Why I believe God Created Life.

[Simurgh]

Quoting what Dr. Raup published between 40 and 20 years ago might suit your purpose here, but it does not prove your point. We have since filled in many of the gaps that Rup and others who published in the last millennium concerning the fossil record.

Ancient Skulls Reveal 'Mixed' Neanderthal-Like Lineage

Human and Chimp Genes May Have Split 13 Million Years Ago

Blond Hair Gene Identified

Little Foot: Scientists Discover 3-Million-Year-Old Australopithecus prometheus | Anthropology | Sci-News.com

…. and those are just the latest news about human evolution. In regard to animal fossils we now have a much better understanding of evolution as well.

New Fossil Fox Discovery Supports Out-of-Tibet Hypothesis | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Mercuriceratops: New Long-Horned Dinosaur Discovered | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Were Dinosaurs Cold- or Warm-Blooded? New Study Tries to Answer Longstanding Question | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

This is what popular science journals publish and is easily available for all to read. The articles are written in plain enough English for just about anyone to understand. So why are we still arguing over a religious interpretation of science, or a scientific interpretation of religious texts?


As traditional and conservative as the pope is, even this old man and those before him agreed—once they got past what they did to Galileo—that science and religion are separate things and one does not need the other to have value.


Old Earth, New Earth creationism, what difference does it make. Neither one of those religious sects/cults have any science that backs up their religious teachings—other than wishful thinking and distorted facts and outright lies. Why can they not just stick to their religion and stop acting as if they actually understand scientific methodology and ruin our children’s chance to compete in the real world where no one confuses creation myths with scientific discovery.

 

[rusra02]

Even to grant that it is a jerky record, what we don't find if far more telling. We don't find fossils jumping the timelines. Even one human fossil jumping the timeline would be enough to say "well at least humans were modified" but no we do not find it. People cannot deny that life is a remarkable thing with or without god. We well know what JW's are convinced of but this planet simply is not young enough to support any spontaneous generation of millions of various species. Everything we find supports an old earth, an even old solar system, and much older universe scenarios.

Nothing about the age of the universe or the age of the earth will make god any less remarkable. In fact I find it more remarkable that it has been around for so long, outside of our piddly perceptions. Humans want so much to be the center of it all, as if life arose as soon as humans were able to record history. That might seem likely from our very limited scope of perception but with everything being far more old and beyond humans makes the creation of God that much more than we will ever be.

The Bible sets no age on the earth and universe. I believe YECs are in error claiming the earth is only thousands of years old. The Bible does not support this claim. (Genesis 1:1)

 

[rusra02]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
But that's what the ToE actually has well established. We well know that it's not a nice evenly-flowing change. Evolution isn't very pretty, and is typically very uneven from species to species and from one location to another.

The facts stated by Raup, without the evolutionary interpretation are;
1. Species appear in the sequence very suddenly
2. Species show little or no change during their existence in the record

If some plant or animal appears suddenly, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution from one species to another.

If some plant or animal changes little or not at all, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution within species.

Thus, the facts, sans the spin, support direct creation, not evolution.

 

[rusra02]

You can't reason with him. You can't reason with someone who does not wish to be reasoned with. Even if you supplied him with proof, he would supply a spindoctored counter-argument in which he doesn't have to accept that proof. You have to understand that he doesn't want to believe anything other than his own point of view but conversely wants you to believe his point of view.

When many evolutionists cannot provide evidence for their failed theory, they resort to personal attacks upon the character or motives of those who reject the ToME. Sad, but not unexpected.

 

[Bunyip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
But that's what the ToE actually has well established. We well know that it's not a nice evenly-flowing change. Evolution isn't very pretty, and is typically very uneven from species to species and from one location to another.

The facts stated by Raup, without the evolutionary interpretation are;
1. Species appear in the sequence very suddenly
2. Species show little or no change during their existence in the record

If some plant or animal appears suddenly, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution from one species to another.

If some plant or animal changes little or not at all, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution within species.

Thus, the facts, sans the spin, support direct creation, not evolution.

Yes, but Raup is propogating propoganda, not facts.

 

[rusra02]

Quoting what Dr. Raup published between 40 and 20 years ago might suit your purpose here, but it does not prove your point. We have since filled in many of the gaps that Rup and others who published in the last millennium concerning the fossil record.

Ancient Skulls Reveal 'Mixed' Neanderthal-Like Lineage

Human and Chimp Genes May Have Split 13 Million Years Ago

Blond Hair Gene Identified

Little Foot: Scientists Discover 3-Million-Year-Old Australopithecus prometheus | Anthropology | Sci-News.com

…. and those are just the latest news about human evolution. In regard to animal fossils we now have a much better understanding of evolution as well.

