POLL: Evolution vs. Creation by God

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by studentofthemarkets, Oct 24, 2021.

Evolution, Creation, God?

  1. I am an atheist and believe the theory of evolution.

    5 vote(s)
  2. I am agnostic and believe the theory of evolution.

    3 vote(s)
  3. I believe the theory of evolution but the process was guided by aliens or other powers.

    1 vote(s)
  4. I believe God created using macro evolution: bacteria became an elephant.

    1 vote(s)
  5. I believe God specially created according to families/kinds.

    5 vote(s)
  6. Other-I believe something not represented on this poll.

    6 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This excerpt from an article explains a little of the disconnect:

    There is actually a considerable body of sound, scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, some of which appears to be absolutely incompatible with the theory. The importance of the nature of this evidence is never emphasized in textbooks used in our public school systems and colleges. In fact, this evidence is rarely, if ever, even mentioned. As a result, biology students are exposed to all the evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory, but are not made aware of its weaknesses, nor the evidence that actually contradicts the theory. We must recognize, therefore, that such an educational process amounts to indoctrination in a particular world view or philosophy based on the concept that the origin of the Universe, the origin and diversity of life, in fact all of reality, must be explainable solely on the basis of the laws of chemistry and physics. The possibility of a Creator or the existence of a Supernatural Being is excluded. We are convinced that the reason evolutionary theory is so widely accepted today is because our scientists and biology teachers are the products of an educational system dominated by this naturalistic, mechanistic, humanistic philosophy.

    The theory of evolution violates two of the most fundamental laws of nature—the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law states that no matter what changes may take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter (actually equivalent) remains constant. Nothing now is being either created nor destroyed, although transformations of many kinds may take place. The Second Law states that every change which takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. The total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe (entropy is a measure of this randomness) is constantly and inevitably increasing. Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time. Amino acids do not spontaneously combine to form proteins, but proteins spontaneously break down to amino acids, and amino acids slowly break down to simpler chemical compounds. With careful control of reactants, energy input, and removal of product from the energy source (as is done in current "origin of life" experiments), man can synthesize amino acids from gases, and proteins from amino acids. But under any combination of realistic primordial earth conditions, these processes could never have taken place. This fact was adequately demonstrated by Hull who concluded that, "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."3 Hull was here referring to origin of life speculations.

    Since the universe, like a clock, is running down, it is obvious that it hasn’t existed forever. But according to the First Law, the sum total of energy and matter is always a constant. How then can we, purely on a natural basis alone, explain the origin of matter and energy of which this universe is composed. The evolutionary continuum, from cosmos to man, is creative and progressive, while the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics declare that known natural processes are quantitatively conservative and qualitatively degenerative. In every case, without exception, when these Laws have been subjected to test they have been found valid. Exponents of evolutionary theory thus ignore the observable in order to accept the unobservable (the evolutionary origin of life and of the major kinds of living things).

    The evolutionary process has supposedly taken place via random mutational changes. This basic concept of the modern evolutionary theory is under attack even by some evolutionists. Salisbury4 has recently questioned this concept and it has come under attack by several mathematicians. A symposium was held at the Wistar Institute in 1966 at which these mathematicians and evolutionary biologists presented opposing views.5 One of the mathematicians, Dr. Murray Eden, stated that, "It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery of new natural laws—physical, physicochemical and biological" (emphasis added).6 It is the contention of Salisbury and of these mathematicians that the increase in complexity and the progress that has supposedly been accomplished by evolution through random changes would require a length of time billions of times longer than three billion years.

    Random mutations and natural selection supposedly have been responsible for evolution, allegedly a creative and progressive process. Natural selection, however, is not creative since it cannot create anything new. It is a conservative force eliminating the unfit. Random mutational changes in an ordered system is a disordering or randomizing process and is thus degenerative, not progressive. This realization is slowly spreading among evolutionists today.

    Whether evolution actually did happen or not can only be indicated by an examination of the historical record, that is, the fossil record. What type of evidence would support the evolutionary concept? Thompson has stated, "Therefore, if we found in the geological strata a series of fossils showing a gradual transition from simple to complex forms, and could be sure that they correspond to a true time-sequence, then we should be inclined to feet that Darwinian evolution has occurred, even though its mechanism remains unknown."1 If invertebrate gave rise to vertebrate, fish to amphibia, amphibia to reptile, reptile to bird and mammals—each transformation requiring millions of years and involving innumerable transitional forms—then the fossil record should certainly produce a good representative number of these transitional types. Thompson goes on to say, "That is certainly what Darwin would have liked to report, but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory; the absence of the primitive types that should have existed in the strata regarded as the most ancient; and the sudden appearance of the principle taxonomic groups." Later on he states, " ... and I may note that the position is not notably different today. The modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which however plausible are in the nature of things unverifiable."

