Creation AND Evolution?

[Greane]

So often I hear people debating whether existence began with God creating ALL or the Big Bang leading to evolution. Many people seem to overlook the possibility of a common-ground.

For as long as I can remember, I have believed in both. I believe in the eternal existence of God/dess (whichever gender or number you place upon the Divine Entity(ies)) and that He/She created all and basically let Evolution take it's course. I guess I never understood how some people find it so hard to believe that all of the matter could have been created by the Divine and, yet, that the "Big Bang" could have still taken place. I'm curious as to what stance many of you take on this ongoing "battle".

[shunyadragon]

So often I hear people debating whether existence began with God creating ALL or the Big Bang leading to evolution. Many people seem to overlook the possibility of a common-ground.

For as long as I can remember, I have believed in both. I believe in the eternal existence of God/dess (whichever gender or number you place upon the Divine Entity(ies)) and that He/She created all and basically let Evolution take it's course. I guess I never understood how some people find it so hard to believe that all of the matter could have been created by the Divine and, yet, that the "Big Bang" could have still taken place. I'm curious as to what stance many of you take on this ongoing "battle".Those that believe in theistic evolution (TE) simply accept the events of the history of existence including evolution as is, set in motion by God in Creation. We may be the only universe or one of many in existence.

Christians who support Intelligent Design (ID) generally accept most the scientific version, but tend to require some kind of periodic Divine intervention to make it work.

The controversy comes from how literal different people take the Bible. Some form of 'Big-Bang' is popular among many Christians and people of many different faiths as the way God began creating our universe. One of the first popular advocates of the theory is a Roman Catholic Priest.

[Ethos]

Christians who support Intelligent Design (ID) generally accept most the scientifi version, but tend to require some kind of periodic Divine intervention to make it work.
Yes, but the theory of intelligent design does not allow for the random mutation inherent in evolutional theory,

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but the theory of intelligent design does not allow for the random mutation inherent in evolutional theory,This is the periodic Divine intervention to make it work.

I do not think those that believe in ID can allow or not allow anything. Most believe, even AIG, in some mutations causing some modification of the species, but not evolution without more direct Divine intervention.

The role of randomness in evolution is another question that is not well understood by most laypeople.

[Greane]

What about considering the events of other creation stories and how they may, also, include some form of evolution? Even in the discussion that has been going on here, already, it's basically been cut into "Christian ID" and "Scientific Evolution". Now, to say "the Christian idea of creation" is cutting out the fact that the Jewish idea of creation is the same. Both creation stories come from Genesis, whether you choose to read the Torah or the Christian Bible. There may be some slight differences, as I have also heard two different (only slightly) versions of the Creation story told by Christians, alone. We, also, have such Creation stories as that of the Mayans, who believed that the gods attempted to create beings out of several different items. They wanted creatures who could worship them and kept "failing". Their creation story seems to indicate a somewhat thought of evolution, as monkeys were created using the same ideas as the humans, only a different material. The Mayan creation story (in short) is as follows: The gods created the earth and all that is in it (land, plants, etc) and the animals. They assigned each animal a place of it's own, in the world. They ordered the animals to speak, as to worship them, but the animals could not speak. The creators decided to make creatures who could, called people. First, they were made of mud. They had no minds and simply dissolved in water. Next, people were made out of wood. Those people multiplied and spread across the world however they lacked blood and minds and could not remember their creators. The creators wanted them destroyed and jaguars ate their wood bodies and birds plucked out their eyes. Some escaped and survived and are what we now call "monkeys". Some other animals informed the creators of white and yellow corn that grew from the earth. The creators used this to make flesh and make the first people.
As you can see, even this ancient myth includes the idea that monkeys were right before humans, which is an idea that is used in evolution. Granted, they are slightly different concepts, but the idea is still there.
The Yanomamo tribe of the jungles of the Orinoco River have a creation story that does NOT involve a Divine being creating all. Instead, the divine beings were created WITH the cosmos and the many layers of existence that they believe in. To make a longer story short, they believe in four layers, each of which something different exists (except the vacant top layer) and each of which interact with each other. This story doesn't necessarily involve evolution, as we know it, on one plain but an evolution of all planes/layers together. It, also, does not include a story of (a) divine being(s) creating everything. Rather, the divine beings were created WITH everything.

I know this was a long reply, but I just wanted to bring up that, in my opinion (though I realize I did not initially state it nor indicate it), the debate/discussion of Creation AND Evolution should look at more than the scientific theories of evolution versus Christian Creation. However, most people limit themselves to that. (I believe they do so more out of habit of discussing the two than concious decisions to avoid other myths/stories.)

[Lion]

The latest issue of the National Geographic magazine has big headline on thecover. Was Darwin Wrong? The title page of the article emphatically says NO.

