I have a Question.

[Ajavi12]

If God created all things in 7 days, then doesn't that mean that man lived amongst the dinosaurs? Did man ever conquer these dinosaurs? I know this sounds foolish, but I'm serious. Is there any mention of dinosaurs in the Bible? What happened to the Dinosaurs? I really hope someone can help me with this.

[CoreIssue]

If God created all things in 7 days, then doesn't that mean that man lived amongst the dinosaurs? Did man ever conquer these dinosaurs? I know this sounds foolish, but I'm serious. Is there any mention of dinosaurs in the Bible? What happened to the Dinosaurs? I really hope someone can help me with this.
I believe reading here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1919&highlight=pre+adamic) will give you the answers you want. Or, at least a good start.

[DaimyoMateo]

65 million years ago there was a mass extinction (there was a even bigger mass extinction many millions of years earlier) which the dinosaurs suffered and could not continue on. Mammals were around then and before but were much smaller just trying to make a living in the shadows of the larger dinosaurs. The dinosaurs really did live a long successful life for millions of years. Human history is only a small microscopic fraction compared to the dinosaurs.

[CoreIssue]

65 million years ago there was a mass extinction (there was a even bigger mass extinction many millions of years earlier) which the dinosaurs suffered and could not continue on. Mammals were around then and before but were much smaller just trying to make a living in the shadows of the larger dinosaurs. The dinosaurs really did live a long successful life for millions of years. Human history is only a small microscopic fraction compared to the dinosaurs.
Actually, that is a theory I believe used to explain away the fall of Satan and his angels.

The whole evolution thing does not stand up to analysis.

[DaimyoMateo]

I guess I don't see what you mean by that. Evolution is of course theory. That should not be considered a negative thing either. Does anyone believe in gravity? Gravity is a theory also. Scientist of course dont claim to have the absolute fact on something. They take alot of time testing it and trying to make it fail. Gravity was once thought to be some sort of gravitional field. Later it was discovered to be better explained as a warping of space that effects the entire universe that in turn effects matter's movement. Evolution is a pretty solid theory but in the near future some minor details may change due to new discoveries. Like is natural seletion pressures on individuals, species, or simply the genes themselves? there is alot of information for scientists to work with but close to about billion years things get harder and harder to test and study. Until we have better ways to study this distant past we will have to wait. I think a billion years is alot for now to work with and a great window into our history.

[CoreIssue]

My point is Evolution is a bad theory that has no real evidence to back it at all.

Yes, it should be taught. But so should Intelligent Design.

A LOT of major scientist, Christian and otherwise, totally reject evolution as having any actual standing in reality.

[DaimyoMateo]

Yes I know there are scientists still out there holding tightly to their faith. I can totally understand how hard it must be to grow up with certain beliefs so strongly ingrained into our brains. For the majority of my life so far I have believed certain things about American history that is still part of the education today for children. Turns out that alot of things have been withheld that really put a negative light on our history in the U.S.
I am ok with that I know alot of nations have a need to promote a postive image of themselves which one does not really need to do postive things just get rid of the negative things. ok now I am getting off track here :)
All I am trying to say is this. In the past there have been times that certain ideas about the world around us is thought to be one way based on explaintions at the time. Of course it is not a universal explaintion, I mean Aztecas had their beliefs and Chinese had their views on life also. Several hundred years ago it was believed by many in Europe that the solar system was the universe and that everything revolved around Earth. We are God's special creation and he has his complete attention on us. The stars in the night sky are there for our enjoyment etc. It was not just the church but alot of people at the time in that region thought that because we had no other way to expand our knowledge so had to rely on beliefs to help explain the life we find ourselves in just like every other culture at the time and before.
Well there was a small group of people who just could not agree with this and set out to discover new ways at examining the world. It did become clear that the solar system is not the universe and that everything moving around out there are not just there for our dazzling eyes to watch. Not only the Earth but our Milky Way is not the center but just a small fragment in a massive universe. Well of course this all caused much controversy and the church fought tooth and nail against these new ideas that seemed opposed to God's intention with his special creation with us. After hundreds of years it became pointless to be opposed to the new understanding of reality. What was once heresy had now became normal everyday facts. so today we find ourselves once again with a new controversy. While Science it trying to expand our understanding of life in opposition is religion which despretly trys to drags our understanding back into that little box of beliefs & faith which has been placed on our heads since birth.
I don't nessary disbelieve in Intelligent Design but whatever this creator is it would most likely be one that not one religion on this planet past or present has ever come close to explaining. To say I dont know is far more a scientific statement then to simply say God did it.

