The Dinosaurs and evolution
- Thread starter Xelios
- Start date
The creationist answer is that we did not go from dinosaurs to mammals or from lizards to birds. Instead the general creationist belief is that each "kind" (a set they refuse to define) may change but always remains within this undefined set "kind".
A humorous side note is the observation that the creationists continually challenge evolutionists to provide and example of one "kind" changing into another... yet as an undefined category this challenge makes no more sense logically than asking to provide an example of one greebokaloom changing into another greebokaloom. Of course, even the premise demonstrates their ignorance of evolutionary theory for what they are asking for is a categorical change within a single generation which is something that evolutionary theory states is all but impossibly unlikely.
Each "kind" was created directly by some unimaginative God who apparently had a rather small set of biological tinker-toys to work with. This is why species show such a lack a diversity and why we find a part used for one purpose in one species is used for a different purpose in another species (e.g. The phalanges of a bat or horse.) Apparently, he also was trying to make sure he had no extra parts left over because he stuck a lot of unnecessary stuff into a lot of creatures. Maybe his mom told him to clean up his room.
~Raithere
Here's the answer I got from another board. What do you think?
The description of the Biblical kind seems to imply that it refers to those animals that can mate and produce offspring after that kind. Most scientists I've heard put this at the genus level in most cases.
The apparent shift from reptilian to mammalian dominance in the fossile record offers no challenge to opponents of macro-evolution. God created new species all the way up till the end of the sixth day, and it is perfectly possible that many species could have gone extinct in that time.
The existence of millions of species is not much of a problem. First of all, God could have created each one individually. Alternatively, the species is a subdivision of genus, the level viewed as the kind, and adaptation within the genus is not only accepted fact but is also not in contradiction to the Bible.
The description of the Biblical kind seems to imply that it refers to those animals that can mate and produce offspring after that kind. Most scientists I've heard put this at the genus level in most cases.
The apparent shift from reptilian to mammalian dominance in the fossile record offers no challenge to opponents of macro-evolution. God created new species all the way up till the end of the sixth day, and it is perfectly possible that many species could have gone extinct in that time.
The existence of millions of species is not much of a problem. First of all, God could have created each one individually. Alternatively, the species is a subdivision of genus, the level viewed as the kind, and adaptation within the genus is not only accepted fact but is also not in contradiction to the Bible.
Children, do u finally realize that the "theories" of individuals are different. Thats why the bible never called physical observation as "truth", because atheist and christians alike can manipulate, interpret, and twist words, whether they are good theories to you, or not to others.
I agree with evolution, the church agrees with evolution. I believe in theories with evidence. Again, because it has evidence. Even though it is not a fact, but just a theory which requires faith. Atheist have faith, but are in denial because they dont have truth in them.
Jesus is the truth, the way and the life. Jesus is "the WORD incarnate". The word is the moral virtues. So if u accept the virtues, u accepted christ.
Most of the atheist I BELIEVE become atheist because they are immoral, perversed, they dont have the truth in them, but are so focused in the things of the world.
I agree with evolution, the church agrees with evolution. I believe in theories with evidence. Again, because it has evidence. Even though it is not a fact, but just a theory which requires faith. Atheist have faith, but are in denial because they dont have truth in them.
Jesus is the truth, the way and the life. Jesus is "the WORD incarnate". The word is the moral virtues. So if u accept the virtues, u accepted christ.
Most of the atheist I BELIEVE become atheist because they are immoral, perversed, they dont have the truth in them, but are so focused in the things of the world.
Whatsupyall:
Your post has absolutely zero relevance to the topic at hand.
Get on topic or shut the hell up. This whole forum is not a soapbox for your twisted theology.
One is that, as usual, it's an entirely interpretive definition. Essentially, the creationists here are attempting to define "kind" specifically to suit the discoveries of science so that they can still interpret the Bible as true. 200 years ago "kind" was interpreted much more specifically. One needs only to look at who is changing their definitions to fit who in order to find the problem. If the Bible is truth then why is it so malleable?
