Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Not the point. Do you see how illogical it is for you to claim that animals would have to have been designed and created but not your Intelligent Designer, a being so advanced that it was capable of creating the universe and your animals? At least the evolutionists are doing their best to explain how animals exist, now it's your shot: Do your best to explain how your Creator exists. And remember, for every time you complain about the explanations of the evolutionists, remember how little you have.

If you have followed the thread ArtieE you would know that this is exactly what I have said all along.....You have no more evidence for evolution than I have for Intelligent Design. Get it? Call your theory a theory according to the dictionary definition and I'll be happy. OK? Stop saying its a fact when we all know it isn't.

 

[ArtieE]

If you have followed the thread ArtieE you would know that this is exactly what I have said all along.....You have no more evidence for evolution than I have for Intelligent Design. Get it? Call your theory a theory according to the dictionary definition and I'll be happy. OK? Stop saying its a fact when we all know it isn't.

OK. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observationsand experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[4] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[5][6][7] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[8][9] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

What can you give us as evidence for your "theory" of Intelligent Design beside some pretty pictures of animals?

 

[oldbadger]

That is like preaching to the choir OB.....who else would swallow that nonsense?

Well, some choirs seem to swallow anything, but we Deists don't sing to 'em, we leave that to the Christian Creationists!
Honestly, your extraordinary claims seem almost as absurd as flat-earth arguments........ oh no!...... you surely don't....?

 

[sayak83]

Nice diagrams, now where is the evidence? Reading up on their explanation of how the giraffe got its long neck made me laugh.

A few fossil bones from all over the place and all of a sudden they have suggested it into giraffe ancestor with a shorter neck.
Did they have shorter legs too or was that the giraffe's own idea...to make his legs long as well?

Quite complete fossils of Samotherium and other ancestral giraffes have been found and the bone structures and shapes clearly show their relatedness to modern giraffes. Comparative anatomy is a science. So you are laughing at your own ignorance. Here is the Samotherium skull.

Compared to modern giraffe skull

Ancient giraffe ancestors already had comparatively longer legs than other herbivores. The longer neck is a special feature of the later species of the lineage. This is shansitherium, another ancient giraffe with relatively short neck.

Another ancestral giraffe from ancient China. Note the neck is longer

So no. There are excellent fossil evidence, complete skulls, neck and leg bones of multiple ancient giraffe species based on which the biologists base their conclusions. But please feel free to ignore the evidence.

 

[Deeje]

Quite complete fossils of Samotherium and other ancestral giraffes have been found and the bone structures and shapes clearly show their relatedness to modern giraffes. Comparative anatomy is a science. So you are laughing at your own ignorance. Here is the Samotherium skull.

Compared to modern giraffe skull

Ancient giraffe ancestors already had comparatively longer legs than other herbivores. The longer neck is a special feature of the later species of the lineage. This is shansitherium, another ancient giraffe with relatively short neck.

Another ancestral giraffe from ancient China. Note the neck is longer

So no. There are excellent fossil evidence, complete skulls, neck and leg bones of multiple ancient giraffe species based on which the biologists base their conclusions. But please feel free to ignore the evidence.

Thank you...now prove that these creatures evolved into the modern day giraffe and weren't just a related species that became extinct like so many others have down through history. No human existed when they lived, so it's just more assumption and suggestion....isn't it?

Science assumes that these creatures "had" to evolve into a different form, but there is no evidence that they did....it is a preconceived notion. Once you have a preconceived notion, you can force the "evidence" to fit whatever you want it to say. The power of suggestion is used extensively in today's world. Most people are not aware of the con. Advertisers count on that.

 

[Deeje]

OK. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observationsand experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2][3] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[4] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[5][6][7] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[8][9] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

What can you give us as evidence for your "theory" of Intelligent Design beside some pretty pictures of animals?

Hmmmm....I wonder who formulated those definitions? Scientists, by any chance?

