Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[docelmo]

Thanks, I've seen the clip. I was hoping there was an un-edited version though.

Yeah, seen this, but I really can't make out anything out it other than that Rodhocetus isn't a transitional animal as was originally believed. But it doesn't disprove evolution. In my opinion, if a new specie suddenly spring out of thin air, then that's the time evolutionists should call it a day.

I am sure it was edited but not in the way you are implying, but the message in the clip is crystal clear.

So, now you think rodhocetus is not a transitional animal, what is it then? How about the pakicetus, ambulectus, basilosaurus etc? Btw, as posted by sir barisster earlier the pakicetus was also "liberally illustrated" by Gingerich!

If not a trasitional then a sister or relative of the whale? Since according to the whale evogram none are ancestor of any other in the whale evolution!

Threfore evolution proves nothing! Para syang smorgasboard, buffet, eat all you can! Parang clay very mallable ang theory. It would adapt all data acquired, use a diffent mechanism to explain a finding eventhough one mechnism contradicts the other......nevermind that is still evolution!

[bumblebee]

^I just want to see the whole thing (interview).

Like I said, if a fossil is proven not linked to anything, it should be dumped and move on to the next fossil. If after sometime, that same fossil is proven true by newer, better methods, then put it back in.

Species materializing out of thin air will disprove evolution. But until then, I'm sticking with this.

[Tempter]

not personal experience... i read it from the Bible... not just from group of scientist... its from the Bible...
no one taught me about creation... i read it myself... compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...

i maybe ignorant but i am not a fool to believe in evolution... hindi ako feeling matalino just like others... para magmukhang matalino paniniwalaan na lahat ng sinasabi ng mga 'magagaling' kuno na scientists and because of that they become fools


simple lang naman yan... if numbers cant explain it then dont believe it...

So can you explain the BIBLE with numbers???

You just contradicted your beliefs...

[barrister]

 
The monkey on a typewriter:

 
The Crumbling Facade of the Theory of Evolution
By: Josh Greenberger (March, 2008)

... Where are all these relics of an evolutionary past?

Did nature miraculously get billions of species right the first time? Of the fossils well-preserved enough to study, most appear to be well-designed and functional-looking. With the low aberration ratio of fossils being no more significant, as far as speciation is concerned, than common birth deformities, there seems to have been nothing of a random nature in the development of life.

One absurd response I've gotten from a scientist as to why a plethora of deformed species never existed is: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation.

This is like asking, "How come everybody leaves the lecture hall through exit 5, but never through exit 4?" and getting a response, "Because people don't leave the lecture hall through exit 4." Wasn't this the question?

What scientists have apparently done is look into the fossil record and found that new species tend to make their first appearance as well-formed, healthy-looking organisms. So instead of asking themselves how can a random series of accidents seldom, if ever, produce "accidents," they've simply formulated a new rule in evolutionary biology: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation. This answer is about as scientific, logical and insightful as, "Because I said so." ...

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/119265/science/the_crumbling_facade_of_the_theory_of_evolution.html

[docelmo]

^I just want to see the whole thing (interview).

Like I said, if a fossil is proven not linked to anything, it should be dumped and move on to the next fossil. If after sometime, that same fossil is proven true by newer, better methods, then put it back in.

Species materializing out of thin air will disprove evolution. But until then, I'm sticking with this.

"Sticking with this" ......sounds a lot like belief or faith.

When it comes to naming fossils there is the tendency to link it to another animal. So when you name an animal "walking whale" there is already an assumption of a connection to whales. Even though anatomically it is a land mammal!
My point exactly if you remove one animal then look for another as the transional, what about the others already in that supposed line? What mechanism are you now invoking as the explanation? Removing an animal will create more pressure for natural selection on mutation to do its magic!
What about the limitations posed by population genetics? Or the finding of say the fully aquatic whale that is older that the pakicetus? The supposed ancestor of whales?

