Where do people on ATS stand on this?

Oh, that reminds me, I have a few questions for hard-core creationists:

If there is no evolution, why are there no fossils of anatomically-modern humans ior animals n the older fossil record -- i.e., such as the Burgess Shale?

If there is no evolution, then where did all the anatomically modern animals come from, when there is no record of them?

If you're going to say, god just created them and stuck them in after the last mass extinction, then where are all the new animals to replace the ones being extincted as I type this? Why isn't god poofing animals in to replace the ones that have recently died off, such as the do do and the passenger pigeon?

Can you explain this in (pseudo)scientific terms, without resorting to references to the bible, which is in no way a scientific treatise?

I'm all "ears."

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
no, it's a very slow and gradual process.... i suggest you do some more reading up on it before you continue your criticisms.

I guess as soon as you read the paragraph you quoted you didn't feel like reading the one underneath... that says what you responded. But I will go looking for more info as you suggest as should you. No one knows it all

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Eventually, after countless generations you have a new freaky bird with a long beak and long hooked toe.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but you are still only talking about micro evolution, within a species, longer beaks, toes is micro, new organism is macro. Explain to me how humans came about from the beginning, with the intermediate fossils to prove it. There are no gradual intermediates like you suggest. A new organism that didn't exist before doesn't come from an existing one. It's new. A new creation. Are you going to say somewhere out there, among the "millions of them out there" that help prove evolution as you claim it, there is one of a human-like bird or bird-like human, or bird-chimp or bird-anything that proves a definite progression from one species to the other? Or any other species-to-species variation... I have only been told in education system that this is how it is, but never was there proof of the specifics of evolution. And there is none, its assumptions and theory based on facts that look like they support it, but don't really. Please show me if you have it, I want to know the truth if I have been misguided.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The one question that creationists can never answer me is this...

I don't know if that was directed at me, if so, allow me to say I am not a creationist. I have a certain understanding and its not conforming to this label or that. The Universe is billions of years old, and the Earth as well, and anatomically modern humans could very well be in the billions of years old as well. I don't necessarily think the source (Sea of energy) created it all at once. I consider creation on going.

Micro evolution has been proven (bacteria adapting to anti-biotics), whilst macro has not been proven (proponents say it occurs over millions of years), nor has creation been proven. I am arguing for the validity of creation. To me it makes more sense. So, there is "natural", "adaptive" evolution, within species that stick to the same species, not creating new ones (in my limited viewpoint). Natural as in not controlled by higher intelligence.

It's a matter of belief either way you go, with the general evolution standpoint or with the creation view (not necessarily creationist, just creation by intelligence). There is an in-between middle-of-the-road line between creationism and evolution that is more plausible. They both have good points, but none of them is 100% right, gotta take a bit from both

There is a difficulty in arguing on forums, as we all assume others think a certain way, have a certain view point on things. Like when say you believe God created it all, you are automatically pegged as believing the Earth is 6000 yrs old and all that stuff, as well as those who support evolution being pegged as hard core pre-biotic soup or Darwin believers. Sorry if I make assumptions to those I reply in thinking they believe the usual evolution theory that does not make sense to me.

Many of the points in my earlier post about origins of everything have not being remarked on, such as pre-biotic soup, or in general any origins of anything. I'd like to know how things were created in detail, as that is how science works, with facts and evidence. Science should not be supporting a theory that it based on assumptions and some facts just so they can keep the power over their arch-nemisis religion Im not religious either

[edit on 27-8-2007 by aZiXx

[edit on 27-8-2007 by aZiXx]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I don't believe in creationism, especially in the biblical sense. But I don't think scientists have the big bang right either. I think the source is something that is beyond our comprehension just like the universe is infinite. We can't wrap our brains around it.

But we can wrap our brains around it if we try.

This is the most aggravating thing about it. This whole debate is about whether or not to throw in the towel. To say "I as a human am too dumb to understand the universe, so I'll stop trying right now". We can wrap our brains around it. The clues are there for us to find, and if we learn from our mistakes, and adapt our theories, and continue to believe that we can figure it out when it's all on the table, then we can truly advance as a species. To simply say "I don't know, and I never can know" keep us in that sheep flock that limits our understanding of what's outside the gates.

I am not saying to stop trying to figure it out. i LOVE space exploration. But I think our ability to figure it out right now I don't see how the big bang can be assumed when we haven't been on anything but the moon, much less outside of the universe. I think we need to gather more facts. And all that information right now is out of reach, probably in our lifetime.

But I am sorry, trying to imagine where the universe doesn't end is a little mindboggeling.

I just wanted to add that there was recently a discovery, of human remains, that really sheds the light on a lot of things. Supposedly it is big news, changint the lineage of humankind.let me see if I can find an article...

I think this is it...
news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 27-8-2007 by nixie_nox]

[edit on 27-8-2007 by nixie_nox]

I believe there are no black and white answers to this question. I am always amazed at how people think things have to be either one way or another. That is just hardly ever the case.

This issue is not about being pro-evolution, or pro-religion, etc. This issue is about being open to the reality that both can take place and occur simulataneously.
Yes, i believe in God.
Yes, I believe in evolution.
Yes, that's right I believe in both.

I love Darwin. Darwin was spiritual in his own way, and had a internal battle with himself as to whether or not to disclose his findings. He did not want to cause the amount of pain that came from his amazing scientific realizations. He did not want people to not believe in God. He wanted people to be more educated! He wanted to make society better!

Variety is the spice of life.Diversification is the key to many stock - market successes. I think the same holds true here. Multiple belief systems acting in unison. It can all be true. I think evolution is far more complex than the majority of the masses believe. Where's the "missing link"? Is there one?

If there is I think it is hiding somewhere in the forest.

We all have free will. You either believe or you don't. One day you may take up a faith and then another day you may lose a faith. Our brains are interesting. Or is it our hearts?

I have a theory about the creation days in the Genesis account.
For starters I do not believe that the Days of Creation were literal 24 earth hour periods. The days could be great spans of time divided into epochs.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The universe was created at this time and it could have spanned billions of years. This next statement I'm about to say diverges from the norm of the biblical interpretation. When the heavens and earth were created, the stars were already burning brightly and the planets were making their orbits, while rotating on their axis.

When the earth was void and waste there appeared a great thick cloud that covered the entire planet. The cloud mass reached all the way to the surface. The atmosphere was just as thick and hostle as Venus'.


"Let there be light."

This is where the thick cloud covering began to organize its elements. The dark cloud gradually thinned out over four epoch periods. The sun, moon and stars became visible from the surface of the earth at the end of the fourth epoch.


Now you wonder. Can plants grow in a rich carbon atmosphere with little direct sunlight? Plants do thrive on carbon and there could have been a variety in the past that needed more carbon than sunlight.

reply to post by lostinspace


This perfectly summed up my view of the creative "days" I believe in creation, but not "creationism" that ignores the facts .

Creationism requires that the Creator created the universe to only appear to be billions of years old. If this were true, it would mean that he was guilty of deception on the grandest scale possible. I dont think He would do this. What purpose would it serve? No, its mans thinking and narrow view of language that needs adjusted.

Originally posted by Keebie

Time is created by man. 24 hours in a day is something we made up. Same as I believe Noah and other famous older bible people didnt live 600 years unless a year back then was 50 days.

how is time created by man?
24hrs is the time it takes the sun to rotate
a year is how long it takes earth to revolve around the sun

plz explain how that is man made?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


nature has cycles.the seasons,night and day etc.but it was man who broke that down into hours minutes and seconds.

If there is no evolution, why are there no fossils of anatomically-modern humans ior animals n the older fossil record

well see what happens is whenever someone does find a human fossil in layers that humans are not supposed to be found in, they are often times mistaken to be bones of something else or they are claimed to be fake or fraud.
people often times accuse us Christians for killing those who dont conform.... ah but here is where you dont see the other side of the coin... the evolutionists cover these findings up or claim its not what it looks like to cover it up in order to save their theory from looking stupid.

www.s8int.com...
www.biblebelievers.org.au...
www.returnofthenephilim.com...
www.genesispark.com...
www.stevequayle.com...

why am I giving you these sites??? because no evolutionist or modern scientist would ever post something like this without getting fired, thats why.
people hide these things all the time to keep their theories alive.
just like how the government hides the cure/prevention for cancer (vitamin b17)
just like the government covers up a lot of other things... 9/11, oklahoma city bombing, twa flight 800... etc.

these things are rejected all the time because it goes against the evolution theory. any evidence found that goes against the theory is always turned down or claimed to be false. thats what I always run into.

Don't be silly. Paleontologists would love to discover such a groundbreaking finding...

These are the things Nobels and tenure are made of.

Paleontologists would love to discover such a groundbreaking finding...

like I said, they are found all the time but are rejected because they support creation and not evolution. they make evolution look less feasible.

Of course they do...

I see one of the links has the 'Burdick' footprint

paleo.cc...

The funny thing is that if these were put forward as evidence of evolution at some point (even though knocked down by scientists themselves), you'd be using them as evidence against evolution (e.g., Piltdown man etc etc).

Originally posted by Methuselah
just like how the government hides the cure/prevention for cancer (vitamin b17)
just like the government covers up a lot of other things... 9/11, oklahoma city bombing, twa flight 800... etc.

This is an oft used logical fallacy known as poisoning the well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

As much as I dislike our government, and many corporate and scientific institutions, we can't just consider everything they say as untrue and/or wrong.

It just means finding out for yourself objectively from credible sources.

my biggest beef with findings in general is this, scientists dont know when or what these things came from, they only have ideas, yet they are published with the idea that we know exactly when and where what happened.
You find a footprint in the dirt you can conclude many things... and until you know I think all that should be published is... "we found a footprint in the ground, this COULD mean X, Y or Z possibly even W"
but no, its published as " we have more evidence for evolution... we found a tooth and built a man and his wife from a tooth..." then they find out the tooth belonged to a pig. or they find out that the Archaeopteryx bird sold to the museum was 100% fake... they took it for a couple million dollars because it supported evolution...
they find less than 40% of Luci and build a body of that. you cant make assumptions or even think of possibilities when you have only 40% of a body... plus when parts of her body were found in a different layer of the earth over 200 feet away.... that says something.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Oh, that reminds me, I have a few questions for hard-core creationists:

If there is no evolution, why are there no fossils of anatomically-modern humans ior animals n the older fossil record -- i.e., such as the Burgess Shale?

If there is no evolution, then where did all the anatomically modern animals come from, when there is no record of them?

If you're going to say, god just created them and stuck them in after the last mass extinction, then where are all the new animals to replace the ones being extincted as I type this? Why isn't god poofing animals in to replace the ones that have recently died off, such as the do do and the passenger pigeon?

Can you explain this in (pseudo)scientific terms, without resorting to references to the bible, which is in no way a scientific treatise?

I'm all "ears."

The Burgess Shale, sedimentary layer was laid down during the great Flood.
Take a cop of fine sand and larger pieces of sand ,add water. Shake it somewhat and you find it creates layers.
Now, the bottom dwelling creatures stayed under the sand(mollusks,worms) where they already were.
The crustaceans and lower sea living creatures next. Then the fish... do you see what I'm getting at?
Even when evidence of human bones or modern fossils are found too deeply, they are written off as flukes by some.

Originally posted by Clearskies
The Burgess Shale, sedimentary layer was laid down during the great Flood.
Take a cop of fine sand and larger pieces of sand ,add water. Shake it somewhat and you find it creates layers.
Now, the bottom dwelling creatures stayed under the sand(mollusks,worms) where they already were.
The crustaceans and lower sea living creatures next. Then the fish... do you see what I'm getting at?

Heh, so ammonites, which were bouyant, were laid down lower than turtles, which are big dense things? Clams are similar to brachiopods, but brachiopods lay at lower strata than clams.

I suppose this is the flood that is meant to have formed the grand canyon, but was able to finely sort sediments and fossils, heh.

A good question is where are the pre-flood layers? The one's which should have all of this magical creation living together in harmony. Guess it should be below the burgess shale - humans, dinosaurs, birds, bats, fish, etc etc all together in one strata. Just appears to be non-existent. Where are the pre-flood settlements, the artifacts, the graves of the dead? Why can we find dinosaurs sitting on nests after a flood powerful enough to create the grand canyon?

We have fossils of going back 3.5 billion years. We seem to be missing this pre-flood strata...

ABE:

Here's another problem for you...

If the geological column was laid down during the flud, how can we find evidence of the existence of a swamp, with the tracks of reptiles and amphibians sitting right in the middle of the strata?

Hermit Shale

This shale is soft, and erodes easily. Fossils include many plants, such as ferns and conifers, and the fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians, clear indications that it was a swampy environment. The young earth model does not allow for the existence of a swamp, on top of 2000 feet of flood deposited rocks, in the middle of the flood....especially when you consider that the flood will then cover this "swamp" with thousands of feet of additional sediment before the flood is over.

www.answersincreation.org...

Did the flud stop for a while? A whole new ecosystem sprung up, reptiles and amphibians running around a swamp. But, then, Kappow! Flud starts up again?

And then at the very top of the Grand Canyon, we find this...

Kaibab Limestone

This is the top layer at the Canyon, the one you drive your car on when visiting it. Fossils are marine organisms. Of interest to our debate is the fact that it is a sandy limestone, with thin layers of sandstone and silt. This clear indication of changing depth/shoreline argues against the young earth model.

www.answersincreation.org...

Marine organisms...



[edit on 31-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Clearskies
Even when evidence of human bones or modern fossils are found too deeply, they are written off as flukes by some.

but they're never found. we have yet to find a single out of place human fossil! we haven't found any dinosaurs next to humans in the same strata.

but they're never found. we have yet to find a single out of place human fossil! we haven't found any dinosaurs next to humans in the same strata.

there you go, you yourself are doing it now, claiming it to be a fluke.

they find them all the time and people get fired for presenting these or attempting to present these to the public. or they are labeled as liars.

they find them all the time and then shortly after find some way to cover it up or to provide from sort of explanation as to why its not what we think it is.

This is a bunch of BULL!

Evolution =/= Science
Evolution = Politics

Science doesnt hide findings and facts but its happening... why?

Originally posted by Methuselah
there you go, you yourself are doing it now, claiming it to be a fluke.

You might need to actually read and understand madness' reply before answering.

You did something similar in the other thread with my post.