The pretty pictures are worth several thousand biased scientific definitions.

 

[Deeje]

Well, some choirs seem to swallow anything, but we Deists don't sing to 'em, we leave that to the Christian Creationists!
Honestly, your extraordinary claims seem almost as absurd as flat-earth arguments........ oh no!...... you surely don't....?

I guess that is the bottom line isn't it? We all sing with our own choir and we will not learn a new song, especially if the other choir sings it.
So what place does pride have in this issue I wonder?

The flat earth has already been addressed....please try to keep up.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you...now prove that these creatures evolved into the modern day giraffe and weren't just a related species that became extinct like so many others have down through history. No human existed when they lived, so it's just more assumption and suggestion....isn't it?

What I presented is indeed evidence of the strongest kind. Remember that evolutionary theory predicted that such intermediate species would be found. Mere relatedness is only the beginning. If species just existed willy-nilly without evolutionary relationships we would expect to see no trends in the fossil record at all. You would have seen long necked and short necked and intermediate necked variations right down to the past. But that is not what we see. In the earliest times we see only short necked animals, related to giraffes but bearing no characteristic long neck. Then we see intermediate neck lengthed giraffes, and only in much more recent times to the long necked forms observed in the fossil record. And in all these cases, the species that came before are closely related to the species that came after and then to the species that came after that, based on bone morphology. Thus the evidence is

1) The presence of short necked giraffe-related animals in the earliest times and the absence of all other types. Example Helladotherium (11 million years)

2) The subsequent presence of intermediate necked giraffes (Samotherium, 7 million years) closely related to the previously existing short necked giraffes and the continued absence of long necked type
3) The subsequent presence of long necked forms (3 million years) closely related to the earlier intermediate necked forms and continuous with modern giraffes.

Only evolutionary theory predicted a pattern such as this, and the fossil record validates evolution handsomely.

If all types of giraffes (short, long, intermediate necked) arose simultaneously in the fossil record, then evolution will be falsified. But that is not what is found.

Comparing neck vertebrae :- Pe= Prodremotherium elongatum(20 mya); Cs= Canthumeryx sirtensis(16-14 mya); Oj=Okapia johnstoni (living); Gp=Giraffokeryx punjabiensis (13mya); Sg=Sivatherium giganteum(2 mya); Bm= Bramatherium megacephalum(4 mya); Sm=Samotherium major (7 mya); Pr= Palaeotragus rouenii(7 mya); Ba= Bohlinia attica (7 mya); Gs=Giraffa sivalensis(2mya); Gc=Giraffa camelopardalis(living).

SOURCE

Thus here we have a classical case of good scientific theory. It predicts a certain specific pattern and it would be falsified by an opposite pattern in the fossil record. But the fossil records validates the pattern predicted by the theory, hence making us more confident about its truth. I can provide many such examples (human evolution, bird evolution, whale evolution, horse evolution......)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why disparage a belief for which I have as much actual evidence as you do. Why, if we have the same originator, can there not be other creatures who resemble us even in our DNA? We are after all made of the same stuff by the same process. We just each believe that the process was different.

Facts and beliefs are different things. What I’m saying is that people will apparently ignore obvious facts in order to maintain a priori beliefs, regardless of whether or not those beliefs match reality.

A universe creator could potentially create anything it wanted out of any materials it wanted. That would mean that scientists should not be able to glean much information from comparing genomes of all the different creatures on earth – that there would not be any conclusions that could be drawn from the study of genetics. What we find in the natural world is that animals that are more closely related share greater amounts of DNA material with each other (along with anatomical features and many others) and those that are less closely related share a smaller percentage of DNA material. This is why humans share half their DNA with their mother and half with their father and identical twins share 100% of their DNA with each other. Why would this creator want to lead us to believe it had created the process of evolution, by leaving behind all this evidence that points directly to it? Does this creator want us to deny what is right in front of us?

