Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism
-
ScienceDaily (June 14, 2012) — The morphology of coelacanths has not fundamentally changed since the Devonian age, that is, for about 400 million years. Nevertheless, these animals known as living fossils are able to genetically adapt to their environment.
This is described by PD Dr. Kathrin Lampert from the RUB's Department of Animal Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity along with colleagues from Würzburg, Bremen, Kiel and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) in the journal Current Biology. "Coelacanths are rare and extremely endangered. Understanding the genetic diversity of these animals could help make preservation schemes against their extinction more effective" says the biologist.
Previous genetic studies focused mainly on the biological relationships of coelacanths to lungfish and and vertebrates. In order to assess whether the fish are still able to adapt to new environmental conditions, however, you have to know the genetic diversity within the species. For this purpose, the research team examined 71 specimens from various sites on the east coast of Africa. The researchers analysed genetic markers from the nucleus and from the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cells.
The data generally revealed low genetic diversity. As presumed, the evolution of these animals is only progressing slowly. Nevertheless, certain genetic patterns were only found in certain geographic regions. "We assume that the African coelacanth originally came from around the Comoros Islands, home to the largest known population" Lampert explains. Since then, however, two further, now independent populations have established themselves in South Africa and Tanzania. In addition, the animals around the Comoros belong to two genetically distinct groups. "We have thus been able to show that despite their slow evolutionary rate, coelacanths continue to develop and are potentially also able to adapt to new environmental conditions" says the RUB researcher. "The image of the coelacanth as a passive relic of bygone times should therefore be put into perspective."
Coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae, were regarded as extinct until Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer discovered a live specimen on a fishing boat in 1938. Since then, more than a hundred have been found off the coast of East Africa, most of them off the Comoros. There are probably only a few hundred specimens left in the world, which are seriously threatened with extinction. "Coelacanths are close relatives of the last common ancestor of fish and land vertebrates, and therefore of great scientific interest," says Kathrin Lampert. "By researching them, we hope to gain new insights into one of the major steps of evolution: the colonisation of land."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120614094115.htm
My comments are as below:
The coelacanths are known as "living fossils", a term coined by Charles Darwin for creatures alive today whose fossils are found in rock layers supposedly millions of years ago i.e. they are virtually unchanged during all those supposed time periods whereas many other creatures have already evolved into different kinds altogether e.g. dinosaurs to birds. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
But surely this proves an anomaly since the term is an oxymoron. That the coelacanth has remained virtually unchanged over millions of years should cause discerning readers to sit up and take note and question why. See also http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils
-
Sure, the snake talked.
Then adam and eve ate the fruit with powers.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure, the snake talked.
Then adam and eve ate the fruit with powers.
That's what the Bible says, Eve listened to satan and ate from the tree. Whether the fruit itself had powers or not is a matter of speculation, but the very act of eating is a direct defiance of God's clear command not to eat. Did Adam and Eve become wiser? Yes in a sense they did. They realised that the wiser thing to do was that they should have obeyed God instead of the devil, but by then it was too late. The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. -
As an agnostic, allow me to present my findings.
No. I will not do so, let me explain why.
This debate between creationism, evolution, between theist and atheist worldviews have been going on for a very long time. And whether any sides of the party would like to admit or not, there has been very intelligent people on both sides of the party, as well as very stupid and midly retarded people. But for argument's sake, let us only consider the intelligent people.
When i first came to know about atheism, and who supported atheism, i came to believe that science must be the answer to it all. And that there is definitely nothing comparable to this field. But as i age( currently 17 ), i have come to realised that science is nothing more but a hypothesis, refined over and over again by very capable men, although there is no concrete proof for which gravity exists, we are able to state that for the laws of physics to work this way, well, something like gravity should exists. And if experimental data matches up, then it most probably does exist. But still, that is a hypothesis, and nothing more.
