Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

No, that is a false dichotomy.

When your argument starts out with a false dichotomy, then the rest of your argument holds no water.

a reply to: kruphix

Did you fail to read the first sentences of my thread? Here I'll repost them for you so you can take your foot out of your mouth.

Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true. We will also assume for the purposes of this exercise that with one being untrue that the other is true.

Though if you think that my argument holds no water. Tell me, if evolution isn't true, what IS true? Explain the diversity of life on the planet and give me the evidence to prove it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

but science isn't something you rush. You let it happen at its own pace.

So ... let's pick this debate up again when something definitive, specific to evolution, is developed in the lab ... or the church.

See you in a hundred years or so. To say I am disappointed, is an understatement for which I lack words to describe.

originally posted by: saturnine_sweet
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This appears to be almost a troll level thread. That, or you've never actually studied any religions at all. I'm pretty certain most every religion accepts adaptation and gene expression, even if some followers lack knowledge of such things in scientific terms. Breeding dogs, for example, has been around for a while and all.

Asking for evidence is trolling? That's news to me.

The contention that most creationist hold is that one creature does not become another. The term species is not really applicable, as even the slightest deviation gets a new gene pool labelled as a species, as long as it's been isolated for a while. So the argument you'd be having isn't about new species, but rather entirely new creatures, period. And the interesting thing is, if you were to cluster all the closely related species together, suddenly the diversity of life doesn't appear quite so daunting. Debates about science aside, it's not an illogical concept, provided you can allow for a creator in the first place.

Evolution doesn't say that one creature becomes another either. But I'm not defending evolution here. I want the evidence to explain the diversity of life on this planet provided that evolution is untrue. I'm tired of defending evolution and acquiescing to demands for evidence for evolution. It is high time that the evolution deniers provided their own evidence to explain the diversity of life on this planet. That isn't trolling. It is called prompting discussion and debate.

I might add, the other interesting angle to it all is that it gives birth the concept that, rather than life being improved and diversified over time due to changes in DNA, life is degraded. I can certainly think of times I've ventured out to Walmart and come home with the feeling that life is being degraded with every passing generation...

This is an anecdote and doesn't classify of evidence or proof of anything.

Explain to me why, when we dig up fossils, we don't find fossilized bears living alongside dinosaurs. If all the different species of animal were created once then speciation took over, then we should have examples of bears living alongside dinosaurs or trilobites living with whales. Why isn't this the case?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted
You aren't answering the question. You called the thread "Animals appearing whole - ie Anti evolution".

So, did the first single celled life form appear whole? The conclusion to that surely must be yes. Panspermia is neither here nor there because it suggests it appeared whole elsewhere, but still appeared whole. Abiogenesis is a theory which to the best of my knowledge we haven't successfully recreated (if I'm wrong, apologies, but even if I am, surely that raises the same point - animal appeared whole).

So, we have a point where as far as we know, the first life form on Earth appeared whole from nowhere. That kind of ssuggests - a little miracle occurred from which evolution took over. That could be used to say both creationism as a concept if the fundamentalist argument is held to one side as a blind belief, and evolution - assuming every building needs a foundation - can co-exist.

Am I suggesting this is the case? Not really I wouldn't know, I wasn't there, I'm just having a little bit of a mental work out and using it to counter the title you used for this thread.

ETA, I see you have accepted that this is for all we know as good a theory as any we have - not sure what that does to your OP though which actually refuted it.

Actually the abiogenesis hypothesis doesn't state that they appeared whole at all, but basic building blocks of life formed chemically (like amino acids) which then evolved into life forms.

Abiogenesis#current models

There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and John Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[61] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order."[61] Oparin and Haldane suggested that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent, however, the current scientific model is an atmosphere that contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapor), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulfide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases.[62][63] In the atmosphere proposed by Oparin and Haldane, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey reported in 1953.

Nothing miraculous about it at all when you look at it like that. Chemistry happened that produced some building blocks for life. These building blocks evolved into actual organisms. These organisms continued to evolve into what we have today.

I still want to see evidence for animals such as bears or whales appearing wholely developed. I notice that I am back on the evolution (and in this case abiogenesis) defensive front. This thread's purpose is to gather the evidence for the counterpoint, not disprove evolution or abiogenesis.

As stated by another poster "evolution has nothing to do with how the first life forms appeared", so how is it the "counterpoint" of Creation?
It sounds more like the purpose of this thread is to try and disprove Creation, regardless of what you claim.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but science isn't something you rush. You let it happen at its own pace.

So ... let's pick this debate up again when something definitive, specific to evolution, is developed in the lab ... or the church.

See you in a hundred years or so. To say I am disappointed, is an understatement for which I lack words to describe.