I don’t know about you, but I want to believe things that are true. I want to believe as many things that are true as possible. That means putting aside things I may want to be true, in search of things which are actually true.

What I was saying was that even on a cursory level, it seems obvious that the primates are all related. I mean, how does one look at a chimp, for example, and determine that it’s entirely different from human beings?

Giving humans qualities and abilities, not seen in these similar creatures, means that we are special. Who can deny that there is no higher creature than man?

This is just anthropocentrism. You’re interpreting the world from the perspective that humans are the centre of the universe simply because you’re a human.

From say, an eagle’s point of view, they could be considered more special and unique than humans are. After all they can fly and their eyesight is 4-8 times stronger than that of humans. Humans can’t fly on our own and our eyesight is often quite poor.

Science looks down its educated nose at what appears to be myth based on some sort of ancient magic.....but the existence of an all powerful Creator could be revealed tomorrow as a power yet to be discovered. Science cannot categorically deny the possibility of his existence, because science is just in its infancy really. If an Intelligent Designer does exist and revealed himself, then what would happen to your precious theory......it would go down the gurgler along with all the people who thought that they were too smart to believe in him.

Science considers things that are demonstrable, repeatable, testable and verifiable. Unless you can find a way to empirically examine the claims in these ancient books, they’re not really verifiable from a scientific standpoint. Science doesn’t categorically deny the existence of god(s). It just has no ways to test for them and therefore has nothing to say about them.

If and when an intelligent designer/creator reveals itself is the time to believe in it, and not until then. And even then, the existence of such a creator wouldn’t rule out the existence of evolutionary processes, as this creator could very easily have created the process of evolution – as many Christians actually believe.

If he is a Creator, then everything he made would be a completed work of skill demonstrating purpose in its design, not a haphazard string of fortunate or unfortunate mutations resulting in half finished creatures which never appear in the fossil record. There is virtual miracle after miracle where the Creator of life facilitated the power of reproduction in all the life forms he created.

Then I would have to say that I see no evidence for this kind of creator, given all the evidence for evolution and all the evidence that 99.8% of every living creature that has ever lived has gone extinct. That doesn’t say “completed work of skill” to me.

What do you mean by “half finished creatures?” Evolution doesn’t posit the existence of such creatures.

Oh but you are wrong....evolution and atheism require belief that life just magically sprang into existence "somehow" and then, in a long line of beneficially mutated genes, caused all things to exist on this planet, completely undirected, suggesting that it did so without any solid evidence to support that assertion whatsoever.

We’ve been over this.

Atheism requires lack of belief in god(s). That is all. There are no other beliefs attached. Atheists can believe that aliens seeded life on earth or they can believe nothing about it. Atheists can believe or not believe a plethora of many different things about all different kinds of things.

Accepting evolution requires analysis of empirical evidence and requires no belief about how life came to exist in the first place.

The people who believe that life “magically sprang into existence” are those who with specific religious beliefs. Maybe some atheists too, because as I said, atheists need only lack a belief in god(s).

What is presented in a series of bits and pieces strung together with educated guesswork and wishful thinking. The premise that we "must" have evolved has replaced the theory that we "could" have. Therefore all that science says must be true because they can fit all their bits of fossils into a line if they use nothing more than imagination and suggestion. This is what you have.

This simply isn’t true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Thousands and thousands of people from many different fields of science working independently all over the world over the course of 150+ years testing and re-testing and gathering mountains of evidence that points to the existence of the evolutionary processes that are at work in our world. Independent confirmation of the facts of evolution in this manner, has led to the conclusion that it is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It’s the very same scientific method that allowed scientists to come up with germ theory and medicine, plate tectonics, general relativity, cell theory and pretty much any other scientific advancement you can think of. Do you deny those as well?

I find it rather bizarre that you accuse others of blindly swallowing what they’re been told when I see you repeating erroneous claims (that have been addressed many times over) that are plastered all over creationist websites, that have no basis in reality.