    In the Cambrian geological strata there occurs a sudden, great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. In the Cambrian rocks are found billions of fossils of animals so complex that the evolutionists estimate they would have required one and a half billion years to evolve. Trilobites, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish, in fact every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian. What is found in rocks supposedly older than the Cambrian, that is in the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks? Not a single indisputable fossil! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction, the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found.

    Axelrod, a geologist and an evolutionist, has written:

    "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks and their absence in rocks of greater age. These Early Cambrian fossils included porifera, coelenterates, brachiopods, mollusca, echinoids, and arthropods. Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a long period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the pre-Cambrian rocks for the forerunners of these Early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. Many thick (over 5000 feet) sections or sedimentary rock are now known to lie in unbroken succession below strata containing the earliest Cambrian fossils. These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found in them" (emphasis added).7
    George Gaylord Simpson, famous paleontologist and evolutionist, has termed the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils the "major mystery of the history of life."8 This great outburst of highly developed and complex living things is highly contradictory to evolutionary theory, but is exactly what would be predicted on the basis of special (divine) creation.

    The fossil record ought to produce thousands of transitional forms. Instead we findthat there is a regular and systematic absence of transitional forms between higher categories. The major invertebrate types found in the Cambrian are just as distinctly set apart when they first appear as they are today, the fossil record giving no indication that any of these major types have been derived from common ancestors.

    The vertebrates supposedly evolved from an invertebrate. This is an assumption that cannot be documented from the fossil record. There is a vast gulf between the invertebrates and vertebrates not bridged by transitional forms. The first vertebrate, a fish of the class Agnatha, is a 100% vertebrate. Of its possible evolutionary origin, Ommanney has said, "How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill."9 One hundred million years and no transitional forms! Incredible!

    Fish supposedly gave rise to amphibian over a period of millions of years during which time the fins of the hypothetical ancestral fish gradually changed into the feet and legs of the amphibian. Yet not a single fossil has ever been found showing a part-way fin and part-way foot! The living amphibians. include three types: the salamanders and newts, usually with sprawling legs and tails; the frogs and toads, among the most highly specialized of all land vertebrates, having no tails and very long hind legs; the Apodans, a worm-like creature with no trace of limbs. No transitional forms can be found between these diverse living amphibians, or between them and fossil amphibians.10

    Birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptiles. Yet no one has ever found a single fossil showing a part-way wing and part-way forelimb, or a part-way feather. Archaeopteryx, "the oldest known bird," had teeth but so did other birds found in the fossil record that were unquestionably 100% birds. Archaeopteryx had claw-like appendages on the leading edges of its wings. These same appendages, however. are found in a living bird in South America, the Hoactzin, and he is 100% bird. Archaeopteryx had vertebrae extending out along the tail, but was no more a transitional form between reptile and bird than the bat is a link between bird and mammal. Archaeopteryx had fully developed wings and feathers. It flew. It was definitely a bird, as all paleontologists agree. Lecomte du Nouy, an evolutionist, has said, "in spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain "unknown."11 Marshall has stated, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."12

    As a matter of fact, the ability to fly supposedly evolved four times independently: in the birds, the flying reptiles (pterosaurs) now extinct, the insects, and in mammals (the bat). In none of these cases are there fossil transitional forms showing the ability to fly as evolving. Dr. E. C. Olson, an evolutionary geologist, has said, "As far as flight is concerned there are some very big gaps in the records."13 Concerning insects Olson says, "There is almost nothing to give any information about the history of the origin of flight in insects." Referring to pterosaurs Olson states " ... there is absolutely no sign of intermediate stages." After referring to Archaeopteryx as reptile-like Olson says "It shows itself to be a bird." Finally, with reference to mammals Olson states, "The first evidence of flight in mammals is in fully developed bats of the Eocene epoch." We thus have a most remarkable situation. Four times a marvelous transformation has taken place: terrestrial animals have evolved the power of flight. Each such transformation required millions of years and involved thousands of transitional forms. Yet none of these transitional forms can be found in the fossil record! Could it be that these transitional forms are not found simply because they never existed? Such evidence can be much more easily correlated within a creationist framework than within an evolutionary framework.

    The examples given above are not exceptions, but as stated earlier the fossil record displays a systematic absence of transitional types between higher categories. Even with reference to the famous horse "series," du Nouy reports, "But each one of these intermediaries seems to have appeared ‘suddenly,’ and it has not yet been possible, because of the lack of fossils, to reconstitute the passage between these intermediaries.... The continuity we surmise may never be established by facts."14

    We believe that the sudden appearance in the fossil record of highly developed forms of life in vast numbers and the sudden appearance of each major taxonomic group without apparent transitional forms indicates that there was actually no passage at all from lower forms to higher forms, but that each major taxonomic group was specially created and thus corresponds to the "kinds" described in the Book of Genesis.