And it is a worldview that is powered by the same thing that powers religions. Faith. For the atheists or agnostics, it is faith in the truth of the great scientists that has drawn up reliable and inteligent theories, and it also faith for the theists to believe in a personal god, despite not having met one ever. Much like how scientists has neve met gravity. You simply cannot confirm the existence of a immaterial entity.
The only reason why i'm an agnostic, is because i find some portions of theist arguments fallcious. For example, the noah's ark. As an aspiring engineer, i have went to the troubles of reconstructing the ark, and by measuring the volume of each animal, roughly replicate the scenario in which they could be fitted into the ark. Which is impossible.
1. The ark was too small to fit so many animals. Let alone food.
2. Did the animals drop all animalistic instinct to prey upon one another? How so? Would animslas not require great intelligence ( much like humans ) to bond together intimes of crisis?
3. Their droppings.
4. The shape of the ship, and the upthrust onthe ship, would not have been equal to weight of the ship and animals.. Long story short, they would have sunk.
-
Pardon the grammer and spelling errors.
-
Originally posted by OscarLeegacy:
As an agnostic, allow me to present my findings.
No. I will not do so, let me explain why.
This debate between creationism, evolution, between theist and atheist worldviews have been going on for a very long time. And whether any sides of the party would like to admit or not, there has been very intelligent people on both sides of the party, as well as very stupid and midly retarded people. But for argument's sake, let us only consider the intelligent people.
When i first came to know about atheism, and who supported atheism, i came to believe that science must be the answer to it all. And that there is definitely nothing comparable to this field. But as i age( currently 17 ), i have come to realised that science is nothing more but a hypothesis, refined over and over again by very capable men, although there is no concrete proof for which gravity exists, we are able to state that for the laws of physics to work this way, well, something like gravity should exists. And if experimental data matches up, then it most probably does exist. But still, that is a hypothesis, and nothing more.
And it is a worldview that is powered by the same thing that powers religions. Faith. For the atheists or agnostics, it is faith in the truth of the great scientists that has drawn up reliable and inteligent theories, and it also faith for the theists to believe in a personal god, despite not having met one ever. Much like how scientists has neve met gravity. You simply cannot confirm the existence of a immaterial entity.
The only reason why i'm an agnostic, is because i find some portions of theist arguments fallcious. For example, the noah's ark. As an aspiring engineer, i have went to the troubles of reconstructing the ark, and by measuring the volume of each animal, roughly replicate the scenario in which they could be fitted into the ark. Which is impossible.
1. The ark was too small to fit so many animals. Let alone food.
2. Did the animals drop all animalistic instinct to prey upon one another? How so? Would animslas not require great intelligence ( much like humans ) to bond together intimes of crisis?
3. Their droppings.
4. The shape of the ship, and the upthrust onthe ship, would not have been equal to weight of the ship and animals.. Long story short, they would have sunk.
Firstly, let me warmly welcome (hand shake) you to my forum. I hope you find this forum a conducive "place" for reasoned dialogue. I do have to again inform you that the owner of SgForums has quite a habit of locking my threads without prior warning, or else she would moved it over to Eternal Hope and locked it there permanently since I can't unlock my threads there. Anyway, let's see how it goes.
Secondly, I agree with you that there are intelligent people on both sides, and not so intelligent people as well. So let's discuss as intelligent people who believe that the other person who disagrees with me is just as rational, or wants/tries to be rational.
Thirdly, I am very impressed that at the age of 17 you have (in my opinion though) seen through the facade of scientism, that it promises much more than it can possible deliver. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but creationists (like myself) like to make the distinction between OPERATIONAL and HISTORICAL science. Operational science is the kind of science that puts man on the moon and give us our technology and gadgets. It is based on repeated tests conducted in labs or present day research work. Historical science is about history, events that have already happened, and we try to use science (where if at all possible) to piece things that has happened. But since it is history it falls outside the scientific method. When try to understand the past a lot of assumptions and beliefs about the unobservable past comes into play. The issue of origins falls into this category. So what both atheists and creationists have are really BELIEFS about the past when it comes to origins.