My "evidence" is every bit as good as yours. All you have so far is belief in what science has told you. Your facts are missing along with all your transitional forms. A chain needs links...so where are they?

Your claim, as far as I can tell amounts to, “everything is complex and looks designed, so it is.” Your evidence appears to be that ducks and other animals are pleasing to the human eye and therefore the specific God you believe in must have designed them. And of course you deny the logical conclusion to your argument which is that an infinitely complex god must also have a creator, given the assertion that complex things must have been designed. That is not evidence that is “every bit as good” as the evidence for evolution. In fact, I wouldn’t say that’s evidence at all.

Science has been demonstrated to be a trustworthy and valuable tool in providing useful knowledge of the world around us. It has given me the computer I’m typing these words into right now. I’ll stick with that instead of empty assertions.

Here are the transitional forms you keep harping on about. Take note that the fossil evidence is but one piece of evidence in favour of the theory of evolution and that every creature is a transitional form. Unless you assume that you everyone is just a clone of their parents, I don’t see how you can rationally deny that.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

I have a belief system too and I accept it at face value because its the only logical conclusion I can come to.

We can believe whatever we want. Believing doesn’t make a thing true though.

My belief system is not atheism, because atheism is not a belief system. Humanism is an example of a belief system that I value.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the transitional form of a giraffe?

If evolution is true, there must be intermediate species. What does a half formed giraffe look like?

Why do you expect to see “half formed” things, given that evolutionary theory doesn’t posit the existence of such things? Can you explain what you mean by this and why you expect to see such things? This is the kind of thing that leads me to believe you’re just copying arguments from creationist sites, where this erroneous claim can be found over and over again.

So you won’t accept evolution unless you see this one specific thing you are asking for? Is there something stopping you from seeking it out yourself?

How about Samotherium major?
http://www.livescience.com/52903-transitional-giraffe-fossils.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007033229.htm
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/11/150521.figures-only

What transitional species did elephants evolve from? I want photographs of the evidence, not just diagrams.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mesaxonia/elephantidae.php
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626084425.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/26/10717
https://www.google.ca/search?q=pala...ved=0ahUKEwjqz-ablIHQAhXK7YMKHWHDB5MQ_AUIBigB
https://www.google.ca/search?q=ameb...d0XAukQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=amebelodon+fossils
https://www.google.ca/search?q=ameb...MKHd0XAukQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=anancus+fossils
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurpictures/ss/elephant-pictures.htm#step5

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess the language of science falls outside of plain English. If you have to alter the meaning of a word to make it appear to carry more weight than it actually does, then that is very telling IMO.

They're using mutually understood definitions of words. Definitions of words are based on usages. Scientists use the term "scientific theory" and "scientific law" to mean particular things. Anyone familiar with science understands these terms. And now that you have been presented with them, you are familiar with them. So maybe now you can comment on the substance of the post rather than quibbling about individual words.

I’m curious though, what do you thing using specific terms to mean specific things in a field of study is “telling” of?

I am all for testing things thoroughly but the "predictive" part takes on a whole new life of its own where evolution is concerned.

Yes, as in, predictions have been made about aspects of evolution that have been corroborated by the evidence. Many of these predictions have been presented to you throughout this thread.

Your refusal to take in and consider new information is noted.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation.

Honest question: has the theory we came from a man made of dirt and his trans twin been confirmed yet? If so ... do you have the peer-reviewed article?

Giving humans qualities and abilities, not seen in these similar creatures, means that we are special. Who can deny that there is no higher creature than man?

Leave most people in the woods or the ocean or the desert. I guarantee you you'll find out which creature comes out on top. It's rarely the people.

Oh but you are wrong....evolution and atheism require belief that life just magically sprang into existence "somehow"

Nope, that's creationism.

