Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[heisenbergman]

Choose one.  Start with the fossil, then explain why it is transitional.

Are you actually saying that the list of transitional fossils as listed on that page, collated from the many references cited at the bottom of the page, throughout years of study... are actually not transitional fossils??

I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these are not transitional fossils, since all the whats, hows and whys are already listed there and on related pages for all to see.

[leomarley]

Don't matter what fossil or evidence you present to creationists. They will never accept any of it.

[Quitacet]

For a butterfly, a grown up person is not the same person as when he/she was a child simply because it cannot live long enough to see the transition.

[barrister]

I think the burden of proof is on you to explain why these are not transitional fossils, since all the whats, hows and whys are already listed there and on related pages for all to see.

The burden of proof is on the one who alleges, not on the one who denies.

The reasons why all of them are transitional are already there for all to see?  Then it should be very easy to quote those reasons here.  Just one fossil would suffice.

All I'm asking is that you repeat what the scientists said about just one fossil.  How hard can that be?  It's not as if I'm requiring you to do an original study. 

Or maybe you can simply admit that you really have no idea why any of those fossils are considered transitional, and save us the waste of time?

[bumblebee]

All I'm asking is that you repeat what the scientists said about just one fossil.  How hard can that be?  It's not as if I'm requiring you to do an original study. 

Why repeat? It's all there. Do us all a favor and tell us why they aren't transitional fossils.

We're not scientists. We rely on those who we think are experts. If you know something we don't, please tell.

[leomarley]

Sasabihin lang nila na speculation lang naman yun and hindi naman nakita mag transition. I.e. Lizard not turning into bird.

[majoe]

Don't matter what fossil or evidence you present to creationists. They will never accept any of it.

i am a creationist and i believe in evolution. i accept those transitional fossils except for human.
i believe evolution is God's way of creating diverse life on earth.
i said this because if i were God, i would do the same. i believe this is the best way to populate earth with living creatures instead of creating them one by one which for me, is very tiresome and not practical. what i do instead is just make a blueprint of life that is programmed to evolve and to speciate. it doesn't matter if it would take millions of years since time is of no essence to God.
if we will read the verses in creation account, on the 5th and 6th day, we will notice that God just LET the waters and earth bring forth creatures after their kind. "after their kind" looks "speciation" to me in our science subject.


   
 
 

[leomarley]

i am a creationist and i believe in evolution. i accept those transitional fossils except for human.
i believe evolution is God's way of creating diverse life on earth.
i said this because if i were God, i would do the same. i believe this is the best way to populate earth with living creatures instead of creating them one by one which for me, is very tiresome and not practical. what i do instead is just make a blueprint of life that is programmed to evolve and to speciate. it doesn't matter if it would take millions of years since time is of no essence to God.
if we will read the verses in creation account, on the 5th and 6th day, we will notice that God just LET the waters and earth bring forth creatures after their kind. "after their kind" looks "speciation" to me in our science subject.


   
 
 

you're not the "creationists" i was referring to. i mean those who believe that living organisms just came out of nowhere by magic.

[leomarley]

this just in:

Pope Francis says Evolution and the Big Bang are real

The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to something else, but it derives directly from a supreme principle that creates out of love. The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God; on the contrary, it requires it. Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve.

When we read in Genesis the account of creation [we are] in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he is not.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/pope-francis-says-evolution-and-the-big-bang-are-real-1651853568?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[dpogs]

aha ha ha... walang standard kasi... kaya ganyan...

[leomarley]

then magbabacktrack na naman yung ibang Church leaders sa Vatican sasabihin na mali yung sinabi ni Pope.

[dodie]

eto ang problema ng evolutionist......yung origin nung universe is in question. maraming inconsistencies ang big bang kaya hanggang ngayon theory pa lang. kse pag eto hindi totoo, pati yung claim ng evolutionist of our origin eh malamang hindi na din totoo...

[Quitacet]

this just in:

Pope Francis says Evolution and the Big Bang are real

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/pope-francis-says-evolution-and-the-big-bang-are-real-1651853568?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

The thing is when you discuss this (evolution) to Catholics, they will think you are crazy by not believeing in "creation" as depicted in Genesis.