All these factors flies in face of darwinian evolution...

[bumblebee]

"Sticking with this" ......sounds a lot like belief or faith.

When it comes to naming fossils there is the tendency to link it to another animal. So when you name an animal "walking whale" there is already an assumption of a connection to whales. Even though anatomically it is a land mammal!
My point exactly if you remove one animal then look for another as the transional, what about the others already in that supposed line? What mechanism are you now invoking as the explanation? Removing an animal will create more pressure for natural selection on mutation to do its magic!
What about the limitations posed by population genetics? Or the finding of say the fully aquatic whale that is older that the pakicetus? The supposed ancestor of whales?

All these factors flies in face of darwinian evolution...

Like I said, if you find evidences contrary to your current evidences, start over again. Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences and see where it takes you. Like I said again, new species materializing on thin air disproves evolution. I can't think of anything else that will disprove it. But let Darwinian's keep working to find more evidences for their theory. All the creationists ever done is criticize their methods and evidences but not the theory itself.

[barrister]

 
More Evidence that the Theory of Evolution is Falling Apart
Apr 1, 2012 by Gary DeMar



... Evolutionists are all about the certainty of their hypothesis even when they admit that uncertainty is a pillar of science. ...

... The only theory thing in science that does not seem to change is the theory of evolution. Every time evolutionists can’t explain the theory experimentally or rationally, they create a new theory. Gradual evolutionary change “evolved” into rapid species change called “punctuated equilibrium.” Some have even argued that Earth was seeded with space sperm (panspermia or exogenesis). The late Nobel Prize winner Professor Francis Crick proposed a theory named “directed panspermia” whereby the seeds of life were purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. The most obvious question is, “Where did the seed come from, whether undirected or directed?

http://americanvision.org/5653/more-evidence-that-the-theory-of-evolution-is-falling-apart/

[barrister]

The Church of Darwin
Phillip E. Johnson
This article is reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999.

A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments:

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm

[barrister]

 
Richard Lewontin (American evolutionary biologist):

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  ... Morevover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

[docelmo]

Like I said, if you find evidences contrary to your current evidences, start over again. Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences and see where it takes you. Like I said again, new species materializing on thin air disproves evolution. I can't think of anything else that will disprove it. But let Darwinian's keep working to find more evidences for their theory. All the creationists ever done is criticize their methods and evidences but not the theory itself.

So evidences not to your liking or contrary to your belief are discarded and dismissed because it does not fit your theory? Then you look for another candidate that fits the bill of a transitional animal and by your words "Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences"? wow! anu yan planting of evidence? That's illegal!

Another after thing once you've discarded an animal as transitional part of the evolution, then you are in effect saying that evolution is much faster than previously thought......So which is which now? Is evolution a slow change from one animal to another or a fast change from one animal to the next?

I repeat...evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that contradict themselves!

[barrister]

Pierre-Paul de Grasse (French Zoologist; author of over 300 publications, including the influential 52-volume Traité de Zoologie), from his book, "Evolution of Living Organisms":

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."

[dodie]

parang tag team ni ultimate warrior(doc) at hulk hogan(atty) ang peg........ unbeatable!!!

[barrister]

Ayoko na nga mag comment, may nagalit na sa akin, e.     Copy and paste na lang ...
 
Behave muna ako ngayon... 

[dpogs]

kunyari nga mga matatalino... kaya sa evolution na lang maniniwala... kala naman nila eh payak na ang pinaniniwalaan aba eh by FAITH pa rin pala hane!

malamang lamang naniniwala ng evolution naniniwala din sa mga alien...

[bumblebee]

So evidences not to your liking or contrary to your belief are discarded and dismissed because it does not fit your theory? Then you look for another candidate that fits the bill of a transitional animal and by your words "Ayusin mo ulit yung evidences"? wow! anu yan planting of evidence? That's illegal!