YOU'RE disappointed? I gave you a nice long rebuttal to your original points and all I get in return is you talking about this piltdown man non-issue (which is offtopic since I didn't create this thread to defend evolution) with a few lines per post. Then you have the gall to tell me that you are disappointed?

If creationism is true, then the theist doctrinarians have spent thousands of years spitting on God's art.

Creationism is merely the last ditch effort of theists to convince themselves that a god still exists despite our ever growing knowledge of the contrary. All supernatural beings, where they have once ruled the skies, the seas and the heavens, have since been pushed right out of the universe and right out of time by human understanding. The end result is to hide God where we could never hope to look, ie. outside of the universe and outside of time, thus attributing natural forces to supernatural causes, and calling them "laws" despite there being no legislator.

Pragmatically, creationism has no use beyond ideological masturbation.

a reply to: Quadrivium
I've said over and over and over again in this thread and in others that creationism can be true, provided that god uses evolution and other process to develop the universe and the life in it. I want the evidence that the counterpoint to evolution is true provided that you disbelieve in evolution. Why is this demand so hard to comply to? All you guys do is deflect and talk about evolution yet provide no evidence of your own.

ETA: By the way, if anything this thread is your chance to get me to believe your side of things. Give me the evidence that what you believe is true and if it is compelling enough I'll switch sides. But all you've done this whole thread is deflect and attack evolution and now you are pretending like I am questioning your god. I just want to know how to explain the diversity of life if evolution isn't true.

Right now within the human primate may be genetics destined to come out when the experience requires it (think cosmic or interplanetary existence)... Just as the human body form now wouldn't work well with early EA*RTH then.

Muscle and bone structures too small to traverse the terrain of giant forest seas and survive what was in them. It may of required a more brute form larger bones and muscles to fend off predators and wield larger hand weapons to protect which automatically would of made the body form larger... What intelligence would of thought that species would evolve and then place data within the genetics for the many species to thrive as environmental conditions changed?

just to add...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

How many times has this been explained to you? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. A god (pick one) could have started the first single-celled lifeforms and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.

You pick one, I already have mine.

One of the main problems is that there are many Atheist and Evolutionists who try to use evolution to disprove God, you can see this in every related thread on ATS. They also feel the need to suggest, constantly, that they are somehow more intelligent and above those who believe in Creation. This very thread has more than enough evidence of this.
If evolution has nothing to do with how life began, why use it to try and disprove Creation?

Everyone I've ever talked to that believes evolution (and yes that includes ATS) maintains that a god could exist and that evolution doesn't prove or disprove god. I want to see hard evidence of what you are saying is true. Though I doubt that it exists since you are actually misrepresenting the purpose of my thread in this very post by suggesting I'm trying to use evolution to disprove god. So how about showing a bit of intellectual integrity and not put words in my mouth?

Putting words in your mouth? Are you familiar with you're own OP?
In the very first paragraph you put evolution up against Creation and say that one or the other is true.
Then you go on to say, later in the thread, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
I think you are confused.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

Ummm......... Creation was finished quite a while ago.
New lifeforms don't appear....
They are found.

So since 99% of all species on the planet are extinct, you are suggesting that the earth, back when it was first created was exponentially more diverse than it is today? Keep in mind that the fossil record should bare that out. There should be more and more fossils the deeper we dig, but that isn't the case. Not to mention we can show that different species lived at different points in earth's past. Where is your evidence?

well...yes. I believe God created everything on that first week.
I believe virtually all the fossils were left by the flood (Noah's).
as I unnerstand it the Evolutionary theory is based on a chronological sequence of fossil finds--Cambrian stuff down bottom, then the Eocene; fish, amphibs, the great reptiles/dinos in the Mesozoic, and the Mammals, culminating in Homo Sapiens. IF these fossils are really in sequence, properly dated, Divine Creation looks unlikely. The question is, how accurate is the dating, and are fossils really found 'in sequence' or are they in mixed strata? Dino footprints & human footprints, for example; are they all fake, or are some of them real?
I've heard a bunch of anecdotes in re; out-of-order fossils being found but have no hard/documented evidence.
Keep in mind, scientists are not all like Mr. Spock, operating purely by logic. Scholars have agendas, pet peeves etc. and it can't help but reflect in their work.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

How many times has this been explained to you? Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. A god (pick one) could have started the first single-celled lifeforms and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.

You pick one, I already have mine.

One of the main problems is that there are many Atheist and Evolutionists who try to use evolution to disprove God, you can see this in every related thread on ATS. They also feel the need to suggest, constantly, that they are somehow more intelligent and above those who believe in Creation. This very thread has more than enough evidence of this.
If evolution has nothing to do with how life began, why use it to try and disprove Creation?