Very simplified version:

1. No life.
2. Various molecules.
3. Self-replicating molecules.
4. rNA
5. DNA
6. Cells
7. Multicellular organisms
8. Multicellular organisms with specialized tissues

I mean, seems pretty straightfoward to me. Where's that dirt man again?

It isn't my religion telling me.....its my own eyes. Do you need your eyes checked? If you can look at those pictures and still claim that these creatures are all just accidents of evolution, then you are clearly deluded along with the scientists who artificially paint your pictures and diagrams. You are looking at evolution through rose colored glasses.

The perfection of God, ladies and gentlemen

 

[oldbadger]

I guess that is the bottom line isn't it? We all sing with our own choir and we will not learn a new song, especially if the other choir sings it.

Deists don't have choirs. Deists don't collect in groups afaik.
Deists don't have an agenda and certainly don't need to prove anything.
Since I was a Christian, and later a semi-Bahai, leading to Deist, I can learn new songs, but forgive me if I turn away from folks singing way out of tune.

So what place does pride have in this issue I wonder?

This is probably the first time I have ever bothered to discuss or debate on a creation-evolution thread, so it's hardly a subject I know much about; I am certainly not intimately acquainted with it. So any pride that's sloshing about could possibly be yours.

The flat earth has already been addressed....please try to keep up.

Yes, and Earth being centre of all, and people like Galileo finally winning through on other matters of science etc etc, but when I read or hear about all those people who died horribly, at Christian hands, branded as witches or worse, because they used the very natural medications that you support, I just think that the present Christian position on knowledge (that's scio-science) will adapt and adapt, twisting and turning in attempts to redeem or salvage its waining congregations, a different kind of dinosaur if you like. Yeshua BarYosef will be able to rest, one day, because the disgusting things that have taken place in his psuedo-names may eventually be discovered and laid bare for all to witness.

?

 

[Deeje]

SOURCE

This is a comment from that source....

"If the Giraffe neck truly evolved, why no mention of the vastly more difficult problems, such as the incredibly complex blood vessel system that prevents the Giraffe's head from exploding when it gets a drink of water? When the Giraffe lowers its head, one-way valves in the neck close to prevent the massive 2 ft long heart from bursting the head at the seams. At what point did all these intricate valves "evolve"? When bent over, how does the giraffe not pass out from lack of blood due to the neck valves closing? The "wonder net" of the brain prevents this, but how did that know when to "evolve"? Given its enormous heart and blood pressure, why no problems in the legs of the Giraffe?

The problem list is enormous, instead this study focuses on some vertebrae fossil pieces to try to piece together what truth be told is an impossible story."

I agree with this comment.

Thus here we have a classical case of good scientific theory. It predicts a certain specific pattern and it would be falsified by an opposite pattern in the fossil record. But the fossil records validates the pattern predicted by the theory, hence making us more confident about its truth. I can provide many such examples (human evolution, bird evolution, whale evolution, horse evolution......)

You are missing the point. Science assumed that evolution "must" have taken place and looked for evidence to corroborate that assumption.....since there is nothing in the fossil record linking one species to the next, the finding of an animal fossil that broadly fits what is expected as an intermediate species, will be inserted and hailed as the predecessor or ancestor. Don't you see that if your first premise is wrong, then everything you conclude from that viewpoint will be in error. You really can't tell that these creatures were not created at different times as complete animals, unrelated except by their "kind" at the hand of a skillful designer.

There is no evidence for a "chain" linking one species to the next....."suggesting" things doesn't make them facts.....no matter how many diagrams you post, or how much jargon you throw at it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

[QUOTE="sayak83, post: 4938328, member: 37415".....]the fossil record validates evolution handsomely.[/QUOTE]

No, it really doesn't, for two main reasons.

First, there is no tree. The fossils do not occur simple to complex from bottom to top, as predicted by evolution! The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in many textbook columns imply that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the fossil record reports a burst of organisms in the Cambrian timeline, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibiting a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly, without the predicted transitional precursors, every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

--Most of the aforementioned is from John D. Morris, PhD

This is truth...and all we hear from expects concerning the fossil-bearing strata is "the record is incomplete."

