theory (Darwinian evolution) that is in great error, and one which cannot be supported with anything but conjecture. Evolution is nothing but a long and winding rabbit trail that leads nowhere. You have no explanation as to the origin of creation (how it began), why it began, or where the materials came from for the beginning. It is a senseless theory, and only the gullible believe. Evolutionists are as gullible as those who see the face of Mary in a tree knot or a piece of pizza.”
At this moment in time, no person knows exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell being on earth. However, that I don’t know the cause of one event does not make me unable to know the cause of all subsequent events. For example, I don’t know the cause of the existence of the known universe. But I know that my existence was proximately caused by a particular person giving birth to me. So, that no person knows exactly which series of events resulted in the first cell being on doesn’t mean that I don’t know whether cells that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth.
Here is a quote from Ernst Mayr What Evolution Is. Mayr was one of the greatest biologists to ever live. He died recently.
“Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living” (p. 40).
Moreover, here is a passage my Ernst Mayr’s What Evolution Is on what humans understand, and don’t understand, about the series of events that resulted in the first cells being on earth:
“…The first serious theories on the origin of life were proposed in the 1920s (Oparin, Haldane). In the last 75 years, an extensive literature dealing with this problem has developed and some six or seven competing theories for the origin of life have been proposed. Although no fully satisfactory theory has yet emerged, the problem no longer seems as formidable as at the beginning of the twentieth century. One is justified to claim that there are now a number of feasible scenarios of how life could have originated from inanimate matter. To understand these various theories requires a good deal of technical knowledge of biochemistry. To avoid burdening this volume with such detail, I refer the read to the special literature dealing with the origin of life (Schopf 1999; Brack 1999; Oparin 1938; Zubbay 2000).
“The first pioneers of life on Earth had to solve two major (and some minor) problems: (1) how to acquire energy and (2) how to replicate. The Earth’s atmosphere at the time was essentially devoid of oxygen. But there was abundant energy from the sun and in the ocean from sulfides. Thus growth and acquisition of energy were apparently no major problem. It has often been suggested that rocky surfaces were coated with metabolizing films that could grow but not replicate. The invention of replication was more difficult. DNA is now (except in some viruses) known as the molecule that is indispensable in replication. But how could it ever have been coopted for this function? There is no good theory for this. However, RNA has enzymatic capacities and could have been selected for this property, with its role in replication being secondary. It is now believed that there may have been an RNA world before the DNA world. There was apparently already protein synthesis in this RNA world, but it lacked the efficiency of the DNA protein synthesis.
“In spite of all the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life, the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in a laboratory. This would require not only an anoxic atmosphere, but presumably also other somewhat unusual conditions (temperature, chemistry of the medium) that no one has yet been able to replicate. It had to be a liquid (aqueous) medium that was perhaps similar to the hot water of the volcanic vents at the ocean floor. Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions became suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago. Unfortunately we have no fossils from the 300 million years between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossiliferous rocks are 3.5 billion years old and already contain a remarkably rich biota of bacteria” (What Evolution Is, p. 42 - 43).
Erikloza,
You said,
"I think that, when one looks at fossils, you have to have your viewpoint either for or against the theory of evolution, in place beforehand."
Of course you are dead wrong about what you think.
No one had any "viewpoint" before the evidence for evolution was ng discovered and recognized for what it was.
"he bones will not convince you one way or the other."
You are arguing from a point of weakness, and the point is you have no knowledge of paleontology. The bones do tell us something and new discoveries continue to tell us something.
"If I am an evolutionist, I can say, "There's evidence that supports my theory, that dinosaurs evolved into birds." This is why fossils are truly not evidence at all for evolution, because you need to believe in the theory beforehand."
That of course is completely absurd because the two sentences are a non-sequitur. Reread it and you can see why. The second sentence does not follow from the first.
If I say this is evidence, it does not follow that you can say this is untrue because you must believe before hand. That is based on your failed logic that one must believe in evolution before understanding and interpreting the evidence.
It is you that have a presupposition that the bible is the inerrent word of some supernatural power and you dismiss without reason any evidence to the contrary. That is why your belief system is merely philosophical and science is science.
You need to hit the books and get an understanding of how science works.
Also, evolution is easily falsifiable. There are and infinite amount of discoveries or findings that could be made that could throw evolution into question, but it has not yet happened.
Evolution also makes predictions as a scientific theory must do, and those predictions have turned out to be true.
You need to stick to your hollow philosophy because you don't have a critical thinking bone in your body.
nosila999 said...
"I wasn't an athiest in the sense of having absolute knowledge of a godless reality; however, I did 'hate' God, both emotionally and in action. If a man says he loves his wife, but he neglects her, beats her, sleeps around or whatever, he may 'love' her...."
So, you are trying to tell us if one does not "love" something, then one must "hate" something.
When did you jump on the crazy-train?
Your thought process seems to be quite stunted, probably due to your ability to attach yourself to an irrational belief system, but I digress.
Your analogy is cleqarly absurd beyond description. There is a major step between love and hate and that is "Indifference."
Got it?
Your anecdotal tale of your hate of God is merely your own personal experience that you can in no way transfer on to anyone else.
Haven't you figured it out yet?
God Rules! Jesus died for your sins on the Cross, and satan is bound for the Lake of Fire.
You have neglected to provide evidence to substantiate your assertion.
Haven't you figured it out yet?
God Rules! Jesus died for your sins on the Cross, and satan is bound for the Lake of Fire.
You have neglected to provide evidence to substantiate your assertion.
I try to not engage in sarcasm but,what the heck.... your extensive list of incredible evidence has caused me to seriously question my faith in the Genesis account of creation...not!!I guess you figured that no one would notice the "Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats"type comments.What a load of rubbish!! Unless I am completely out to lunch I was under the impression that classical evolutionary theory was ultimately about one species evolving into another....You have some interesting examples of "adaptation" within species but nothing more.Give us a break little buddy!! Keep looking up.Blessings RD
Can you provide an actual refutation of the list provided, or do you believe that your hyperbolic, insubstantial remarks are sufficient to falsify the theory of evolution? If your belief is the latter, then you should be aware that you are mistaken. Additionally, you appear to be unaware that speciation -- that is, transition from one species to another over successive generations -- has been observed occurring.
LOL, I know what you mean, that was the prevailing theory at the time, and can you believe now adays many people actually believe people and all life evolved from single celled organisms, ha, too funny. They actually believe there is proof of this, they pick up bone and say see, this is your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather.
