Creation via Evolution

[micatala]

In the Transitional Fossils thread, the following two posts were contributed by dunsapy.

You do know that we are apes right?

Absolutely , not. We are a special creation, different than all other creation.
I even include scientists in that.

According to you every creature is a special creation.
Even a mouse is different then all the other creatures.
I guess with all your special creations you can't seem to come up with any explanation for all the data and similarities that make perfect sense in their environments. How do you explain all the extinctions?

Yes that is true. But man is totally different than all other 'animals'.
There is a huge gap between any apes than man. There are no in between's we see today , there should be millions of them.
The fossil record is consistent , that there are no in between fossils found for any of animals, including man. No wonder science says they will never prove evolution. You can't proof something that is unprovable.

His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.�—ROMANS 1:20.

I think this scripture is correct, it is inexcusable, not to realize there is a creator.
Why would this scripture even be in the bible , except that God knew , that there would be people that would so blinded as not to see it.
I use the word blinded because, scientists are not stupid people, so the only answer is that they are blinded. Science doesn't follow their own findings.

Given that these relate more to theological than scientifice arguments, I thought it would be good to start a thread on these issues.



Questions for debate are:


Is considering evolution as part of God's creative process inconsistent with the Bible?


Does accepting that evolution of life has occurred necessarily deny God's existence?



When Genesis describes man as being created in God's image, how should we or might we understand or interpret this?



Keep in mind that on the Theology Forum, the Bible can be considered authoritative. However, posters are free to argue for their own particular biblical interpretations.

[Goat]

Ok I'm going to go back to the flagella of a cell. The flagella has a very complex "outboard" motor in order for it to move. There are about 14 distinct parts in the flagellum motor. Each part of the flagellum motor has it's own function that is not found anywhere else. The main problem I have with evolution is how each one of these parts was formed. It couldn't of gradually formed because if it was not fully there, the cell would not be able to move anywhere and it would therefore die.

Yes, that is one of the examples that Behe did in his book 'Darwin's black Box'

However, that is the example of having another structure be used for something else. Irreducible complexity is the arguement from ignorance, and also ignores the fact that a structure does not have to have the same function as it's 'ancestral' structure.

Since you are using youtube, here is a youtube that explains it all...


And here is an essay response to Behe's book in specific.

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm ... agella.htm

[userr123]

Ok I'm going to go back to the flagella of a cell. The flagella has a very complex "outboard" motor in order for it to move. There are about 14 distinct parts in the flagellum motor. Each part of the flagellum motor has it's own function that is not found anywhere else. The main problem I have with evolution is how each one of these parts was formed. It couldn't of gradually formed because if it was not fully there, the cell would not be able to move anywhere and it would therefore die.

Yes, that is one of the examples that Behe did in his book 'Darwin's black Box'

However, that is the example of having another structure be used for something else. Irreducible complexity is the arguement from ignorance, and also ignores the fact that a structure does not have to have the same function as it's 'ancestral' structure.

Since you are using youtube, here is a youtube that explains it all...


And here is an essay response to Behe's book in specific.

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm ... agella.htm

I watched the video and although I found it interesting, I find the probablitiy that each one of those proteins aligning itself perfectly and to just the exact abundance and then be able to function properly is highly improbable and seemingly impossible. Also, how would the cell have been able to survive without the use of a flagella. And, to go even more complex, where did the proteins come from that were used to form the flagellum motor.

[Goat]

Ok I'm going to go back to the flagella of a cell. The flagella has a very complex "outboard" motor in order for it to move. There are about 14 distinct parts in the flagellum motor. Each part of the flagellum motor has it's own function that is not found anywhere else. The main problem I have with evolution is how each one of these parts was formed. It couldn't of gradually formed because if it was not fully there, the cell would not be able to move anywhere and it would therefore die.

Yes, that is one of the examples that Behe did in his book 'Darwin's black Box'

However, that is the example of having another structure be used for something else. Irreducible complexity is the arguement from ignorance, and also ignores the fact that a structure does not have to have the same function as it's 'ancestral' structure.

