 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Steen I thank you for your continued participation in the discussion. Im not absoulutly sure of the entire scope of our disagreement, so let's attempt to find out. As you have already gathered Im not formally schooled in Darwins theor.....hold it.........as you put it.....the Scientific Theory of Evolution, but the science of that theory as revealed in this thread, I consider weak, to the point of being foolish, and frankly, a bit disingenuous.
As I previously attempted to point out, you have made no point or claim as to how your report impacts the biblical account of creation. Was your report offered as evidence that, perhaps, man evolved from primates? That's really the bottom line in the evolution vs. creation debate.....isn't it?
| Steen wrote: | Hmm, that does not conform to the data and evidence collected. Are you somehow saying that Evolution occured, but that H. sapiens didn't evolve?
And it raises another question, namely exactly what "God's image" actually is. Are we talking about physical form here, or what? |
Here you seem to suggest that man evolved rather than being created in a single day as indicated in Genesis.
To answer your two questions......I believe God has created and put into place such processes as we might define as adaptation/evolution. That is not in conflict not does it change, in any way, the literal account of creation, which tells us that the world and all things in it were created in literally six days. God rested on the seventh. - Man was created in the likness of God.
These concepts may be difficult for you, an apparent man of science. In light of this I offer an explaination for your consideration...........
God, is the creator of all things, including the processes that go into producing the finished products of His creation. We as men, and our scientific theories, are confined to a dimension of space and time. The Creator has no such confines. He operates and exists in a relm to wonderful for us to comprehend. When He created man from the dust of the earth, He utilized a process of change in a certain direction without the element/limitation of time. So with this logic one can see how the earth, and all that is in it, was created literally in 6 days, just as Genesis indicates.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | Hey there Steen.........
I asked if my observation disturbed you.
Your answer........
| Steen wrote: | | Well, given that there is no particular meaning or context to your message, no I am not. I am wondering about why you posted it. |
Good. I thought perhaps you had attached some special significance to the ring species report you posted, and maybe you felt my post trivialized a Gull evolving into another Gull.
I must admit my post was intended to render as absurd the notion that a whole new species had actually evolved.
I'll reveal the science I use.........
Gull + Gull = Gull |
But you are assuming that the term "gull" refers to a single species of bird. It does not. It refers to a much wider grouping of many different species of birds.
What has been shown here is that within this wider group, one species gave rise to one or two others (depending on where you situate the oldest population in the ring.) So we are still looking at the evolution of a whole new species. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robbo wrote: | | Anyone considered that evolution was created by God? Perhaps God wanted his creation to be able to live anywhere they want on the earth so God gave the creations an ability to adapt to their surroundings. |
Amen! This is such a simple and beautiful idea! It is the essence of theistic evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | I agree with you Robbo!
Any process of evolution/adaptation that may exist was created and put in place by God who is, and was, and is to come!
God formed man in a single day from the dust of the earth, and in His own image! |
Thank you. At least you do not make the silly assertion I have seen elsewhere that adaptation and evolution are not related. Adaptation is, of course, the principal outcome of natural selection.
The evidence indicates that humanity is also a product of evolution so far as our physical bodies are concerned. How that relates to humanity being formed in the image of God is a theological question, not to be confused with the scientific question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Van wrote: | What did Darwin have in mind when he talked of "structures of ancient progenitors?" At one point in Chapter 13, Darwin says, "We cannot, for instance, suppose that in the embryos of the vertebrata the peculiar loop-like course of the arteries near the branchial slits are related to similar conditions, in the young mammal which is nourished in the womb of its mother, in the egg of the bird which is hatched in a nest, and in the spawn of a frog under water."
What is he talking about?? The structure of gill slits in fish as an ancient progenitor? If Darwin is talking about recapitulation, that structures representitive of progenitors from a different species can be seen in embryos, then his theory is falsified on this point as well. |
As noted earlier, Haeckel was mistaken to say that human embryos had gill slits, and doubly wrong to enhance drawings of embryos to give the impression that they did.
Darwin, however, was right to note that all vertebrate embryos do display "branchial slits". (I am not sure if these are the same as what modern science usually terms "pharyngeal slits" or not.) These are not in any way, fully-formed gills. They develop differently in different species.