Everyone I've ever talked to that believes evolution (and yes that includes ATS) maintains that a god could exist and that evolution doesn't prove or disprove god. I want to see hard evidence of what you are saying is true. Though I doubt that it exists since you are actually misrepresenting the purpose of my thread in this very post by suggesting I'm trying to use evolution to disprove god. So how about showing a bit of intellectual integrity and not put words in my mouth?

Putting words in your mouth? Are you familiar with you're own OP?
In the very first paragraph you put evolution up against Creation and say that one or the other is true.
Then you go on to say, later in the thread, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
I think you are confused.

I know what I said. You are misrepresenting the point of the thread. Evolution and creationism ARE unrelated, BUT people who disbelieve in evolution are creationists. Granted they aren't all the same breed. These people always misrepresent evolution and try to couple it with creationism so I want the counterpoint to this argument. Why is that so hard to do? Page 5 now and you still haven't given me ONE piece of evidence. Yet you get all offended like I'm attacking your god or something. I guess demanding evidence is offensive or something. So until you get back on topic, I'm done talking to you.

a reply to: works4dhs

You can have a problem with the dating, but the fossil layering DEFINITELY shows that different animals lived at different periods. You don't find fossils for a trilobite near the surface and you don't find fossils for a bear deep down in the earth. It doesn't happen.

I don't think anyone has referred to the book of Genesis yet, but any information you're going to get on Creationism would come from there, no?

Genesis Chapter 1
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis Chapter 2
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

I admit I don't fully understand. Did God create Adam and some animals in Chapter 1, and then create some additional animals later in Chapter 2? Or was it just a recap? If more animals were created how much time passed in between? It doesn't say. It could have been billions or millions of years. The six thousand year time frame comes from counting the generations of man listed in the Bible back to Adam. It doesn't account for any period of time between the forming of the Earth and the Fall of Adam and Eve.

subduction zones would offset the fossil layer data

In geology, subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate and sinks into the mantle as the plates converge. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones. Rates of subduction are typically centimetres per year, with the average rate of convergence being approximately two to eight centimetres per year.[1]

Plates include both oceanic crust and continental crust.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was merely pointing out the flaws in your OP. If you wish to understand, you must know, and you obviously have little more than a pop culture familiarity with religious concepts.

Regarding say, dinosaurs, I've heard many creationist theories on the subject. Personally, I find it completely irrelevant. But for the sake of discussion, it could be as simple as you being in your workshop with a lot of raw materials around. Maybe over here are the remnants of one project, over there, the remains of another. But today, you have something else in mind. Humans.

Or, conversely, the creator of the world as we know it could be an entirely different entity than the creator of the universe, and just decided to make humanity his pet project. Or, you know, ALIENS. The point is that, given the impossibility of an absolute answer, there are endless possible solutions--all depending only on your personal bias, ultimately.

Evolution says that all life came from one source and diversified. So yes, it does say that one creature becomes another. It doesn't say it does so overnight, but you know that. You're simply being a troll about it. Such nit-picking takes focus away from the discussion and serves no beneficial purpose.

The problem with evidence for evolution is that it can all be evidence for any number of theories. I could probably come up with a new one a day for a week or two, all of which could encompass the facts underpinning the concept of evolution. It's been usable as a working model for some endeavors simply because there are a measure of facts underpinning it. It's the sheer volume of assumptions that I find unacceptable. Incorrect assumptions in logic yield exponential errors, and the theory of evolution has had so many errors that few if any of the original concepts hold. Instead, it's slowly been re-written to account for each wrong assumption--which is great--but does nothing to account for the errors introduced by those incorrect assumptions, which is why it resembles a religion as much as it does a science. One is expected to have faith in reason to cover up the logical fallacies and turn a blind eye to the absurd.

Essentially, the problem isn't that the science is wrong, but that the interpretation of science has become so biased that it is an echo chamber of narcissism so loud that absurdities go unheard. So, you see, the debate rages on because it is, in the end, about the interpretation of data, not about the data itself, and most are too dogmatic for objectivity--or, perhaps, lack sufficient education and perspective regarding alternate points of view.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

well, sure, if the 'layering' is accurately interpreted. as I mentioned, there's talk of stuff frequently being found out-of-order but I don't have references. it makes sense that aquatic animals are found lower (Cambrian) if the flood caused the fossils. Coelecanths were supposed to be very old and primitive as they weren't in the fossil record for millions of years and presumed long extinct. some creatures (megamouth) have no fossil record at all. birds are 'more recent' as their bodies would have been fossilized last.

here's one link I found
www.creationscience.com...

a reply to: jjkenobi

Yeah I know all this already, but I did give you a star since you are literally the first person to give me evidence of ANY kind. For that I thank you. To be honest, I'm surprised. I would have thought I'd see bible quotes on page one, yet it took until page 5 to even see them.