[CoreIssue]

First, I note when you speak of historical Church, you do some from a Catholic perspective. You need to get over that.

They never have been the sole speakers for Christianity. But they frequently were the persecuters of those who disagreed with them.

Next, the Bible does not teach the earthm or our solar system, is the center of creation. It teaches something quite different, when one actually reads it literally, not per doctrine.

Going on, I began as an evolutionist. So, I have never suffered from any ingrained beliefs, as you speak about.

In fact, science was the biggest factor that showed evolution to be false.

Also, you are wrong in thinking many scientist cling to creationism because of thei religion. Fact is many agnostics and atheists have declared it a joke.

I belief in Pre-Adamic Creation. The link you should have seen is loaded with proofs for it.

What I am getting at is the erroneous thinking of many, historically, does not mean it came from the Bible or that Christianity is changing. It means there are always there who want it their way, and turn their backs on Biblical truth.

Nothing in the Bible has ever been shown wrong. Doctrines about it sure have. And many such should have never existed, if the adherents had actually done some studying.

[DaimyoMateo]

please explain to me where in the theory of evolution it begins to break down. I hear alot here on how it is false but never any support to show that it truly is false. I hear alot about holes in the theory but never has it been pointed out to me. I have read alot on it and seems very solid foundation.
I once heard the same thing from a pastor who told me he used to follow science alot but then went on to say he was left with unanswered questions that science could not explain. So he went and found religion and it provide the answers he needed. I thought to myself for a moment after hearing this and wondered why is he in such a hurry to have answers? If scientists had all the answers they would be out of a job now. Why fill in the gaps wih answers you can go through and pick and choose what sounds good? I don't choose to believe there is a star out there close by the we call a sun. It is there and will be for another 5 billion years. I would rather choose Christianity because it is nice to think that after 50 or 60 years or so of life here I could spend eternity in Heaven. Who wouldn't like that?
I have noticed in this country it rare for the moment that Evolution is not taught or really understood. I was talking to a polish girl working at the airport here and she told me in Europe evolution is taught in school like any other subject and knows how supported it is.
We could go on and on with this or simply agree to disagree.
This is a debating forum and this is what we are here to do. I do enjoy hearing everyone's views and like to have thought provoking discussions and I thank you for making this a fact:tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

Well:
1. There are no proven missing links for any species. Every claimed missing link turns out false.
2. There are no fossils showing any life form in transition. Like beginning wings, legs disappearing or so on.
3. Statistically, evolution is impossible. It is the same as a lightening bolt striking a junk yard with a fully functional B-52 setting there when the smoke clears.
4. There are no living transition life forms.
5. Moths and butterflies life cycles show the absurdity of evolution claims. No way the cacoon stage could have evolved into existence.
6. Scientist recognize these realities and invented such as Punctuated Equilibrium to try to get around them. And eve more absurd theory that drove a lot of scientists away totally.
7. Core boring has shown there never was a time the earth did not have an oxygen atmosphere. Those so called simple cells cannot form if there is any free oxygen around.
8. The DNA code of those supposed simple, most basic, life cells, fill an unabridged dictionary. Yet, the cells were suppose to have come into existence by pure chance.
9. How did not universe come into existence? Only 3 possible answers:
a. It always existed, which violates the Laws of physics, since they know matter ages and dies, thus it had a beginning. Plus such an idea violate the Law of Cause and Effect.
b. It just popped into existence for no reason. Again, a violate of cause and effect, plus a bunch of other laws of science.
c. It was created. Which does not set well with those who reject a creator.

Science totally avoids the ultimate beginnings issues.

