What if creationism is true?

[shawn001]

With all do respect Big T, it seem as if you are doing the same thing everyone else is doing. You attack my understanding of the subject. I understand the subject quite well. Evolution is the concept of all animals having a common ancestor, is it not? That is evolution. For example, all dogs have the common ancestor of a dog. If that is true, all dogs today comes from its common ancestor, which is the grey wolf. So where did the grey wolf come from?? If the grey wolf was the first dog, that would mean that whatever produced the grey wolf wasn't a dog (or so it is theorized). But that is exactly where you leave science and go to religion. Dogs produce dogs. There is no evidence that the first dog came from a nondog. This is voo doo science, yet you people believe it and accept it as truth.

So in a nut shell, that is what evolution is. Without getting into the technical babble that people like to hide behind, that is what evolution is. Large scale change over time. All dogs share a common ancestor with the grey wolf, but if you trace the grey wolf back to its origins, you will find that it had the alleged origins of a nondog. This is religion, not science. There is nothing observational about, and nothing empirical about it. It is what you believe, and if that is the case, fine. You can believe what you want, but dont go passing it off as facts and put it in the text books as facts and lying to kids.

because of evolution we have modern dogs to begin with, why are you stuck on dogs? We know what they evolved from, its been shown to you. We can go back to when no mammals were on earth at all.

again

How Do We Know Humans Are Primates?

Besides similar anatomy and behavior, there is DNA evidence. It confirms that humans are primates and that modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago. There is only about a 1.2 percent genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees throughout much of their genetic code.





How Do We Know Humans Are Primates? | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

we also know

"There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree."

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


we also just discovered a new fossil find.

'Red Deer Cave people' may be new species of human

'Red Deer Cave people' may be new species of human | Science | The Guardian

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just because the Universe had a begining and is made of matter and energy does not mean it was made of something that was not matter or energy!

Saying that matter and energy can be the origin of matter and energy is not a smart move. The fact that you dont seem to understand this elementary school logic shows me that you obviously dont need to be speaking on such matters.

Have you ever considered that our Universe always was?

You said above "just because the universe had a beginning" means that you admitted the universe had a beginning. Then you go on to ask "have you ever considered that our univers always was". Let me let you in on a secret, if something had a beginning, it couldnt have always existed. Im just sayin.

that perhaps gravity will win out and we will return to singularity and "rebound" into another big bang? this kind of bouncing effect could make the Universe go over and over again if the conditions are right.

This bouncing universe crap is the oscillating theory, which has already been debunked. No physicist believes it any more, so why do you?

Or could it be that our Universe was born when two other systems collided, making ours in the wake (as some predictions of string theory predict)?

String theories are highly speculative so to hypothesize theories before they actually become "theories" is a bit premature.

Or could it even be that the creator/first cause WAS a "god" more or less, but was made of matter? Could it even be that god is the Universe, and that by creating he died in the process? or that he is still the matter and energy, but alive?

There are so many things wrong with that line I boldened, and so many other possibilities.

 

[jasonwill2]

Saying that matter and energy can be the origin of matter and energy is not a smart move. The fact that you dont seem to understand this elementary school logic shows me that you obviously dont need to be speaking on such matters.



You said above "just because the universe had a beginning" means that you admitted the universe had a beginning. Then you go on to ask "have you ever considered that our univers always was". Let me let you in on a secret, if something had a beginning, it couldnt have always existed. Im just sayin.



This bouncing universe crap is the oscillating theory, which has already been debunked. No physicist believes it any more, so why do you?



String theories are highly speculative so to hypothesize theories before they actually become "theories" is a bit premature.

you completely missed my point; I was giving many possible alternate explanations to your statement.

also you havnt responded to the one post of mine you requested.

 

[shawn001]

Saying that matter and energy can be the origin of matter and energy is not a smart move. The fact that you dont seem to understand this elementary school logic shows me that you obviously dont need to be speaking on such matters.



You said above "just because the universe had a beginning" means that you admitted the universe had a beginning. Then you go on to ask "have you ever considered that our univers always was". Let me let you in on a secret, if something had a beginning, it couldnt have always existed. Im just sayin.



This bouncing universe crap is the oscillating theory, which has already been debunked. No physicist believes it any more, so why do you?



String theories are highly speculative so to hypothesize theories before they actually become "theories" is a bit premature.