    Professor G. A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, in his illuminating book Implications of Evolution has stated "… there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.15 The theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis" (emphasis added). We believe that special creation actually offers a far better explanation of the scientific evidence. To restrict the teaching concerning origins to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic religious philosophy. Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis. In the spirit of fairness and of academic freedom we plead for a balanced presentation of all the evidence.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2022
    #161     Jun 2, 2022
  2. @Overnight: "They show elements of design, but they were not designed by an intelligent creator."
    Since they show elements of design, than who was the designer?

    Closing paragraph to this article: https://www.icr.org/article/does-oddball-platypus-genome-reveal-its-origins

    Platypus gene sequencing contributes knowledge to science, but nothing so far to help explain how these creatures supposedly evolved. Conclusions that presume their own premises fail to reach the status of data-driven science. On the other hand, the fully formed genome that the platypus does possess shows the exact kind of life-giving organization that one would expect from intentional craftsmanship.​
    #162     Jun 2, 2022
  3. themickey


    Thats right, heaven and earth were created 10,000 years ago in 7 days. Adam & Eve were the first humans who were placed in a garden and serpent convinced them God was shallow and talking bs so they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2022
    #163     Jun 2, 2022
  4. Overnight


    Showing elements of design does not mean they there were designed.
    #164     Jun 2, 2022
  5. Cars, houses, paintings and everything people make has been designed. You wouldn't look at any of those things and say they happen on their own.

    A platypus is far more complex than a car, a house or a painting and yet you think it just randomly came about? That makes no sense to me.
    #165     Jun 2, 2022
  6. themickey


    Christians have entered into a Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole mirror maze, where stories are so fantastic, that going back to reality is not an option.
    To accept you are deceived is to accept failure, your brethren will view you as a traitor, the cost of leaving too high considering your investment of time and emotion to the church.
    I mean, like a good slave, you are conditioned to serving others first, not yourself.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2022
    #166     Jun 2, 2022
  7. ph1l


    Here are some transitions.

    #167     Jun 2, 2022
  8. Apparently, the Tiktaalik aren't part of a transition:

    Tiktaalik to the Rescue?
    In the April 2006 issue of Nature, Daeschler et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a Crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae. These well-preserved specimens were found in sedimentary layers of siltstone—cross-bedded with sandstones—in Arctic Canada.5

    Like the other lobe-fin fish, Tiktaalik was declared to be late Devonian (between 385–359 million years old) by means of a “dating” method known as palynomorph biostratigraphy. This method presumes to date sedimentary rock layers on the basis of the assumed evolutionary age of pollen and spores contained in the rock. Most importantly, the discoverers of Tiktaalik claim that it “represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.”

    Tiktaalik Is a Fish
    Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish.
    Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.”6

    In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because “the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout.” The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that “a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.”

    Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land-dwelling tetrapods?

    Are the Pectoral Fins of Tiktaalik Really Legs?
    Before we get into Tiktaalik’s “legs,” it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms “legs,” then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legs—just because we call our arms “legs” doesn’t make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fish—we may call them “legs” but that doesn’t necessarily make them legs.

    Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaalik’s bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.7 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaalik’s fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesn’t prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)

    The Limbs of Tetrapods
    The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. These unique features meet the special demands of walking on land. In the case of the forelimbs there is one bone nearest the body (proximal) called the humerus that articulates (flexibly joins) with two bones, the radius and ulna, farther away from the body (distal). These in turn articulate with multiple wrist bones, which finally articulate with typically five digits. The hind limbs similarly consist of one proximal bone, the femur, which articulates with two distal bones, the tibia and fibula, which in turn articulate with ankle bones; and finally with typically five digits. In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle, which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.

    The femur of the hind limb articulates with the pelvic girdle, which consists of fused bones collectively called the pelvis (hip bone). It is this hind limb—with its robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column—that differs radically from that of any fish. (The tetrapod arrangement is important for bearing the weight of the animal on land.)

    All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones.

    It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

    The Fins of Fish (including Tiktaalik)
    Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the forelimbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

    While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the forelimbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function, or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

    Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”8

    So Is Tiktaalik a Missing Link?
    Finally, what about the popular claim that Tiktaalik is the “missing link” between fish and tetrapods?

    In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”

    #168     Jun 2, 2022
  9. Overnight


    Mmm, k, let me ask you this question.

    Is there anything in the universe that does NOT have an element of design?
    #170     Jun 3, 2022
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.