Just some reasons. Hope that helps.

[DaimyoMateo]

Thank you for the list because it does help me understand your reasoning for dismissing evolution. I will of course provide list of my own to counter your arguments as I am sure you knew I would :)
I do find Evolution a very beautiful explanation and will do my best to provide the reasons for this to you. I am not an expert in the field but only a person with a huge appetite for knowledge and have recently been devouring books on the subject left and right. Soon will be flying out to San Franisco to see Richard Dawkins (evolutionist) lecture which I am excited to do. You have given me much to consider and ponder on how to put into words for the list you created. I'll be back!

[DaimyoMateo]

Some of your questions are really the same question repeated just put in different words but I will do my best to answer them.

1. “There are no proven missing links for any species. Every claimed missing link turns out false.”

What would you consider is a “missing link”? What do you expect to see or find? I have heard so many times how we (Homo sapiens) are the only known intelligent life in the known universe. We have cast this invisible bubble around us where we consider everything on the outside to be inferior. Now try to imagine a Martian scientist with a really big telescope watching and studying us. Of course to prove my point here when I wrote “us” in the last sentence I am sure many people felt I was talking about humans. Well you are right I was and every other Earthling from bacteria & ferns to blue whales & spiders. Only I was not singling out humans as the only Earthlings here. If the Martian populace asked him/her/it if there was any intelligent life on Earth how would this Martian scientist categorize us? We are used to the way we do it and have humans on one side and everything else on the other. I believe the Martian scientist could just as easily say that those that can make a living without intelligence like plants and fungus maybe even single-celled animals are one. All other life forms that have a brain would be in the intelligent category. We must remove the arrogant goggles that so many people unknowingly have on their eyes to truly see the world for which it really is. This “missing link” you speak of could really be right under your nose and you will never see it as long as your vision is tainted.

2. “There are no fossils showing any life form in transition. Like beginning wings, legs disappearing or so on.”

You and I and everyone else are in transition right at this very moment! J It must be common knowledge that children come from their parents and get half their genes from each one. The father’s contribution is 25% his mother’s and 25% his father’s and same goes for the mother. The father’s genetic projectile will determine if the child will be a female or male. So we know we carry on the genes of our parents but we are also a slight mutation of them too. Every generation is a mutation of the former. Mutations have three possible outcomes on an organism. First and by far the most common are the mutations that do absolutely nothing; they neither help nor harm the life form. Second are the ones that do harm the creature and nature will (unconsciously) remove it from transmitting harmful genes because the creature would of course die before it could have sex most likely. Third and the rarest are the ones that actually are helpful to the organism. Could be something so faint and so slight that just an added inch to a leg here or change of color there could make all the difference between getting food or being food sort of speak. Thus the creature would survive better and spread this gene into the populace.
Let’s look at the Hippopotamuses for a moment. I mean no disrespect to our Greek ancestors of ancient times but they did incorrectly name this animal the “river horse”. Well they are right that it does like to be around rivers but is it really a horse? The evidence reveals that it is not; at least not in the sense that it is closest relative because after all we are all interconnected just some grew farther apart over time. So what is the hippo’s closest relative? Well of all things it is the whale. “A whale’s front limbs are used for steering and stabilizing. There are no externally visible hind limbs at all, but some whales have small vestigial pelvic and leg bones buried deep in their bodies.” p.197 “The Ancestor’s Tale” by Richard Dawkins.

3. “Statistically, evolution is impossible. It is the same as a lightening bolt striking a junk yard with a fully functional B-52 setting there when the smoke clears.”

You have just shown me how little you know about evolution. Evolution is a very gradual process that takes hundreds of thousands and millions of years. What you are describing sounds to me a lot like the almighty Zeus because wasn’t he the one throwing lightening bolts around? A supreme being like Zeus could throw a bolt into a junk yard and Pow! a B-52. Only a God with magic powers could make something like that take place. So you may say well the concept of a God explains how we could have come to be. You are right it does explain but it does not mean it is right. All religions explain it and all have ample amounts of faith to back it up too! I am curious to see the statistics you have that evolution is impossible. I may ask how God came to be then. I have heard by many Christians that he created himself! This reminds me of the student who was talking about Abraham Lincoln and said “He was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands.”p.184 “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen
Please show me the statistics on how possible it is for an invisible gaseous invertebrate to have absolute knowledge with no brain and to be the creator of everything.
Well you could then say he has always been there. Ok I can see how you could lead to that answer when the other becomes so absurd. I could with the same argument simply say well matter & energy have always been here or DNA or RNA has always been around.