Do you have any argument of substance to offer, or do you also believe that insubstantial hyperbole is sufficient to falsify the last one-hundred and fifty years of research in the field of biology?
Oops, sorry.. It's the FDA that have done the study, not FRI.. My bad. The FDA released the stats to explain why they have banned gay men from donating blood.
I do not believe that your statement has any relation to the current discussion.
Dale,
If I remember correctly, Darwin did not find fossils that led him to the theory of evolution. The idea occurred to him, an idea that was bolstered, in his mind, by the microevolution he saw occuring in animals. Does anyone have any specific info on this?
Steven J,
Thanks for your response. I think we're looking at the same things and coming to different conclusions (which seems to be the theme of this blog hehe).
Gentlemen, you've heard it before: Judgment Day is coming soon. If you do not find some empirical evidence that would completely obliterate any rationality for believing in the Christian God, you should be very afraid. He will judge you in righteousness and you will be found wanting. You'll also discover that you've been led astray and deceived by human theories and your own sin. The Day will be here soon, but it's not too late to turn to the Savior.
In His love,
Erik
Ray, my experience is that evolution only applies to biological systems when the atheist wants it to.
Please explain and justify this assertion. In what circumstances do atheists claim that evolution does not apply to biological systems? What of theists who accept the validity of the theory of evolution? Do you believe that theists who accept that the theory of evolution is valid also hold such a subjective standard?
On the other hand, they will apply it not just to life but the universe and everything else when THAT suits them.
Please provide specific examples of such occurrences. Have you observed evolution-accepting theists engaging in such behaviour as well?
Atheists clearly operate by a double standard, and scripturally speaking according to Paul's argument in Romans, they KNOW they are lying at some level.
Please substantiate your assertions. Demonstrate the "double-standard" to which you refer and also show that your assertion of knowledge is correct.
One more time Ray, could you please define exactly what you mean by 'species to species transitional fossils' and explain why the examples provided just don't cut it ?? You don't want to be accused of the dreaded 'Debate and switch' now do you ???
Eriloza,
I see you are very adept at creating strawman arguments with no compunction whatsoever, so I will douse this one with gasoline and burn it to a crisp.
You said,
" erikloza said...
Dale,
If I remember correctly, Darwin did not find fossils that led him to the theory of evolution. The idea occurred to him, an idea that was bolstered, in his mind, by the microevolution he saw occuring in...."
I never mentioned Darwin in my comment, oh ye constructor of strawmen.
I said,
"No one had any "viewpoint" before the evidence for evolution was being discovered and recognized for what it was."
Darwin, along with another dude who was realizing the same thing, noticed speciation. He proposed a hypothesis. After much investigation and many more discoveries, the hypothesis was upgraded to a "Scientific Theory," the highest level of certainty granted to a finding in the natural sciences, right up there with the "Theory of Gravity," and "Germ Theory."
If you would just pay attention you would should be able to anticipate the refutations you will recieve when making inane statements about evolution.
Questions?
It is now one hundred fifty years later and all new evidence that has been discovered have bolsterd the theory.
erikloza said,
Dale,
If I remember correctly, Darwin did not find fossils that led him to the theory of evolution. The idea occurred to him, an idea that was bolstered, in his mind, by the microevolution he saw occuring in animals. Does anyone have any specific info on this?
Darwin did not use transitional fossils to support his theory; indeed, in On the Origin of Species, he barely mentions fossils, except to explain why we should not expect to see a finely-graded series of transitions from single-celled organisms to humans (basically, fossilization is rare and haphazard, and not all fossils survive to be discovered). However, one piece of evidence mentioned in his notebooks was the fossils of glyptodonts (giant armadillos) in South America; the relevance of this was that these giant armadillos were found in the same place that living armadillo species occupy. There were several similar instances: extinct species occupying the same area as similar but distinct living species. This was an example of biogeographical evidence for evolution, as was the fact that his very distinctive Galapagos finches lived geographically near the range of the South American mainland finch, even though they filled different ecological niches in a very different environment.
Darwin argued this way: if we assume that species were specially created, similar species would be found in similar ecological niches (i.e. the fauna of the Galapagos would resemble, not the fauna of the South American mainland, but the fauna of the Cape Verdes Islands off Africa, which have the same sort of terrain and climate). If species spread out from a common origin and colonized new areas, one would not expect, e.g. three separate mockingbird species, each unique to one or two of the Galapagos islands, all similar to but distinct from the sole mockingbird species on the mainland. The patterns of biogeography imply that species change over time, and that a common ancestral species in one area gives rise to several similar species in the same general area (or in areas that can be easily reached from that area).
Darwin did not observe microevolution taking place. I think the common confusion about this arises from conflating Darwin's observations on the Galapagos with those of the Grants, more than a century later, who did watch finches rapidly adapt to environmental changes. Darwin didn't stick around long enough to do this, or to learn that natural selection can act, in some cases, almost as fast as human selective breeding.
Darwin did have the example of selective breeding to tell him that differential reproductive success could change a species. But his main argument for common descent was the nested hierarchy of life first described by the (creationist) botanist and taxonomist Carrolus Linnaeus (Karl von Linne, of Sweden). Linnaeus showed that living things fall into a natural, consistent nested hierarchy (a "groups within groups" pattern, as Darwin put it): every animal with fur and mammary glands also has one bone on each side of the lower jaw, and three bones in the middle ear; one doesn't find, e.g. birds with mammary glands or three bones in the middle ear, or bats with feathers. Although any set of objects can be arranged in a nested hierarchy (the Dewey decimal system is such a hierarchy, and so is a report outline), the only things that fall naturally and automatically into such a hierarchy are things related by common descent: families of languages, for example, or breeds of dogs. The success of the Linnaean taxonomy for living things (and its failure for nonliving things, like rocks, clouds, etc. that don't fall naturally into consistent hierarchies) implies that the resemblances within classes and kingdoms of plants and animals are family resemblances: modified inheritances from common ancestors.
Darwin also emphasized various features that are hard to reconcile with individual special creation: similar structures adapted for dissimilar functions (think, e.g. of the teeth of fetal baleen whales, which don't normally have teeth after they're born), or dissimilar structures for similar purposes (e.g. the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye and the "right-side round" retina of the cephalopod eye). He argued that modification of ancestral structures for different purposes, and "re-inventing the wheel" by a process of trial and error every time a different lineage needed to solve a common problem, explained these features better than separate origins.