Since you are using youtube, here is a youtube that explains it all...


And here is an essay response to Behe's book in specific.

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm ... agella.htm

I watched the video and although I found it interesting, I find the probablitiy that each one of those proteins aligning itself perfectly and to just the exact abundance and then be able to function properly is highly improbable and seemingly impossible. Also, how would the cell have been able to survive without the use of a flagella. And, to go even more complex, where did the proteins come from that were used to form the flagellum motor.

Why?? It is a step by step process.. and you have to remember the rate at which bacteria reproduce.. you have trillions upon trillions of chances.

There are billions of bacteria that live and survive just fine without a flagella. This particular species developed one. Why are you assuming that a bacteria can't survive without a flagella when there are billions of them alive today that don't have one?

The proteins came from genes that were used for other things... and a mutation in the gene that formed the spike to being with.

The point here is that , despite the fact that Behe said it was 'impossible', here is a very precise explaination of how it could have happened one step at a time using other structures that already existed for other purposes. Just because you can't understand it, and keep on invoking 'oh, that is highly improbable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, your undue skepticism is noted. At some point, the undue skepticism becomes denial of facts.

[userr123]

Ok I'm going to go back to the flagella of a cell. The flagella has a very complex "outboard" motor in order for it to move. There are about 14 distinct parts in the flagellum motor. Each part of the flagellum motor has it's own function that is not found anywhere else. The main problem I have with evolution is how each one of these parts was formed. It couldn't of gradually formed because if it was not fully there, the cell would not be able to move anywhere and it would therefore die.

Yes, that is one of the examples that Behe did in his book 'Darwin's black Box'

However, that is the example of having another structure be used for something else. Irreducible complexity is the arguement from ignorance, and also ignores the fact that a structure does not have to have the same function as it's 'ancestral' structure.

Since you are using youtube, here is a youtube that explains it all...


And here is an essay response to Behe's book in specific.

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm ... agella.htm

I watched the video and although I found it interesting, I find the probablitiy that each one of those proteins aligning itself perfectly and to just the exact abundance and then be able to function properly is highly improbable and seemingly impossible. Also, how would the cell have been able to survive without the use of a flagella. And, to go even more complex, where did the proteins come from that were used to form the flagellum motor.

Why?? It is a step by step process.. and you have to remember the rate at which bacteria reproduce.. you have trillions upon trillions of chances.

There are billions of bacteria that live and survive just fine without a flagella. This particular species developed one. Why are you assuming that a bacteria can't survive without a flagella when there are billions of them alive today that don't have one?

The proteins came from genes that were used for other things... and a mutation in the gene that formed the spike to being with.

The point here is that , despite the fact that Behe said it was 'impossible', here is a very precise explaination of how it could have happened one step at a time using other structures that already existed for other purposes. Just because you can't understand it, and keep on invoking 'oh, that is highly improbable' doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, your undue skepticism is noted. At some point, the undue skepticism becomes denial of facts.

Another problem I have with evolution is the fossil records that play a large role in the theory of evolution. The fact that there are no "transitional species" found on fossil record is puzzling. There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

[Goat]

Another problem I have with evolution is the fossil records that play a large role in the theory of evolution. The fact that there are no "transitional species" found on fossil record is puzzling. There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

There is a very good reason that is so. Humans ARE a type of primate.. so there would not be evolution between human and primate, since we are still primates.

There are many many transitional fossils, of course the fossil record is incomplete. The reason there is a gap in the fossil record for the splitting off of chimps and hominids is that they were forest dwelling creatures, and the conditions that allow for fossilization are even rarer. However, we do have the genetic evidence, and we do have some fossil evidence.

Now just so we don't get too confused, do you want to discuss transitional fossils in general , or do you want to specifically discuss primate evolution and the transitional fossils that we do have? Narrow down what you are specifically interested in, because it is a very broad subject, and I don't want to overload you with information. I don't know about you, but too much information to me gives me a head ache. Let's keep the subject narrow, and we can switch to the other subject after dealing with the information we do have.

