A Creator is Evident

[Donald G]

by kgcayenne » 3 minutes ago

There's random, and then there's the opposite of random. Intelligent design fits into the latter.

If you make that millions of years of intelligent redesign through thousands of genetic mutations we can agree.

[Farmmaa]

There's random, and then there's the opposite of random. Intelligent design fits into the latter.

I suppose your theory would work - IF one believed that evolution was purely random....which I do not.

[kgcayenne]

LOL - uhhhh....

Etymology is very important. I suggest you look into this.

[Donald G]

by kgcayenne » less than a minute ago

LOL - uhhhh....

Etymology is very important. I suggest you look into this

et·y·mol·o·gy (ĕt′ə-mŏl′ə-jē)
n. pl. et·y·mol·o·gies
1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.
2. The branch of linguistics that deals with etymologies.

I had to break out my dictionary for that one. If I have the accurate definition I think that etymology can only serve to help clarify matters regarding the migration of languages since man entered Europe about 35,000 years ago. Not help to clarify evolution for the last at least 3.2 million years since Lucy and Lucy's baby.

Including the migration of the human voice box to the position it now holds which permitted the range of sound that led to language.

[Farmmaa]

LOL - uhhhh....

Etymology is very important. I suggest you look into this.

ooohh good, there's that condescension again.

Etymology has ZERO to do with the origins of evolution or how biological and physiological changes occur over millions of years.

[OREZ]

My comment on page six, as you know, was due to the non-stop debate regarding the definitions between scientific terms, phrases and studies...and really wasn't about the topic at hand.

Sorry, but it's just as tedious for me. It's just not possible to have a discussion on this without clearly defining terms as is becoming very clear the longer this discussion goes on.

I don't believe that anyone, any time, any where, has ever suggested that there is undeniable proof of exactly how the universe, or even the earth, first came to be or exactly the moment life began. That is, other than true Creationists.
There are theories, there are biological links, there have been great strides made in scientific study - but no, there is no definitive proof of how life first began.
There is also no definitive proof of one single common organism from which all life developed.

I've never heard a "Creationist" (that's another very broad term btw) claim to have undeniable proof of the existence of God. Most Evolutionist will admit that they really have no idea how life first began but that they are somehow 100% sure it had nothing to do with a God or creative intelligence of any kind.

Those who believe in evolution believe just that - that species changed and evolved over time to become the form that they are now.
Why do you suggest that these changes have to be random mutations ? Most are adaptations, developed over millions of years in accordance with the environment and what is needed by that organisms in order to survive and thrive.

I don't suggest that these changes are random, the Theory of Evolution insists that it does. Any mutation that gives one genetic line an advantage and therefore would be selected to be inherited by future generations, resulting in adaptation, had to have a cause and if it was not part of a design, it was random. This is an important part of the theory. I didn't make it up.

We see examples adaptation all over the place, simple farmers new about this ability to affect a species many moons before Darwin was even born and employed this to domesticate and selectively breed animals for preferred traits. We also see variations in wild species which have adapted to their environment. These changes are often cyclical, going back and forth, corresponding to changes in environment. It is, however, a HUGE leap to say that this kind of change over time is adequate to create completely different body designs in animals in completely different taxonomic categories, which all came from the same single celled organism, which somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup. That is what evolutionary biologists believe though, but there is no rock solid, undeniable proof of it and I doubt if there ever could be.

[Donald G]

Orez ...

You seem to rule out that the first bacterial life could have arrived on meteors or meteorites. While not my long suit and not my personal belief, I think that there is evidence that certain types of bacteria can survive both in space and in smokers under the sea. My personal favourite is that the first bacterial life existed in the Great Rift Vally back when it was part of Pangea or even the predecessor to Pangea. Sulpher feeding bacteria mutated to oxygen feeding bacteria and the rest is mutating genetic evolution history.

Given about 2000 mutations per generation and millions of generations that reflected survival of the fittest mutation would give billions of possibilities for advancement in adapting to the ever so slowly changing world.

[kgcayenne]

Given about 2000 mutations per generation and millions of generations that reflected survival of the fittest mutation would give billions of possibilities for advancement in adapting to the ever so slowly changing world.

No evolutionists have been able to produce the trail of fossil records that would confirm this.


Why is that?

[Donald G]

by kgcayenne » 4 minutes ago

Donald G wrote:
Given about 2000 mutations per generation and millions of generations that reflected survival of the fittest mutation would give billions of possibilities for advancement in adapting to the ever so slowly changing world.

by kgcayenne >> 4 minutes ago

No evolutionists have been able to produce the trail of fossil records that would confirm this.


Why is that?

Before soft shelled life developed a hard shell there was very little chance of any life leaving a fossil. I seriously doubt that any will ever be found. There is lots of millions of year old fossils of hard shelled or boned creatures being found all the time.

In spite of that there are exceptions that have permitted evidence of life to be found from periods shortly after life first formed, at least THREE BILLION years ago when pieces of RNA (rather than DNA) came into being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[OREZ]

Before soft shelled life developed a hard shell there was very little chance of any life leaving a fossil. I seriously doubt that any will ever be found.

There are fossils of algae and bacteria from before the Cambrian period and you say soft shelled creatures wouldn't have been preserved? Hmmm.
In the fossil record, the event known as "The Cambrian Explosion" shows the sudden appearance of complex animal life, fully formed, representing most of the animal phyla with features such as complex eyes, segmented bodies, multi-jointed legs, etc. with basically no ancestors. Oh! And there’s jellyfish and worms too, plenty of them. They fossilized just fine without shells or bones.
If common ancestry is a fact we should see loads of ancestors. Darwin himself recognized and acknowledged this as one major objection to his theory but he was confident that more fossil evidence would be found. They've been looking for over 150 years and hypothesizing about possible explanations for this event but it's still a major conundrum among evolutionists. It's known as the Cambrian Explosion among evolutionists for a reason.

[Donald G]

by OREZ » Yesterday, 7:33 pm
In the fossil record, the event known as "The Cambrian Explosion" shows the sudden appearance of complex animal life, fully formed, representing most of the animal phyla with features such as complex eyes, segmented bodies, multi-jointed legs, etc. with basically no ancestors. Oh! And there’s jellyfish and worms too, plenty of them. They fossilized just fine without shells or bones.

I agree with you regarding lots of fossils from the Cambrian period of time but that was only about 500 million years ago and most of the fossils that have been found are of major animal phyla.

To my knowledge there are very few "fossils" that reflect the bits and pieces of initial "life" that led to the evolution of fully formed animals two and a half billion years later during the Cambrian Explosion.

[Bsuds]

In every picture of Adam and Eve they have belly buttons.

Think about it, take all the time you need.

[maryjane48]

i posted in the social thread a link to a article that states humans bred with neandrathols . so which one was adam and which one was eve ?

[Glacier]

The one question I've always wondered about is whether or not Adam and Eve had sex in the garden.

[Rosemary1]

If one accepts that everything has a beginning from which it evolves/ mutates neither the theory of evolution or a Creator satisfactorily provides an answer since even a Creator/God by whatever name we use, had to have a beginning.

So at this point belief in either evolution or a Creator and whatever one is most comfortable with is probably equally valid.