4. “There are no living transition life forms.”

I kind of answered this in 2 but will now add some more stuff. I think what you are implying is why we don’t see creatures that are half one thing and half another. Well I should hope not! Only in a world of a supreme being could such wacky wild creatures could come to be. Remember there are more ways of not being alive than there are being alive. A life form that is half pelican and half walrus would make no sense at all. The massive body of the walrus half would make it impossible for the bird half to be able to fly. Fish are fish not because what they look like. If I asked you to draw a fish you would most likely draw the same form that many others would draw. That is only one form though. Whales have a similar body as a fish but they are not fish. They are like that way because that is a successful body frame for survival in the ocean. The genes that cause it to look like that have been able to pass along the generations and become numerous. “Some old cook books lump lobsters in with fish but the truth is that lobsters with better justice could lump us in with fish. Humans could be thought of as fish modified to live on land”. (The Blind Watchmaker)

5. “Moths and butterflies life cycles show the absurdity of evolution claims. No way the cacoon stage could have evolved into existence.”

There could have been a time when cocoons were not made. A creature with the mutation gene to make something similar to a cocoon may have had a better survival rate than those that did not create one. So over time that gene became more and more in the population. I guess I don’t really see how evolution is absurd in explaining this.

6. “Scientist recognize these realities and invented such as Punctuated Equilibrium to try to get around them. And eve more absurd theory that drove a lot of scientists away totally.”

Are you telling me that the majority of scientists are driven away from the theory of evolution? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
https://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html (https://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html)

Well this states otherwise that the majority support evolution even if it is a Christian site.

http://www.televar.com/users/jnj/item25.htm (http://www.televar.com/users/jnj/item25.htm)

maybe this too?

7. “Core boring has shown there never was a time the earth did not have an oxygen atmosphere. Those so called simple cells cannot form if there is any free oxygen around.”

Ummm true. That is why something else took place. Plants don’t use oxygen and it is a by-product. Over time oxygen did become very abundant and that is why we have a little buddy called mitochondria. Organisms have developed special relationships with each other and more so than others. Our cells don’t know what to do with oxygen but only through the help of the mitochondria do we benefit from it. Mitochondria use the oxygen and in turn provide us with energy. As it turns out “mitochondria are almost certainly the descendants of bacteria that began to live inside other single-celled organisms more than a billion years ago. They have hitched along for the ride ever since, providing plant & animal cells with energy in return for a comfortable place to live.” p.25 “Mapping Human History” by Steve Olson
Mitochondria have their own DNA which is separate from ours and is only passed on through the mother’s side. This is how scientists discovered “Mitochondria Eve” who was a woman that lived about 200,000 years ago and is the “mother” of all humans today. Of course this should not indicate that she was the only female alive. There were others but her mitochondria lineage is the only one that survives in us today.

8. “The DNA code of those supposed simple, most basic, life cells, fill an unabridged dictionary. Yet, the cells were suppose to have come into existence by pure chance.”

Do I really need to answer 3. again? J


9. “How did not universe come into existence?”