Unfortunately, I don't count bible quotes as good enough evidence. I want to see additional evidence to support the claims in the bible. Not to mention, you bring up good points about the contradiction between genesis 1 and genesis 2, the fact that a day could be millions or billions of years to god. These are all great reasons why I want to see more evidence than just the bible.

the Creationist/Evolutionist midpoint answer


The CREATED Universe Evolved into the Energy that CREATED Everythiing...

originally posted by: saturnine_sweet
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was merely pointing out the flaws in your OP. If you wish to understand, you must know, and you obviously have little more than a pop culture familiarity with religious concepts.

Why would you think that? I was raised Catholic. I know at the least what they believe. I'm just trying with this thread to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-believers of evolution and have them provide the evidence for their side of things.

Regarding say, dinosaurs, I've heard many creationist theories on the subject. Personally, I find it completely irrelevant. But for the sake of discussion, it could be as simple as you being in your workshop with a lot of raw materials around. Maybe over here are the remnants of one project, over there, the remains of another. But today, you have something else in mind. Humans.

How often would this creator put new species on the planet?

Or, conversely, the creator of the world as we know it could be an entirely different entity than the creator of the universe, and just decided to make humanity his pet project. Or, you know, ALIENS. The point is that, given the impossibility of an absolute answer, there are endless possible solutions--all depending only on your personal bias, ultimately.

I'm an agnostic and follow this same line of thought. That is why I try to follow the evidence and why I created this thread. If you want me to believe that something other than evolution happened, then you have to give me a working idea of what that is and it has to fit all the evidence we have of the history of life on earth.

Evolution says that all life came from one source and diversified. So yes, it does say that one creature becomes another. It doesn't say it does so overnight, but you know that. You're simply being a troll about it. Such nit-picking takes focus away from the discussion and serves no beneficial purpose.

No it really isn't nitpicking. When you say "one creature becomes another," you can interpret that into one of MANY different meanings. Some of which include people saying that an animal gives birth to a brand new species of animal or it could even mean that the animal literally becomes another animal during its lifetime. If you want to get your point across clearly, it helps to be specific about what you are saying.

Therefore, instead of saying that one creature becomes another, you should say that a species of animal has children that are slightly different than its parents. These differences could either be beneficial or harmful. The more beneficial for its environment, the better the odds that it will survive and breed that difference into its children which will also be slightly different from their parents. This continues on and on for many generations, accruing more and more differences, until the descendants look and behave nothing like the ancestors. We would call the descendant a new species, but there is never a point where we can clearly say that the animals stopped being the first species and became the other one.

The problem with evidence for evolution is that it can all be evidence for any number of theories. I could probably come up with a new one a day for a week or two, all of which could encompass the facts underpinning the concept of evolution. It's been usable as a working model for some endeavors simply because there are a measure of facts underpinning it. It's the sheer volume of assumptions that I find unacceptable. Incorrect assumptions in logic yield exponential errors, and the theory of evolution has had so many errors that few if any of the original concepts hold. Instead, it's slowly been re-written to account for each wrong assumption--which is great--but does nothing to account for the errors introduced by those incorrect assumptions, which is why it resembles a religion as much as it does a science. One is expected to have faith in reason to cover up the logical fallacies and turn a blind eye to the absurd.

No that isn't the problem at all. ALL science works like that. Do you think that theories such as cell theory or germ theory look like they originally did when they were first postulated? Because that is essentially the same argument you are making here about evolution.

Here is an analogy to consider. If you look at a theory (like evolution) as a piece of wood that you want to carve down into say a sphere, you slowly whittle away at the edges, smoothing it out, but at the core, the basic structure of the block stays the same. You still have most of the original block of wood, you've just whittled away at the rough edges. Same thing with a scientific theory.

Essentially, the problem isn't that the science is wrong, but that the interpretation of science has become so biased that it is an echo chamber of narcissism so loud that absurdities go unheard. So, you see, the debate rages on because it is, in the end, about the interpretation of data, not about the data itself, and most are too dogmatic for objectivity--or, perhaps, lack sufficient education and perspective regarding alternate points of view.

The only people that disbelieve in evolution are the ones that I am addressing in this thread. They tend to have a world view that contradicts evolution being true, so they disbelieve it. That is called a preconceived bias and isn't scientific at all. If you look at the evidence for evolution inside a vacuum without any preconceived notions or ideas, you see that it is almost definitely true.