New Fossil Fox Discovery Supports Out-of-Tibet Hypothesis | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Mercuriceratops: New Long-Horned Dinosaur Discovered | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Were Dinosaurs Cold- or Warm-Blooded? New Study Tries to Answer Longstanding Question | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

This is what popular science journals publish and is easily available for all to read. The articles are written in plain enough English for just about anyone to understand. So why are we still arguing over a religious interpretation of science, or a scientific interpretation of religious texts?


As traditional and conservative as the pope is, even this old man and those before him agreed—once they got past what they did to Galileo—that science and religion are separate things and one does not need the other to have value.


Old Earth, New Earth creationism, what difference does it make. Neither one of those religious sects/cults have any science that backs up their religious teachings—other than wishful thinking and distorted facts and outright lies. Why can they not just stick to their religion and stop acting as if they actually understand scientific methodology and ruin our children’s chance to compete in the real world where no one confuses creation myths with scientific discovery.

Are you including the biologists and other scientists who, upon examining the evidence for themselves, reject the ToME as unscientific? Those scientists who find the evidence for intelligent design compelling? Religion and Science can be compatible, but only true religion and true science. The more that is discovered about life, the more evidence mounts for a grand Designer and the ToME is found to be "wishful thinking and distorted facts and outright lies."

 

[starless]

"wishful thinking and distorted facts and outright lies."

The irony ...

 

[starless]

Those scientists who find the evidence for intelligent design compelling?

They are called pseudo-scientists. You should start using this word more.

Sources:

1. The scientific community considers intelligent design to be "unscientific", "pseudoscience" and "junk science".
1.1 (NSTA Pressroom
1.2 JCI - Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
1.3 WORLD | Junk science | Mark Bergin | Feb. 25, 2006)

2. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific."
(Kansas USD 383: 38 Nobel laureates - The Panda's Thumb)

3. In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science"
(News list | UNSW Science)

4. In 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).
(Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates)

 

[Mycroft]

When many evolutionists cannot provide evidence for their failed theory, they resort to personal attacks upon the character or motives of those who reject the ToME. Sad, but not unexpected.

It is not a personal attack. It is simply plainly obvious that you have no intention on debating on this debate forum. You simply wish to refute without due consideration as a springboard for pushing your own ideas. It's the worst form of proselytizing.

 

[rusra02]

They are called pseudo-scientists. You should start using this word more.

Sources:

1. The scientific community considers intelligent design to be "unscientific", "pseudoscience" and "junk science".
1.1 (NSTA Pressroom
1.2 JCI - Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
1.3 WORLD | Junk science | Mark Bergin | Feb. 25, 2006)

2. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific."
(Kansas USD 383: 38 Nobel laureates - The Panda's Thumb)

3. In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science"
(News list | UNSW Science)

4. In 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).
(Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates)

I would think that if the ToME is such an irrefutable "fact", there should be no need for "a call to action" against the ideas of intelligent design. And I noticed you ignore the many real scientists who support ID and reject the ToME. I think appealing to legal courts to suppress any scientific ideas that challenge evolution smacks of totalitarianism. Such appeals to authority were the tactics used by the Pharisees in Jesus day, to try to control the people's thinking.(John 7:47-49) How like some evolution advocates today, IMO.

 

[starless]

You are desperately arguing in circles

I would think that if the ToME is such an irrefutable "fact", there should be no need for "a call to action" against the ideas of intelligent design. And I noticed you ignore the many real scientists who support ID and reject the ToME.

Again, they are not MANY, as I have already proven to you. They are less than 1%, which doesn't in any way change the scientific consensus that the Theory of Evolution is "one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science."

Sources, from peer reviewed journals, not from a crackpot's website:
1. Science, Evolution, and Creationism
2. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMlim055660

I think appealing to legal courts to suppress any scientific ideas that challenge evolution smacks of totalitarianism.

Again, you are not allowed to use the word "scientific" as you clearly have NO IDEA what it means. In my previous post I showed you that ID is considered non-science or pseudo-science. And as such, pseudo-science has no place in the classroom.

 

[idav]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
But that's what the ToE actually has well established. We well know that it's not a nice evenly-flowing change. Evolution isn't very pretty, and is typically very uneven from species to species and from one location to another.

The facts stated by Raup, without the evolutionary interpretation are;
1. Species appear in the sequence very suddenly
2. Species show little or no change during their existence in the record

If some plant or animal appears suddenly, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution from one species to another.

