Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Thermos aquaticus]

Exactly!!!

The most important changes of all don't show up in the fossil record because they affect individuals or the soft tissue of individuals.

Are you still denying that those are transitional fossils?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly!!!

The most important changes of all don't show up in the fossil record because they affect individuals or the soft tissue of individuals.

The very fact that change is best seen in individuals masks change in species because few or none of these affected individuals are fossilized. Even if they are we can't see it in the bones and more likely preserved structures.

So just another claim without any evidence on your part.

 

[cladking]

All the while, you ignore the transitional fossils we have found, and also ignore the fact that every single fossil fits into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution which can't be explained by creationism.

No. I don't ignore these.

Rather I believe they are being misinterpreted. Rather than representing the cause of change in species they are merely representing drift and adaptation of species to changing environments. This kind of "evolution" is merely increasing the diversity of genes in a species and is also largely driven by population bottlenecks, in this case localized population bottlenecks.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't presume they don't exist. I presume nothing is evidence until it's shown to exist.

Then what did you mean by this?

"You do realize that the fossil RECORD includes ONLY those individuals KNOWN to have existed and NONE of those you believe must have existed."

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. I don't ignore these.

Rather I believe they are being misinterpreted. Rather than representing the cause of change in species they are merely representing drift and adaptation of species to changing environments. This kind of "evolution" is merely increasing the diversity of genes in a species and is also largely driven by population bottlenecks, in this case localized population bottlenecks.

Then what features would a hominid transitional have if these are not transitional fossils?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the earliest indication of what archaeologists call "symbolic" beliefs and behavior. I believe it's merely ritual we see rather than religion or superstition.

That is not the case. People have already linked many examples of earlier such behavior for you. Why did you ignore them? I would do so for you again but you will probably merely ignore them again. Your claims tend to be based upon outdated studies. You need to keep up with the more recent discoveries in the field.

 

[cladking]

So just another claim without any evidence on your part.

I have the exact same evidence you do. My interpretation is in my opinion more logical and is more in keeping with observation and ancient science.

It appears to be a better fit to observation and known facts.

It doesn't differ all that much to other opinion but it is far more conducive to other perspectives and what I believe is human "history". It allows a wholly different way to see things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have the exact same evidence you do. My interpretation is in my opinion more logical and is more in keeping with observation and ancient science.

It appears to be a better fit to observation and known facts.

It doesn't differ all that much to other opinion but it is far more conducive to other perspectives and what I believe is human "history". It allows a wholly different way to see things.

No, you have the same data. You do not know what evidence is. I follow those that put their claims in the form of testable hypotheses. I have scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. You do not have evidence for your beliefs.

 

[cladking]

That is not the case. People have already linked many examples of earlier such behavior for you. Why did you ignore them? I would do so for you again but you will probably merely ignore them again. Your claims tend to be based upon outdated studies. You need to keep up with the more recent discoveries in the field.

The exact date this occurred is irrelevant.

Frankly there's so much "junk" science now days I try not to keep up with opinion. Sometimes I miss some evidence in the process. A quick google search shows a wide range of possible dates for such behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The exact date this occurred is irrelevant.

Frankly there's so much "junk" science now days I try not to keep up with opinion. Sometimes I miss some evidence in the process. A quick google search shows a wide range of possible dates for such behavior.

You make a claim that is not supported by any evidence. Now that you know you have no evidence you merely handwave away your earlier error. Whatever happened to :

" I presume nothing is evidence until it's shown to exist."

You just contradicted your earlier claim.

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[cladking]

No, you have the same data. You do not know what evidence is. I follow those that put their claims in the form of testable hypotheses. I have scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. You do not have evidence for your beliefs.

You have shown no evidence for gradual change in species. You have shown no evidence that consciousness and behavior play no role in species change. Much to my detriment I have opened your links. I'm sure you believe your links support your beliefs but it is a matter of interpretation, not science, and not experiment.

 

[cladking]

You make a claim that is not supported by any evidence. Now that you know you have no evidence you merely handwave away your earlier error. Whatever happened to :

" I presume nothing is evidence until it's shown to exist."