Second, the selection of Genus as the scientific term that is closest to "kind" pretty much insures that concrete evidence will never be discovered. The branchings of Genus occur over long periods of time (though the rate varies widely " Compiled over the entire data set the "average" genus of Pelecypod lasts 78 million years. Similar calculations for Carnivores show that in this group a genus lasts about 8 million years." : http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/36.Tempo&Mode.1.HTML) or in small populations (reference punctuated equilibrium). Of course, the most convincing evidence, in most people's minds, for "macro-evolution" is the existence of transitionary forms. That changes of such scope are being defines as "kind" practically guarantees we will never see much evidence in the way of transitionary fossils.
~Raithere
Your post has absolutely zero relevance to the topic at hand.
Get on topic or shut the hell up. This whole forum is not a soapbox for your twisted theology.
I see two problems with this:
One is that, as usual, it's an entirely interpretive definition. Essentially, the creationists here are attempting to define "kind" specifically to suit the discoveries of science so that they can still interpret the Bible as true. 200 years ago "kind" was interpreted much more specifically. One needs only to look at who is changing their definitions to fit who in order to find the problem. If the Bible is truth then why is it so malleable?
Second, the selection of Genus as the scientific term that is closest to "kind" pretty much insures that concrete evidence will never be discovered. The branchings of Genus occur over long periods of time (though the rate varies widely " Compiled over the entire data set the "average" genus of Pelecypod lasts 78 million years. Similar calculations for Carnivores show that in this group a genus lasts about 8 million years." : http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/36.Tempo&Mode.1.HTML) or in small populations (reference punctuated equilibrium). Of course, the most convincing evidence, in most people's minds, for "macro-evolution" is the existence of transitionary forms. That changes of such scope are being defines as "kind" practically guarantees we will never see much evidence in the way of transitionary fossils.
~Raithere
Of course, you'll get creationists who say that God scattered all of those dinosaur fossils around as a test of faith and that the dinosaurs never really existed. 
I really do hate my species.
whatsupyall:
Do us all a favour and die in a spectacularly stupid fashion, and ensure that it gets caught on video so bored office-workers and the easily amused can pass it about on the internet. I'll make sure to vote for you in the next Darwin Awards, if that's any consolation.
I really do hate my species.
whatsupyall:
Do us all a favour and die in a spectacularly stupid fashion, and ensure that it gets caught on video so bored office-workers and the easily amused can pass it about on the internet. I'll make sure to vote for you in the next Darwin Awards, if that's any consolation.
Thatjerk, your delusional and brainwashed, your not about to let go of that "evolution proves there is no God", you are ignorant and you r ranked along those bible christians that take every parables literally..Your no better than them...
I agree with evolution because it contains evidence. I have faith in it, though it is just a theory. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT OK CHILDREN...
I agree with evolution because it contains evidence. I have faith in it, though it is just a theory. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT OK CHILDREN...
Just so people know what a theory is
http://www.grange.cl/resources/filosofia/archivos/doc/tok4/myths about science.htm
That way there is no excuse for ignorance.
http://www.grange.cl/resources/filosofia/archivos/doc/tok4/myths about science.htm
That way there is no excuse for ignorance.
Micro-evolution does occur. It is merely a change in allele frequency. Macro-evolution, or radical DNA restructuring (one species to another) does not occur. Macro-evolution is based on the geologic column, which has been proven (by secular scientists) to be severely flawed, and ultimately invalid. BTW, I have many moons of experience in this field of study, so I feel confident in saying that someone who debates in favor of the validity of macro-evolution, will undoubtedly lose. ;-)
><>
><>
There is abosoultly no difference bwtween micro and macro evolution. As far as i can tell the difference between the two was made up by creationists so they could accept the parts of evoulution that are undeniable but still reject the theory. "Macro" evolution is nothing more than long term "micro" evolution.
If you believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution" then do please provide the process that either prevents allele changes from accumulating over time or confines allele changes within set limits. Without such a process, changes will accumulate until those differences are classifiable as a separate species or genus.