The article goes on to cite the plethora of millions of different kinds of creatures some similar and many dfferent as evidence of evolution.

The question revolves around what is meant by evolution, Is it big changes or small ones If small changes are meant such as different varieties of dogs, the answer has to be yes, evolution does occur. If evolution means big changes such a dog giving birth to some different animal, such as a rat, the answer has to be no.

I'm exaggerating, of course. Darwin never proposed such a thing. What he did propose was small changes that could be inherited. Over millions of years vast changes could have taken place. Unfortunately such intermedate steps have never been found. If evoluton were true, there ought to be lots of such fossils around. But none have been found.

Now there are common design elements such as digesive system simlarities between animals but that simply implies a common designer. It was the most efficent way to do the job.

[marcmc]

The definition of the term "evolution" has changed over time. In the broad sense, evolution means development, but more specifically it has come to mean the theory of common ancestry (Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Geisler). Darwin's theory suggested that natural selection could be the mechanism that made evolution possible. It is important to remember that evolution as a theory is speculative, not empirical. Darwin concentrated his efforts on micro-evolution, suggesting that micro-evolutionary changes (such as his finch) could lead to more substantive macro-evolutionary changes (from one species to another). As stated in the previous post, no fossil evidence is present to show changes from one species to another. Even Darwin admitted that there existed a "crowd of difficulties" with his theory. For example, "Can we believe that natural selection can produce . . . an organism so wonderful as an eye?"

An intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. Most also agree that the Big Bang would require a "big banger" - an intelligent cause.

[chickenman]

It is important to remember that evolution as a theory is speculative, not empirical.
no, its definitely empirical

As stated in the previous post, no fossil evidence is present to show changes from one species to another.
aside from how wrong this statement is, such evidence wouldn't even be needed - speciation has been observed to happen in the present

For example, "Can we believe that natural selection can produce . . . an organism so wonderful as an eye?"
disingenous quotemine

i suspect a copy-paste job, either that or you just couldn't be bothered typing out the answer that follows that rhetorical question

[bigsplit]

So often I hear people debating whether existence began with God creating ALL or the Big Bang leading to evolution. Many people seem to overlook the possibility of a common-ground.

For as long as I can remember, I have believed in both. I believe in the eternal existence of God/dess (whichever gender or number you place upon the Divine Entity(ies)) and that He/She created all and basically let Evolution take it's course. I guess I never understood how some people find it so hard to believe that all of the matter could have been created by the Divine and, yet, that the "Big Bang" could have still taken place. I'm curious as to what stance many of you take on this ongoing "battle".

1. God created it.

2. Evolution is right.

3. God is in a constant state of creation we call evolution.

As for the Big Bang, right concept, but it is incomplete.

[Lion]

I might as well set the record straight where I stand. I believe God was the master designer and he did it in six literal 24 hour days. I don't care to have any discussion that so many evolutionists want to palm off on me. If you can discuss valid reasons for your point of view, that's OK. But so many evolutioniists take the tack that the creationist hasn't any evidence on his side.

For instance the human eye. I have heard the claim that the eye is a poorly designed thing, because why should the blood vessels be on the inside of the eye, instead of behind the retina? Well some experimenters got to wondering why the eye has a dither, a shake.

They published their report in the Scientific American some years ago. They devised a contact lens with a mirror and a servo mechanism so a projected image on a screen shook in time wth the dither. After a short time the image faded out. Apparently the dither focuses the image on the blood vessels long enough to allow the retina to refresh itself and forcing the retina to see the same image all the time causes the image to fade out. Somehow the designer knew what he was doing.

[kofh2u]

Yes, but the theory of intelligent design does not allow for the random mutation inherent in evolutional theory,


But, after reading a very long and nit- picky debate between sylas the atheist and a numbe of informed ID adversaries it was clear that neither the Atheists nor the ID's have a definition for Intelligence. Nor, can they explicitly enunciate a meaningful definition for Design.

Consequently, the whole agrument is merely opportunity to flex and display verbally a grasp of genetics.

Without definitions for intelligent and design, there is no meaningful discussion.

[kofh2u]

The latest issue of the National Geographic magazine has big headline on thecover. Was Darwin Wrong? The title page of the article emphatically says NO.

The article goes on to cite the plethora of millions of different kinds of creatures some similar and many dfferent as evidence of evolution.

The question revolves around what is meant by evolution, Is it big changes or small ones If small changes are meant such as different varieties of dogs, the answer has to be yes, evolution does occur. If evolution means big changes such a dog giving birth to some different animal, such as a rat, the answer has to be no.

I'm exaggerating, of course. Darwin never proposed such a thing. What he did propose was small changes that could be inherited. Over millions of years vast changes could have taken place. Unfortunately such intermedate steps have never been found. If evoluton were true, there ought to be lots of such fossils around. But none have been found.

