Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Ever hear of lungfish?

​

---

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=69
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
yeah, and it was a lungfish "400 million" years ago too...what's your point?

I think Schraf was responding to your inquiry about transitionals by citing a sort of living transitional. Monotremes (the platypus is one) are another example. Independent of whether you accept evolution, these creatures possess characteristics intermediate between classes of organisms. It is thought that air-breathing organisms descended from an ancient relative of the modern lungfish and not the modern lungfish itself, and that modern mammals share a common ancestor with the modern monotremes, and are not descended from them.There are also many fossil transitionals, and I think some information about these has already been provided. Whether or not you yourself accept the transitional status of any fossils, the fact remains that the fossil record is one of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and the theory of evolution explains this record of change by proposing that organisms change over time in response to changing environmental conditions.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

I think Schraf was responding to your inquiry about transitionals by citing a sort of living transitional. Monotremes (the platypus is one) are another example. Independent of whether you accept evolution, these creatures possess characteristics intermediate between classes of organisms. It is thought that air-breathing organisms descended from an ancient relative of the modern lungfish and not the modern lungfish itself, and that modern mammals share a common ancestor with the modern monotremes, and are not descended from them.

​

There are also many fossil transitionals, and I think some information about these has already been provided. Whether or not you yourself accept the transitional status of any fossils, the fact remains that the fossil record is one of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and the theory of evolution explains this record of change by proposing that organisms change over time in response to changing environmental conditions.

​

--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-03-2002]

---

Just because a creature has characteristics of a "transitional" does not make it one, ESPECIALLY given that it has NOT changed over millions of years, I think you can agree with that Percy.------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Just because a creature has characteristics of a "transitional" does not make it one, ...

---

Correct, there are no absolutes. However, the 'transitional' characteristics suggest the possibility that a transitional exists; and when they show up at the right time to be a transitional it makes them likely suspects.In the meantime, if you have a better definition of a transitional, I'm sure we would all like to hear it.

quote:

---

...ESPECIALLY given that it has NOT changed over millions of years, I think you can agree with that Percy.

---

This is incorrect. A transitional does not necessasrily have to disappear when or before its descendants appear.

As edge has already pointed out, speciation does not require that the parent species become extinct. And as I already said in the very post you replied to, air-breathing creatures are not thought to have descended from the modern lungfish, but from a relative of the ancestor of the modern lungfish.There is nothing that requires an organism to evolve. Evolution is generally thought to result from the pressures brought on by environmental change. In other words, organisms evolve to better take advantage of or cope with their environment. Environmental stasis usually results in relative evolutionary stasis, and because creatures can migrate, virtual environmental stasis is relatively easy to achieve.That being said, while lungfish existed hundreds of millions of years ago, and while the headline of the article you cited says they are relatively unchanged since then, you have to recognize that lungfish are not a species but a class of organism, and that the article is talking about the lungfish class and not any specific lungfish species, because all known species of lungfish from that far back in time are now long extinct. It is the organism as a class defined by a set of shared characteristics that has remained relatively unchanged. At the species level it has experienced many rounds of speciation and extinction. These changes are recorded in the fossil record, and it is this record of change over time that the theory of evolution explains.--Percy

Perhaps it's time to re-examine the original statement.Evolution:
- There is no God (purists).
- We are here by accident.
- There is no purpose for life.
- There are no absolute morals (hence: abortions, genocide,etc)
- We are no different than the animals.Creation:
- There is a God who loves us.
- We are here for a purpose.
- God knew us before we were born, and loved us, still does.
- There are absolute morals and values.
- We are NOT animals, but far superior, created in God's image.
- We are so valuable that the Creator Himself gave his life for us.Now, which one is sadder for the mind??Case closed!
------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Unless the thread search capability is broken, this is the first time this has been posted on this thread, so this can't possibly be your or anyone's original statement. Plus this seems to be taking the topic into an area more pertinent to the Faith and Belief thread. But anyway, I'll comment on this: Evolution...