You just contradicted your earlier claim.

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence.

?

These are just a lot of words that don't seem to relate to the subject at hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have shown no evidence for gradual change in species. You have shown no evidence that consciousness and behavior play no role in species change. Much to my detriment I have opened your links. I'm sure you believe your links support your beliefs but it is a matter of interpretation, not science, and not experiment.

That is because you did not meet the requirements. You made your claim first. I demanded evidence for your claims. You won't support your claims nor will you admit to your error. Until you show that you can own up to your own errors there is no point in me supporting my claim. I at least offered to support my claims once you either supported yours or admit that you made claims without any evidence.

Once again, you made your claims first. Evidence was demanded from you first. Where is your evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

?

These are just a lot of words that don't seem to relate to the subject at hand.

I am sorry if that was too difficult for you to understand. I do not know if I can make it any simpler for you. They all relate. The show how you have not followed your own claims.

 

[cladking]

Are you still denying that those are transitional fossils?

The skulls?

I don't presume to know though obviously most or all are human ancestors. You'd need someone else for a state of the art interpretation of them.

I'm merely suggesting they each arose suddenly after a mutation or bottleneck.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The skulls?

I don't presume to know though obviously most or all are human ancestors. You'd need someone else for a state of the art interpretation of them.

Those are the very skulls I think should exist if evolution is true, and there they are. You claimed that they didn't exist, and yet there they are.

I'm merely suggesting they each arose suddenly after a mutation or bottleneck.

What is this based on? Remember what you said before . . .

" I presume nothing is evidence until it's shown to exist."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The skulls?

I don't presume to know though obviously most or all are human ancestors. You'd need someone else for a state of the art interpretation of them.

I'm merely suggesting they each arose suddenly after a mutation or bottleneck.

No one is making any presumptions. You do not know what a transitional species is either.

A transitional species is simply a species that has traits that an older species has but a newer one does not have and traits that the older species has but a younger species does not have. It is what one would expect to see if the theory of evolution is correct. It does not even mean that the transitional species is necessarily ancestral.

Transitional species are predicted to be observed the the theory of evolution and that is evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These questions are chiefly related to semantics and taxonomies. Every rabbit is different but most rabbits can breed with most other rabbits of the opposite sex and most rabbits can't breed with anything else. To the degree all rabbits can only breed with other rabbits they constitute a unique species. But they are all still different and there are always exceptions to their "rabbithood" (rabbitude?).

I get that, but going by the scientific definition of "species", one of the most reliable barriers to use to determine species is the reproduction barrier - if two organisms are able to breed and produce fertile offspring, they are most likely the same species. That being the case, how can each individual member within a species be considered individually "not exactly the same species"? I asked you where you draw the line.

Again semantics.

It seems that the advent of complex language is what created homo sapiens so it seems logical that a dramatic change in the nature of complex language resulting in new behavior could constitute another species change.

Why didn't you answer my question? If behaviour is a determining factor in species, are people whose behaviour is significantly different to the rest of the population a different species?

Also, this isn't semantics - it's categorization. When you evoke the notion of biological taxa and start asserting an entirely different categorization form, you need to be specific in your terminology and be able to explain exactly what your categorization means. So far, you've asserted that species is determined by behaviour, by appearance, by reproductive barrier, and yet somehow also each individual member of a population constitutes "not exactly the same species". So what is your definition of species? What test can you use to determine whether two organisms are the same or different species?

 

[Deeje]

I have one strongly held belief: I believe the scientific method is the correct way to find truth.

What is so convincing about "the scientific method"?
Who said it was the best way to test everything? Scientists?

Can scientists test for God? Does the fact that evolutionary science denies God mean that

Life on Earth might be a result of biological evolution, or maybe some god(s) created it, or maybe some extraterrestrials created it, or maybe it's a result of something we haven't even thought of yet.

Well....there is a slight concession of sorts there I guess. We are both sure that life began......but you (and science) have no idea how....I believe in the existence of a powerful, intelligent Creator.