Now there are common design elements such as digesive system simlarities between animals but that simply implies a common designer. It was the most efficent way to do the job.


How about hybrids? Many many hybrids until Modern Homos seem every unique:

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[kofh2u]

I might as well set the record straight where I stand. I believe God was the master designer and he did it in six literal 24 hour days. I don't care to have any discussion that so many evolutionists want to palm off on me. If you can discuss valid reasons for your point of view, that's OK. But so many evolutioniists take the tack that the creationist hasn't any evidence on his side.

How about an evolutionist who has the bible story as proof of evolution before Darwin was even heard of?

Gen. 1:3 And God, (The Universal Force), said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen. 1:4 And God, (The Universal Force) saw the light, that it was
good: and God, (The Universal Force), divided the light from the
darkness.
Gen. 1:5 And God, (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first "day," (the Azoic Era).


Gen. 1:6 And God, (The Universal Force) said, Let there be a firmament, (seven layers of atmosphere), in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the (evaporated) waters from the (condensed) waters.
Gen. 1:7 And God, (The Universal Force) made the firmament (of atmosphere), and divided the (condensed) waters which were under the firmament from the (evaporated) waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen. 1:8 And God, (The Universal Force), called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second "day," (the Archeozoic Era).

So on... seven "yoms" (Hebrew for undefined "duration of time") = The Seven Geological Eras of Time.

[marcmc]

To Chickenman:

Thanks for your comments on my post. Please allow me to respond to some of your points.

First, to your comment that evolution as a theory is empirical, not speculative science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events which can be tested. Theories of evolution and creation are also called theories of origin science, rather than operation science. Operation science is empirical science; it deals with the way things operate now. It studies regular and repeated phenomena. Its answers can be tested by repeating the observation or experiment. Its basic principles are observability and repeatability. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 225). This seems to imply that the theory of evolution is indeed speculative science.

Next, you have disagreed with my assertion that the current fossil record does not support the notion of intermediate species, which is a key component to Darwin's theory. Allow me to borrow from Darwin himself on the subject of the lack of fossil evidence: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated orgnic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (On the Origin of Species, p. 152). A few other experts have weighed in on this subject. Even though there have been many thousands of fossil finds in the century and a half since Darwin unveiled his theory, "the evolutionary record leaks like a sieve." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British astronomer). Finally, from Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard paleontologist), "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

You also doubted my quote from Darwin about the complexity of the human eye. Please see "On the Origin of Species," page 80.

I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns and comments.

[shunyadragon]

First, to your comment that evolution as a theory is empirical, not speculative science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events which can be tested. Theories of evolution and creation are also called theories of origin science, rather than operation science. Operation science is empirical science; it deals with the way things operate now. It studies regular and repeated phenomena. Its answers can be tested by repeating the observation or experiment. Its basic principles are observability and repeatability. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 225). This seems to imply that the theory of evolution is indeed speculative science. This is basically not true, Theories of evolution do have recuring patterns that can be tested. We can get also data from the genes of many extinct animals from the past further strengthen the predictive models. Genetic mutation is a regular, predictable and repeated pattern. These predictable regular patterns are very much appart of today's scientific research. The old worn out argument the evolution is based only on random or chance mutations is false. Randomness plays a role only the statistical frequency of the occurance of mutations and not in the process of evolution itself.

Next, you have disagreed with my assertion that the current fossil record does not support the notion of intermediate species, which is a key component to Darwin's theory. Allow me to borrow from Darwin himself on the subject of the lack of fossil evidence: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated orgnic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (On the Origin of Species, p. 152). A few other experts have weighed in on this subject. Even though there have been many thousands of fossil finds in the century and a half since Darwin unveiled his theory, "the evolutionary record leaks like a sieve." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British astronomer). Finally, from Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard paleontologist), "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."Charles Darwin's testimony reflects the fossil record at the time he lived which was scant at best. There have been at least thousands of new species and millions of fossils found since his time. Sir Fred Hoyle was a British Astronomer and not a specialist in the field, therefore I consider his testimony not reliable. There have been a great deal more fossils of intermediates discovered since he made his quote.

Your left with one expert, Stephen Jay Gould. I feel his quote does not reflect the current knowledge of the fossil record. There are of course gaps in the fossil record, but many branches of animals now have a significant number of intermediates in the fossil record like horses, whales and birds. Many of these have been discovered in the last ten years. The numerous bird fossils of China (There is an interesting thread on this one. The site where these are found is near where I live in China.) and the whale fossils of India and south Asia have filled many gaps. I will return to you on this one.