• Says nothing about the existence of God.
• Does not say we are here by accident.
• Says nothing about the purpose of life.
• Says nothing about morals.

In case you think this is a shortcoming, please note that chemistry, physics, geology and cosmology are also silent on these topics. The only accurate thing in your list is that evolution *does* say we are animals.So why no response on the topic actually under discussion?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Unless the thread search capability is broken, this is the first time this has been posted on this thread, so this can't possibly be your or anyone's original statement. Plus this seems to be taking the topic into an area more pertinent to the Faith and Belief thread. But anyway...

​

--Percy

---

Percy, what is the topic of this thread? That's what I wanted to re-examine... ------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Beats me! Go back and read post 1. Like most threads, I suspect this one has drifted.The issue that I think you have to face is that evolution explains the available evidence. That doesn't mean it represents truth, but it *does* mean that claims that evolution does not explain the evidence, such as that macroevolution is impossible, must also be backed by evidence. Vague statements about impassible boundaries don't qualify as evidence. If you really believe that small changes do not accumulate over time into large changes then you have to offer some evidence supporting the claim.--Percy

quote:

---

Now, which one is sadder for the mind??

​

Case closed!

---

Say what??!! How in the name of (insert favorite supernatural creature here) does "which one is sadder?" for you enter into which one is a more accurate description of the world around us? Is science supposed to be "those assumptions which make me feel fuzzy-warm inside?"

Okay, what am I missing here?Is this thread not entitled "Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2" ???If I understand english (and I think I do) me comparing evolution-ism and creation-ism, and seeing what effect either FAITH has on the mind, is entirely with merit and properly attributed to this discussion...is it not?------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Naturally short titles can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but if you read post 1 you'll see that SLPx did not have your particular interpretation in mind. His title was just a jab at Peter Borger while attempting to rebut Borger's interpretation of gene trees.While threads often drift quite a bit, shifting into a faith-related discussion should probably be accompanied by a move to a thread in the Faith and Belief forum.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Perhaps it's time to re-examine the original statement.

---

Indeed. The purpose of this thread was to show how far creationists will go in attempting to 'prove' their points. Borger made factally baseless - or at best, wildly extrapolated - statements, and I addressed them.
Lets look at these individually.
****************************************************************Evolution:
- There is no God (purists). Absolute nonsense. The Theory of Evolution make sno statements concerning any deity at all.- We are here by accident.Unwarranted connotation.- There is no purpose for life.As Percy pointed out, no fields of science make any such judgements.- There are no absolute morals (hence: abortions, genocide,etc)Abortion was allowed by the church through approximately the 6th month (the time of "quickening") until relatively recently.
Genocide is not only mentioned in the bible, but is in fact commanded.
The 'morals' offered up in the bible are far from 'absolute'. More like the "do as I say, not as I do, unless I tell you to" pseudomorals favored by the political right today (not a coincidence, considering the religious fervor of the right).
You really aren't doing too well in your assessment so far.- We are no different than the animals.Well, we ARE animals, and evolution certainly does not say that we are not different from them.

​

You are ZERO for 4.Creation:
- There is a God who loves us.Debateable. - We are here for a purpose.What purpose is that?- God knew us before we were born, and loved us, still does.Irrational.- There are absolute morals and values.Wrong.- We are NOT animals, but far superior, created in God's image.Please explain to us - without resorting to metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and pleas to emotion and biblical verse - how, exactly, it is that we are not animals.- We are so valuable that the Creator Himself gave his life for us.So, was this before or after he felt that we were so wicked that he killed us all - save for 8 people that had to engage in monumental amounts of incest to give rise to all the peoples of today?

​

And He allowed himself to be killed to appease Himself?

​

Wow. Now THATS some good deity-work!Now, which one is sadder for the mind??Case closed! Yes, I think it is.

What is the evolutionists definition of "animal"?------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
What is the evolutionists definition of "animal"?

​

---

Probaly the same as everyone elses, without the emotional baggage appended to it by hysterical creationists.From an online dictionary:any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulationSounds pretty good to me.