[_ Old Earth _] New Giraffe Fossil Throws Light on Evolutionary Trend

[Jacks Bratt]

I find that evolution is based on small windows into the past based on the remains of animals that once lived. These bones tell, only, that an animal with those particular bones was alive once and then died.


We have all different kinds of animal bones. Many have similar bones or skeletal structure. This, in no way proves that animal "a" originated from a long line of animal "b"'s offspring. It proves, simply, that they were similar.

Evolution has no desire to get into where all life started. This would involve what they call "magic" and if the type of "magic" needed to create life really did exist then there would be no need to start with just one life form and watch it grow and reproduce and become thousands of other life forms by slowly evolving. This type of "magic" could create thousands of different life forms from day one.

Evolution is popular due to the fact that it can happen without a supreme being. I know, there are many "Theistic Evolutionists", but I don't understand them. They believe in a God that created the universe but only created one life form and sat back for billions of years as it evolved into His prize beings....humans. Why? Why would God do that?

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and if He said He created it in six days, I will believe Him. If He created it at all, He did it as He said He did.

I will trust, fully on the word of God and when men look at some bones in the ground and use them as evidence to contradict what the God of the universe says....... I'll believe God over men any and every time.

I have also seen pictures, read literature, news paper articles and documents stating that bones of super human proportions have been found, and some still being found, that totally contradicts the TOE and back up the Biblical account of the history of mankind. Not to mention that these beings would totally explain the existence of the many megalithic structures of this earth. These artifacts and proofs are a thorn in the side of today's scientific community. They want them to go away. They use propaganda tactics to dilute the sources and then state that they are all hoaxes and fakes. That's right, every single source of proof is a hoax or a fake.

There are many many complete skulls yet they call them hoaxes and fakes. Meanwhile they find half of a jaw and partial skull and build a totally complete being and amplify their discovery, not only as fact but as the missing link or solid proof of evolution. Many complete skulls = fake while one half fragmented skull with some other bones thrown in = proof of a un-observable, un testable and unrepeatable theory.

The way I see it is that my God spoke the whole universe into being. He certainly didn't tell us that He did it in six days and formed man Himself before breathing life into his body, then using a rib to create a woman, if it took a billion years of animals and plants living and dying before it ended up with humans.

If my God exists, then creation, as written, is possible through Him. I will hold to His words over the assumptions, suppositions, extrapolation and dreams of men trying to prove that my God is unnecessary for our existence and that my God doesn't exist.

 

[Barbarian]

The only fact that comes from a fossil is it died. If there is a spear in its head we might come to the conclusion it died of brain injury but we do not know.

See above. There's an astonishing amount of information in bones, and as you see, it can tell us many things about the animal and how it lived.

You call these transitional fossils that is a big jump you do not know its daddy or mommy.

Transitionals aren't necessarily ancestors. Archaeopteryx, for example, is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, (because it has apomorphic characters of both groups) but it's unlikely to be the direct ancestor of birds. Close, but probably not the specific one. This is why creationist Kurt Wise admits that there are many transitionals, and that they are "strong evidence" for evolution.

(idea of frogs turning into dogs)

Barbarian observes:
If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

What are you talking about when you say evolution?

Change in allele frequency over time. Ultimately, common descent is a consequence of this.

(confusion over "evolution")

It's a problem for many creationists. Generally, the word means "change." But let's use the one from biology. Perhaps you would be better to use Darwin's term, "descent with modification."

Micro- evolution is science it is the only one listed that is science

No. In science, "macroevolution" is speciation, the evolution of a new species. Microevolution is evolution within a species.

You do know what science is? Right?

I've spent a lifetime studying it, and I do teach it.

Barbarian asks:
You actually think that's what the theory says? The theory only describes how living populations change over time.

Idea that we shouldn't be here, if there are still monkeys)

(Yes. That's a common misconception. Evolution normally happens by branching, and primitive forms (such as okapis) often live on long after other forms evolve from them.

How do you know when and how long?

Evidence. Genetics, anatomy, embyrology, fossil record, things like that.

Barbarian observes:
"Races" is what people called species in those days. Even "Answers in Genesis" warned their followers not to use that argument. It's based on a misunderstanding of what the word meant then and now.

You sure like to dance I know you read the title of the book Charlie was very clear he separated the 2

No. Neither was closely defined, but Darwin's book had nothing at all about human evolution. He never made any claims about that in The Origin of Species, which is why AIG cautioned creationists not to use that argument.

I own a copy of orgins of species I think it would do you good to read it............. Oh you all ready have ...... but are playing ignorant to what it says and who Charlie was and his beliefs.

I'd be pleased to see where, in that book, he discussed human races. Tell us about it.

These were the same beliefs that Hitler embraced and used to justify his desire to exterminate the Jews.

No. First, Darwin argued that to even fail to help less capable people, was an "overwhelming evil." Second, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's plan for improving human populations was scientifically insupportable. Hitler even burned Darwin's books.
The real impetus for eugenics came not from Darwin, but from creationists like Dr. William J. Tinkle, one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr_west_meet_dr.html

Barbarian regarding YE creationism's disagreement with Genesis:
However, it's not a salvation issue.

Do you think leading people away from truth and away from God is not a salvation issue?

If YE creationists are wrong about it, no, it's not a salvation issue. But they do sometimes lead people away from God thereby. I've see a good number of people so damaged by YE that they lost their faith.

I don't believe you're mocking God, or leading people away from Him. Most creationists who are Christians are good and decent people who love God.