You also doubted my quote from Darwin about the complexity of the human eye. Please see "On the Origin of Species," page 80.Darwin's quote on the human eye is also seriously out of date based on the current knowledge of the evolution of complex organs. It is terribly weak to quote Darwin concerning the current level of scientific knowledge concerning evolution.

[Lion]

As a dedicated creationist, I am interested in the evidence for evolution. what real, concrete evidence can you produce of missing links in the genetic code from fossils. Cite chapter and verse, please. I am really interested. you made a statement.

quote
This is basically not true, Theories of evolution do have recuring patterns that can be tested. We can get also data from the genes of many extinct animals from the past further strengthen the predictive models.
-----------
Please give me some proof, please. Extinct modern animals are not proof. I want proof from really old fossils.
------------

"Genetic mutation is a regular, predictable and repeated pattern. These predictable regular patterns are very much appart of today's scientific research."
----------
Is this genetic reseach from modern animals or really old ones, fossils? The recent attempt to clone the Jarkov mammoth failed because the DNA was too fragmented to use. There is an attempt to get DNA from frozen bison bones from a site in the Yukon territory. What do you hear of that?
--------
"The old worn out argument the evolution is based only on random or chance mutations is false. Randomness plays a role only the statistical frequency of the occurance of mutations and not in the process of evolution itself."
---------
At least the evolutionists are admitting something but I don't know what they mean. Please put it in plain English. Better yet, give some examples. It does no good to mouth platitudes that have no meaning.

[geochron]

An open question to anyone who distinguished origins and operations science



First, to your comment that evolution as a theory is empirical, not speculative science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events which can be tested. Theories of evolution and creation are also called theories of origin science, rather than operation science. Operation science is empirical science; it deals with the way things operate now. It studies regular and repeated phenomena. Its answers can be tested by repeating the observation or experiment.



OK, if you believe that there are two different kinds of science distinguished by different procedures, consider the following thought experiment...

1. 129I decayed in the early solar system (4.5 billion years ago) with a half life of 16Ma. We know this by contrasting it with other radioisotopes in the same minerals.

2. 129I decayed in the 1950s with a half life of 16Ma. We know this because we have records on paper of people comparing its activity with mechanical clocks.

Now explain how relying on (1) is different in kind from relying on (2). If I test the half life today and compare it with (1) is that origins or operation science? If I compare it with (2), is that origins or operation science?

[chickenman]

First, to your comment that evolution as a theory is empirical, not speculative science. Speculative science deals with past singularities for which there are no recurring patterns of events which can be tested. Theories of evolution and creation are also called theories of origin science, rather than operation science. Operation science is empirical science; it deals with the way things operate now. It studies regular and repeated phenomena. Its answers can be tested by repeating the observation or experiment. Its basic principles are observability and repeatability. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 225). This seems to imply that the theory of evolution is indeed speculative science.
all evolutionary science is repeatable and testable - either by repeating the same experiment for the same observation, or repeating the experiment on new data and thus retesting the hypothesis

operation/origins science is an unneccessary distinction invented for the convenience of creationists

You also doubted my quote from Darwin about the complexity of the human eye. Please see "On the Origin of Species," page 80.
I don't doubt your quote at all, i've seen it numerous times (too many), very often divorced of its context in the same manner as your post

heres the answer to the question - later in the chapter

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility"

[Pete4Honduras]

aside from how wrong this statement is, such evidence wouldn't even be needed - speciation has been observed to happen in the present



I am interested in your evidence. Do you have a link? or suggested reading?
Pete

[Pete4Honduras]

The question revolves around what is meant by evolution, Is it big changes or small ones If small changes are meant such as different varieties of dogs, the answer has to be yes, evolution does occur. If evolution means big changes such a dog giving birth to some different animal, such as a rat, the answer has to be no.Response:

Lion brings up an important distinction. There are many ways in which the word “evolution” is used. Stephen C. Meyers and Michael Newton Keas in “Meanings of Evolution,” Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (p. 136-143) list six definitions of “evolution.”

“Evolution as change over time” –This refers to the historical sequence of events in nature.
“Evolution as gene frequency change of allele frequencies”
Evolution as limited common descent –“similar organisms within different species, genera, or even families are related by common ancestry.”(137)
Evolution as mechanisms responsible for change – “natural selection acting on random genetic variation or mutations”(138) This is explained by Darwinism as natural selection and in Neo-Darwinism as natural selection operating on random genetic mutations.
Evolution as universal common descent – This assumes that all organisms descended from one simple, living organism and that there are no limits to biological change.
Evolution as characterized in the “Blind Watchmaker” thesis, ala Richard Dawkins. It is the “idea that all new living forms arose as the product of unguided, purposeless, material mechanisms, chiefly natural selection acting on random genetic variation or mutation.”