“not” must be “the”
You really are giving me some difficult questions hereJ
I do have an answer for you though and it is the most honest of all answers…..I do not know. This is the biggest difference between science & religion and the reason why I feel a lack of respect for the latter. Science wants to understand the world, life, and the universe. It does so with the utmost care and consideration to develop a logical, sound, and provable explanation. Scientists begin their journey with a clean, empty examining table and start with we do not know anything so let’s begin with the evidence for whatever we want to understand and make hypothesizes and tests which we can then make a logical explanation. Only from this can we begin to know anything. Religion on the other hand is the complete opposite. It begins with all the answers for everything and creates a certain mold which it so desperately tries to cram reality into. Science is not avoiding the issue and if anything it has provided more to the understanding of our past than religion ever has. Science is doing its best to reach into the distant past and give us the evidence right on the table but religion is like heavy weights strapped to civilization’s back dragging us down. If you think that evolution is instantly faulted because it does not have an explanation for the beginning of the universe (at least not yet anyways) than I can simply give you one…..The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Jessie]

for your last paragraph, science has'nt provided more understanding rather,
a lot of confusion.

one thing that must be noticed is their errors, that every so often they will say,
they messed upon, but it was taught as fact and not theory.

their gadzillions of yrs for change is nonsense. and the evolution they subscribe to and what you talked about by having different genes, are 2 different things.

there is science that shows creatures just showing up, complete, not "evolving".

[DaimyoMateo]

I would rather rely on theories that step by step move toward the truth than the imaginations of curious but not scienific man of thousand years ago.

You are wrong about the errors. Yes we are humans and we do make mistakes. Based on current ability to test and understand things we do are best.
When you say errors it is misleading.
True an idea may be wrong but because we figure it out to be wrong we move our understanding toward fact.
Religion just sits there convinced it is right while not testing anything or having any proven data.
Science wants to move from falsehood toward fact while religion really does not care it just wants to believe it so.

[DaimyoMateo]

there is science that shows creatures just showing up, complete, not "evolving".09-24-2006 03:51 PM

You are right about this.
These creatures that don't evolve are known to the scienific community as religious folk.

[CoreIssue]

Let me keep the answers brief.

There was no proofs from you. Just canned rhetoric common to evolutionists.

Missing links means part of the old species and part of the new, at the same time.

Darwinianism demands it, it cannot be found, thus Punctuated Equilibrium was formulated. A foolish idea that change builds up, unshown, and then in a generation or two, comes out in the form of a new species. Absurd theory.

You have shown neither a fossil or living one. You just attempted to kill the issue by trying to make those who see it is wrong look like indoctrinated fools.

I would suggest you are the one suffering from indoctrination.

Yes, there are many scientist who openly endorse evolution but private reject it. The reasons of job loss and such are not theories, but facts.

Mutation is not evolution. Adaption is not evolution. There is no showable evolution in Man or in any other living thing.

Your statement all has just always existed is disproven by science knowing the Universe has a life span. Matter dies. And that systems run down, they do not get stronger.

As for stats making evolution impossible, here is one read on the issue. (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut06.htm)

As for moths and such, slow evolution is impossible. They totally break down in the cacoon stage and reform. That is either right the first time, or forget it. No second chances.

Fact is you really said nothing. Your answers were typical canned evolutionists talking points. Said nothing, attempt to make the appoint look illogical and unthinking and are faith statements.

Indeed, atheists, agnostics and such are members of religions. Everyone is.

A religion is something one holds supreme with doctrines, faith statements and a view of reality built around it. We all have one.

[CoreIssue]

I would rather rely on theories that step by step move toward the truth than the imaginations of curious but not scienific man of thousand years ago.
What step by step closer to the truth?

They are still at the theory point of centuries ago.

You are wrong about the errors. Yes we are humans and we do make mistakes. Based on current ability to test and understand things we do are best.
When you say errors it is misleading.
True an idea may be wrong but because we figure it out to be wrong we move our understanding toward fact.

Which evolutionists are not doing.

Faced with a choice between a creator and evolution, they go with evolution, not because they have any proof. But because they cannot stomach the alternative.

Plain as that.

Religion just sits there convinced it is right while not testing anything or having any proven data.

More blind and false atheistic rhetoric.
Science wants to move from falsehood toward fact while religion really does not care it just wants to believe it so.
Nonsense.

Atheism and Humanism ARE relgions. Get over believiing otherwise.

[Jessie]

there is science that shows creatures just showing up, complete, not "evolving".09-24-2006 03:51 PM

You are right about this.
These creatures that don't evolve are known to the scienific community as religious folk.

apperently you are'nt as well versed as you'd like to be,
to say that.

have to have all the facts....