Fourth, I agree with you that we cannot confirm or prove the existence of God, if by that we mean empirically. If God exists, then He is not the subject of scientific test since God by definition is immaterial. But I think you would appreciate that modern science was birth in Western Europe, where the Judeo-Christian worldview was dominant. The founders of modern science saw in their discoveries the wisdom of God behind the wonders of nature. Their discovery of the world did not mean the rejection of God, but a confirmation that there is a God.
Fifth, I would be happy to explore with you further the reasons for your agnosticism. I can assure you that there are reasonable answers to address your concerns about the fallacies of theism, or the Bible. For example, Noah's Ark was huge. It wasn't a child's silly tub boat you see in many children books. You can sort of picture it like this below in Hong King
http://creation.com/ark-hong-kong
Someone is even building a replica here http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/August/Life-Size-Ark-Replica-Takes-Shape-in-Holland-/
About food? Well, the Ark has plenty of room. Noah only needed to bring in pairs of KINDS of animals that God brought to him. Notice that the Bible says God brought the animals to Noah, he did not need to hunt for them. Noah did not have to bring in every species of animal into the Ark, only the representative KINDS. He did not need to bring in marine creatures or insects as well. And most animals might well have been in hibernation mode and thus cut down the need for food or waste cleaning. Of course, Noah was about 600 years old when he went into the Ark, when you are that old you are smart and wise enough to know how to deal with animal waste too.
There's more that I can say but would you please take a look here http://creation.com/noahs-ark-questions-and-answers and perhaps we can discuss further?
-
Evolutionists have often argued that creationism cannot be taught as a scientific alternative to the question of origins opposite evolutionism as it is not science. They would insist that creation be thrown out of the science class and be contented that it should be taught as religion in religious education class where it supposedly belongs.
Or so we are led to believe.
Now the uncontented evolutionists are taking one step further. They are arguing that teaching creationism in religious classes would confuse students who are taught evolution in science classes (see http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1079). Just as it is unacceptable in science class it is now also unacceptable in religious class (See http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1082).
This is evidently a strategy they use to throw the teaching of creation entirely out of the class, whether it be science or religious education class. Once they get a victory in one aspect the evolutionists will take another step to secure another victory, until they get what they want, the complete secularisation of education and the eradication of anything remotely hinting of a divine Creator. For them, education is not just academic but it must be godless as well.
-
46% of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.
For the full report see http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
-
And... they say most Americans are not very bright....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you can read my earlier post you can see why I said you erred, as usual.And you won't repeat pointing out... This can go on until you point out where I " erred, as usual."
Accuser must point out to have a basis to accuse. You have none.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
And... they say most Americans are not very bright....
You must be referring to the other 54% who believe in an old earth. -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
And you won't repeat pointing out... This can go on until you point out where I " erred, as usual."
Accuser must point out to have a basis to accuse. You have none.
Huh? This is so out of context. Why bring in a post from another thread to make a fuss here? Don't be so defensive lah. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you can read my earlier post you can see why I said you erred, as usual.
-
Quote you to let you see how fast your accusations goes before you think and post. It was only just one page before this.... in this thread....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Huh? This is so out of context. Why bring in a post from another thread to make a fuss here? Don't be so defensive lah.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You must be referring to the other 54% who believe in an old earth.
Please READ "they" in the sentence you quoted me just before that^ reply. Assuming must be amusing to you.
Its a flawed argument using the survey on americans as it was an appeal to majority to argue for whatever you were arguing. I remembered there was a time when almost all believed that the earth was flat.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Quote you to let you see how fast your accusations goes before you think and post. It was only just one page before this.... in this thread....
Well, that one page before this was 1.5 months ago and I wasn't checking back past pages to see when and where I said what. Anyway, rest assured that I will still point out the errors you make in your posts, as usual. -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Please READ "they" in the sentence you quoted me just before that^ reply. Assuming must be amusing to you.