When debating evolution we must be clear about which definition we are mentioning. Young-earth creationists often do not make these distinctions and are, in my opinion, faulted for ignoring the evidence for evolution (def’s #1, 2, or 3). The physicalist should be careful not to misrepresent the creationist position by supposing that it doesn’t include evolution (def’s #1, 2, or 3).



I do not see how a Christian could hold to evolution (def’s 4 or 6) since they propose a purely naturalistic process. Definition 5 does not require a purely naturalistic beginning; but either way, the fossil record (at this point) shows this conception of evolution as unfounded.


Pete

[Pete4Honduras]

it was clear that neither the Atheists nor the ID's have a definition for Intelligence.
Without definitions for intelligent and design, there is no meaningful discussion.Response:

By implicating “intelligence” we are making a contrast with a purely physical process. It advocates the necessity of mind for the universe’s existence.



One way in which “intelligence” is derived or inferred is from the existence of information. “Information” here does not simply refer to information about something. Rather, it refers to the presence of information in something, like DNA for instance. This information is specifically complex or has the property of “sequence specificity.” It means something; it communicates something.



Why is information a sign of intelligence? In our experience every instance of information is the result of or is generated by intelligence, or mind. Let’s say that you go outside, look up, and see, “Rose will you marry me?” written in the clouds. You will not waste time contemplating how it was that convection worked such a sight. Your correct conclusion will be that someone (a mind, an intellect) caused those clouds to be formed in just that way.



DNA is an equivalent of this. It is information and as such cannot be the result of purely physical processes.



N.B. The burden of proof is on those who claim that information can come from something other than intelligence.



A second way that “intelligence” is inferred is by what is called the “anthropic principle,” or is often referred to as “fine-tuning”. I’m sure other posts have delved into this so I’ll be brief. Basically, our very existence is dependent upon the actuality of very specific conditions within a limited degree of variation. Dr. William Lane Craig puts it this way,

“The universe appears, in fact, to have been incredibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception for the production of intelligent life on Earth at this point in cosmic history. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, various discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of intelligent carbon-based life on Earth at this time depends upon a delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that were any one of these quantities to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.”

http://leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html (http://leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html)



May I recommend two books on the subject? (I don’t get a cut.):teeth:

William Dembski and James Kushiner, editors, Signs of Intelligence

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery



Pete

[Lion]

There is variation within a kind,and there is no doubt about that. I bought some thornless blackberries but they are still blackberries.

I have a question for some of my evolutionist friends. Instead of trying to find a way of putting together some prebiotic soup and create life, why don't you try to put the spark of life into some animal that has just died, and bring that creature back to life? All the elements, all the cells are there, all the proper enzymes, everything is there in the proper order. All that is lacking is that small something called life. What is that something? It seems to me that is a more profitable endeavor than the futile experiments so far have failed to produce life from a nonliving organic chemicals.

[bhukkadakota]

But then where did dogs first come from? Why dont we find fossils of dogs buried alongside dinosaurs? or at least in the same layers around the earth? Did dogs not die millions of years ago? or did they just come into existence suddenly out of thin air?

[Lion]

I don't really know for certain, but I can guess. For two or three reasons. First there may not have been any dogs in that area. of the earth. Second, dogs are a smaller animal than a dinosaur so it would float longer than a dog. Third, smaller creatures decay sooner than larger animals, so the bones would tend to drop out of the flood water sooner. This is probably why the so-called geologic column exists in some areas.

By the way, in the Tanana valley of Alaska, Dr. Hibben of the Uiversity of New Mexico went looking for human remains. He didn't find human remains, but he did find thousands of bison, frozen parts and pieces, half an animal here and the other half there cows and calves and an occasional lion. The frozen bodies began to decay and the stink could be smelled for miles.

[rogero]

I don't really know for certain, but I can guess. For two or three reasons. First there may not have been any dogs in that area. of the earth. Second, dogs are a smaller animal than a dinosaur so it would float longer than a dog. Third, smaller creatures decay sooner than larger animals, so the bones would tend to drop out of the flood water sooner. This is probably why the so-called geologic column exists in some areas.

By the way, in the Tanana valley of Alaska, Dr. Hibben of the Uiversity of New Mexico went looking for human remains. He didn't find human remains, but he did find thousands of bison, frozen parts and pieces, half an animal here and the other half there cows and calves and an occasional lion. The frozen bodies began to decay and the stink could be smelled for miles.

And the stink of the stupidity of your argument can be smelled for miles, alas even across the globe due to the wonder of the Internet...

[Lion]

All right, show me where doctor Hibben was wrong. Chapter and verse. I made a statement, now prove me wrong. I have more decency than to call you a liar. Just show me where I erred.