[DaimyoMateo]

"their gadzillions of yrs for change is nonsense. and the evolution they subscribe to and what you talked about by having different genes, are 2 different things."

Jessie please explain further I really don't understand what you mean by 2 different things and different genes. Are you saying you don't believe we have different genes? I think the genes are the same it is just in a different order in life forms.
How much time would you say would be a reasonable amount of time for change?

"You cannot cross a wide river if you keep going back to shore to rest"
Sun Tzu (544-496 B.C.E)

[Ladyberg]

You and I and everyone else are in transition right at this very moment! J It must be common knowledge that children come from their parents and get half their genes from each one. The father’s contribution is 25% his mother’s and 25% his father’s and same goes for the mother. The father’s genetic projectile will determine if the child will be a female or male.

I am sure with this comment, you are trying to equivocate microevolution with macroevolution. This is something that many evolutionists try to do all of the time, saying that any change within a species is proof for evolution since macroevolution has never been demonstrated/witnessed. Minute changes in a species' genetic material have been demonstrated, but this does not prove that especiation or any large-scale change has occurred in the past. In order for any change to be meaningful in terms of macroevolution, it must be a step leading towards a bigger and greater change.

Mutations have three possible outcomes on an organism. First and by far the most common are the mutations that do absolutely nothing; they neither help nor harm the life form. Second are the ones that do harm the creature and nature will (unconsciously) remove it from transmitting harmful genes because the creature would of course die before it could have sex most likely. Third and the rarest are the ones that actually are helpful to the organism.

While it is true that most mutations have no effect on organisms what so ever, harmful mutations are not removed from being transmitted as you claim. If this were true, then genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, sickle-cell disease, and Huntington’s disease would have died out a long time ago.

In general, Evolutionists rely too heavily on mutations as a guiding force, or supporting element, for evolution. Mutations are very rare and the mutation of a single locus, or gene, does not have much effect on a large population. This is especially true within a single generation. In order for a mutation to have an increased impact within a population, the individuals who are carriers of the mutation must produce more offspring than usual, and that mutation must be passed along to their offspring. To make matters even worse, the best chance that a specific mutation has in being passed along is only 50%. This is because every locus is a pair, and when genetic recombination occurs during the development of the offspring, the locus is split up and only one loci is passed along. And if the offspring does happen to become a carrier, there is no guarantee that the trait will even be expressed at all. The reasoning behind this is that there is a chance that the mutation is a recessive trait, overshadowed by the dominant trait. Another problem with placing such a high emphasis on mutation for evolution is that on top of mutations being rare, beneficial mutations are even rarer. In short, mutations simply cannot have as big of an effect on evolution as Evolutionists make it out to be.

A life form that is half pelican and half walrus would make no sense at all. The massive body of the walrus half would make it impossible for the bird half to be able to fly.

And the idea of a dinosaur evolving into a bird makes sense? During the transitional phase, it would essentially be the same scenario as your pelican walrus example. The weight of a dinosaur would not allow for flight, and birds have a different bone structure that aids them in flight. Their bones have hollow shafts in them to make them lighter, making flying easier and more efficient. If a dinosaur went through this transition, the bones would not have been able to have supported its weight.

There could have been a time when cocoons were not made. A creature with the mutation gene to make something similar to a cocoon may have had a better survival rate than those that did not create one. So over time that gene became more and more in the population. I guess I don’t really see how evolution is absurd in explaining this.

Are you saying that all of the sudden that the ability to create a cocoon-like state just happened to appear? This is contradictory to Darwin's idea of gradualism, where evolutionary change is a gradual process.

Ummm true. That is why something else took place. Plants don’t use oxygen and it is a by-product. Over time oxygen did become very abundant and that is why we have a little buddy called mitochondria. Organisms have developed special relationships with each other and more so than others. Our cells don’t know what to do with oxygen but only through the help of the mitochondria do we benefit from it. Mitochondria use the oxygen and in turn provide us with energy. As it turns out “mitochondria are almost certainly the descendants of bacteria that began to live inside other single-celled organisms more than a billion years ago. They have hitched along for the ride ever since, providing plant & animal cells with energy in return for a comfortable place to live.” p.25 “Mapping Human History” by Steve Olson.