But the focus of Darwin's attention, as you can see from re-reading the passage, is not the branchial slits, but the peculiar loop-like course of the arteries near them.
Why, he asks, do the embryos of species as distinct as a frog, a bird and a mammal all show this same pattern of the arteries. Clearly, it can NOT be a response to the environment, because they inhabit such different environments. Nor can it be a matter of archetypal design, for the same reason.
So what is the simplest explanation? Inheritance. All have inherited this pattern of arterial development from the same earlier progenitor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gbundy, what earlier progenitor?????
Here is a quote that I think puts forth the truth:
| Quote: | | The fanciful notion of gills is based upon the presence of four alternating ridges and grooves in the neck region of the human embryo (called pharyngeal arches and pouches) that bear a superficial resemblance to gills. While similar arches do give rise to gills in certain aquatic vertebrates such as fish, their developmental fate in mammals has nothing to do with gills or even breathing. |
My point, is that Darwin was wrong because he thought the ridges were branchial slits - fish gills. He connected ridges in the neck with evidence of evolution from fish by calling them branchial. Embryos do not have branchial slits. Darwin on this point was wrong.
Last edited by Van on Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steen, you have posted the twaddle that Darwin's theory on the Origin of the Species is not a theory. Please stop posting absurd nonsense. Such action on your part, defining my terms is twaddle. Darwin referred to his theory as his theory. That is how I am using the word, as defined in the dictionary, not your arcane and self-serving definition.
Summary of thread.
Steen posted a falsehood.
Gbundy accepted the falsehood
Both, like Rather, now say the falsehood demonstrated an underlying truth. Both are in denial. Their eyes are wide shut.
The fossil record has falsified Darwinism.
The pre-Cambrian phyla, around six, do not in any way answer the question, where did the around 100 phyla of the Cambrian explosion come from. No phyla have "evolved" since but around sixty have gone extinct.
The fossil record is adequate to rule out the "evolution in the gaps" argument.
The only theory I have and am referring to is Darwin's published theory, repeat theory, on the Origin of the Species. This theory has been falsified, the changes we see from the fossils to our present life forms did not occur as Darwin though possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
A working hypothesis:
As I was laying on my back, looking up at the beautiful clouds of Utah in August, I imagined I saw spaceships and elephants.
But the spaceships had not arrived from outer space and the elephants did not share an ancient progenitor with the elephants of Africa.
Therefore, I expect Darwin's idea will be shelved one day as a beautiful construct of his mind, having little to do with reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robbo
Sea Monkey
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Sydney Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
edit:don't worry about this post i was confused about evolution
Last edited by Robbo on Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
STABYC
Little Guppy
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 36
Location: KNOXVILLE, TN
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steen wrote: | | Upset? What do you mean? I am very calm, I assure you. Is there any point where I have not been calm? |
Yes
| Steen wrote: | | This is not another attempt at being patronizing like Dust were, is it? Because that would be downright silly. But presumably you were just mistaken about me, right? |
No, I am not being patronizing or "silly" or even calling you any names or trying to belittle your intelligence, just stating my opinion of how upset you sound in your posts and trying to give you some friendly advice.
| Steen wrote: | Hmm, I am not sure why you think I am upset? Perhaps you view being in disagreement with creationist ideas to be "upset"? That would indeed be a rather odd and narcissistic interpretation, and I sure hope that I am wrong about you engaging in such behavior. So you are not, right?  |
Why would you even make a statement like this when you don't even know which side of this "debate" that I am on? Maybe that is why I think you are upset. Perhaps it is your calling people names that makes me think that you are upset. Or maybe you are just a mean-spirited person who likes to call names and belittle other peoples intelligence so you will look smarter. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since you were new you were just getting a little bit "too intense". But maybe I was wrong. I can admit when I am wrong. But hey, everything that you are saying is the truth and absolutely correct and there is no way that there could be any other view point that could be correct or intelligent (by the way, just so you won't call me any names or tell me what I am thinking, I was being sarcastic in this last sentance).
Science is a good thing most of the time. But it is not always the truth and nothing but the truth. Even scientific "facts" are proven wrong sometimes. Jesus is the only truth.