If some plant or animal changes little or not at all, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution within species.

Thus, the facts, sans the spin, support direct creation, not evolution.

Exactly what does that mean, species appear suddenly? This iisn't true. It took millionsof years for anything to appear. Yes there are times where more species flourish but creationists act like these things happen over night but we are still talking hundreds of thousands of years. Well the earth was more hospitable at times and other times not and the fossil record backs it up regardless of what time frame you wanna pick on.

 

[Simurgh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
Actually, the fossil record doesn't support evolution. “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
But that's what the ToE actually has well established. We well know that it's not a nice evenly-flowing change. Evolution isn't very pretty, and is typically very uneven from species to species and from one location to another.

The facts stated by Raup, without the evolutionary interpretation are;
1. Species appear in the sequence very suddenly
2. Species show little or no change during their existence in the record

If some plant or animal appears suddenly, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution from one species to another.

If some plant or animal changes little or not at all, that fact is contrary to the claimed gradual evolution within species.

Thus, the facts, sans the spin, support direct creation, not evolution.

Are you including the biologists and other scientists who, upon examining the evidence for themselves, reject the ToME as unscientific? Those scientists who find the evidence for intelligent design compelling? Religion and Science can be compatible, but only true religion and true science. The more that is discovered about life, the more evidence mounts for a grand Designer and the ToME is found to be "wishful thinking and distorted facts and outright lies."

What you are talking about is nothing but the usual creationist nonsense that has no basis in science. Name just one legitimate scientist who considers evolution unscientific. A real scientist, one who knows what a scientific theory actually is, not some creationist crackpot who wants to sell tickets to some carnival where dinosaurs have saddles.

What I was saying originally is a really simple thing. Whatever Raup said, was said 40 years ago and he wrote 3 books about what he did, namely extinction events. This is why he slanted his work towards the various lacunae in evolutionary development. He went out of his way to find disruptions in the evolutionary chain.

Do you understand this now? He studied extinction, therefore he made the case that there are missing links between certain developing species because natural disasters made a path for new development and this is why we should NOT expect there to be a smooth transition.

You quote the wrong guy to shore up your religious beliefs. The other point I was making is that since he has written his books, we have discovered many more fossils, and among them missing links have been established. This, in concert with DNA analysis has closed many of the gaps concerning evolutionary development.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps. But who made the monkeys? And the typewriters?

This path you have chosen dies with your inability to answer the question "Who made god?"

But you already know that.
So it is puzzling why you would try it again.

 

[McBell]

When many evolutionists cannot provide evidence for their failed theory, they resort to personal attacks upon the character or motives of those who reject the ToME. Sad, but not unexpected.

And when creationists cannot provide anything credible for their claims they whine and cry about facts they dislike being boldly stated.

 

[Parsimony]

The Bible sets no age on the earth and universe. I believe YECs are in error claiming the earth is only thousands of years old. The Bible does not support this claim. (Genesis 1:1)

How long would you say that life has existed on Earth?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Which of the following scientific theories are also "unproven" then:

-The Atomic Theory
-The Theory of Matter and Energy
-The Germ Theory
-The Theory of Plate Tectonics
-The Big Bang Theory
-The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
-The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
-The Electromagnetic Theory
-Nuclear Theory
-The Theory of Thermodynamics
-Molecular Orbital Theory
-Theory of Relativity

Did I miss this getting addressed?
My phone may be having problems, because I don't see a relevant response.

Please advise.

 

[viole]

The experimental evidence says that is just wishful thinking, not science.

I think we have to agree to disagree here. You seem immune to the fact that this alleged evidence is insufficient given the time and environmental changes you need to trigger speciation.

Just a wee question. If God is the designer of man from scratch, why did He create Adam with nipples?

When I was a creationist, I could not answer that so well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Just a wee question. If God is the designer of man from scratch, why did He create Adam with nipples?

When I was a creationist, I could not answer that so well.

Ciao

- viole

Or the appendix, or wisdom teeth, or tonsils. None of those serve any purpose either. I think God just likes to screw with creationists.

 

[Mycroft]

I think we have to agree to disagree here. You seem immune to the fact that this alleged evidence is insufficient given the time and environmental changes you need to trigger speciation.

He is immune to it because he doesn't care whether you think his evidence is sufficient or not. He doesn't care what you believe, really. He simply wants to push his own beliefs. And for this reason you will never convince him of anything contrary to 'that his belief is true and all his evidence is sufficient'.