Call_of_the_Wild,

You do know everytime you use the big bang theory you are actually supporting biological evolution. Your here because of stellar evolution billions of years ago that created the heavy elements via super nova's. That material created our sun, then the planets in the process. All the material has been recycled from earlier star explosions. When the earth formed it was to hot for life, not to mention the core had not cooled so the planet was bombarded with solar radation until the van allen belts formed. Not to mention there was no oxygen atmophere like we have today. WE have that atmophere because of biological evolution. Mainly because of cynobacteria that evolved photosynthesis and created the oxygen atmosphere over billions of years, pumping oxygen into it.

Earth once had hazy methane atmosphere like ice-moon Titan


Microbial flatulence dominated the pre-oxygen era

"the period 2.5 to 2.65 billion years ago, microbes were already producing oxygen in the oceans. However very little of this made it into the nitrogen atmosphere; instead there was a fluctuating haze of hydrocarbons, mainly methane (aka natural gas) but with some ethane and propane (patio gas) mixed in. This is similar to the present-day atmosphere on Titan, the giant ice-moon of Saturn"

Early Earth Hazy One Day, Clear the Next : Discovery News

So if all living things were put on earth at once, which we know for a fact is not true, how were they breathing? Methane? Which is a main componet of natural gas.

 

[garrydons]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

Creationism is true and it tell us who God is much more His agenda. Pro-Creationists of course believed that God is the creator of all things both seen and unseen. With regards to His agenda, man was created for a purpose. Man was given temporary lives because if He passed God's will while living here on earth, he will be rewarded with eternal life.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Creationism is true and it tell us who God is much more His agenda. Pro-Creationists of course believed that God is the creator of all things both seen and unseen. With regards to His agenda, man was created for a purpose. Man was given temporary lives because if He passed God's will while living here on earth, he will be rewarded with eternal life.

Which God? Zeus? Isis? Endovelicus? Odin? My grandmother?

 

[camanintx]

I want you to tell me under what circumstance today will a dog begin to produce a nondog.

You cannot even say what makes a dog a dog, so how can I tell you when a dog will produce a nondog? Besides, that is not what evolution predicts. Just as all Great Danes are dogs, not all dogs are Great Danes. Everything that is descended from a dog will always be considered a dog. You have to look at the dog's predecessors to find any nondogs. Before there were dogs, there were Caniformia which evolved into dogs, bears, badgers, raccoons and even seals. Before that there were Carnivora which evolved into Caniformia (dog-like) and Feliformia (cat-like) orders. Eventually a breed of dog may become so different that we no longer choose to call it a dog, but no one can predict when or even if that will happen.

Even the wiki article on the pre-Cambrian period states that the fossil record of that era is poor. Hard to theorize anything on a poor record. But the fossil record is not evidence of evolution anyway. It is just more of evolutionists adding their preconceived notion on the evidence.

While the fossil record is far from a complete picture, there is enough to tell us that the millions of organisms existing today can be traced back to just a few original organisms in the distant past.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I want you to tell me under what circumstance today will a dog begin to produce a nondog.

It won't happen today. It takes years for dogs to breed and for their offspring to reach sexual maturity in order to reproduce. To observe the changes required would take many, many, many, many, many generations of dogs to eventually evolve into something that we'd consider distinct from a dog.

I think part of your confusion arises from our nomenclature, our classification of organisms. Rather than think of all the different species as distinct units, they are actually part of a continuous tree. What we observe today are the points of the branches.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

you completely missed my point; I was giving many possible alternate explanations to your statement.

also you havnt responded to the one post of mine you requested.

Ok, and I addressed those other possible alternatives.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It won't happen today. It takes years for dogs to breed and for their offspring to reach sexual maturity in order to reproduce. To observe the changes required would take many, many, many, many, many generations of dogs to eventually evolve into something that we'd consider distinct from a dog.

I think part of your confusion arises from our nomenclature, our classification of organisms. Rather than think of all the different species as distinct units, they are actually part of a continuous tree. What we observe today are the points of the branches.

I said under what cirumstances, meaning explain the circumstances that will allow such voo doo science. Second, I as I said before, your answer is the typical reply, saying it "takes to long". It takes so long to happen that no one alive today will be able to see it, and it happened so long ago that no was was alive to see it. This is faith lol.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... and it happened so long ago that no was was alive to see it. This is faith lol.

Oh the irony...

 

[shawn001]

Ok, and I addressed those other possible alternatives.

Call_of_the_Wild

who were

Homo erectus

Homo floresiensis

neanderthal

Ardipithecus kadabba


Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus anamensis


Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus sediba

Homo habilis

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo rudolfensis

and what classification are they in? hominid?

 

[camanintx]

I said under what cirumstances, meaning explain the circumstances that will allow such voo doo science. Second, I as I said before, your answer is the typical reply, saying it "takes to long". It takes so long to happen that no one alive today will be able to see it, and it happened so long ago that no was was alive to see it. This is faith lol.