The use of transitional fossils as evidence for evolution, and the use of observed evolution by natural selection as evidence that evolution is possible, come from evolutionists after Darwin.
Steven J,
Thanks for your response. I think we're looking at the same things and coming to different conclusions (which seems to be the theme of this blog hehe).
Gentlemen, you've heard it before: Judgment Day is coming soon. If you do not find some empirical evidence that would completely obliterate any rationality for believing in the Christian God, you should be very afraid. He will judge you in righteousness and you will be found wanting. You'll also discover that you've been led astray and deceived by human theories and your own sin. The Day will be here soon, but it's not too late to turn to the Savior.
Evolutionary theory was not devised to "completely obliterate any rationality for believing in the Christian God (or the Muslim God, the Hindu God[s], the Zoroastrian God, or any of the various deities worshipped by various Buddhists)." It was devised to explain the origin of biological diversity and complexity in terms of known physical causes and effects, because that is the sort of cause sought by scientific explanations. It takes no position on whether some Supreme Mind underlies or maintains the operation of the laws of nature, any more than Newtonian or Einsteinian physics does.
Darwin (I dislike quoting him all the time, since it makes it sound as though evolutionary theory rests on his personal authority, which it does not, but he did come up with several ideas that are still relevant) pointed out that every human being originates as the contingent result of material processes (what we call human reproduction); nearly all Christians accept this, and see no conflict between it and the biblical teaching that God shapes us in our mothers' wombs and that we are all creatures of God. By the same token, Darwin argued, we ought not have any problem reconciling the idea that our entire species is the result of contingent material processes with the idea that it is a creation of God.
On the other hand, of course, "if you can't prove me wrong, you ought to assume I'm right" at least pays scant heed to the myriad metaphysical and spiritual possibilities that evolutionary science cannot prove wrong. And the claim that "Judgment Day is coming soon" is, on the one hand, irrelevant (if you're right, each of his is heading inexorably towards his own personal judgment day when he dies), and on the other, a prediction in a long tradition of date-setting for the Second Coming, predictions which have one thing in common: all of them turned out to be wrong.
In His love,
Erik
Thank you for your interest.
Evolution seems to be such a big problem for some Christians, why is that? If the theory turns out to be right for example, why is that such a bad deal for believers? I mean surely I can see how it’s a bad deal for you [Ray], because you base your creation views so objectively, which I think is a mistake. Moses interpretation of creation as he wrote Genesis (assuming he did) would have fell in line with current assumptions about how the world worked. What’s really important isn’t so much the nature of creation, but the message of creation.
You like bash science so much with respect to evolution yet never answer the hard questions with respect to your creation story. In your story God creates the earth, in which case it must have sat lifeless for a time before God created sea life and dinosaurs. Then millions of years later God gets sick of the dinosaurs and decides to create 2 people. So out of thin air we have 2 adolescent people; how old were these people? How come they weren’t babies? Did they have bellybuttons? How did they manage to take care of themselves? How did Adam know what eat? Oh that’s right, God told them all this stuff, well, I can’t get out of that one.
They’re children (sons), took wives, where did these people come from? Did God create them and just forget to tell us about it? Or was there rampant incest in the beginning? And how in one generation do people go from nothing to civilization? Did God teach them all how to use tools and forage stone and marble? In one generation did he teach them how to make fire? And in one generation all these other “secret” peoples God never tells us about start worshiping other God’s. Where did they get that idea from? And more importantly Ray, when do you place creation? Many fundies place creation 6000 years ago. So where do all the ethnic groups come from? That’s not a lot of time for the Native Americans to have made boats and sailed over the America’s.
How is that disease people readily died from many years ago we can get with no problem today? Why is it that the flue virus keeps getting more and more resistant? Is it that it’s evolving to adapt, or does God keep creating new flue viruses? Why are Africans black and Europeans white, and why do Eskimos have flat faces and seem so adapt to cold climate. Did God decide before creating people that, well, I’m putting this Guy in the arctic, so perhaps I better make him in such a way that he can adapt. And why are polar bears white? Why is it that where-ever you go the plant and animal life seem to be suited to the environment they’re in? Why are there no rattle snakes in the south pole? Why do camels have humps to store water – did God give them that? Why do some animals have patterns just like they’re surrounding environment? Why do some bugs look like leafs or twigs?
If things don’t evolve and/or make adaptations, are you telling us all that God created everything as we see it today suited for exactly the environment it’s in? If that’s the case then shouldn’t black people go back Africa and the Asians go back to Asia? You see how ridiculous all this sounds?
Hey Steven,
I think there are many evidences for believing that the Christian God is the only true God. Unfortunately you may look at the same evidences (e.g. that the intricate design in the universe points to an Intelligent Designer) and conclude that they are in fact not evidences.
As a result I have a suggestion for you. You have a conscience, so you know there is a right and wrong. You know it's wrong to lie, steal, maliciously injure others, dishonor your parents, use children in pornography, etc. You know you have broken at least some (but actually all) of the Christian God's commandments.
So, this may sound crazy, but my suggestion is to tell this Christian God, in whom you do not believe, that if He does exist, that He should reveal Himself to you in a way that leaves you no doubt. And tell Him you'll turn away from what He calls sin. And tell Jesus Christ that you'll obey His teachings. And, again, ask Him to reveal Himself to you.
If nothing happens, at least you can say you tried it. But if God reveals Himself to you, He will have saved you from a very literal, real eternity in Hell.
I'm not invoking Pascal's wager. I'm merely saying take the Christian God at His Word.
I'm not invoking Pascal's wager. I'm merely saying take the Christian God at His Word.
If you are not invoking "Pascal's Wager", would you also recommend that those who lack belief in the Christian God perform the same experiment with deities of other religions? Additionally, how would such a test relate to the theory of evolution?
By the way, I just wanted to interject that any of you, bleevers or non-bleevers alike, if you will donate your body to me on your death I would appeciate it as I am studying to become a Haruspex.
According to the dictionary, that was animal entrails, dale, not human. So....if you are going to practice you new religion, I suggest you stick to the program. As for me, I am created in the image of God and am no animal. :-)
Vera
Great testimony, harvester!! Thanks for sharing that.
Vera
Dimensio,
I think any attempt I made to perform that experiment with the deities of other religions would be like me attempting to verify that gravity exists by jumping off a building. In other words I already know that gravity exists because I experience and observe it happening with my own body and all around me. Likewise, I already know that the Christian God exists, because of the many evidences that have been listed on this blog over the past months and because I know Him personally in my spirit; I don't have verify that the other gods are false. The God whom I experientially and objectively know to exist has told me He is the only God.