_________________
Jesus loves me, this I know |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3397
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stabyc, get on topic and off personal commentary, please. This is your moderator speaking. 
Everyone else has already been told. Nobody wants to see me get upset, do they? 
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5301
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:44 pm Post subject: NOTE! |
|
|
It seems that once or twice a month I have to remind everybody!
"DEBATE THE POST & NOT THE POSTER" Do not debate eachother!
If you're new on this board, I advise you to study the board rules!
They can be found at the top of all the forums! "Please Read Them."
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Van wrote: | | The fossel record is well developed and does not support the theory that Darwin proposed. Hence we have neo-Darwinism. You can debate it if you want. |
I stand corrected yet again. Neo-Darwinism arose in the 1920's or 30's when Darwin's theory of acquired traits - flightless birds were flightless because they lived on islands without predators and therefore lost flight capability due to disuse of their wings (Chapter 5) was discarded. So yet another area of Darwin's theory of Evolution has been falsified. The new theory, a synthesis of gene mutation causing varability with natural selection was subsequently modified (overturned??) in the 1970's due to the fossil record not supporting continual and constant change over time, but rather the observance of fully formed emergence of life forms followed by millions of years of statis, wholly inconsistent with Darwin's model.
Bottom line, Darwin was wrong on almost everything. He was right about species adapting due to environmental pressure, or lack thereof, and what is alive today came from what was alive back then. Other than that he was completely wrong on all other counts. Life conditions do not cause acquired traits, embryos do not have gill slits, and the fossil record does not support gradual continual change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robbo wrote: | | sorry if this sounds offensive, but if humans eveloved from monkeys how come monkeys are still around? |
First, are you confusing monkeys with chimpanzees? They are not the same you know. Chimpanzees are our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom. Gorillas and orangutans are more distant. Smaller apes are more distant still. And monkeys are very, very distant relatives.
Second, you are mis-understanding the pattern of evolution. Chimps, (nor any other of the animals named) are our ancestors. They are cousins, with chimps being close cousins (like first cousins with whom we share say, a common "grandparent"), the other great-apes being like second or third cousins (same great-great grandparent) and monleys being like maybe 32nd cousins (a common ancestor in the far distant past). Now you know that when your great-great grandpa died (even if it was before you were born) that didn't mean your cousins also died. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Van wrote: | | Gbundy, what earlier progenitor????? |
http://www.avph.hpg.ig.com.br/acanthostega.htm
Possibly this fellow or one of his contemporaries.
Here is a quote that I think puts forth the truth:
| Quote: | | The fanciful notion of gills is based upon the presence of four alternating ridges and grooves in the neck region of the human embryo (called pharyngeal arches and pouches) that bear a superficial resemblance to gills. While similar arches do give rise to gills in certain aquatic vertebrates such as fish, their developmental fate in mammals has nothing to do with gills or even breathing. |
My point, is that Darwin was wrong because he thought the ridges were branchial slits - fish gills. He connected ridges in the neck with evidence of evolution from fish by calling them branchial. Embryos do not have branchial slits. Darwin on this point was wrong.[/quote]
Well, yes they do. I expect that Darwin was using the term "branchial slits" for what are now more neutrally called "pharyngeal slits".
bran·chi·al (brngk-l)
(Biology, Zoology, Ichthyology)
adj.
Of, relating to, or resembling the gills of a fish, their homologous embryonic structures, or the derivatives of their homologous parts in higher animals:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/branchial
pharyngeal slits -- Characteristic of chordates, pharyngeal slits are openings through which water is taken into the pharynx, or throat. In primitive chordates the pharyngeal slits are used to strain water and filter out food particles; in fishes they are modified for respiration. Most terrestrial vertebrates have pharyngeal slits only in the embryonic stage.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_P.html
Pharyngeal slits are homologous (i.e. they develop from the same region of the zygote) to the embryonic slits in fish embryos which eventually become gills in fish. But in human embryos they do not develop into gills (that's where Haeckel was wrong). They basically disappear or are co-opted into parts of the throat, jaw and ear structure.
Any basic text on human embryology will confirm the temporary existence of pharyngeal slits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
