where did we come from? - Page 5




 
--
Boots
 
February 3rd, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
personally, i think religon brings lots of good things to this world....
makes this world a better place (most of time, sometimes makes it a worse place though)...
February 3rd, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
I'm one of those people who believe in both. There is no compelling argument that can be made against the theory that our existence was started on a higher plane and left to survival of the fittest. Life is much too complex to have been an accidental lightening strike in just the right primeval swamp at just the right instant in time to to produce even single cell life forms. In the same light, I don't believe man has the whole story from written and spoken history to fully explain creationism. There are huge gaps of information in both theories, by design, that we can't understand yet.
February 4th, 2005  
KC72
 
 
Hey!! What happened to the stork?
--
Boots
February 4th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC72
Hey!! What happened to the stork?
That, of course, is an urban legend. Anyone with any respectable amount of biological research knows that we were found under cabbage leaves.
February 11th, 2005  
Strongbow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonparker
The Ever-missing Links

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27
Try this website young fella!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Get away from those religious websites. You will learn very little science there.
February 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Have those who oppose evolution actually _read_ Darwin? One only has to look at his observation of the finches of Galapagos to see evolution as indisputable. One species of mainland finch blown by storm or high winds to a remote island and then diverges into 17 different subspecies each of which with a beak adapted to find a niche in the limited foodchain.
February 12th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
any evidence for God creating world?

except bible?
February 12th, 2005  
mrcool011
 
i dont really believe in evolution, i think theres not nearly enought evidence for it, and ive seen alot against it.
February 12th, 2005  
Strongbow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcool011
i dont really believe in evolution, i think theres not nearly enought evidence for it, and ive seen alot against it.

Try reading more about it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Don't just read the rubbish from the religious websites such as "Answers in Genesis".
February 12th, 2005  
Young Winston
 
 
I couldn't agree more Strongbow.

Some people on this topic need tutoring in the scientific method. They just haven't got a clue.

Evolution is very complicated and involved.

For those who are trying to get to grips with it for the first time please look at the following website.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

The Jason Parker's of this world need to be saved.