I'm not sure how such a test would relate to the theory of evolution, but I do know the theory hasn't a transitional fossil to stand on.
Jesus is calling you, Demensio. Turn away from the sin you love so much and trust that He died in your place.
I think any attempt I made to perform that experiment with the deities of other religions would be like me attempting to verify that gravity exists by jumping off a building. In other words I already know that gravity exists because I experience and observe it happening with my own body and all around me. Likewise, I already know that the Christian God exists, because of the many evidences that have been listed on this blog over the past months and because I know Him personally in my spirit; I don't have verify that the other gods are false. The God whom I experientially and objectively know to exist has told me He is the only God.
How can you claim certainty of your beliefs? Followers of other religions have also made claims of similar certainty.
I'm not sure how such a test would relate to the theory of evolution, but I do know the theory hasn't a transitional fossil to stand on.
Your assertion is demonstrably false; that you are unaware of the extensive collection of transitional fossils in addition to other multiple independent lines of evidence in confirmation of the theory does not negate their reality.
Jesus is calling you, Demensio. Turn away from the sin you love so much and trust that He died in your place.
I believe that you have neglected to provide evidence in substantiation of your assertion.
Verandoug said,
According to the dictionary, that was animal entrails, dale, not human. So....if you are going to practice you new religion, I suggest you stick to the program. As for me, I am created in the image of God and am no animal. :-)
Vera
Vera, define "animal" as you are using the term. According to both medieval Christian philosophy and modern taxonomy, you certainly are an animal. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defined humans as the "rational animal," that is, an animal distinguised from other animals by having the capacity for reason. The founder of modern taxonomy, Carrolus Linnaeus, identified us as animals (as opposed to plants or minerals). I know of no biblical justification for the assertion that we are not animals, as the term as traditionally been understood, so what do you mean by "animal?"
I agree that attempting to predict the future by cutting humans open and examining their entrails is legally and morally problematical, unless one is an abdominal surgeon performing exploratory surgery in order to guage one's future fees.
Dimensio,
If you found the word "Dimensio" written in the sand, which would be the more logical conclusion: that someone wrote it or that the ocean waves pounded the name out in the sand?
erikloza said,
Dimensio,
If you found the word "Dimensio" written in the sand, which would be the more logical conclusion: that someone wrote it or that the ocean waves pounded the name out in the sand?
The point to keep in mind is that both of those are appeals to observed natural causes, with predictable, testable effects. We favor "someone wrote it" not because we recognize "specified complexity" and attribute it to "intelligence," but because we recognize written as the product of writing, and not as a typical product of waves crashing on the shore.
It is much the same with the other famous ID analogy, Mount Rushmore: we recognize it as the work of a human artist because we are familiar with sculpture; even if we had previously only seen life-size or smaller portrait sculpture, we would be inclined to infer that a sculptor managed to scale up the same processes for Mount Rushmore (I'm wondering if anyone would complain that we were illegitimately extrapolating from "micro-sculpture" to "macro-sculpture").
Now, if we're inferring from known effects to known causes, then the nested hierarchy of life, shared anatomical and genetic features in disparate species, and the patterns of biogeography, imply a process of common descent with modification, which would produce such a nested hierarchy. Since we know that natural selection of mutations can modify species in adaptive ways, it likewise is reasonable to infer this known process as the cause of complex adaptions. In this respect, evolutionary theory, rather than an appeal to an unknown Intelligence using unknown methods for unknown reasons according to an unknown design philosophy, is the equivalent of inferring a writer for the letters in the sand.
If you found the word "Dimensio" written in the sand, which would be the more logical conclusion: that someone wrote it or that the ocean waves pounded the name out in the sand?
As I am aware of no properties of ocean currents that are likely to produce such a specific output, and as I am also aware of physical processes by which an entity that could accurately be termed as "someone" could cause such a pattern to appear in sand, I believe it rational to conclude in such a situation that an entity that could accurately be described as "someone" creating the pattern in the sand is the most likely explanation for the observation.
Please explain the relevance of your inquiry to the current discussion.
@dale
If a parent is indifferent towards their child (negligent), would you class that as closer to love, or closer to hatred? If you saw someone in mortal danger and had the means with which to save them, yet you walked past without offering help - your indifference would be as deadly as active hatred, would it not?
My point was, 'love' and 'hate' are not simply emotions; one may behave lovingly (sacrificially, consistently, reasonably) towards others, or 'hatefully'(selfishly, maliciously or indifferently) towards others. 'Love' toward God isn't warm fuzzies, nor is 'hate' for God necessarily angry tirades or blasphemy..
I'll admit I'm not as painfully logical or rational as some on this site, though I am in the top two percentile for IQ.. I say this not to brag, nor to defend myself; simply to urge you not to think of all Christians as irrational. I've been a member of Mensa since childhood (age 6). They haven't kicked me out yet.. You could argue they should, but that's another story. You can also disagree with the Biblical interpretations of 'love' and 'hate', but that's what they are. When Jesus calls believers to 'hate' their loved ones, He doesn't mean they should deliberately cause them suffering..
It means that a believer's devotion to God should make their love for family etc seem like hatred in comparison.
I wish you peace.
Dimensio and Steven J.,
Do you believe that intelligence is one of the significant factors that points to a human being writing Dimensio in the sand, rather than ocean waves, a squirrel or any other living being on the planet? And if intelligence is not really a factor in determining who or what wrote the name, why not?
Do you believe that intelligence is one of the significant factors that points to a human being writing Dimensio in the sand, rather than ocean waves, a squirrel or any other living being on the planet?
I believe that previous experience and understanding of aspects of the universe -- including aspects of biology -- shape the conclusion regarding the origin of the character string 'Dimensio' appearing in sand. Intelligence may also be considered: if it is determined that an observation was the result of deliberate interaction by a biological organism, knowledge of human intelligence -- as compared to animal intelligence, and considered in conjunction with an assessment of the biodiversity of the region where the sand is located -- can be considered. For example, the text string "Dimensio" would essentially be a series of patterns within a definable sequence. These patterns would match exactly patterns that humasn have previously created to represent letters of a specific alphabet set. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to conclude that a series of patterns that exactly match patterns of an established alphabet set were deliberately set in place as a means of creating string of representations of these patterns.