This quote that you referenced is referring to Endosymbiosis, the theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once small prokaryotes that entered a host cell and became a part of the host cell, or endosymbiont. One problem with this theory is the fact that if the eukaryotic cell did not recognize the mitochondria or chloroplasts as beneficial, the prospective host cell would have digested them. Another problem with this theory is that eukaryotic cells need mitochondria to survive. Mitochondria are necessary to convert energy into a usable form for the cell. The mitochondria is responsible for performing cellular respiration for the cell, which is the catabolic process that generates ATP by extracting energy from sugars, fats, and other fuels with the help of oxygen.

[Jessie]

Ladyburg that was excellent.

[DaimyoMateo]

Yes I am suggesting the small changes could effect large scale changes. It is proven that the Dodo birds were descendents of pigeons that flew out to remote islands. The dodo bird had no reason to continue and maintaining flight due to the fact that there were no predators for the Dodo It could stay on the ground longer and find food etc. It evolved that way because it the situtaion was better for it that way until of course it had the misfortune of encountering an animal that slaughtered them for fun which were the humans.

Yes I believe mutations play an important role in evolution. Nature is blind but has ways to adjust itself over the millions of years life travels through. You bring up illness that should of died out long ago well nature is not perfect and I am sure some will continue on. The fact of evolution is not the issue but the theories behind it I see fine tuning going on.

You seem to think that all animals are the same as they were 10s of millions of years ago. You will not see a walrus of today mixed with a bird of today. This is were christian community who dont believe in evolution dont understand. Triangulation explains this were the creatures that are in question have both evolved separetly that the one creature that both came from may to our eyes not look much like the two desendants. The ancestor shares some trace of the two who have had millions of years to alter if need be.

Should I believe that humans today are the same as humans of the past and the same goes for the rest of the animals?

[Jessie]

man has'nt changed in 6000.

and where is the proof of the dodo bird changing from being a penguin?

[DaimyoMateo]

Jessie I agree with you 100% we have not changed in 6000 years, Well besides learning from our mistakes (at least some of us) and exploring places once thought impossible.
6000 thousand years is really not very long on biological evolutionary time scale.
As far as the poor little Dodo here you go

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0227_0228_dodo.html

http://www.mauritiusdelight.com/dodohist.htm

http://www.internationaldovesociety.com/MiscSpecies/ExtinctDodoRelatedtoPigeons.htm

http://www.jasperfforde.com/dodo.html

If I was at home right now I would quotes a wonderful passage from a great book"The Ancester's Tale" by Richard Dawkins that explains the evolution of the Dodo and the sad end to a misunderstood animal.

http://www.dodopad.com/dodofact/dodofact.htm

think that is enough.

[Ladyberg]

Yes I am suggesting the small changes could effect large scale changes. It is proven that the Dodo birds were descendents of pigeons that flew out to remote islands. The dodo bird had no reason to continue and maintaining flight due to the fact that there were no predators for the Dodo It could stay on the ground longer and find food etc. It evolved that way because it the situtaion was better for it that way until of course it had the misfortune of encountering an animal that slaughtered them for fun which were the humans.

You are equivocating microevolution with macroevolution again. Simply stating that an animal has evolved is not proof that it actually evolved. As I stated in my previous post, macroevolution has never once been observed. Outside of the many “just so” stories of evolution, where is the proof that small changes have added up to a large-scale change?

Yes I believe mutations play an important role in evolution.

Considering the issues with mutations that I provided in my last post, how can mutations play an important role in evolution?

Nature is blind but has ways to adjust itself over the millions of years life travels through. You bring up illness that should of died out long ago well nature is not perfect and I am sure some will continue on. The fact of evolution is not the issue but the theories behind it I see fine tuning going on.

I have noticed that many Evolutionists refer to nature as an ambiguous guiding force, almost as if it were an impersonal god-like entity running evolution. This is especially apparent when Evolutionists try to explain processes like natural selection by giving nature a persona. With this said, how exactly do you view nature?