You've never heard that?

 

[Deeje]

Deists don't have choirs. Deists don't collect in groups afaik.
Deists don't have an agenda and certainly don't need to prove anything.
Since I was a Christian, and later a semi-Bahai, leading to Deist, I can learn new songs, but forgive me if I turn away from folks singing way out of tune.

Surely people who are tone deaf can't be critics......

This is probably the first time I have ever bothered to discuss or debate on a creation-evolution thread, so it's hardly a subject I know much about; I am certainly not intimately acquainted with it. So any pride that's sloshing about could possibly be yours.

Why comment if you are ignorant of the subject? Seems a little self defeating.....

Yes, and Earth being centre of all

I don't recall saying that the earth is the centre of anything....I see it more as a starting point. The beginning of something that could end up being beyond our wildest imaginings. Its a big universe!

and people like Galileo finally winning through on other matters of science etc etc,

If the church had referred to the Bible, Galileo would not have been in trouble in the first place.

but when I read or hear about all those people who died horribly, at Christian hands, branded as witches or worse, because they used the very natural medications that you support, I just think that the present Christian position on knowledge (that's scio-science) will adapt and adapt, twisting and turning in attempts to redeem or salvage its waining congregations, a different kind of dinosaur if you like.

Please don't confuse superstition with Christianity. True Christians put no one to death because true Christians follow the example of their Master. He forced no one to do anything, nor did he sanction murder. Those who called themselves "Christians" perpetrated all manner of heinous crimes down through history and you wonder why Christ says "I never knew you" people like that? (Matthew 7:21-23)

Yeshua BarYosef will be able to rest, one day, because the disgusting things that have taken place in his psuedo-names may eventually be discovered and laid bare for all to witness.

?

I heartily concur with the latter part of your statement....but Yeshua BarYosef as Jesus Christ....Messiah....Son of God will never rest. He has an active role as King that will take us 1,000 years into the future. Resting is not part of it....he has no need.

 

[Valjean]

Just not true, Hockycowboy. So many factual errors I can't begin to comment.
Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

people like Galileo finally winning through on other matters of science etc etc,

Yes, a good point. Yet Gallileo believed in the Scriptures, and continued to. He just didn't believe in the Church.....a big difference, my friend. As you point out, professed Christian religion -- indeed, almost all -- has 'killed people horribly'. Is this condoned by Scriptural guidelines for Christians? No! So blame the religions, but not the Guide that they havent followed. As Gandhi said, "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians."

 

[oldbadger]

Surely people who are tone deaf can't be critics......

Why comment if you are ignorant of the subject? Seems a little self defeating.....

Well, you've had a lot to say.....

.............. Those who called themselves "Christians" perpetrated all manner of heinous crimes down through history and you wonder why Christ says "I never knew you" people like that? (Matthew 7:21-23)

Don't you try to tell me what I wonder about!
I don't believe that Yeshua, on passing by a barren fig tree, would condemn it. Your Christ, maybe, but Yeshua was never that nasty.

I heartily concur with the latter part of your statement....but Yeshua BarYosef as Jesus Christ....Messiah....Son of God will never rest. He has an active role as King that will take us 1,000 years into the future. Resting is not part of it....he has no need.

Now now...... Whilst Yeshua did know the word Meshiah, he never knew the words Jesus, or Christ, never spoke Latin or Greek, (or possibly even Hebrew) and never referred to himself as Son-of-God. He referred to himself as 'Son-of-Man'. Check it out....read your bible.

And if Yeshua would be King for the last 2000 years and the next 1000 years, look what a mess there is. All Pauline rubbish, methinks.

 

[sayak83]

This is a comment from that source....