Please explain the relevance of your inquiry to the current discussion.
Erikloza said,
Dimensio and Steven J.,
Do you believe that intelligence is one of the significant factors that points to a human being writing Dimensio in the sand, rather than ocean waves, a squirrel or any other living being on the planet? And if intelligence is not really a factor in determining who or what wrote the name, why not?
I would assume that the human who wrote the word in the sand had some degree of intelligence (at least enough to learn to copy the letters in sequence; probably enough to learn to read, write, and figure out that writing the word could communicate with another person. But these are further inferences about the cause of the writing; I am not basing them on the assumption that particular lines in the sand could arise only through "intelligence."
Suppose I were illiterate, from a society of illiterates, and had never seen writing before (many humans have been in this situation). I obviously would not recognize the lines in the sand as writing. I might still recognize them as a human artifact, from having seen humans scratch lines (either idle doodling or drawing) in the sand. But recognizing writing as a human artifact is based, purely and simply, on the fact that humans write stuff, and occasional machines designed and built by humans write stuff, and other causes are not known to. It is more reasonable, I think, to attribute an effect to a cause known to produce it than to a cause not known to produce it, or to a cause not known to exist (e.g. "elves may have written 'Dimensio' in the sand).
Note that, in our experience, "intelligence" by itself accomplishes nothing. You can't write "Dimensio" in the sand just be being literate and thinking about it; you actually need to take tool in hand (or use your hand as a tool) and make the marks. Everything that intelligence accomplishes (again, in our experience) is accomplished through mechanisms. Some mechanisms can act without intelligent guidance, but intelligent guidance cannot act without mechanisms.
Dimensio and Steven J.,
The reason I ask these questions is that I think that the word "Dimensio" written in the sand points to intelligence, not just because we know that human beings are known to write words from an alphabet, but because we have observed that creatures that do not have as high an intelligence as human beings, have not written anything in English (or whatever language "Dimensio" is in :)), nor in any other human language or even a language they have created.
Now a monkey might pick up a stick and put some scratches in the sand, but, if I were to tell you that the monkey wrote a word in English without any guidance or prompting, I'm sure you would look at me suspiciously. A monkey does not write words, not merely because he is not human, but because he does not have the intelligence to write in a language or write even one word from an existing alphabet or one that he has created. He does not have the mental aptitude to do so.
Letters from an alphabet suggest intelligence. The word "Dimensio" in the sand requires that someone who had adequate intelligence, actually formed the letters. To say that happenstance is responsible would not be logical, according to our natural laws.
Let's move on to the universe. If letters formed together to create a word that is meaningful to a thinking creature, logically suggest that someone with intelligence wrote them, then what does our universe--which does not only include alphabets and languages, but systems, patterns, the human mind (which creates languages), DNA, structures, interdependence among living things and heavenly bodies, design and order--logically suggest in terms of a source of origin?
Now, of course, I've moved out of the box in jumping from "Dimensio"-in-the-sand to the universe, because we know people can write words in the sand, but no one has ever seen Someone make a universe. We've moved outside experiential and observabe knowledge in that sense.
But we must ask ourselves, "What can we observe around us?" We must look at the world and universe and figure out what's the most logical conclusion.
If we automatically rule out an invisible Being who created the universe, that leaves dumb luck, chance, happenstance. It leaves no guidance, no overseeing intelligence. Well, okay, if we can discard an invisible Creator because He does not fit into the observable, since when has anyone seen something so marvelously complex as the universe happen by accident? Where's the observable, experiential knowledge we can apply? Or when has anyone observed something much less complex than the universe, like a 747, assemble itself by accident? I'd venture to say, never.
So, again, we must look at what is before us. If "Dimensio" points to a person who is intelligent enough to write it, then the universe points to an intelligent source, if we're going to stick to logic.
But is it logical to believe in an invisible Creator? Only if you can prove that the supernatural does not exist, which is really at the crux of the issue, I think. You won't believe in the supernatural. That, and you don't want to abandon your sins. So you choose a very illogical, inconceivable alternative--it's all an accident. Am I right?
If you've read this far, thanks for indulging me. And thank you also for being respectful in your posts. God's peace.
The reason I ask these questions is that I think that the word "Dimensio" written in the sand points to intelligence, not just because we know that human beings are known to write words from an alphabet, but because we have observed that creatures that do not have as high an intelligence as human beings, have not written anything in English (or whatever language "Dimensio" is in :)), nor in any other human language or even a language they have created.
Nonetheless, there also must exist a known physical process -- or at least a means to logically derive a physical process -- by which the pattern could have been etched in the sand before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about it.
Let's move on to the universe. If letters formed together to create a word that is meaningful to a thinking creature, logically suggest that someone with intelligence wrote them, then what does our universe--which does not only include alphabets and languages, but systems, patterns, the human mind (which creates languages), DNA, structures, interdependence among living things and heavenly bodies, design and order--logically suggest in terms of a source of origin?
I do not believe that the existence of such properties within the universe inherently implies anything regarding the source of origin of the universe. I am aware of no physical processes -- whether "intelligently guided" or not -- that can produce universes, thus I cannot meaningfully speculate upon the means by which the universe came to exist. Additionally, it is not rational to infer conclusions regarding the origin of the universe as a whole based upon the origin of elements within the universe; deriving conclusions in such a fashion is an appeal to the composition fallacy.
Now, of course, I've moved out of the box in jumping from "Dimensio"-in-the-sand to the universe, because we know people can write words in the sand, but no one has ever seen Someone make a universe. We've moved outside experiential and observabe knowledge in that sense. But we must ask ourselves, "What can we observe around us?" We must look at the world and universe and figure out what's the most logical conclusion.
Without an understanding of a means by which a universe can come to exist, it is not possible to derive a "logical" conclusion regarding the universe's origin.
If we automatically rule out an invisible Being who created the universe, that leaves dumb luck, chance, happenstance. It leaves no guidance, no overseeing intelligence. Well, okay, if we can discard an invisible Creator because He does not fit into the observable, since when has anyone seen something so marvelously complex as the universe happen by accident?
Please justify your assertion of "marvelously complex". Additionally, while the answer to your question is that no one of whom I am aware has observed a universe occurring "by accident", it is also true that no one of whom I am aware has observed a universe or a structure reasonably similar to a universe coming to exist by any means at all. As such, there is no possible means to derive a logical conclusion regarding the origin of the universe.
Where's the observable, experiential knowledge we can apply? Or when has anyone observed something much less complex than the universe, like a 747, assemble itself by accident? I'd venture to say, never.
