Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

the evidence (ie. fossils, etc) points towards creation...your "science" is also faith.

---

Please explain how the following evidence points towards creation:Phylogenies from genetic data match those from fossil deductions
Reptile - Mammal fossil sequence
Presence of hind limbs on fossil cetaceans. Gradual loss of this limbs in later archocetes compared with earlier ones.
Bird and reptile features of Archaeopteryx
Anything else discussed with painful regularity on this and similar boards.I think it will soon be clear whose position is really religiously motivated. Incidently, the two psalms you quote say nothing about how God created. Why should evolution have "do not use" tape on it in God's toolbox?

quote:

---

Listen, explain to me (as if I was 6 years old) how life came about, survived to even "evolve", became the immense variety we see around us today, and why there's so much variety from one cell...

---

How life came about is not part of evolution, and is still in the realm of hypothesis. If it makes you happy, you can believe God did it miraculously. I think you're lining yourself up for trouble that way, but feel free. Darwin did propose this in Origin.Moving on...The initial population didn't need to survive long because evolution is pretty much inevitable. Why? Well, organisms have far more offspring than survive to reproduce. There is variation within the population. Those most suited to the environment are those most likely to be the lucky ones. They therefore pass on their beneficial characteristics to their offspring, causing a change in the proportions of different characteristics in the population.Diversity - when a population spreads into new environments, different characteristics will be beneficial in one environment compared to another. Therefore, evolution will follow different paths in different environments. This will lead to a diversity of forms.I'm sorry if this is post 6 year old level, but I can no more get it any simpler than I can do are picture book version of War and Peace. At least it's in ordinary language. Doesn't sound too preposterous to me. Please explain why it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

​

---Life appears out of nowhere - un-explained by evolutionists.
The first life is a single celled organism living in a hostile environment, un-protected, for who knows how long before it magically divides into two organisms.
What protects it?
What supports it?
What force causes it to change?
How can all life we see, with all the different complexities and information codes, come from that?
When everything around us breaks down and deteriorates, believing the opposite to be true and for unimaginable periods, is certainly a fairytale.
Anyway, the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life (ie. atmosphere).
Ages pass, simple life miraculously becomes more complex...all of a sudden there are two different species...male female? Who knows, evolution doesn't care, it can explain everything...ages and ages pass, somehow there's food, somehow species reproduce, somehow they change to different species (it's very complex, you know, math and stuff) ...they live they die..yada yada yada...behold! Humans!!

​

And that, little 6 year old Johnny, is how we came about...without any intelligence and guiding force...just accidentally...

​

---

​

---

And this, little fundamentalist, is a straw man of wondrous stature.

Origin of life is (a) nothing to do with evolution, and (b) currently in the realms of hypothesis. We don't know.Do we erect straw men? Please point them out when we do. I called yours a straw man because it was. It is not a real reflection of what mainstream science says.

quote:

---

Origin of life would seem to be the foundation for the whole thing.

---

No. How life started is of no consequence to evolution. Do you know what Darwin proposed in Origin of Species?

quote:

---

If you can't get past how life began how can you exclude God

---

I have no desire to exclude God. If God created the first life forms then so be it.

quote:

---

and simply believe that natural "accidents" "created" the world and the variety and complexity of life and nature we know?

---

Not natural "accidents". Matter behaving in accordance with natural laws.

quote:

---

You call mine a straw man because it does sound preposterous,

---

No, but rather because it is a misrepresentation. Your version sounds preposterous, but it is not what scientists are actually saying. A perfect example of a straw man.

quote:

---

but that is exactly what ToE is..preposterous....too unbelievable for the logical mind (even if you leave God out of the question, I would never believe such a fairy tale)

---

Argument from personal incredulity. Since a lot of people find it impossible to believe in God, by your logic He can't exist.

quote:

---

Listen, this question is for all of you:
what is preventing you from accepting God in your life??

---

I accepted God into my life in 1983. Last I checked, He was still there. Yep. Also turned up at the Sung Eucharist at York Minster on Sunday morning. But that's faith, not science, and not relevant to evolution.

quote:

---

Smiley

---

OK then -

Regarding my "story", I'm afraid you're wrong. It is exactly what is behind the speciation events documented at Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Or the salmon speciation event at No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/979950.stm.What is the barrier that prevents this from extending to, for example, explain the various genera of cichlid fish at Lake Malawi? Where does micro-evolution become macro?Do please post your textbook's description of evolution, so's we can see why it's so ludicrous.Regarding seperating abiogenesis from evolution -they've always been seperate! Darwin didn't approach the topic in Origin. They are seperate concepts, with seperate mechanisms, processes and hypotheses. So your "not including origin of life anymore" comment is pure nonsense.We don't attribute the origin of life to God, we say that if that is the case, it's not a problem for evolution. From a theistic viewpoint, I don't think that abiogenesis was miraculous in the normal sense. I find God uses natural processes - why create a universe that needs repeated prodding to work according to plan?Finally, wrt to catastrophes. They don't wipe out all life, just most species. This releases niches for new colonisation, which actually speeds up the evolutionary process - Shawn Eichorst named Nebraska’s next AD – The Minnesota Daily shows how quickly a new niche causes evolution to occur. And it isn't the ToE which finds catastrophic extinction events - the evidence is there in the geological record.[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

But that's your problem. The guppies had gained information - the information to grow bigger and mature later. The original salmon had only the information for one lifestyle - but now the two populations have two lifestyles. More information.As to your question "what is the barrier then?", the answer is there is no barrier. As evidenced by the fossil record, the phylogenetic evidence, the biochemical evidence etc. etc. etc.[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

Will one of you answer the question - within a scientific framework (because that is what evolution is working in), in what way are humans distinct from other animals?

All these "differences" show is that we can do things other animals can't. So, we're different. All animals are different from one another. It's a bit like claiming that a car is not a car if it has air conditioning.

I doubt it. Whatever else his faults, that's not one of them. Anyway, Blair's a Roman Catholic, and like all the mainstream Christian denominations, they have no problems with science.