I had a professor who is a devout Catholic and a leader in their local Couples for Christ in Marikina, and when the subject of evolution arises he would say, that is against the Bible.

What about now, when it's their pope who's saying otherwise?

many Catholics don't realize that their Church already accepted evolution as a creation process.

[Nelson de Leon]

The thing is when you discuss this (evolution) to Catholics, they will think you are crazy by not believeing in "creation" as depicted in Genesis.

I had a professor who is a devout Catholic and a leader in their local Couples for Christ in Marikina, and when the subject of evolution arises he would say, that is against the Bible.

What about now, when it's their pope who's saying otherwise?

many Catholics don't realize that their Church already accepted evolution as a creation process.

Parang scientist ata. Instead of saying I don't know, nag-speculate na lang. Hehe!

[dodie]

the way i comprehend it, he is not saying otherwise:

from pope francis.......

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

 

[Quitacet]

the way i comprehend it, he is not saying otherwise:

from pope francis.......

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

 

Otherwise meaning "Eve did not come from adam's rib"

[dodie]

Otherwise meaning "Eve did not come from adam's rib"

sa inyo pong relihiyon, i assume that your a menmber of INC since ive read your posting at the INC thread, anong ho ang kanilang posisyon tungkol sa evolution and creation?

[Quitacet]

sa inyo pong relihiyon, i assume that your a menmber of INC since ive read your posting at the INC thread, anong ho ang kanilang posisyon tungkol sa evolution and creation?

I believe in evolution regardless of what others say, based on scientific evidences.

My mind is open to other explanations, though, but at present I think the evidences lean toward evolution.

[dodie]

I believe in evolution regardless of what others say.

with due respect sir, so you dont believe on what your church teaches you about the bible? so if you dont, why the need of having a religion at all when from the begining you dont believe that he created you?

[Quitacet]

with due respect sir, if you dont believe on what your church teaches you about the bible? so if you dont, why the need of having a religion at all when from the begining you dont believe that he created you?

who says I have one now?

and when did I say he did not create me?

we are talking about a process here.

[dodie]

who says I have one now?

and when did I say he did not create me?

we are talking about a process here.

1) the last time ive checked your post is last july of this year and i think you are very much affiliated with your church. but its not july now so you might be out,  i dont know.

2)by believing in the evolution process, it contradicts the notion of creationism. and creation tell us that god created us.

3) we are really talking about a process here. and that processes are intertwined with our faith and religion. since youve mentioned catholics in your earlier post, ive asked you whats your church standpoint regarding the matter. but since your not affiliated anymore, as you say, then its moot and academic for me to ask you about it.

[Quitacet]

1) the last time ive checked your post is last july of this year and i think you are very much affiliated with your church. but its not july now so you might be out,  i dont know.

2)by believing in the evolution process, it contradicts the notion of creationism. and creation tell us that god created us.

3) we are really talking about a process here. and that processes are intertwined with our faith and religion. since youve mentioned catholics in your earlier post, ive asked you whats your church standpoint regarding the matter. but since your not affiliated anymore, as you say, then its moot and academic for me to ask you about it.

Creationism is not the only process God could have used to create you and me.

[docelmo]

Ah so now that the pope said BBT is real, you agree that the biblical creation account which I previously posted is very similar to the BBT when it started with God saying “Let there be light”?

Since we have no word to mean the change of life forms we use “evolution” very loosely. The pope probably means that change or complexity of life was fully directed by God Himself not the Neo-Darwinian mechanism of evolution. So, which type of (for lack of a better word) “evolution” do you believe in? God directed where there are fully formed animals or Neo-Darwinian gradual change of animals?
Speaking of “Gradual transition of animals” let’s take on the whale evolution.

Let’s agree first on several aspects claimed by evolutionist;
Since whales are mammals therefore it’s ancestors should also be mammals. This mammal is a fully land dwelling animal with four legs. And as mammals one of it’s features is the pelvis where in the whale has now become vestigial.

If we are to believe this, then at some time in the transition of this land animal to the whale this yet unknown animal would NOT be able to live on land or water! Because by this time this animal now has a non-functioning pelvis (no hind legs), but at the same time no tail yet for aquatic life.  How many millions of years do this animal need to survive in this handicapped condition in order for it to “evolve” in the next animal to next until it becomes a whale? 