Triangulation explains this were the creatures that are in question have both evolved separetly that the one creature that both came from may to our eyes not look much like the two desendants. The ancestor shares some trace of the two who have had millions of years to alter if need be.

Triangulation, or common descent, is based on the logical fallacy of similarity equals relationship. Just because two animals share some similar traits, it does not mean that they are related. Many times when animals are classified together, some similarities are emphasized while others are overlooked, or ignored. Take for example the two terms homology and homoplasy. Below are definitions of these two terms.

Homology: Similarity of parts or organs of different organisms caused by evolutionary derivation from a corresponding part or organ in remote ancestor, and usually having a similar embryonic origin. May also refer to a matching pair of chromosomes. Serial homology is the correspondence of in the same individual of repeated structures having the same origin and development, such as the appendages of arthropods.

Homoplasy: Phenotypic similarity among characteristics of different species or populations (including molecular, morphological, behavioral or other features) that does not accurately represent patterns of common descent (= nonhomologous similarity); it is produced by evolutionary parallelism, convergence and/or reversal, and is revealed by incongruence among different characters on a cladogram or phylogenetic tree.

Source: Integrated Principles of Zoology, Twelfth Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2004.

The difference between homology and homoplasy is a wonderful example of how evidence is force-fitted onto the theory of evolution, instead of having the evidence speak for itself. Take for example the caudal fin of the dolphin and the tuna, which are very similar in structure. Since the two animals are not concidered to be closely related, this similarity is classified as homoplasy and is swept away by simply saying that they both evolved the same structure/ability in order to survive in the same environment.

As far as the poor little Dodo here you go…

The only evidence that all of the web sites that you presented is that the dodo is related to a pigeon because of DNA similarity. Once again, this relies on the logical fallacy of similarity equals relationship. Humans have a 75% DNA similarity to that of a nematode worm. Does that mean that humans are closely related to nematodes?

[DaimyoMateo]

You are equivocating microevolution with macroevolution again. Simply stating that an animal has evolved is not proof that it actually evolved. As I stated in my previous post, macroevolution has never once been observed. Outside of the many “just so” stories of evolution, where is the proof that small changes have added up to a large-scale change?

Yeah I know what you mean. Human life spans are just not long eough to see this change or many other interesing phenomenon that could be seen as miracles. Our history is still not long enough to read the records of people from the past either. So how could someone have proof of this? I mean I feel the sun's warmth and notice it only happens to be warm out when the sun is visable out in the day. Should I make the connection or is it still not enough proof? Someone could I suppose make a good argument that we should not assume things like that. MAybe the rays of light from the sun really hit the Earth's atmosphere and then casue it to heat up so really it is the Earth itself. The theory of evolution is an explanation that takes the fossils, the DNA, and social behaviors in all animals, certain enviroments produce different forms etc, into plausible case. I am glad to hear that you care about the importance of evidence. Some people don't even bother. Good to be critial minded and question things.
Yes I do view nature as an impersonal force sort of speak. But see I will not make an absolute claim as maybe some evolutionists do or religious people do. I really do not know and I am sure it is possible for intelligent design. That could be a god/gods or even an advanced alien race that could be the intelligent designer. I have not seen any alien races coming down here so I cant at the moment make a theory about that but only a guess. I have not come across Zeus or Odin or any other godlike entity so until I do I stick with the other.
Now if we did evolve from a certain animal wouldnt you thnk we would share alot of our DNA sequence with it sense less time has occured to distance themselves genetically?
I think it is worth looking into.

[Ladyberg]

Now if we did evolve from a certain animal wouldnt you thnk we would share alot of our DNA sequence with it sense less time has occured to distance themselves genetically?

A similar DNA structure could also indicate that all life has come from a single creator, or God. It does not automatically mean that evolution took place. In my opinion all of the physical evidence, such as the complexity of life, points to evidence of God's existence. I do not see how life could have come to be without God, because life is just too complex to have come into existence on its own. Even the most advanced machine that man has invented is no where near as complex as life itself.