The universe is fundamentally different than a 747. It is not rational to compare the origins of one to the other.
So, again, we must look at what is before us. If "Dimensio" points to a person who is intelligent enough to write it, then the universe points to an intelligent source, if we're going to stick to logic.
Please justify your assertion of logic. Please provide examples of intelligent agencies constructing universes or entities reasonably similar to universes, and describe the physical processes through which this structure is accomplished.
But is it logical to believe in an invisible Creator? Only if you can prove that the supernatural does not exist, which is really at the crux of the issue, I think. You won't believe in the supernatural. That, and you don't want to abandon your sins. So you choose a very illogical, inconceivable alternative--it's all an accident. Am I right?
You are incorrect. You have incorrectly assumed that I "won't" believe in the supernatural when in fact I have merely observed no convincing evidence of the supernatural. You have also not explained the relevance of the "supernatural" to your previous statements. Additionally, your statement regarding "sins" requires a meaningful definition of "sin" to be evaluated.
@Stephen J
Vera, define "animal" as you are using the term. According to both medieval Christian philosophy and modern taxonomy, you certainly are an animal. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defined humans as the "rational animal," that is, an animal distinguised from other animals by having the capacity for reason. The founder of modern taxonomy, Carrolus Linnaeus, identified us as animals (as opposed to plants or minerals). I know of no biblical justification for the assertion that we are not animals, as the term as traditionally been understood, so what do you mean by "animal?"
I agree that attempting to predict the future by cutting humans open and examining their entrails is legally and morally problematical, unless one is an abdominal surgeon performing exploratory surgery in order to guage one's future fees.
Actually, that is not true, Stephen J. I could give you several examples in Scripture where man is said to be "just a little lower than the angels." He is "Created in the image of God." When man was referred to as an animal in Scripture, it wasn't meant as a compliment. In terms of man having anatomy like animals, just for starters, we do not mate in the same way animals do. Ask a veterinarian how different we are? How do different drugs effect animals and humans? How do various foods effect animals and humans? Some things, as expected, would be alike. Others are clearly not.
The biggest difference though is that we are created in the image of God. We have the abilities to make music, art, complex language, extremely complex mathematics, exploration of the universe and our planet, build complicated buildings, and we have been doing these things since about day one of our existence as is proven through archeological finds dating back about 40,000+ years. I put a picture of the oldest known flute on my blog and a link to one of the articles about it. There are several if you do a Google search. Which animal has ever done this?
Vera
GOod Post
In terms of man having anatomy like animals, just for starters, we do not mate in the same way animals do.
Then you should be able to elaborate upon this in such a fashion as to demonstrate that your thesis is correct. Please do so.
Ask a veterinarian how different we are?
I fail to understand why a veterinarian would be more credible than a biologist when addressing the fundamental physical differences between all non-human animals and humans, as a veterinarian likely only has access to a limited subset of non-human animals. Additionally, no one disputes that there are distinguishing characteristics between human and non-human animals, however there are also distinguishing characteristics between all individual species and other individual species. It is the distinguishing characteristics that defines the further definitions of various animals into phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. That humans possess unique traits as compared to non-human animals does not itself demonstrate that humans are not animals; Felis catus also possess traits unique as compared to all other animals, as do Canis lupus familiaris, Loxodonta africana, Mus musculus and all other animal species.
How do different drugs effect animals and humans?
Various chemical substances often affect different species in different ways. This does not demonstrate that humans are not animals.
How do various foods effect animals and humans? Some things, as expected, would be alike. Others are clearly not.
Please describe the specific biological difference between human reproduction and reproduction as it applies to non-human mammals.
If it is your position that humans are not animals, then you should be able to define specific defining characteristics of all animals that humans do not possess; specifically, you should be able to identify the biological traits that are used to classify organisms as members of Kingdom Animalia and show that humans do not possess at least one of these traits.
The biggest difference though is that we are created in the image of God. We have the abilities to make music, art, complex language, extremely complex mathematics, exploration of the universe and our planet, build complicated buildings, and we have been doing these things since about day one of our existence as is proven through archeological finds dating back about 40,000+ years.
An inability to achieve such accomplishments is not a defining characteristic of members of Kingdom Animalia. Noting various human achievements does not demonstrate that humans are not animals.
I put a picture of the oldest known flute on my blog and a link to one of the articles about it. There are several if you do a Google search. Which animal has ever done this?
Obviously at least one member of the species homo sapiens sapiens has done such a thing.
Verandoug said,
Actually, that is not true, Stephen J. I could give you several examples in Scripture where man is said to be "just a little lower than the angels." He is "Created in the image of God." When man was referred to as an animal in Scripture, it wasn't meant as a compliment. In terms of man having anatomy like animals, just for starters, we do not mate in the same way animals do. Ask a veterinarian how different we are? How do different drugs effect animals and humans? How do various foods effect animals and humans? Some things, as expected, would be alike. Others are clearly not.
In this part of your answer, especially, you seem to assume what I've asked you to defend: that "animals" ought properly to mean "members of the biological kingdom Animalia, except humans."
After all, one of the most obvious things about "animals" is that they differ from one another: you say, ask a veterinarian about the differences in how drugs affect humans and animals, but one might equally ask the veterinarian about the differences between cats and dogs, or the differences betwen cats and canaries. A dog does not mate in the same fashion as a porpoise, which does not mate in the same fashion as a trout (and let's not even get into octopuses or praying mantises), yet all are animals. That we are different from other animals no more bars us from being animals than it bars termites, sharks, lions, cattle, and monkeys from being animals, though all are different from one another.
Even "the image of God," granting that we have it, does not bar us from being animals. Indeed, I would argue (as Aquinas would have argued) that the point of this passage in Genesis was to show how humans differed from other animals: however like them in many respects, we had the imago dei that was our distinctive trait, while each of them had its own distinctive traits. Likewise, most Christians over history have thought of animals arranged on a scale of "perfection," with us at the top: that we stand "a little lower than the angels" on such a scale does not mean that we are not one of the creatures on the scale.
The biggest difference though is that we are created in the image of God. We have the abilities to make music, art, complex language, extremely complex mathematics, exploration of the universe and our planet, build complicated buildings, and we have been doing these things since about day one of our existence as is proven through archeological finds dating back about 40,000+ years. I put a picture of the oldest known flute on my blog and a link to one of the articles about it. There are several if you do a Google search. Which animal has ever done this?