What if the Creator and those who inhabit his realm, are actually extra-terrestrials? Since that description simply means "not from the Earth", wouldn't it fit in with what we know of them from the Bible? You do concede that extra terrestrial life is possible? And since we have no way of testing their existence, we cannot state with any certainty what their capabilities are.

The Creator is a life form that humans cannot have direct contact with, apart from telepathically. God can read our thoughts and encourages communication with him in what we call "prayer". It can be verbal or silent.

It seems as if we all have some kind of picture in our minds about what we think God is...but we simply don't know. It makes sense to me that God would provide communication about himself and his requirements for the only creatures he put on this planet that he made in his own image.

The Bible is a powerful book that has been with us for thousands of years. Its words can still guide us in a way that will result in success in life.....in personal decisions and relationships....in handling many different situations where conflict and unnecessary stress can be avoided, by simply implementing its advice. Its a treasure trove of information, but too many people think its old and out of date...its advice never goes out of date. I see it as an instruction manual from our manufacturer.

Either way, picking one and believing in it is wrong since you have closed your mind to the other possibilities. You have done the exact opposite of what one should do to find truth.

What if the one you picked, after close examination and scrutiny over a considerable period of time, you decided that you had found your truth? Why would you entertain other possibilities unless you were not sure of your first choice? I am sure. I have examined other possibilities and found them to be most unsatisfying in some way.

The Bible answers all my questions and give me a reason to be here.....it also gives me a hope for the future. What does atheism do for you guys?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is so convincing about "the scientific method"?
Who said it was the best way to test everything? Scientists?

Can scientists test for God? Does the fact that evolutionary science denies God mean that

The scientific method is convincing because it is highly successful. Look at the keyboard that you are using. Look at the screen. Those were made with knowledge derived from the scientific method. And no, evolution does not deny God, it may deny your false interpretation of God but it does not deny a god or gods at all. And your version of "God" can be tested and found to be false. Not all possible "God"s can be tested.

Well....there is a slight concession of sorts there I guess. We are both sure that life began......but you (and science) have no idea how....I believe in the existence of a powerful, intelligent Creator.

Correction you have no idea how.

What if the Creator and those who inhabit his realm, are actually extra-terrestrials? Since that description simply means "not from the Earth", wouldn't it fit in with what we know of them from the Bible? You do concede that extra terrestrial life is possible? And since we have no way of testing their existence, we cannot state with any certainty what their capabilities are.

The Creator is a life form that humans cannot have direct contact with, apart from telepathically. God can read our thoughts and encourages communication with him in what we call "prayer". It can be verbal or silent.

Really? The creator is a life form? When will it die? When will it reproduce? How would you kill it? It does not appear to be alive by any known definition of "living".

It seems as if we all have some kind of picture in our minds about what we think God is...but we simply don't know. It makes sense to me that God would provide communication about himself and his requirements for the only creatures he put on this planet that he made in his own image.

Yes, but you interpretation has been shown to be wrong so it is besides the point.

The Bible is a powerful book that has been with us for thousands of years. Its words can still guide us in a way that will result in success in life.....in personal decisions and relationships....in handling many different situations where conflict and unnecessary stress can be avoided, by simply implementing its advice. Its a treasure trove of information, but too many people think its old and out of date...its advice never goes out of date. I see it as an instruction manual from our manufacturer.

This is pure nonsense. If one follows the Bible literally one will end up in prison. The Bible offers good advice if on reinterprets it. That is a person's own judgment being applied to the book of myths, not the book of myths itself.

What if the one you picked, after close examination and scrutiny over a considerable period of time, you decided that you had found your truth? Why would you entertain other possibilities unless you were not sure of your first choice? I am sure. I have examined other possibilities and found them to be most unsatisfying in some way.

The Bible answers all my questions and give me a reason to be here.....it also gives me a hope for the future. What does atheism do for you guys?

The Bible only appeals to you because you were brought up with it. You ignore certain parts of it without a thought. The morality that you see in it is your morality since you ignore the vicious parts of the Bible that would put you in prison if you followed them. All that you can get from the Bible is false hopes. False hopes are worse than no hope at all. We don't need false hopes. You should not project your flaws upon others Deeje.