Tijkmo
do all evolutionists accept that there is no explanation for a beginning
I don't know about evolutionists in general, but i have a theory of how it began.
S
Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc
by seattleniceguy 109 Replies latest jw friends
-
Satanus
-
tijkmo
i would like to hear it
im going to bed but i will read tomorrow
tijkmo of the remembering the monty python sketch--i have a theory and it is my theory and the theory is all mine-class...and chuckling to himself....
it has been a fun day
-
seattleniceguy
tijkmo,
just one wee point though...do all evolutionists accept that there is no explanation for a beginning because im sure i have heard some theories regarding it...from evolutionists
Certainly, everybody has a favorite opinion about the topic. Also, some evolutionary scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, are pursuing research into abiogenesis, which is the field that tries to address how life arose. So such a scientist will have sometimes make statements about how life may have come about. Still, however, evolutionary theory does not work on that question, only on the question of how biological organisms change once they are in existence.
SNG
-
Satanus
Tijkmo
Does your pm work?
S
-
hooberus
From a creationist point of view, if I may be so bold, it is impossible to explain in a convincing manner. Even if we say that God created 200 species just for this particular lake, what happened during the flood? Remember "the waters covered the highest mountain." So these fish were no longer confined to their lake. They swam around uninhibited for a year, and then somehow all ended back back in the same lake? Definitely hard to swallow.
I'm sorry, but I believe that you are ignorant about what most creationist scientists actually believe and teach on subjects such as this. Creationists generally do not believe that God "created 200 species" of these particular fish and that somehow after the flood that they "all ended up back back in the same lake". I think that you should spend some more time studying the actual creationist positions on these things.
-
tetrapod.sapien
:I'm sorry, but I believe that you are ignorant about what most creationist scientists actually believe and teach on subjects such as this. Creationists generally do not believe that God "created 200 species" of these particular fish and that somehow after the flood that they "all ended up back back in the same lake". I think that you should spend some more time studying the actual creationist positions on these things.
no, that's right. they believe and teach that evolution did occur within "kinds", but not between species because god would not allow that (arbitrarily apparently!). but a fish to evolve into a different type of fish where reproduction is not possible, then that is okay. i think you should try reading some real science instead of what is widely regarded by scientists as psuedo-science. -
hooberus
i think you should try reading some real science instead of what is widely regarded by scientists as psuedo-science.
Your comment implies that I am ignorant of evolution- please substantiate your assertion. Or, do you merely believe that the non-acceptance of molecules to man evolution, in itself is evidence of ignorance about what evolution teaches?
-
AlmostAtheist
To get the creationists' point of view on this "what about animals that only exist in one place on the earth?" question, I went to answersingenesis.org. Specifically, this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp
Therein, it states:
The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in different parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than ?random? processes in choice of destination), and were subsequently isolated from the placentals and so protected from competition and predation.
The point is that kangaroos were on the ark, their population of two left the ark when it landed, and over time they found their way to Australia. (The site suggests land bridges, single land masses, and other as yet unknown methods of them reaching it) The site suggests that they followed a natural path, migrating where the weather, diet, and predators pushed them, finally dropping them in Australia. The fact that fossilization is a rare event is the reason given for no fossil evidence of this trek.
This leaves many questions that the site doesn't address, the most obvious of which to me is, Why are kangaroos not mentioned in the Bible? They are such a funky, spunky animal, surely they would have made their way into some proverb ala, "My son, observe the kangaroo, and become wise". If not the Bible, why not at least SOME non-australian mention of these creatures? Surely some cave painting or ancient writing would mention them. Maybe they did, but I can't find it.
(This web site provides answers to that question, but I doubt reasonably intelligent creationists would consider the site to be authoritative: http://objective.jesussave.us/kangaroo.html You have GOT TO CHECK OUT THIS SITE! If you thought Chick tracts were hilarious, baby, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.)
Discussing creation as if it were true is like discussing reincarnation as if it were true. "Maybe when we die, we go on to another form of life. Maybe if we're good, we come back as a rich man, a philanthropist. Maybe if we're bad, we come back as a cockroach." Maybe. Maybe not. But without something to base it on, what good is it? Maybe the ancients were right and the earth REALLY IS riding on the back of a great sea turtle. Why not? Turtles have been known to grow to enormous sizes. And there are examples of life forms that don't require oxygen to survive. Some animals enter a hibernation/stasis state when it gets cold and can survive literally for centuries, perhaps forever, in this state. So how can we honestly refute the Sea Turtle theory?
Well, we can say there's no evidence of it. Sure, it could happen. It might be true. Maybe. But there's no evidence of it.
Religion isn't about evidence, it's about faith. If you have faith in the sea turtle, then you can believe it on faith. But when that same idea is put forth as if it were science, that's when it steps away from faith and evidence will be demanded of it. It's telling that the word "may" appears 14 times in that article. When you speak in may's, you have a thought, maybe even an idea. But before you can call it a theory that competes in the science genre, you have to have more. Creation just doesn't have it. At least, I've never been shown an honest example of it. (I'm thinking of the Watchtower's infamous books on evolution when I think of dishonesty. The article from AIG doesn't appear to be dishonest, just wanting in facts.)
Dave
-
seattleniceguy
Dave,
Funny site. Oh my gawd! Check out this quote on their About Us page:
The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.
Ay yai yai! They're trying to shut down the Landover Baptist site! :-) What's next, The Onion? Lord save us!
hooberus,
I realize that some creationists accept so-called "microevolution," although I find the distinction to be absurd. I don't think the creationist explanations are convincing in any normal definition of the word.
SNG
-
hooberus
I realize that some creationists accept so-called "microevolution," although I find the distinction to be absurd. I don't think the creationist explanations are convincing in any normal definition of the word.
Virtually all creationists accept variation within a kind. I believe (though I may be mistaken) that it was the evolutionists who coined the term "micro-evolution." Anyway, the idea that macro-evolution is merely the exrapolation of observed micro-evolutionary processes is questioned even among evolutionists. (most so-called micro-evolution involves the recombining of existing genetic information within a basic kind).
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883). http://members.iinet.net/~sejones/evolut04.html#evltnmcrvltncnntbxtrpltdfrmmcrvltn