~Raithere
Macro-evolution is gradual, not a radical DNA restructuring. Genetic drift + natural selection + long time = macroevolution. What part of this equation do you dispute?
No it is not, though an abundance of evidence is contained there.
Please elaborate.
Also, can you answer the original question of this thread?
><>
``
edit: damn I can't get my fish with legs to look right
.Inspectoor, this kids are far more brainwashed than us, atleastt we believe in God with conviction..
This kids think that such theory doesnt require faith, but are FACTS...LOL, comments like that proves that they are brainwashed and deluded..
Listen children, present the best evidence you can FIND to support evolution theory, and we will present the flaws of that evidence, in fact we will win because our evidence will be visible and present today...Your claims are unseen...Well?
This kids think that such theory doesnt require faith, but are FACTS...LOL, comments like that proves that they are brainwashed and deluded..
Listen children, present the best evidence you can FIND to support evolution theory, and we will present the flaws of that evidence, in fact we will win because our evidence will be visible and present today...Your claims are unseen...Well?
Okay, where did mammals come from? Why did they arrive when they did? If you refute macro-evolution, please give a valid theory to explain what we see.
Cap, I will tackle your question shortly. First, I have to address supyall.
Supyall, your intentions are good, however, your methodology is poor. 1 Peter 3:15 says, 'But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with GENTLENESS AND RESPECT........'. Additionally, 'the more the words, the less the meaning' is not simply a cliche', it is also found in the Bible. If you want to discuss apologetics further, contact me via PM.
Alright, Cap, your turn.
"Okay, where did mammals come from? Why did they arrive when they did? If you refute macro-evolution, please give a valid theory to explain what we see."
--------------------------------------
It should be no surprise that, as a Christian, I believe in Creationism. Permutations on gene sequence is functionally zero when it comes to abiogenesis and is impossible mathematically. There is scientific evidence that demonstrates the genetic 'lessening' over time, not it's increase. The complexity of the DNA molecule is simply too vast to have evolved, as is the human eye. I have two questions for you. Is evolution falsifiable? Is evolution an absolute fact?
><>
Supyall, your intentions are good, however, your methodology is poor. 1 Peter 3:15 says, 'But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with GENTLENESS AND RESPECT........'. Additionally, 'the more the words, the less the meaning' is not simply a cliche', it is also found in the Bible. If you want to discuss apologetics further, contact me via PM.
Alright, Cap, your turn.
"Okay, where did mammals come from? Why did they arrive when they did? If you refute macro-evolution, please give a valid theory to explain what we see."
--------------------------------------
It should be no surprise that, as a Christian, I believe in Creationism. Permutations on gene sequence is functionally zero when it comes to abiogenesis and is impossible mathematically. There is scientific evidence that demonstrates the genetic 'lessening' over time, not it's increase. The complexity of the DNA molecule is simply too vast to have evolved, as is the human eye. I have two questions for you. Is evolution falsifiable? Is evolution an absolute fact?
><>
Evolution is fact. Things change. I suppose you mean the theoy of evolution and in particular macro-evolution. Yes, macroevolution is falsifiable. If evidence arose that was contrary to the theory, then it would be falsified. Is it absolute fact? Is anything absolute fact? The theory is supported by evidence and is easily the best explanation we have.
Now,
This is your theory? What does that explain? How do the dinosaurs and mammals and such fit into this theory? Why is there evidence against creationism?
Let us not confuse evolution with adaptation. "Evolution" is such a broad term, simply meaning "change," that it can be stated quite honestly that adaptation qualifies as a type of evolution. However, when "evolution" is stated to the layperson, the concept is of one sort of organism, like a bacteria, through time, chance, mutations, and natural selection, becoming another sort of organism, like an elephant. If this is the sort of evolution being referred to, then adaptation is in a different category altogether.
Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast. This is radically different from the type of evolution which posits that some kind of unicellular organism through millions of mutations became that bear in the first place.
><>
Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast. This is radically different from the type of evolution which posits that some kind of unicellular organism through millions of mutations became that bear in the first place.
><>