"If the Giraffe neck truly evolved, why no mention of the vastly more difficult problems, such as the incredibly complex blood vessel system that prevents the Giraffe's head from exploding when it gets a drink of water? When the Giraffe lowers its head, one-way valves in the neck close to prevent the massive 2 ft long heart from bursting the head at the seams. At what point did all these intricate valves "evolve"? When bent over, how does the giraffe not pass out from lack of blood due to the neck valves closing? The "wonder net" of the brain prevents this, but how did that know when to "evolve"? Given its enormous heart and blood pressure, why no problems in the legs of the Giraffe?

The problem list is enormous, instead this study focuses on some vertebrae fossil pieces to try to piece together what truth be told is an impossible story."

I agree with this comment.

You were very misleading in this statement. This is not a comment made by the authors in the paper itself, but made by a random person in the website portal below the article.

Secondly, each scientific paper focuses on a particular topic. This paper focuses on the evolution of bones on the neck of giraffes. You should read other papers that discusses the evolution of supporting soft tissue. Helpful sources has been given in the paper itself

Until now, the study of this remarkable evolutionary feat has been largely limited to analysis of the extant giraffe neck. The physiological mechanisms regulating blood pressure and cerebral perfusion to compensate for the massive increase in neck length have been extensively studied [5–7].

You are missing the point. Science assumed that evolution "must" have taken place and looked for evidence to corroborate that assumption.....since there is nothing in the fossil record linking one species to the next, the finding of an animal fossil that broadly fits what is expected as an intermediate species, will be inserted and hailed as the predecessor or ancestor. Don't you see that if your first premise is wrong, then everything you conclude from that viewpoint will be in error. You really can't tell that these creatures were not created at different times as complete animals, unrelated except by their "kind" at the hand of a skillful designer.

No I am not missing the point. Because your "skillful designer" can do everything and anything, there are no expectations whatsoever of finding a particular kind of pattern in the fossil record over any other. Fully modern horses could have cropped up before the Dinosaurs, or a few dinosaurs could have cropped up much after the Cretaceous event, or modern animals could have cropped up before the Cambrian era. He can create and uncreate anything anywhere and at any time.
But the evolutionary process cannot do everything and anything. That process can only generate a specific set of patterns in the fossil record. Very ancient animals (and plants) will have quite different features from modern ones and will only show distant similarities with modern forms. Most of these ancient animals will have no discernible descendants to the modern times. But as we time-march back from the past, subsequent layers show animals that are both related to some of the ancient forms but also show features starting to "approach" modern forms in their characteristics. This very specific pattern of gradual transformation of animals that, while showing similarity to ancient forms, begin to exhibit features present in modern forms,is a pattern that the fossil record is constrained to follow under the evolutionary process. And we see the fossil record following this specific pattern and no other in the 500 million history of multicellular life without exception.

So either
1) The evolutionary mechanism is true as clearly evidenced by the unique pattern of the fossil record
2) Scientists are making up this pattern and it does not exist. The onus is on you, to show this. Pick up a particular fossil lineage and show by analyzing the fossils there that such a pattern does not exist.
3) Your designer is deliberately misleading us by artificially constraining his creativity in such a way that it mimics the pattern predicted by evolution.

Which one do you choose, and justify your choice.

 

[sayak83]

No, it really doesn't, for two main reasons.

First, there is no tree. The fossils do not occur simple to complex from bottom to top, as predicted by evolution! The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in many textbook columns imply that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the fossil record reports a burst of organisms in the Cambrian timeline, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibiting a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly, without the predicted transitional precursors, every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

--Most of the aforementioned is from John D. Morris, PhD

This is truth...and all we hear from expects concerning the fossil-bearing strata is "the record is incomplete."

You've never heard that?

Comments made by the director of ICR can come fast and cheap. I consider the entire group a bunch of paid liars who main task is to deliberately misrepresent and mislead people of faith about the truths and conclusions of science. If however you wish to demonstrate any of the above claim to be actually true by analysis of the fossil record, feel free to do so here. I will engage.