Places to Chat
Creation Vs. Evolution!
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Creation Vs. Evolution!
Creation Vs. Evolution! This is the new spot, people! Now as I was saying, why can no one explain the point that there are no intermediate links, at least not that we can find. And even if they are fossilized...how come there are no living ones?
submitted by Phoenix, age 12, The U.S.A.
(September 6, 2008 - 7:15 am)
(September 6, 2008 - 7:15 am)
Very good point, Phoenix. The missing links are missing. Even for the human line, as I had been saying. Darwin suggested that the geological record might be imperfect, but how could that be, because it seems to be only the missing links that went unfossilized. He predicted we would find lots of links between species, but we haven't found any. Creationism provides a good explanation as to why the dinosaurs and other animals are no longer living: the flood killed them all (except two of each kind). The others were killed off for various reasons. Oh, and here's some food for thought. Flies and cockroaches and other bugs are supposed to be billions of years old. So why haven't they evolved into something better over that amount of time?
(September 6, 2008 - 2:18 pm)
"Missing link" is an outdated and irrelevant term. Transitional is a better word, because there isn't usually a true single link. It's more a series of different organisms that slowly go from one niche to another. We have found lots of links between species. I don't get this: "...because it seems to be only the missing links that went unfossilized." Well, yes, they have been called missing because they're unfossilized.
Flies and cockroaches: and alligators, too. They fit their environments really well, so change isn't necessary. Termites, however, have evolved from cockroaches, I believe. Research is still ongoing, but the closest links are Cryptocercus and Mastotermes.
How do creationalists explain vestigial organs?
(September 6, 2008 - 5:51 pm)
Well, then transitional forms. My point was that there is no good reason for them to go unfossilized, so they must not exist. You probably haven't heard about this, but lack of transitional fossils is presenting a major dillema among scientists and is one of the major problems with Evolution.
(September 8, 2008 - 6:57 pm)
There are plenty of good reasoins for them to go unfossilized. Different body types would decay faster than others, and some wouldn't live/die in environments suitable for fossilization. Can you name a specific organism? Chances are, it wasn't widespread, or existed in large populations.
But I have provided several examples of transitional fossils that lead to everyday animals like the horse.
And I'd still like to heard how verstigial organs are explained.
(September 9, 2008 - 2:35 pm)
A specific organism being: a Dinousaur/bird. (We had already agreed that archaopteryx was a bird, earlier on, as far as I know.) We have fossils of dinosausrs, and of birds, so the in-betweeners should have no reason to go unfossilized. Do you have any specific organs in mind?
(September 10, 2008 - 4:15 pm)
Ok, here's some of what I have on a transitional animal between a reptile and a bird. To begin, I will have to say, to borrow an old phrase, that I beg to differ with the earlier agreement that Archaeopteryx is a bird. Although on the surface it looks like a bird, it has several features that modern birds do not possess, relating it closer to reptiles than birds. Birds do not have jaws, with teeth. Birds have bills and beaks. The skull attaches to the neck from the rear, not from below, like modern birds, due to a different posture. A long tail. Wrist joint bones, and feet bones free. (In modern birds they are fused.) Hesperornisis an example of another transitional fossil, with half a jaw and half a beak.
Here are some related non-avian dinosaurs. They had feathers. Jinfengopteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus.
Oh, I actually do concede that Archaeopteryx can be called a bird because it has feathers, and that is the only criteria for defining a bird, but that's just naming. It is very different from modern birds, and proves how they are related to reptiles.
Vestigial Organs: Here are a few. The leg and pelvic bones in whales. The eyes of blind cave fish, and blind mole rats. The wings of flightless birds. The human coccyx.
(September 10, 2008 - 9:46 pm)
OK, I know I said I was done with this, but I want to say some more. First I have a question: Where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs, or Native Americans, or China? To me it seems the Bible is missing some things. I can't really say it's totally wrong; I am reading it and I do believe what it says. However, I also believe in what it DOESN'T say. There are many books that went missing and were changed over time. The great flood is a theme represented in almost every world religion (including ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, and Aztec/Mayan religions). Cockroaches and other bugs have stayed almost the same for millions of years becuase their design is so perfect. They have everything they need to live. Plainly speaking there is nothing that needs to change about cockroaches (and that is why they survived as species). *Bonus cockroach fact: Cockroaches can live for a week with out their head; after a week they starve to death!* I have one more thing to ask: why isn't anyone talking about God and evolution coexisting? I feel that these two concepts can work together. You guys have mostly been focusing on disproving one or the other, but I want some critism on my idea, too. (I know, I'm kinda selfish. ha-ha)
(September 6, 2008 - 9:05 pm)
I don't see why the Bible would mention Native Americans. It's a ton older than they are.
(September 7, 2008 - 3:24 pm)
People first crossed Beringia from Aisa into North America at about 12,000 BC. The Hebrew Scripture was first compiled at around 1,200 BC. You're missing a zero.
(September 7, 2008 - 9:26 pm)
Okay, this is a note on the Bible. I was just reading it, and it says (I don't know where, somewhere in the beginning) that after having a baby, if it is a boy, a woman is "unclean" for 7 days; after having a girl, shes unclean for 14 days! This is not saying the Bible is a horrible thing; it's saying that you shouldn't take it word for word.
(September 8, 2008 - 4:19 pm)
Remember that that was Hebrew law and is no longer relevant. But let's not get into theology.
(September 8, 2008 - 6:59 pm)
So how do you determine what other parts of the Bible are "no longer relevant"?
(September 9, 2008 - 2:28 pm)
I love theology! My view on that clean/unclean thing is that when Jesus came, He nullified that and other such rules by making everyone "clean."
(September 13, 2008 - 8:23 pm)
He came to to replace the law, but to add to it.
That was a paraphrase of something in the Gospel that Jesus said.
(September 14, 2008 - 8:53 pm)
Happy birthday! =D
(September 15, 2008 - 3:46 pm)