[rogero]

All right, show me where doctor Hibben was wrong. Chapter and verse. I made a statement, now prove me wrong. I have more decency than to call you a liar. Just show me where I erred.
Why don't you post a link to where we can all view Dr. Hibben's data for ourselves? Pulling a reference from something you read somewhere doesn't cut it in the real world, dear Lion. And, while we're on the subject -- do you think that modern scientists (some of whom are Christians) are that evil and/or stupid that they would ignore the kind of data you are presenting?

God's Peace,

R

[Lion]

All right, Go to google and look up sparky poleshift. You will find an article on the megafauna extinction.

What atracted me was some research done by Sager and Koppers of Texas A&M on evidence that the earth's pole of rotation had shifted. They said it happened millions of years ago, which I disagree with. I have long felt the after the flood of Noah's day that the earth had changed its rotation from nearly vertical to the present 23.5 degree with respect to the orbital plane. The idea of some planetary object such as is thought to have hit the earth and caused it to precess to its present orientation caused the megafauna extinction fits the idea that the gyroscopic upset caused the flood of Noah's day.

I believe God uses natural processes to accomplish His purposes. For instance, astronomers can predict the return of a comet or other astral body almost to the second. So when God told Noah, Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” God could have known that some astral body would strike the earth in 120 years. I am not saying this was the case, but the posibility exists.

The earth is not the solid sphere some think it is. The crust we live on, as a proportion to the diameter of the earth is as thin as an apple skin. Under that is a semi molten mantle. Sometimes the mantle breaks through and we have a volcano. Sometimes the crust shatters and we get an earthquake, like on Dec 26 near Sumatra. That happened on the ninety east ridge, where a block seems to have shifted and caused a tidal wave.

Here is what I think must have happened.
The flood started when the "fountains of the great deep" burst open as the result of a shock.( Gen 7:11) The shock, probably as the earth was struck to make the globe precess, caused immense gyroscopic forces to make the continental plates to break up. The Americas slid west and the Eurasia-Africa slid east. This action, continents overriding the ocean floor, caused immense volcanic eruptions in the Americas and the rest of what is known as the "Ring of fire." The remains of the fountains exist today as a 44,000 mile long chain of volcanic midocean ridges, one of which extends up through the sea of Cortez and extends through Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[rogero]

All right, Go to google and look up sparky poleshift. You will find an article on the megafauna extinction.


I asked you to post a link, not an instruction to Google.




What atracted me was some research done by Sager and Koppers of Texas A&M on evidence that the earth's pole of rotation had shifted. They said it happened millions of years ago, which I disagree with. I have long felt the after the flood of Noah's day that the earth had changed its rotation from nearly vertical to the present 23.5 degree with respect to the orbital plane. The idea of some planetary object such as is thought to have hit the earth and caused it to precess to its present orientation caused the megafauna extinction fits the idea that the gyroscopic upset caused the flood of Noah's day.
Well, isn't that interesting --- what you "felt" is certainly important to you, but doesn't mean a hill of beans to us who don't have your intellectual and spiritual depth.

Whadda ya think this planetary object woulda done to poor Noah and his crew? Why do ya think there's no evidence of this collision?




I believe God uses natural processes to accomplish His purposes. For instance, astronomers can predict the return of a comet or other astral body almost to the second. So when God told Noah, Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” God could have known that some astral body would strike the earth in 120 years. I am not saying this was the case, but the posibility exists.

Well, we agree on something, that God uses natural processes to accomplish His purposes. The rest of your quote is utter unsubstantiated rambling.



The earth is not the solid sphere some think it is. The crust we live on, as a proportion to the diameter of the earth is as thin as an apple skin. Under that is a semi molten mantle. Sometimes the mantle breaks through and we have a volcano. Sometimes the crust shatters and we get an earthquake, like on Dec 26 near Sumatra. That happened on the ninety east ridge, where a block seems to have shifted and caused a tidal wave.



No kiddin'? When did you learn this "Earth shaking" fact? I believe geologists (which incredibly you purport to be) called this general phenomenon "Plate Tectonics."



Here is what I think must have happened.
The flood started when the "fountains of the great deep" burst open as the result of a shock.( Gen 7:11) The shock, probably as the earth was struck to make the globe precess, caused immense gyroscopic forces to make the continental plates to break up. The Americas slid west and the Eurasia-Africa slid east. This action, continents overriding the ocean floor, caused immense volcanic eruptions in the Americas and the rest of what is known as the "Ring of fire." The remains of the fountains exist today as a 44,000 mile long chain of volcanic midocean ridges, one of which extends up through the sea of Cortez and extends through Los Angeles and San Francisco. Well, that's a really powerful story, Where's the evidence to back up that it's anywhere near correct? Have you ever heard of the first law of thermodynamics, or didn't they know that when you studied geology?

[grmorton]

All right, Go to google and look up sparky poleshift. You will find an article on the megafauna extinction.

