What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

That's easy. The appearance of design does not prove design.

What does it prove?
And - with no designer, how did the atom and the cell, get their obvious designs?

"Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions."

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, [but still believes that] there is no first cause...

"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control..."
Robert Jastrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, Mr. Jastrow was not discussing biology per se, but the dilemma facing scientists today, so don't go attacking the man. Just pay attention to the message.


"But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?" (Creation pp. 17,18)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

absolutely they do. Its evident.

There was just a whole lot more imagination going on back then.

take for example the hydrologic cyle. When there was a drought it was becuse god was punishing them.

The hydrologic cycle was described in the Bible:
In the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote about it here: —Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.
How did the ancients know about it?

shooting stars were angels

simple magic was a miracle

the sun revolved around the earth

a heart attack was gods hands knocking the sinner down and so on and so on

Is all of that in the Bible?


&#12288;
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The hydrologic cycle was described in the Bible:
In the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote about it here: —Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.
How did the ancients know about it?

Because they were a nomadic people as well as traders so they knew this first hand as well as being told by others. Additionally one only has to look at a map to see that the Jordan River, a major biblical area where a lot of people from various villages along the river lived, knew that the river itself fed the sea.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What does it prove?
And - with no designer, how did the atom and the cell, get their obvious designs?

Just because those things are there does not mean they're designed. That's just your perception. The mind is powerful thing capable of all sorts of imaginations.

Curious, how do you know an Atom exist, let alone designed?

"Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions."

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, [but still believes that] there is no first cause...

"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control..."
Robert Jastrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?" (Creation pp. 17,18)

OK, so he offered his philosophical point of view.....He was an astronomer, a physicist and a cosmologist...but a biologist he wasn't.

Here, Mr. Jastrow was not discussing biology per se, but the dilemma facing scientists today, so don't go attacking the man. Just pay attention to the message.

Well he certainly wasn't qualified to speak on it in any real credible depth since it wasn't his area of expertise.

 

[barek333]

What does it prove?
And - with no designer, how did the atom and the cell, get their obvious designs?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Can you please enlighten me with the design of an atom.

 

[camanintx]

What does it prove?

Nothing. The human mind is quite adapt at seeing design where none exists. Did someone intend to make this mountain look like an Indian wearing an iPod when they made the road?

And - with no designer, how did the atom and the cell, get their obvious designs?

The same way a puddle just happens to conform to the hole in which it finds itself, through natural processes.

He added: &#8220;Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.&#8221;

One could just as easily say that theists have no proof that life was the result of an act of creation. The problem for theists is that they have no evidence of any such creator while natural processes exist all around us.

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same."

So you have evidence that birds existed before land animals?

"But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?" (Creation pp. 17,18)

Arguments from irreducible complexity are nothing more than arguments from ignorance and fail just as easily. Organisms exist with all combinations of eyes, ears and brains, proving that they don't all have to evolve together at the right time.

 

[fantome profane]

Can you please enlighten me with the design of an atom.

​

 

[barek333]

​

:bow:

 

[outhouse]

And - with no designer, how did the atom and the cell, get their obvious designs?

primitive thinking is not how we answer question for which we do not know.

How does it rain? the sky spirit did it
Why does the thunder come? the thunder gods are angry
why does the mountain rumble? the gods are angry

how did something complicated my uneducated head cant understand? Magic man did it

 

[newhope101]

primitive thinking is not how we answer question for which we do not know.

How does it rain? the sky spirit did it
Why does the thunder come? the thunder gods are angry
why does the mountain rumble? the gods are angry

how did something complicated my uneducated head cant understand? Magic man did it

Too bad all your smart heads can't bring one little cell to life. They sure have enough theories as to how it may have happened.

Evolutionists believe in magic, they just call their magic 'theoretical science" the science of loosers that can't prove anything!

 

[camanintx]

Too bad all your smart heads can't bring one little cell to life. They sure have enough theories as to how it may have happened.

Evolutionists believe in magic, they just call their magic 'theoretical science" the science of loosers that can't prove anything!

Nobody ever said that recreating the conditions which lead to the first living organism would be easy, did they? Scientists have been unable to create black holes either so would you suggest that we toss out Relativity?

 

[Gunfingers]

Not to mention extremely simple life has been created. Miller-Urey experiment. Synthetic Biology.

 

[painted wolf]

Too bad all your smart heads can't bring one little cell to life. They sure have enough theories as to how it may have happened.

Evolutionists believe in magic, they just call their magic 'theoretical science" the science of loosers that can't prove anything!

And there we have it.... all science is apparently bunk. Math can't model or predict anything.

We need to just accept "goddidit" as an answer for everything, because that isn't vague or magical thinking at all.

Math = magic

wa:do

 

[lunamoth]

Not to mention extremely simple life has been created. Miller-Urey experiment. Synthetic Biology.

Life has not been created from non-life in the lab. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that more complex organic molecules needed for life may form spontaneously under putative primitive Earth conditions.