Stephen J
Even "the image of God," granting that we have it, does not bar us from being animals. Indeed, I would argue (as Aquinas would have argued) that the point of this passage in Genesis was to show how humans differed from other animals: however like them in many respects, we had the imago dei that was our distinctive trait, while each of them had its own distinctive traits. Likewise, most Christians over history have thought of animals arranged on a scale of "perfection," with us at the top: that we stand "a little lower than the angels" on such a scale does not mean that we are not one of the creatures on the scale.
I get your drift, but I must tell you that I think some of these early theologians were too anxious to add latin labels to many interpretations and we are still picking up the pieces. My personal favorite is Theotokos or God bearer as a title for Mary.
I realize that we are living beings that require many of the same physical means to survive here such as water and oxygen. And for that, I can concede that we are alike. But in every respect, we are much different than the other living organisms on this planet for obvious reasons.
Keeping all that in mind, you see my avatar. It is the heart and soul of what I believe. The term for sin means missing the mark. We think we are on the right track because we pick up a truth and just a tiny bit of lie. Then when we are farther along that path, we are not even in the ballpark anymore. To me, that is what this expression can potentially impart to the simple-minded. You and I might see that we are held to a moral standard for which the animals are not held. But many, in particular on this board, do not. And in fact, they will use this underlying foundation to lead them to sexual sin pointing to the animals as not keeping with God's holy standards. I often point out at those moments that the black widow kills her mate. :-) Just one of the ironies of life. I'm not a spider. I'm not a monkey. I'm not a dog. I am a woman created in the image of God.
Please do not misunderstand me. I like animals and I personally believe that each of them holds a piece of truth about God. A wise man will look for that truth since God's invisible attributes are evidenced in the things that are made even His eternal power and Godhead.
Vera
But in every respect, we are much different than the other living organisms on this planet for obvious reasons.
Can you identify any requisite features of members of Kingdom Animalia not possessed by the species homo sapiens sapiens. If you cannot, then you have no rational basis for declaring that humans are not mammals, regardless of any other classifications that may be appropriate for the species.
Dimensio: "Can you identify any requisite features of members of Kingdom Animalia not possessed by the species homo sapiens sapiens. If you cannot, then you have no rational basis for declaring that humans are not mammals, regardless of any other classifications that may be appropriate for the species."
Wrong way to ask the question. It should be asked if humans demonstrate any abilities that lie so significantly beyond those of mammals that they should not be considered such. But I can actually answer both questions, and, since you rejected the latter, I will answer the former.
Mammals exhibit and survive on instinct. Humans cannot. Everything they know must be learned. (Note: I am not talking about internal life systems, but external function, such as talking, clothing, customs, worship, etc.) Satisfied? I didn't think so.
Wrong way to ask the question. It should be asked if humans demonstrate any abilities that lie so significantly beyond those of mammals that they should not be considered such.
You are incorrect. Taxonomic classifications are based upon the presence of specific characteristics. Taxonomic classifications are not based upon the absence of a specific trait. As such, any "ability" possessed by an organism that is "beyond" those of any other organism within a given taxa does not disqualify the former organism as a member of that taxa. So long as the organism possesses all defining characteristics of a given taxa, that organism is a member of that taxa, regardless of any additional "abilities" that the organism may possess.
Mammals exhibit and survive on instinct. Humans cannot.
I am unaware that "survives on instinct" was a defining characteristic for classification of an organism as a mammal. Please provide a professional reference for such a requirement.
Everything they know must be learned. (Note: I am not talking about internal life systems, but external function, such as talking, clothing, customs, worship, etc.)
That humans are amongst a number of mammals that must "learn" certain behaviours during development does not negate their classification as either mammals or animals.
Satisfied?
As you have not provided any specific defining characteristic of members of Kingdom Animalia that the species homo sapiens sapiens does not also possess, you have not satisfied my request. Note that if you wish to assert that "survives by instinct" is a specific defining characteristic of either mammals or animals in general, you will need to provide justification for such a characteristic; I am aware of no biology resource that includes such a requirement for classification in either of the two taxa.
I didn't think so.
If you were aware that your presentation was inadequate due to containing no factual references in support of your claim, why did you present it?
Dimensio: "I am unaware that 'survives on instinct' was a defining characteristic for classification of an organism as a mammal."
It is something that all animals possess that humans do not.
"Please provide a professional reference for such a requirement....Note that if you wish to assert that 'survives by instinct' is a specific defining characteristic of either mammals or animals in general, you will need to provide justification for such a characteristic; I am aware of no biology resource that includes such a requirement for classification in either of the two taxa."
Why, when it is so obvious that no true scientist in his right mind would disagree? I need the authority of another man for you to believe me when the evidence is right in front of your very eyes? Does the term "willfully ignorant" occur to anyone else reading this garbage?
It is something that all animals possess that humans do not.
Please justify this assertion. Show that humans engage in no "instinctive" behaviours. Show that all non-human animals do engage in "instinctive" behaviours. Cite a professional biology resource that defines acting upon "instinctive" behaviour as a defining characteristic of members of Kingdom Animalia.
Why, when it is so obvious that no true scientist in his right mind would disagree?
You are engaging in the "poisoning the well" fallacy in suggesting that those who disagree with your unsubstantiated claim are "not in their right mind". You appear to have confused your unsubstantiated assertion of a claim with demonstration of that claim's validity. This is an error; that you assert that humans are not animals based upon unsupported criteria does not demonstrate that your assertion is correct, nor does it demonstrate that the criteria that you have listed are valid.
I need the authority of another man for you to believe me when the evidence is right in front of your very eyes?
I have requested evidence derived from a credible, authoritative source; specifically, I have requested evidence from a reference on biological science.
To what "evidence" do you refer? Declaring that the "evidence is right in front" of my eyes is not logically equivalent to demonstrating that your claim is factually correct.
Does the term "willfully ignorant" occur to anyone else reading this garbage?
Declaring that I am "willfully ignorant" is an ad hominem appeal, and it is not logically equivalent to demonstrating that your claims are accurate.
Please demonstrate that "survives on instinct" is a requirement for classification within Kingdom Animalia. Note that declaring that "no scientist in his right mind" would disagree with such a requirement is not logically equivalent to actually demonstrating that such a requirement exists.
Dimensio,
Do you believe after observing our world that the logical conclusion concerning its origin is that the whole construct is an accident with no overseer or incredibly high intelligence guiding or creating anything?