What atracted me was some research done by Sager and Koppers of Texas A&M on evidence that the earth's pole of rotation had shifted. They said it happened millions of years ago, which I disagree with. I have long felt the after the flood of Noah's day that the earth had changed its rotation from nearly vertical to the present 23.5 degree with respect to the orbital plane. The idea of some planetary object such as is thought to have hit the earth and caused it to precess to its present orientation caused the megafauna extinction fits the idea that the gyroscopic upset caused the flood of Noah's day.

I believe God uses natural processes to accomplish His purposes. For instance, astronomers can predict the return of a comet or other astral body almost to the second. So when God told Noah, Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” God could have known that some astral body would strike the earth in 120 years. I am not saying this was the case, but the posibility exists.

The earth is not the solid sphere some think it is. The crust we live on, as a proportion to the diameter of the earth is as thin as an apple skin. Under that is a semi molten mantle. Sometimes the mantle breaks through and we have a volcano. Sometimes the crust shatters and we get an earthquake, like on Dec 26 near Sumatra. That happened on the ninety east ridge, where a block seems to have shifted and caused a tidal wave.

Here is what I think must have happened.
The flood started when the "fountains of the great deep" burst open as the result of a shock.( Gen 7:11) The shock, probably as the earth was struck to make the globe precess, caused immense gyroscopic forces to make the continental plates to break up. The Americas slid west and the Eurasia-Africa slid east. This action, continents overriding the ocean floor, caused immense volcanic eruptions in the Americas and the rest of what is known as the "Ring of fire." The remains of the fountains exist today as a 44,000 mile long chain of volcanic midocean ridges, one of which extends up through the sea of Cortez and extends through Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Here is why that is wrong. It has been known for longer than 40 years that what you suggest simply won't work.

"Dachille correctly points out that even under the most extremely favourable conditions of impact with an asteroid the size of Juno (190 km diameter) the resultant axis change would be only 0'.02."

“In fact, a bigger body, say 320 km in diameter, colliding at a maximum possible velocity of 72 km/sec would produce only 0 32' axis shift despite an energy 75 times the Juno example."

No impact would tilt the axis of the earth before destoying the earth.

Secondly, you need to see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/subduction.htm. It shows that from a typical global flood perspective, there are thousands of feet of fossiliferous sedimentary material deposited BEFORE the continents break apart. And it shows that the heat generated by rapid continental drift would burn the earth up, boil the oceans and cook Noah.

I would suggest that you take some time to study geology before you postulate explanations for geology.

[Mark_S]

Personally, it was the Emporer Island chain that turned me off of flood geology. Not that I think it matters much, God created the Earth "In the Beginning" Beyond that, he doesn't get very specific. God is very specific when he wants to be, expecially with dates *cough* read Danial *cough*. I see the creation account as a bit of a paradox. There are (basically) three completely contradictory conclusions that can be obtained from the same passage. And quite frankly all three involve a bit of exegetical gymnastics to support them. It seems to me when something like this happens, we are all, myself included, missing the real intent of this passage.

Now, to completely drag this thread completely off topic again, I've got a question for you TE's out there, and I haven't been able to locate the answer myself. Why don't we see a more wide variety of species today? It just seems to me that with all these gradual changes, we should see animals in almost an infinite color wheel of variety, where as its more like the "evolutionary bush". I hope I put that somewhat understandably, its just one of those little things that has been tugging at the back of my mind.

Regards,
Mark

[Zeluvia]

What bothers me is, had the dinosaurs not died out we would not be here, so...

Is that comet Divine Intervention? were the dinosaurs God's first try? Did he have to dump them cause their brains wouldnt continue to evolve because they didnt maintian internal body temperature the way we do now? Because we needed to be able to stand up to use our hands? And we needed opposable thumbs?

I can see a point where you could say some kind of process with thought behind it was involved in our evolution, but it surely was experimental...meaning whatever force was directing life and evolution didnt have all the answers, and this would be more like a laboratory experiment, where things were tested and rejected, and other lines that worked enhanced. Does ID allow for a God that didnt have an exact plan from the time the first one celled organism was goosed?

Mark I think if you add up all the extinct with all the current, you do have an incredible number of species, just look at insects and plants.

[AllDay]

What bothers me is, had the dinosaurs not died out we would not be here, so...

Is that comet Divine Intervention? were the dinosaurs God's first try? Did he have to dump them cause their brains wouldnt continue to evolve because they didnt maintian internal body temperature the way we do now? Because we needed to be able to stand up to use our hands? And we needed opposable thumbs?

I can see a point where you could say some kind of process with thought behind it was involved in our evolution, but it surely was experimental...meaning whatever force was directing life and evolution didnt have all the answers, and this would be more like a laboratory experiment, where things were tested and rejected, and other lines that worked enhanced. Does ID allow for a God that didnt have an exact plan from the time the first one celled organism was goosed?