Further, the border between non-living protocells and what we would call living cells is fairly blurred, much as the classification of viruses, between living and non-living, is blurred.

It's probably more accurate to think of abiotic self-replicating systems that eventually acquired, via natural evolutionary processes, the characteristics we associate with simple cells - biotic self-replicating systems that also have mechanisms for energy transformation and information storage/replication.

 

[painted wolf]

We have, however, created self-replicating RNA... the simplest sort of "life" possible.

Knocking on the door of life: Self-replicating RNA synthesized

wa:do

 

[lunamoth]

We have, however, created self-replicating RNA... the simplest sort of "life" possible.

Knocking on the door of life: Self-replicating RNA synthesized

wa:do

Yes, another important piece in the puzzle.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Too bad all your smart heads can't bring one little cell to life. They sure have enough theories as to how it may have happened.

Are you making the assumption the ToE has to explain the "origin" of life even though it never professes to? Even without an explanation for the "origin" of life it does quite well for the origin of species. But let's be real here. "God did it" is not even a valid explanation without instituting some imagination....

Evolutionists believe in magic, they just call their magic 'theoretical science" the science of loosers that can't prove anything!

You have no hypothesis that would even qualify as "science". If "God did it" is your hypothesis then how can we go about testing the claim? Yours seem to be imagination and sheer guess work. For all of your "created kinds" they're all explained with ("God did it").....never is there a testable way as to "How" it was done.

Now since this thread is about the fossil record can either you or wilson tell me where this is supposed to fit in with your assertion of creation?

 

[Amill]

Wilson admitted a long long time ago that he doesn't believe neanderthals ever existed. Not sure what newhope's take on them is.

 

[Jose Fly]

Notice the psychology within NewHope's post; there are some not-so-subtle signals in there that are extremely revealing...

Too bad all your smart heads can't bring one little cell to life.

Note the acknowledgement that scientists and the people who advocate for science are "smart". However it's used here ("smart heads") not as a compliment, but as a childish insult, much in the same way kids use the term "egghead".

That sort of anti-intellectualism is common within fundamentalist Christianity. NewHope's message here is clear: She thinks scientists are intelligent, but to her that's a negative trait and something she wants nothing to do with.

 

[wilsoncole]

The problem with an intellegent designer is that its a not an explanation.

Explanation of what? The FACT that design is evident, is enough to indicate a designer. Ray Harris illustrates that adequately.

It proposes no mechanism by which the designer created the universe and the designer itself has no defined characteristics.

What kind of man was Michelangelo? What do you discern from his work? Do you not see his attention to detail; his almost perfect proportioning of his subjects which demonstrates his use of mathematics; his meticulous attention to light and shadow, etc, etc, etc.
You don't have to meet the man to realize that this man is a genius!
The same goes for the cell and the earth. Its amazing how well they are put together. But they couldn't have made themselves!

In effect creationists are expecting us to believe that the universe was created by an unknown designer using unknown methods for an unknown reason and because of all these unknowns we have no idea what else this designer may or may not do in the future.

You've got that all wrong! Nobody expects you to believe anything. In fact you are already well known as unbelievers and we worry about why.
The entire outlook of materialists is characterized by wanton destructiveness. You have used the knowledge gained by science to assist you in the despoiling of the only home you have - earth.
“Astronauts circling the earth have waxed eloquent over this beautiful, fragile sphere sailing along in its orbit around the sun and have expressed the need for humankind to appreciate its beauty and to care for it. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, when he first glimpsed earth from space, radioed Houston: “It looks like a sparkling blue and white jewel .&#12288;.&#12288;. laced with slowly swirling veils of white&#12288;.&#12288;.&#12288;.&#12288;, like a small pearl in a thick black sea of mystery.”
Astronaut Frank Borman’s comment was:
“We share such a beautiful planet. .&#12288;.&#12288;. The overwhelming wonderment is why in the world we can’t appreciate what we have.”
One of the astronauts of the Apollo 8 moon flight commented: “In the whole universe, wherever we looked, the only bit of color was back on the earth. There we could see the royal blue of the seas, the tans and browns of the land, and the whites of the clouds. .&#12288;.&#12288;. It was the most beautiful thing to see, in all the heavens. People down here don’t realize what they have.” (AW 95 11/22 p. 10)
Why is the ingenuity of science not being used to upbuild and uplift earth’s resources?

There is the additional problem that if a designer created everything in its current state then all observations would be simulataneously consistant with there being no ultimate creator and an ultimate creator.

Who said that it was created in its current state? It began with paradise. Greed and selfishness, hatred and violence dominate the entire planet. Bloodspilling has reached epidemic proportions. And you think that this is normal? But this is the kind of life that you choose.

As there seems little point in maintaining that an ultimate creator exists when the universe can be explained in its absence this makes the creator redundent.

You seem to be blaming God for the mess you’ve made of earth and of your life.
Well - he didn’t stop you, did he?
Do you think he should have?
How?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson