Creationists, Did You Know ...

... that [almost] all species which existed on early Earth have disappeared?

How is that possible? How is it possible that, say, 3Bil or 2Bil years ago, on Earth..there were entirely different species? Isn't your main argument that all species were carefully designed and planned in advance?

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


No silly God gave them a chance in the Ark and they missed the bus and died.

Statements are one thing, but, making a statement backed up by a Source, is even better.

it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

That means; the 8.7 Billion different species extent today are representative of 0.1% of everything that's ever lived.

Further, we've had at least five major Extinction Events, the most well known to laymen being the K-T Event that killed most of the dinosaurs, but, even bigger was the Permian - Triassic event that killed off 96% of all life.

Everything alive today shares common ancestors with the few species remaining after the P-Tr event.

NoRulesAllowed
... that [almost] all species which existed on early Earth have disappeared?

How is that possible? How is it possible that, say, 3Bil or 2Bil years ago, on Earth..there were entirely different species? Isn't your main argument that all species were carefully designed and planned in advance?

I think if you're going to try to argue with a Creationist, you'd best get their "main argument" correct in the first place.

What the Bible teaches is entirely consistent with what you've stated here. Genesis 1 teaches that God created animals "in their kinds"; that is, in their species. This would suggest that all of the animals that we have today have evolved from common ancestors.

Where Creationists differ from evolutionists is in the interpretation of the evidence, both in terms of the time taken for this speciation to occur, and in terms of exactly what these common ancestors were.

Evolutionary theories generally propose either uniform progression or punctuated equilibrium; each of which require billions of years to account for the sheer volume of mutations necessary to facilitate that evolution (whether that's correct or not isn't the issue here).

Creationists, in contrast, would argue that the common ancestor would be MORE complex, rather than less - so the myriad species that have become extinct prior to those we know today should then, if Creationism is an accurate reflection of the evidence, be more, rather than less, complex than those that exist today.

Neither of these models presents a worldview in which "entirely different species" is an issue. The 2-3 billion year timeframe that you've stated a priori, however, is.

Hey atheists, did you know?

Genesis should not be mistaken for a scientific text.

That is all, carry on.

NoRulesAllowed
... that [almost] all species which existed on early Earth have disappeared?

How is that possible? How is it possible that, say, 3Bil or 2Bil years ago, on Earth..there were entirely different species? Isn't your main argument that all species were carefully designed and planned in advance?

Each moment appears different from the last.
Nothing repeats so the universe is an unfolding one.

All is 'created' now and disappears now. Really nothing is ever 'made'.

Awen24

What the Bible teaches is entirely consistent with what you've stated here. Genesis 1 teaches that God created animals "in their kinds"; that is, in their species. This would suggest that all of the animals that we have today have evolved from common ancestors.

Where Creationists differ from evolutionists is in the interpretation of the evidence, both in terms of the time taken for this speciation to occur, and in terms of exactly what these common ancestors were.

Wait, WHAT?

So you are saying that even Creationists rely on EVOLUTION, otherwise the concept of a common ancestor doesn't make much sense...since the ancestor..obviously must have evolved into those species we have today?

The rest is rather irrelevant, HOW it's interpreted, semantics, time-frames involved, specifics etc.

Either evolution, as a principle of nature, exists/is happening...or it isn't. If it DOES (which we here obviously don't have a reason to doubt)...than the idea of accepting evolution, BUT as an aspect of CREATION, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Or is the "proof" for Creation solely the (often given) argument that allegedly no transient species exist...which would mean Creation is merely backed be the idea that several species independently evolved (eg. each species was initially "created" at some time)....which (to say it mildly) is not really very convincing if the rest still relies on...well..duh....evolution

reply to post by boymonkey74


No he didn't. He allowed Noah to select an exclusive few and killed the rest. They didn't miss the bus, they were barred from it.

Lol. I'm sure you're probably trying to ask a genuine question from your point of view, but I think you come across as ignorant here. Firstly, and this is a very important point I seem to have to keep re-iterating to people constantly, CREATIONISM IS NOT THE SAME AS CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM OR JUDAISM e.t.c. Creationism/Creationists believe the universe and its contents were created. That’s it. It doesn’t state in what order things were created and it doesn’t state all things were made through direct creation or indirect creation (indirect creation being a creation of a creation).

So, you should really be directing your question towards the set of creationists who place themselves deeper into another belief which involves this idea you mention of 'all animals being carefully designed and planned in advance'. You can't just group everyone who believes in a creator into the same box - it's this exact sort of ignorant thinking that has left society with such a black and white divide between creationism and atheism. No one can see the grey areas anymore, or the overlaps, it's a sad state of affairs. You have atheists thinking they are superior and clever because they don't believe in 'fairytales' and you have fundamentalists who don't even read their own scriptures in-depth and claim atheists are immoral and soul-less people. It's so #ING STUPID. Open your eyes people, read the scriptures of the ancients - NOT WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. Read what these primitive cultures actually believed (nothing to do with a fictous God in the sky, it was completely to do with human-like earthbound 'Gods'). Build up an image in your head of how the concept of God arose and developed and was manipulated, rather than just thinking 'oh it was just stupid cavemen who couldn't explain stuff'. I'm going off-topic here but I'm so tired of seeing this black/white attitude on ATS - where I expected some more general awareness of these things.

Back on topic though - I'll answer your question. I'm an agnostic, although I spent a large part of my life refuting any possibility of God (i.e gnostic atheist). Eventually I realised how silly I was being. The further I progressed academically (to master's degree level) in science and engineering, the more I realised that this universe is a 1000 times more spectacular in it's core and operation than most people will ever have a chance to understand, or care to. Furthermore, I realised that as a person of logical thought and pursuit, I cannot sit there and claim there is definitely no God - when in fact it is a completely plausible possibility (especially if you believe consciousness is a complete product of electrical signals and therefore can be codes and re-created in virtual environments). Finally, I realised that eventually I was no different from the very same people most atheists seem to hate.

I'll answer your question based on some of the ideas I've toyed with in the past when thinking about a creator and it's relation to the universe's conception;

You assume every creationist believes the purpose of the universe is the human, and that all other species are merely just there to sustain the human in some way. I say this because your question suggests this. However, once again, that is not a fundamental part of CREATIONISM. That is additional speculation and faith. Have you imagined that one may believe God simply set-up the 'starting conditions of the universe', such as the fundamental forces of nature, the field within this shall occur, the possibility of DNA and the amazing amount of possible genetic variations and their significance to the environment e.t.c and then let the universe 'play' or 'run'. Have you EVER thought of it in this sense? Out of curiosity.

No one said God and Evolution have to face-off with each other, they are perfectly compatible ideas and infact evolution in some ways can make A LOT more sense from this perspective (one of the things that has often tempted me towards the side of believing in a creator). People are still stuck in this 1800s mentality of creationism-vs-evolution. Look how much we have progressed since then, just look at the progress in quantum mechanics for god's sake, we've scientifically discovered things that SERIOUSLY BRING INTO DOUBT the 'natural authenticity' of this universe. Whether you believe in God or not, it is scientific fact that this universe, as YOU AND I KNOW IT, ceases to exist without any life. It is only through the virtue of how a human's body decodes the input data that EM fields provide that the universe appears and feels as it does. Likewise for cats/dogs, insects e.t.c The universe isn't this objective solid always-the-same-looking void floating about that we ride, there is a stronger and more intricate link between the universe and life. You have things like the Double Slit experiment, which shows our universe pretty much cheats with the movement of particles if there is no 'conscious' or active observer to the path of the particle. Once again, this experiment probably doesn't resonate with people's thinking caps as much as it should - it is single handedly the most bizzare scientific result from any experiment in history - in my opinion. This is how video games are coded to save computational space, it IS NOT how you expect an accidental universe to behave.

Then on the other hand you have questionable theories (introduced solely for the reason of avoiding a supernatural/creator conclusion) like infinite parallel universe theories which people GOBBLE UP without second thought because it sounds cool and mysterious and a scientist is saying it, BUT STILL SHOW DISGUST AT THE BELIEF OF A GOD?! I mean this is all just getting too absurd for me. Does almost no one employ critical thinking of their own anymore? Once again, slightly off-topic and not ranting at you specifically, but needed to say that none the less.

I honestly feel science should take one closer to a sense of spirituality, rather than further away - which is what it has effectively been doing for the past 200 years. This is purely because we are in a sense 'forced' to take the conclusions scientists reach from their studies and theories, despite these same scientists unconsciously being indoctrined to the idea of 'accidental creation' from day 1. We have a strongly biased handling of scientific implications (and I don't mean quantatively, but in the sense of how these results are interpreted). We need more Einsteins, great men whose hearts and minds are opened by science, not further cemented in their current place.

You are all missing point because HE made you believe that by placing false evidence in so called evolution.

HE has wicked way of humor, can't you tell? (at least something in common we humans have with our creator)



All jokes aside, is it hypocrisy that creationists are using burning fossils for fuel and everyday life, without recognizing how those got there?

NoRulesAllowed
Wait, WHAT?

So you are saying that even Creationists rely on EVOLUTION, otherwise the concept of a common ancestor doesn't make much sense...since the ancestor..obviously must have evolved into those species we have today?

Perhaps we need to define our terms better. Nobody is disputing evolution. More often than not, when we have these debates, we use broad terms to define what we mean, when more specific ones would lead to a more honest (and more useful) conversation.

Where Creationists and Evolutionists differ is really in the DIRECTION that evolution takes. Creationists view evolution as a destructive, rather than a constructive, process; that is to suggest that evolutionary changes through mutation destroy, rather than create new, information.

This is really the key.

For the Creationist, the fact that all life has evolved is self-evident. Many of the processes that we term "Evolution" have nothing to do with the "paramecium to a prince" pseudo-science that most think of when they use the term "evolution".

So, for Creationists, evolution is true inasmuch as it describes the natural processes by which all life speciates and replicates itself. Survival of the fittest, for example, is a no-brainer, and doesn't conflict in any way either with the Bible, or with observable phenomena. Evolutionary progression, however, in terms of creatures, over millions of years, growing increasingly complex, is neither an observable phenomena, nor something that has a solid grounding in scientific terms. So, the key difference here is DIRECTION. The evolutionist sees the evolutionary process as the catalyst by which all life came into being; a nameless, faceless force that has turned chaos into order and brought life from non-life. The Creationist, on the other hand, sees the Created order of Genesis 1, turned INTO chaos by the introduction of sin into the world, resulting in the constant degeneration of all life, from complexity to simplicity. This too is evolution - just not in the sense that many use the word. This concept also does not require the long ages and uniformity that evolutionary theory so often demands.

Or is the "proof" for Creation solely the (often given) argument that allegedly no transient species exist...which would mean Creation is merely backed be the idea that several species independently evolved (eg. each species was initially "created" at some time)

This isn't really a proof of any kind FOR Creation. You could equally argue that the fact that no transitional forms exist is suggestive of the 'fact' that they were created by the great Spaghetti Monster in the sky. It can be considered evidence against progressive evolution, however.

I would agree that many species were created at one time. Genesis 1 presents exactly this picture. The divergence from that point, however, has been both rapid (and we know this works, scientifically, because we've seen it happen - I can give examples if you like), and wide. I suspect that the world once held billions more species than it does at this point - probably many billions, but with smaller populations of each species, most likely. That would suggest to me that the majority of species now have greater population, but we have less biodiversity than we have at any other time in our history.

The Bible's view of history leans more toward Catastrophism, borne out both by our own geology (Creationists would suggest that, as an oft-used example, the Grand Canyon, the continents, many of the incredible geological formations around the world, were formed by Noah's flood) and by the geology of our solar neighbours. The moon, for example, bears the hallmarks of catastophism, as does Mars (which serves both as an excellent example and as a key piece of evidence that theories of uniformity are patently false).

To expand on that a little bit - creation.com...

One of the key phrases in this article is "large-scale rapid catastrophic events". This is something that scientists on both sides of this debate agree upon in respect to Mars - but differ on entirely in regards to our own geology; so, whereas most evolutionists would consider earth's geology formed by billions of years, slow processes, and the trickle of time (and water), they don't consider the same to be largely true of Mars - many articles have been produced, for example, which suggest that the majority of Mars' craters were formed in the space of just HALF AN HOUR. Quite the event.

I'd recommend watching this, both for this topic, and because it has great info on Mars too



Anyway - so that's really the fundamental difference.

CHRISTIANITY / EVOLUTION
Evolution is destructive / Evolution is both destructive AND progressive
Evolution can not explain where life came from / Yes it can.
Evolution explains speciation / Evolution explains speciation


The key, I think, is information. Really, the conflict over evolution centers around this issue as much as anything. For the creationist, evolution cannot generate complexity. It can destroy complexity, sure - but it can't increase it. It's an information science question. From that point, all the rest of evolutionary theory either stands or falls.

Anyway. I'll shut up now.

Awen24
tructive AND progressive
Evolution can not explain where life came from / Yes it can.

Without going into details, let me focus just on this little wrong statement.

Evolution DOES NOT explain origins of life. Biogenesis does.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


And yet we keep hearing about formerly believed extinct species being found recently. Just the other day they found a unicorn...called a unicorn. And you say the Bible is not right because you think unicorns mean My Little Pony.

Unicorn Found

How did the ancient Hebrew writers knew about unicorns? So the answer is "myth!!!" until a unicorn is actually found. So did the Bible get that one wrong? Just because you think the Bible was referring to cutesy horses with horns, maybe you misinterpreted the Bible. Is the unicorn a mythological creature? Hmm, it seems not.

But that's what people fall back onto..unicorns aren't real, so the Bible isn't real. But the Bible never said the unicorn was a horse, that's later what people inserted into the meaning.

And since they are now found only in Vietnam, doesn't mean that there was not a time unicorns would be elsewhere and migrated to Asia.

reply to post by WarminIndy


That animal you linked is referred to as the "asian unicorn" precisely because the unicorn of popular myth is so utterly elusive. You're using this animal's existence to undermine the unicorn argument, when the unicorn argument is being used to describe this animal's near extinction.

Stop taking interpretive liberties and actually read the garbage you link, m'kay?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

That animal you linked is referred to as the "asian unicorn" precisely because the unicorn of popular myth is so utterly elusive. You're using this animal's existence to undermine the unicorn argument, when the unicorn argument is being used to describe this animal's near extinction.

Stop taking interpretive liberties and actually read the garbage you link, m'kay?

edit on 15-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Can you tell me exactly how the Bible describes the unicorn?

Does the Bible give it magical qualities? No.

Does the Bible call it a horse? No.

Does the Bible say it a form of transportation for the gods? No.

Are you saying the Asian Unicorn is garbage?

I am sorry, but what is the name of the organization that first released the information? The World Wildlife Fund. Are you denying the existence of the Asian unicorn, because it doesn't fit your already presupposed idea that we believe in "magical unicorns". Doesn't that make it a strawman argument?

Discovery Science

We are talking now about a real animal, and you can't any longer say the Bible is a myth in that point, by saying it supports a magical, mythological creature, when at no time it ever presents the unicorn as magical or mythical. So you would have to concede that the Bible is correct in saying there were unicorns. It is you placing liberal interpretations into a text that you don't even believe, thereby assuming something we believe, and yet at no time have Christians ever said we believe in magical creatures, yet the concept of magical creatures are found in other faith systems.

Are you willing to hold that unicorns do not exist because the Bible says they do?

reply to post by WarminIndy


That isn't a "unicorn". It has two horns. I even watched the video. As AI said, it's elusiveness is what earned the rare mammal the popular name "unicorn." The skulls they showed ALSO have two horns. They're called Saola.

Rupert Murdoch releases new company logo for FOX NEWS! New logo designed by premier logo graphic artist from USA.

Press conference:
Q1. But wasn't there an entirely different logo for the last 10+ years?

Q2. But wasnt FOX NEWS logo designed specifically in advance. Why did rupert murdoch change it. What gave him the right?

Who gave him CREATION RIGHTS?

A: Why wud me stating that we changed the company logo mean that we had a logo in the first place? How dare you?



Rupert Murdoch releases new company logo for FOX NEWS! New logo designed by premier logo graphic artist from USA.

Press conference:
Q1. But wasn't there an entirely different logo for the last 10+ years?

Q2. But wasnt FOX NEWS logo designed specifically in advance. Why did rupert murdoch change it. What gave him the right?

Who gave him CREATION RIGHTS?

A: Why wud me stating that we changed the company logo mean that we had a logo in the first place? How dare you?



wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

That isn't a "unicorn". It has two horns. I even watched the video. As AI said, it's elusiveness is what earned the rare mammal the popular name "unicorn." The skulls they showed ALSO have two horns. They're called Saola.

Which have led to the charge against the Bible being called mythical. Just because an animal might not exist anymore does not mean it is a myth in those verses.

But my original statement was that animals are found all the time that previously scientists said were not possible to exist. But by the same token, these Saola were not called "bi-horns". If they misclassified a bi-hornal animal to call it "unicorn", then perhaps the same mistake has been made regarding the Bible verses?

But who gave the misclassification? The World Wildlife Fund. And that's what I want to point out, as people didn't know what unicorn was, and saw unicorns found within other faith systems, then applied that to the Bible so trying to prove the Bible wrong on that one mistake or misplacement.

Unicorns in the Bible are related to goats.

And this is one argument we have all heard, the Bible is mythical because it says unicorns, Christians believe in unicorns, hence they believe in the mythical beasts of these other faiths. But as scientists are saying they found animals they thought were once extinct, according to scientists, and then scientists are shocked when another creature is found, still not one person may be allowed to lay the same "myth" argument against scientists. I didn't charge science as a myth in my presentation, just that maybe perhaps that one point can no longer be used against the Bible if scientists are accepting creatures once thought extinct are now found.

What I would like to point out is the animals depicted in the cave paintings in France, of animals that are not now indigenous to that part of Europe, but clearly recognized as they are known.

Chinese Horses at Lascaux

How did the Neanderthal know about a horse that is found in another part of the world than where they lived? Either the Neanderthal were from China, the Chinese horses migrated to China, or the Cave Paintings are a Neanderthal myth. But even the understanding of Neanderthal has changed, most Europeans have some percentage of Neanderthal. I have 2.9%, but we were once told it would be impossible, and that came from scientists pushing it.

Now if they have to retract on Neanderthal and Chinese Horses, then maybe it's possible people have been placing mistaken identity and mislassification when it comes to the Bible as well?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Did you even read my post? If you didn't understand it, just say so. Although I'm having difficulty of how to explain it any more simply than how I explained it the first time around.

You say the asian unicorn is proof that the unicorn argument is invalid. The "asian unicorn", by its nearly-extinct nature, lends merit to the unicorn argument. They are using the word "unicorn" in honor of the unicorn argument, rather than to its detriment.

Am I clearer now? I hope I am. All I did was rephrase what I said before. Like I said, I can't make it any simpler for you.