BTW, they may have to change the whale evolution.
An ancient whale jawbone was discovered by paleontologist Marcelo Reguero which has been dated back to 49 millions years! This means that this animal was already swimming at the same time when the so-called walking whale (Ambulocetus) was still walking on land!!

So fully aquatic whales already existed BEFORE its semi-aquatic “ancestors”!

[dpogs]

naniniwala ako na ang buong creation naganap lamang sa loob ng anim na araw... literally...

if i can believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth and rose from the dead 3 days after his death... how i cannot believe that creation took only 6 days to finish... the Bible speaks plainly...

i believe that death, sufferings, disesases comes after the fall of man... if we combined creation with evolution... ilang death ang naganap at sufferings ng mga living organism bago mabuo ang tao? magkakaroon ng contradiction...

namatay si Adam sa edad na 930 years old... pero ginawa siya during 6th day of creation and God rested on the 7th day... if these days are not literal 24-hour day then we have another problem... nabuhay si adam from 6th day (thousand/million of years) until 7th day? pero ayon sa Bible nabuhay siya sa loob lamang ng 930 years...

How can God redeem the Earth from death and sufferings if it start from chaos and death? we cannot combine Creation through the process of evolution... it negate the through meaning of salvation and why Jesus died on the cross...

Romans 3:4

[leomarley]

eto ang problema ng evolutionist......yung origin nung universe is in question. maraming inconsistencies ang big bang kaya hanggang ngayon theory pa lang. kse pag eto hindi totoo, pati yung claim ng evolutionist of our origin eh malamang hindi na din totoo...

oh that's it. you don't know how scientific theories work. i suggest you read what scientific theories are first before claiming that "hanggang ngayon theory pa lang".

here's a hint: Scientific theories does not become a law or does not ascend to a higher level.

[bumblebee]

BTW, they may have to change the whale evolution.
An ancient whale jawbone was discovered by paleontologist Marcelo Reguero which has been dated back to 49 millions years! This means that this animal was already swimming at the same time when the so-called walking whale (Ambulocetus) was still walking on land!!

So fully aquatic whales already existed BEFORE its semi-aquatic “ancestors”!

No, it just means whales evolved more rapidly than previously thought. If they found 53 million year old whale fossils, that's the time that they do it over again.

[docelmo]

No, it just means whales evolved more rapidly than previously thought. If they found 53 million year old whale fossils, that's the time that they do it over again.

Huh? So what is now the ancestor of this whale since its supposed ancetor is still alive? By this evidence alone they need to remove all the other animals in between. How do you reconcile rapid evolution with limitation in change on studies on population genetics! That you would need at least 43 million years to just change two mutations? You will need thousands of mutAtions in between these animals and that would need even longer period of time!

And what the animal with neither hindlimbs nor tail? This should be the middle point in transition.....incompatible with survival.

[bumblebee]

Huh? So what is now the ancestor of this whale since its supposed ancetor is still alive?

I don't think an ancestor needs to be extinct for new species to exists.

[docelmo]

I don't think an ancestor needs to be extinct for new species to exists.

Here is the problem in whale evolution the ambulocetus is followed by Delanistes, then rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorundon and Basilosaurus. The Basilosaurus is fully aquatic, and the fossil is in this same family!

The fossil is OLDER that the earliest fossil of all those supposed ancestors!

Its like this how can the son be older than his great great great great great grandfather!?

[bumblebee]

Here is the problem in whale evolution the ambulocetus is followed by Delanistes, then rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorundon and Basilosaurus. The Basilosaurus is fully aquatic, and the fossil is in this same family!

The fossil is OLDER that the earliest fossil of all those supposed ancestors!

Its like this how can the son be older than his great great great great great grandfather!?

Put it like this. You had a son. He's an albino. Say his albino trait is dominant. You had another son, he's the same color as you. The albino married another albino with the albino trait also dominant and you had albino grandchildren. Your other son married a "normal" girl and had "normal" kids. So, you spawned 2 kinds of descendants and they flourished at the same time.