Its a flawed argument using the survey on americans as it was an appeal to majority to argue for whatever you were arguing. I remembered there was a time when almost all believed that the earth was flat.
Yes, I did find that amusing, whoever the "they" you were referring to. LOL!
The poll was simply that, a poll. And don't be so trigger happy to allege a fallacy when none exist. I wasn't even using the poll to argue for anything except to point out that 46% of Americans recently polled did not buy the standard evolution story of origins. And this percentage remained fairly constant after a few decades.
Was there ever a time when almost all believed that the earth was flat? When was that "time" that this belief was prevalent and dominant and held by almost all?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Well, that one page before this was 1.5 months ago and I wasn't checking back past pages to see when and where I said what. Anyway, rest assured that I will still point out the errors you make in your posts, as usual.
And that did not justify your accusation of me being defensive and fussy. And also did not point out where was my error last page. Now I have corrected the error, please carry on.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes, I did find that amusing, whoever the "they" you were referring to. LOL!
The poll was simply that, a poll. And don't be so trigger happy to allege a fallacy when none exist. I wasn't even using the poll to argue for anything except to point out that 46% of Americans recently polled did not buy the standard evolution story of origins. And this percentage remained fairly constant after a few decades.
Was there ever a time when almost all believed that the earth was flat? When was that "time" that this belief was prevalent and dominant and held by almost all?
Your admission to amusing yourself with your assumptions before clarification confirmed my observations.
http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2010/03/24/polls-show-americans-are-stupid/
http://fosterdisbelief.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/gallup-poll-americans-still-stupid/
http://mikenv.hubpages.com/hub/Most-Americans-are-Stupid-and-Easily-ManipulatedStill cannot deny you used the poll to argue your point... whatever it was.... Correlation does not imply causation....
I should have added "educated" after the "all"... or simply replace with "majority" accordingly.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Your admission to amusing yourself with your assumptions before clarification confirmed my observations.
http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2010/03/24/polls-show-americans-are-stupid/
http://fosterdisbelief.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/gallup-poll-americans-still-stupid/
http://mikenv.hubpages.com/hub/Most-Americans-are-Stupid-and-Easily-ManipulatedStill cannot deny you used the poll to argue your point... whatever it was.... Correlation does not imply causation....
I should have added "educated" after the "all"... or simply replace with "majority" accordingly.
Of course I know what you are insinuating about who is not very bright. I was merely turning it on you, since the 54% is more than the 46% and fits the "most" part.
And still using it against you, your weblinks does not change my point at all. Most people are easily manipulated and indoctrinated into thinking that nothing can create everything, lifeless matter can turn into living organism, and so-called simple cells can turn into complex human beings, all by inserting eons of time into it. The irony of it all is that these very people call creationism wishful thinking and fairy tale? Duh....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Of course I know what you are insinuating about who is not very bright. I was merely turning it on you, since the 54% is more than the 46% and fits the "most" part.
And still using it against you, your weblinks does not change my point at all. Most people are easily manipulated and indoctrinated into thinking that nothing can create everything, lifeless matter can turn into living organism, and so-called simple cells can turn into complex human beings, all by inserting eons of time into it. The irony of it all is that these very people call creationism wishful thinking and fairy tale? Duh....
Erm... I know the Americans are... so I conclude the American polls are not projecting accurately.
-
Intelligent Design is nothing more than another name for creationism. nothing new. just fallacy, lie and delusional.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
Intelligent Design is nothing more than another name for creationism. nothing new. just fallacy, lie and delusional.
Why am I not surprised that you do not know the difference between creationism and intelligent design? Of course you have yet to support your allegations which is just mere polemic. Hot air, no substance. -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure, the snake talked.
Then adam and eve ate the fruit with powers.
prove adam and eve were historial figures, that they exists first and not some figures from harry potter or superman from DC comics. I have yet to see a talking snake, have you?