Mark I think if you add up all the extinct with all the current, you do have an incredible number of species, just look at insects and plants.I'm just jumping into this game, but let me throw some stuff out there and see if it makes any sense. In other words those that know more than I do will set it straight.

[1] The dinosaurs needed to die out so mammals could take over. The dinos served their purpose (in regards to the arrival of man).

[2] The dinosaurs were not necessarily a mistake [I don't know that mistakes "dominate the planet"]. According to the theory, dinos led to birds, reptiles led to mammals. That's a rather significant contribution, isn't it?.

[3] By having a catastrophy, a whole knew set of niches/habitats are opened up, which allow for a new array of species [of mammals] to evolve. Isn't this the idea of PE? Something catastrophic happens to the environment, whiping out many species, thus allowing the evolution of newer species to occur those vacant niches/habitats and survive and be stable for long periods of time?

[Lion]

I don't accept the idea of evolution, meaning that the animals progessively evolved. Meaning that man came from a monkey or some other creature. Man was always man. The dinosaurs were wiped out of existence in the flood of Noah's day I know you probably consider the flood to be a myth, and that is your privelege. But that is the best explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs I know of.

[grmorton]

Now, to completely drag this thread completely off topic again, I've got a question for you TE's out there, and I haven't been able to locate the answer myself. Why don't we see a more wide variety of species today? It just seems to me that with all these gradual changes, we should see animals in almost an infinite color wheel of variety, where as its more like the "evolutionary bush". I hope I put that somewhat understandably, its just one of those little things that has been tugging at the back of my mind.

Regards,
Mark

Partly because living systems must live in an ecosystem and that puts certain constraints on the amout of viable variation. IN other words, those animal morphologies capable of living are a finite, almost quantized subset of all possible morphologies. Consider the Goldschmidt tode shown in Nature several years ago. He is one of those ranges of infinite variation, but since he can't see a cat sneaking up on him, he is in grave danger of dying young.

[Lion]

That toad: I don't know anything about him, but he is probably not as defenseless as it may seem. Amphibians, meaning most toads, have a natural defense mechanism. If they are attacked and wounded, they exude a foul tasting substance that teaches the attacker not to do that again. Not only that, but I was reading recently that brightly colored toads and frogs in inter America are poisonous.

I used to capture Monarch butterfly caterpillars and keep them until they became butterflies. I learned that birds leave them alone because they don't taste good. Something in the milkweed they eat gives them a foul taste.

The Creator built defense mechanisms into many creatures that we are not aware of.

Evolution, meaning variation within a kind has been in evidence since the beginning. But the Darwinian evolution, meaning change from one kind, IE mice to rats or similar, has NEVER happened.

[Jack777]

Lion,

I wonder how come evolutionists do not know what you state.

"Evolution, meaning variation within a kind has been in evidence since the beginning. But the Darwinian evolution, meaning change from one kind, IE mice to rats or similar, has NEVER happened."

[rogero]

Lion,

I wonder how come evolutionists do not know what you state.

"Evolution, meaning variation within a kind has been in evidence since the beginning. But the Darwinian evolution, meaning change from one kind, IE mice to rats or similar, has NEVER happened."
Maybe because it's wrong. The fossil record shows change over time. That you either don't accept nor understand the fossil record is another issue. What's very misleading here is the use the word "kind". Could you or Lion define that taxonomic term, please?

Jack, why don't you explain to Lion what your theory is on the history of the biosphere, which you believe has existed for over billion years, whereas Lion believes it was created in six twenty-four days about 6000 years ago? Oh, Jack -- while you're at it, it would be a good idea to support your view from both from science (how species didn't change over that time) and from your strict fundamentalist historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture.

R

[Sacrificial Ram]

i suspect a copy-paste job, either that or you just couldn't be bothered typing out the answer that follows that rhetorical question
I noticed that on many creationist sites.. they will quote the proposition where a problem is stated, but totally ignore the rest of the article that
resolves the statement of the problem.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I am interested in your evidence. Do you have a link? or suggested reading?
Pete
Read up on the Faero Island Mouse.
Other examples can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[Lion]

I notice that the examples were the same KIND of flower or KIND of animal, never an even closely related but different creature or plant. There is room in the gene pool for variation such as you mention but they are NEVER changing into a different form, I hate to use the word kind, since it is misused. I'm talking about a rat becoming a mouse, something like that.

I guess the problem is that there are no transitional forms, half this, half that, not even a fossil. I read where an experimenter found two diferent varieties of segulls in the same rookerie. They differed only in the stripe of the eye ring. One was plain, the other had stripes. The investigator caught some plain birds and painted striipes. The pairs broke up.