Do you believe after observing our world that the logical conclusion concerning its origin is that the whole construct is an accident with no overseer or incredibly high intelligence guiding or creating anything?
No. I have no information to draw any conclusion regarding an "overseer" or a "high intelligence" or regarding any "guidance" or "creation". I have observed no evidence in support of such concepts -- for example, I have not observed any physical evidence of an "intelligence" outside of that which results from sufficiently developed animal brains, and no one has offered physical processes of a "creation" from which conclusions about evidence can be derived -- and thus I have no reason to conclude that they are correct, however the concepts also appear to be non-falsifiable and, as such, I cannot definitively say that they have not occurred.
Dimensio,
I appreciate your honesty, but do you believe the logical conclusion, after observing our world, is that it was birthed by chance? Do you believe the universe is an accident?
I appreciate your honesty, but do you believe the logical conclusion, after observing our world, is that it was birthed by chance? Do you believe the universe is an accident?
The Earth, and the universe in which it exists, appear to be the result of uniform physical properties acting in concert. It is not accurate to refer to such interactions as "chance", even if the end result is not easily predictable. Moreover, as I lack sufficient information regarding the ultimate means by which the universe came to exist, I can draw no "logical" conclusions at all regarding its ultimate origin, including a conclusion regarding whether that ultimate origin was "accidental" or the result of deterministic properties.
I appreciate your honesty, but do you believe the logical conclusion, after observing our world, is that it was birthed by chance? Do you believe the universe is an accident?
The Earth, and the universe in which it exists, appear to be the result of uniform physical properties acting in concert. It is not accurate to refer to such interactions as "chance", even if the end result is not easily predictable. Moreover, as I lack sufficient information regarding the ultimate means by which the universe came to exist, I can draw no "logical" conclusions at all regarding its ultimate origin, including a conclusion regarding whether that ultimate origin was "accidental" or the result of deterministic properties.
Dimensio,
What about good ole common sense?
Vera
Vera:
Common sense tells us that common sense is not up to the task of answering questions like "what is the cause of causality?" or "at what time did time begin?" :-)
jsk
Common sense tells us that common sense is not up to the task of answering questions like "what is the cause of causality?" or "at what time did time begin?" :-)
OK, perhaps you would say that but if you had common sense, you would step back and ask questions. That's what people with common sense do. They don't assume one path is right but take a step back. I was under the teaching of YEC. It wasn't in the forefront of my life but that is what I understood to be the correct scientific data because that is how it was presented. I had no idea what truths were being left out of my understanding. I took a step back and began to ask questions. That is how hypothesis is formed. Then you allow yourself to answer the questions honestly. I think the only way to find truth is by taking a mental arm and sweeping the pieces off the table and looking at reality for what it is. Did you know that despite the fact that evolution is taught in the schools without God that statistics show that an above average number still believe in God? These are intelligent folks that have graduated from college. Why is that? One thing that I saw the other day was that few scientists will admit that truth has to be verified over and over. That is what science is all about. Do we see absolute evidence in the fossil record of a phylogenetic tree or punctuated equilibrium. Realistically, which one fits the paradigm? Common sense.....
Vera
Vera writes:
Did you know that despite the fact that evolution is taught in the schools without God that statistics show that an above average number still believe in God?
Of course. But the idea that teaching evolution is part of an attempt at indoctrinating the young in atheism is a gross fallacy to begin with. We teach American History "without God" also, and always have. After all, nowhere in any of your history textbooks is it suggested that God inspired the founding fathers, or guaranteed the victory of the North, etc. Is it a surprise that this hasn't produced a nation of atheists? If not, why is it a surprise that biology textbooks which don't suggest that God created the first cell, or guaranteed the evolution of Homo sapiens hasn't produced a nation of atheists?
Do we see absolute evidence in the fossil record of a phylogenetic tree or punctuated equilibrium. Realistically, which one fits the paradigm? Common sense.....
You've lost me. Are you presenting "a phylogenetic tree" and "punctuated equilibrium" as mutually exclusive alternatives? If so, I think you misunderstand one or the other concept. Phylogenetic trees are attempts to reconstruct lines of ancestry; punctuated equilibrium is a thesis about the rate and the conditions under which speciation takes place. If birds are descended from theropods, then, the tree would remain the same whether or not the transition from theropods to birds was gradual or rapid ("punctuated").
@jsk
Of course. But the idea that teaching evolution is part of an attempt at indoctrinating the young in atheism is a gross fallacy to begin with.
I have a quote from one atheist here that expressed his hope that evolution would undermine Christianity.
We teach American History "without God" also, and always have. After all, nowhere in any of your history textbooks is it suggested that God inspired the founding fathers, or guaranteed the victory of the North, etc.
I hope you do not really believe that. Many of the founding fathers were devout men of God. The pilgrims were too. If you do not understand these religious convictions then you have no idea what the heart and soul of this nation is about and why they went to such great lengths to be impartial where it came to denominational preferences and religious ones as well. Real Christians welcome outsiders. It makes missionary work a whole lot easier if I don't have to go to Iraq to win you to Christ.
However, I would not support anyone teaching their own religious philosophies to a group of impressionable young people unless it was a type of debate situation. Unless the class promoted seeking and genuine attention to the truth, I would not like that at all because too many folks teach things I don't always agree with.
Is it a surprise that this hasn't produced a nation of atheists? If not, why is it a surprise that biology textbooks which don't suggest that God created the first cell, or guaranteed the evolution of Homo sapiens hasn't produced a nation of atheists?
What I think it has led to is sin. It has given these kids enough reasonable doubt to think there is a possibility that if the Bible might not be accurate in terms of science then it might be ok to sin. Truth is the Bible was perfectly accurate and it is not ok to sin.
Do we see absolute evidence in the fossil record of a phylogenetic tree or punctuated equilibrium. Realistically, which one fits the paradigm? Common sense.....
You've lost me. Are you presenting "a phylogenetic tree" and "punctuated equilibrium" as mutually exclusive alternatives? If so, I think you misunderstand one or the other concept. Phylogenetic trees are attempts to reconstruct lines of ancestry; punctuated equilibrium is a thesis about the rate and the conditions under which speciation takes place. If birds are descended from theropods, then, the tree would remain the same whether or not the transition from theropods to birds was gradual or rapid ("punctuated").
One ascends diagonally with a constant progression and the other produces animals outright fully grown and ready to go. The latter is what the evidence supports.
Vera
Post a Comment