That's not what I meant. Tatagalugin ko na. Kung meron kang nakitang fossil at sa umpisa inakala mong transitional animal, ngunit sa masusing pagsisiyasat, nakita mong hindi pala, tanggalin mo sa yung fossil sa theory mo. Ia-abandona mo ba yung therory mo? Hindi, di ba? Kasi ang tanging makakadisprove nung theory e pag may biglang bagong specie na lumitaw.

Another after thing once you've discarded an animal as transitional part of the evolution, then you are in effect saying that evolution is much faster than previously thought......So which is which now? Is evolution a slow change from one animal to another or a fast change from one animal to the next?

I repeat...evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that contradict themselves!

Evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that is constantly evolving depending on evidences and technology. It still stand kasi wala pang bagong specie na lumilitaw out of thin air.

Maiba naman, meron ka bang sasabihin kung bakit creation ang totoo?

[dpogs]

tapos na ang creation...

same lang din... creation still stand kasi wala pa namang new species na nag evolve from different species...

[bumblebee]

tapos na ang creation...

same lang din... creation still stand kasi wala pa namang new species na nag evolve from different species...

Hindi same e. Evolution is not mutually exclusive with creation. Base sa sinabi mo, they are. If they are, meron ka bang evidence? Kahit anong evidence, that will lead you to think about creation?

[dpogs]

Hindi same e. Evolution is not mutually exclusive with creation. Base sa sinabi mo, they are. If they are, meron ka bang evidence? Kahit anong evidence, that will lead you to think about creation?

tingnan mo na lang sorrounding, the ecosystems, the dna, the universe... lahat yan reveals that there is a creator, these cannot be explained by any logic or probablities... numbers cant explain the whole universe or DNA or atom... random chance has no place in the universe...

there are lot's of physical evidence na leading to creation... hindi man siya diretsang nagsasabi na human/animals/plants biglang lumitaw....

we are also looking for evidence of evolution... what I read/learned... no evidence... ang meron lang is assumptions over assumptions... theories to support other theories

sabi nga ni barrister, kung hindi totoo ang creation it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... i may be wrong believing creation... kaya show us why and how evolution happened... what we read/learned pawang mga assumptions lamang...

[Tempter]

tingnan mo na lang sorrounding, the ecosystems, the dna, the universe... lahat yan reveals that there is a creator, these cannot be explained by any logic or probablities... numbers cant explain the whole universe or DNA or atom... random chance has no place in the universe...

there are lot's of physical evidence na leading to creation... hindi man siya diretsang nagsasabi na human/animals/plants biglang lumitaw....

we are also looking for evidence of evolution... what I read/learned... no evidence... ang meron lang is assumptions over assumptions... theories to support other theories

sabi nga ni barrister, kung hindi totoo ang creation it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... i may be wrong believing creation... kaya show us why and how evolution happened... what we read/learned pawang mga assumptions lamang...

Yeah totoo nga ang creation... napanood ko nga sa sine e. The CUBE ang pinagmulan ng lahat...

[dpogs]

Yeah totoo nga ang creation... napanood ko nga sa sine e. The CUBE ang pinagmulan ng lahat...

puwede... bakit hindi... kung meron ngang nakapag assume na galing tayo sa 'sabaw'... why not... kung meron ngang nkapag sabi na ginawa lang ang lahat sa loob ng 7 days... why not the cube...

[Moks007]

Yeah totoo nga ang creation... napanood ko nga sa sine e. The CUBE ang pinagmulan ng lahat...

I just watched dawn of the planet of apes. After watching, Yes we really evolved from apes. 

[bumblebee]

tingnan mo na lang sorrounding, the ecosystems, the dna, the universe... lahat yan reveals that there is a creator, these cannot be explained by any logic or probablities... numbers cant explain the whole universe or DNA or atom... random chance has no place in the universe...

there are lot's of physical evidence na leading to creation... hindi man siya diretsang nagsasabi na human/animals/plants biglang lumitaw....

we are also looking for evidence of evolution... what I read/learned... no evidence... ang meron lang is assumptions over assumptions... theories to support other theories

sabi nga ni barrister, kung hindi totoo ang creation it doesnt mean na totoo na ang evolution... i may be wrong believing creation... kaya show us why and how evolution happened... what we read/learned pawang mga assumptions lamang...