While we have directly observed atomic reactions, no one has been around long enough to witness a star pass through all of its phases. Does that make the Theory of Stellar Evolution "voo doo science"?

 

[shawn001]

he doesn't believe in macroevolution, and talks about dogs.

But humans speeded up the process in dogs.

"
Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species?


"Domestic animals fascinated Darwin and continue to enthrall those of us who own pets. It is certainly curious how domestic dogs, which we know--because DNA bar coding has told us!--were raised by man from a wild gray wolf (Canis lupus) ancestor, can take on such a dramatic variety of forms. But among dogs, which are well known for their hybrid (or mongrel) varieties, different breeds can mate and have viable offspring, so they are all found under the umbrella of a single species, Canis familiaris.

Dogs are highly unusual in their variation, from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. (Recently, body size was found to be largely explained by differences in a single gene among dog breeds.) Darwin realized that man can force selection by picking particular individuals for breeding who show a particular characteristic that we want to see in our pets. So humans can accelerate the process of selection dramatically by exploiting the diversity naturally found in domestic forms and homing in on a form that is desirable. Natural selection usually acts more slowly, relying on what Darwin described as "descent with modification"--the chance arrival of new forms through DNA mutation.


Why are different breeds of dogs all considered the same species?: Scientific American

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You cannot even say what makes a dog a dog, so how can I tell you when a dog will produce a nondog?

I dont know what makes a dog, but just like a 3 year old can tell, I can tell what a dog is when I see it. A dog is to be distinguished from a cat and any other type of animal. That distinguish-ment allows us to know the difference between a dog, cat, bear, fish, etc. What we havent seen is the "dog" kind produce or be produced by any thing other than a dog. No one has seen this, but yet, some believe it. It baffles me.

Besides, that is not what evolution predicts. Just as all Great Danes are dogs, not all dogs are Great Danes.

But those "dogs" that are not Great Danes are still dogs. No one ever denied or doubted that there are different varieties of dogs. But they are all dogs, and they produce dogs.

Everything that is descended from a dog will always be considered a dog. You have to look at the dog's predecessors to find any nondogs. Before there were dogs, there were Caniformia which evolved into dogs, bears, badgers, raccoons and even seals.

See right here!! Hold it right here!!! Here is where you just left science and went to religion. You just left science and went to religion and you didnt even know it. It happened that fast lol. "You have to look at the dog's predecessors to find any nondogs"....."before there were dogs, there were Caniforma which evovled into dogs, etc" This is no evidence that this large scale change has occurred. NONE. This is adding your INTERPRETATION to the alleged evidence. What evidence do you have that dogs, bears, badgers, etc, evovled from Caniformia to the animals there are now. And dont bring up the fossil record either, because the fossil record is not evidence. See how quickly you left science and went to your religion. It can happen in a blur.

Before that there were Carnivora which evolved into Caniformia (dog-like) and Feliformia (cat-like) orders. Eventually a breed of dog may become so different that we no longer choose to call it a dog, but no one can predict when or even if that will happen.

Thank you for sharing your religous beliefs. You have no proof that this large scale change ever occurred, so you are therefore relying on the unseen and taking a huge leap of faith.

While the fossil record is far from a complete picture, there is enough to tell us that the millions of organisms existing today can be traced back to just a few original organisms in the distant past.

There is no fossil record.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

While we have directly observed atomic reactions, no one has been around long enough to witness a star pass through all of its phases. Does that make the Theory of Stellar Evolution "voo doo science"?

Well, thats for science to figure out. Me personally, I haven't dove in to it. Look, I have no problems with science. I just dont like the idea of science attempting to explain absolute origins, like where the universe came from, or where did human and animal life came from. But about the stars, I will leave that up to those in the field to tell me how natural law works in order to form stars or whatever the case may be. That is what science is, a tool used to explain how things work in the natural world.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh the irony...

It is what it is Mr. Moderator

 

[Iti oj]

the way things work explains the how and why of their formation and creation..... also seems your confusing evolution and abogensis again

 

[tumbleweed41]

You know what CotW, I have decided your intentional ignorance of the scientific theory of biological evolution can only be solved by a direct revelation from God itself.

Since the likelihood of that is slim to none, lets get back to the OP.

If it was scientifically proven that all species of plants and animals appeared at the same time in history, fully formed as is, what would this tell us about how they appeared and who or what was responsible?

 

[McBell]

If it was scientifically proven that all species of plants and animals appeared at the same time in history, fully formed as is, what would this tell us about how they appeared and who or what was responsible?

It would tell us that the designer/creator is not only sloppy and careless with his designs, but also has a sense of humour.