Then, you can show me the extra biblical evidence you have for creationism.. and we can discuss that. We then can compare and contrast the quality of the evidence and how the deductions were made.

[userr123]

Another problem I have with evolution is the fossil records that play a large role in the theory of evolution. The fact that there are no "transitional species" found on fossil record is puzzling. There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

There is a very good reason that is so. Humans ARE a type of primate.. so there would not be evolution between human and primate, since we are still primates.

There are many many transitional fossils, of course the fossil record is incomplete. The reason there is a gap in the fossil record for the splitting off of chimps and hominids is that they were forest dwelling creatures, and the conditions that allow for fossilization are even rarer. However, we do have the genetic evidence, and we do have some fossil evidence.

Now just so we don't get too confused, do you want to discuss transitional fossils in general , or do you want to specifically discuss primate evolution and the transitional fossils that we do have? Narrow down what you are specifically interested in, because it is a very broad subject, and I don't want to overload you with information. I don't know about you, but too much information to me gives me a head ache. Let's keep the subject narrow, and we can switch to the other subject after dealing with the information we do have.

Then, you can show me the extra biblical evidence you have for creationism.. and we can discuss that. We then can compare and contrast the quality of the evidence and how the deductions were made.

I strongly disagree that human's are primates. Primates are animals and humans are incredibly distinct from animals. They have the ability to think and have a brain equal to 20,000 computers. You try to tell me that we are only animals put here on the earth by a gradual formation of cells and organs.

Genesis 1:28-30 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

[McCulloch]

There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

Whoever told you this was either lying to you or did not understand biology.

Humans are primates. Humans are one of the species of Great Apes. The Great Apes include Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and Humans. The great apes are large, tailless primates, between 30 to 180 kilograms in weight. In all great apes, the males are, on average, larger and stronger than the females, although the degree of sexual dimorphism varies greatly among species. They are all able to use their hands for gathering food or nesting materials, and, in some cases, for tool use.

Most species are omnivorous, but fruit is the preferred food among all but humans. Gestation in great apes lasts 8–9 months, and results in the birth of a single offspring, or, rarely, twins. The young are born helpless, and the mother must care for them for long periods of time. Compared with most other mammals, great apes have a remarkably long adolescence, not being weaned for several years, and not becoming fully mature for 8–13 years in most species (longer in humans). As a result, females typically give birth only once every few years. There is no distinct breeding season.

For your reference, this is how the biological taxonomy works:

1. Kingdom: Animalia - We are eukaryotes but not plants or fungi.
2. Phylum: Chordata - We have a backbone.
3. Class: Mammalia - We have fur or hair, warm blood and suckle our young
4. Order: Primates - We have shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions; five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision; a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure; three kinds of teeth;
5. Suborder: Haplorrhini - our noses are dry.
6. Parvorder: Catarrhini - We have downward pointing nostrils; are diurnal; do not have prehensile tails and have flat fingernails.
7. Superfamily: Hominoidea - Apes
8. Family: Hominidae - Great Apes
9. Subfamily Homininae
10. Genus: Homo – humans

[Goat]

I strongly disagree that human's are primates. Primates are animals and humans are incredibly distinct from animals. They have the ability to think and have a brain equal to 20,000 computers. You try to tell me that we are only animals put here on the earth by a gradual formation of cells and organs.

Genesis 1:28-30 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Ok.. let's look at the characteristics of a primate.

1) Primates have forward-facing eyes on the front of the skull; binocular vision allows accurate distance perception,

Humans have this characteristic.

2)The primate skull has a large domed cranium which is particularly prominent in anthropoids. The cranium protects the large brain, a distinguishing characteristic of this group.

Humans have this also, although human's brain is about 3 times bigger.