Yun lang? Titingnan ko lang surroundings ko, meron ng Creator? Tapos hindi ko pwedeng tingnan fossils para sa evolution? Don't get me wrong though, I also believe in a Creator and use my surroundings, but I don't consider them as "evidence".

Another question I'd like to ask is what will disprove creation? Meron ba?

[barrister]

Peter J. Bowler (fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; member, Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences):
 
 
"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."

[rexFi]

Yun lang? Titingnan ko lang surroundings ko, meron ng Creator? Tapos hindi ko pwedeng tingnan fossils para sa evolution? Don't get me wrong though, I also believe in a Creator and use my surroundings, but I don't consider them as "evidence".

Another question I'd like to ask is what will disprove creation? Meron ba?

Logic?

e.g. Richard Daw/Hawkins claim science has proven that somethings can just come from Absolutely Nothing. (disclaimer, I haven't backread yet.)

Sounds like Faith to me though. A reasoned one but but...

[barrister]

 
YouTube:
 
"Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)"
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

[barrister]

 
Eugene V. Koonin (Russian-American biologist; expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology; senior investigator, National Center for Biotechnology Information, under the United States National Library of Medicine):
 

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

[bumblebee]

Peter J. Bowler (fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; member, Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences):

Complete paragraph from Evolution: The History of an Idea. p199:
 
"Although Darwin argued that available knowledge of the fossil record was compatible with his theory, he knew that paleontology harbored a major problem. The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type. Darwin devoted a chapter of the Origin explaining the "imperfection of the geological record" arguing that fossils we discover represent only a tiny fraction of the species that actually have lived. Many species, and many whole episodes in evolution, will have left no fossils at all, because they occured in areas where conditions were not suitable for fossilization. Apparently, sudden leaps in the development of life are thus illusions created by gaps in the evidence available to us. Future discoveries may help fill in some of the gaps, but we can never hope to build up a complete outline of the history of life."

[barrister]

 
Henry Gee (British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist):
 
 
“To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. …To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

[barrister]

 
 
David M. Raup (American paleontologist):
 
 
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information…”

[docelmo]

I can't think of anything else that will disprove it.

That's not what I meant. Tatagalugin ko na. Kung meron kang nakitang fossil at sa umpisa inakala mong transitional animal, ngunit sa masusing pagsisiyasat, nakita mong hindi pala, tanggalin mo sa yung fossil sa theory mo. Ia-abandona mo ba yung therory mo? Hindi, di ba? Kasi ang tanging makakadisprove nung theory e pag may biglang bagong specie na lumitaw.

Evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that is constantly evolving depending on evidences and technology. It still stand kasi wala pang bagong specie na lumilitaw out of thin air.

Maiba naman, meron ka bang sasabihin kung bakit creation ang totoo?

First I suggest that the theory be renamed......The Evolving Theory of Evolution.

There are some confusion here on what is a Scientific Theory...here are a few qualifications.

It must be explanatory. It must explain actual observation made by our five senses.

It must not contradict itself and is self-consistent.

It must be falsifiable or testable and must be vulnerable to observation. In principle envision a set of observation that would render it false.

It must have a clear logical structure that prevents it from bending and twisting to accommodate every observation. The structure provides the connection between a scientific explanation and its predictions. Because of the structure, a theory explains our observation while also predicting observations we should NOT see. This is a key feature of a scientific theory. The theory ultimately predicts that we will not observe certain things. This makes the theory testable. The theory could be refuted by the observations that contradict it.

So does this Evolving theory of evolution qualify?