3)Primates generally have five digits on each limb (pentadactyly), with keratin nails on the end of each finger. The bottom sides of the hands and feet have sensitive pads on the fingertips. Most have opposable thumbs, a characteristic primate feature; however, opposing thumbs are not limited to this order (opossums, for example, also have them).[39] Thumbs allow some species to use tools. In primates, the combination of opposing thumbs, short fingernails (rather than claws) and long, inward-closing fingers is a relic of the ancestral practice of gripping branches, and has, in part, allowed some species to develop brachiation (swinging by the arms from tree limb to tree limb) as a significant means of transportation.

Yep.. this covers humans too!

4) The primate collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility.

Yes.. this is humans.

Although you might object to the classification based on a religious book, according to the characteristics of all primates, humans are another form of primate. The only difference is that although primate brain capacity is larger than other mammals proportionally, the human brain is 3 times larger than other primates. This is called a 'hyper developed' characteristic.

So, other than emotionalism, humans are most definitely can be classified as primates.

Now, what evidence do you have that the genesis myth is to be taken literally? The Jewish faith (except for some very rare ultra orthodox Jews) do not take it literally. And, shall we get back form your distraction, and talk about transitional fossils in general, or talk about the common ancestor between man and chimp?

Or, do you wish to use diversionary tactics and not discuss that so you can keep to your invalid claim about transitional fossils?

[userr123]

There are many fossils of apes, monkeys, and humans as well as historical fraud when it comes to fossils but there are no "transitional" fossils that indicate evolution between primate and human.

Whoever told you this was either lying to you or did not understand biology.

Humans are primates. Humans are one of the species of Great Apes. The Great Apes include Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees and Humans. The great apes are large, tailless primates, between 30 to 180 kilograms in weight. In all great apes, the males are, on average, larger and stronger than the females, although the degree of sexual dimorphism varies greatly among species. They are all able to use their hands for gathering food or nesting materials, and, in some cases, for tool use.

Most species are omnivorous, but fruit is the preferred food among all but humans. Gestation in great apes lasts 8–9 months, and results in the birth of a single offspring, or, rarely, twins. The young are born helpless, and the mother must care for them for long periods of time. Compared with most other mammals, great apes have a remarkably long adolescence, not being weaned for several years, and not becoming fully mature for 8–13 years in most species (longer in humans). As a result, females typically give birth only once every few years. There is no distinct breeding season.

For your reference, this is how the biological taxonomy works:

1. Kingdom: Animalia - We are eukaryotes but not plants or fungi.
2. Phylum: Chordata - We have a backbone.
3. Class: Mammalia - We have fur or hair, warm blood and suckle our young
4. Order: Primates - We have shoulder joints which allow high degrees of movement in all directions; five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes;a complex visual system with stereoscopic vision, high visual acuity and color vision; a brain having a well developed cerebellum with posterior lobe and a Calcarine fissure; three kinds of teeth;
5. Suborder: Haplorrhini - our noses are dry.
6. Parvorder: Catarrhini - We have downward pointing nostrils; are diurnal; do not have prehensile tails and have flat fingernails.
7. Superfamily: Hominoidea - Apes
8. Family: Hominidae - Great Apes
9. Subfamily Homininae
10. Genus: Homo – humans

Humans are not equal to animals according to the bible. I am a bible-believing christian therefore I look at it as a scientific fallacy. Also, the definition of animal according to webster is "any animal other than man."

[Wyvern]

Humans are not equal to animals according to the bible. I am a bible-believing christian therefore I look at it as a scientific fallacy. Also, the definition of animal according to webster is "any animal other than man."

It's interesting that out of eight possible definitions given in Webster's for the word animal you chose this one. Fully half of the definitions of animal given are specifically in reference to humans and yet you choose to use the only one that separates man from animals. Do you consider the Bible to be a science text? I hope so because that's the only way you can get from being a bible believer to calling this a scientific fallacy. Also does the bible say specifically anywhere that man is not an animal? I ask this because many people seem to take things for granted such as the passage from Genesis you gave which seems to do nothing more than state the obvious that man is the top level predator in whatever ecosystem they happen to exist in that was known at the time.