Evolution? How?

rl What about them?(FINELY ADAPTED SPECIES) It is perfectly consistent with creation that an animal would be designed so as to thrive in the environment in which it lives.

No, it does not. An animal will naturally seek to remain in an environment that is suited to it, (i.e where there is food that it may make use of, weather is within it's range of tolerance, places for sleeping, raising young, etc are obtainable)

If the environment in one locale changes to the point where survival is more difficult, the animal may migrate to another. If it is unable to do so quickly enough it may die. If this happpens on a large scale, then the species may become extinct.



I've said nothing of the kind.

On the contrary, just because a 'new' species 'appears' in the fossil record at a certain location does not mean that it did not exist before. This point we have discussed previously.

The 'appearance' of a 'new species' is simply the presupposition of evolution and long ages being applied to given evidence to interpret them in such a way as to reinforce the conclusion that was held at the outset of the exercise.

There are other ways of interpreting evidence that do not presuppose evolution and do not necessitate labeling similar creatures as predecessors or descendants of one another.

The differences you ascribe to adaptation and change can just as well be explained by interbreeding of similar species, or by the existence of another previously unknown species (now extinct) which could have co-existed from the beginning with the others which are now supposed to be ancestors or descendants.

In the case of the bears, there is no reason that both brown bears and polars (and many other varieties) could not have existed from the beginning. In addition, these may have interbred with one another, producing bears with characteristics that seem half way in between. Or another variety (or several varieties) of bear with these characteristics could have existed from the beginning, and now be extinct.

You are now so close to espousing evolution that its difficult to even see the air space between you and Darwin.

Youre becoming a bit enetertaining now with these "special conditions"
lesse-You believe in a "death assemblage" of extinct animals in the fossil record that just may be representative of intermediates of later species. However, under no circumstances , should this be confused with evolution evidence.

So then Creation, if it were a one time event , had to have all the species already there, including some intermediatese that really had no purpose to be there except to fool all us "evolutionists" (This is Avicenna's "vis platica" theory in modern clothing)

Our discussion , a few months ago , had no implcation that "all species who didnt appear in the fossil record could have been living throughout time.They just conveniently failed to become incorporated as fossils Our conversation was a mere single point that you had asked '
viz
"If an animal didnt appear in the fossil record doesnt imply that it wasnt living"(this implied that it could have been living at a specific time but avoided becoming a fossil for specific stratigraphic reasons, The Signor-Lipps "law" merely states that animals become fossilized in response to their numbers and their range)

NOW youve taken a rather obvious stipulation by me and blown it totally out of context and meaning.
All the animals that ever lived, existed in specific time horizons,but not all at once. Otherwise itd be that the fossil record was capriciously ordered,( by someone with a grand sense of humor.
You know that , eg we dont see mammals living with trilobites, nor do we see dinosaurs living with humans), nor do we see polar bears outside of a specifc time and environmental range.

Your first paragraph of your last response needs some careful reconsideration by you. Its illogical and not in agreement with the facts as they exist. The geologic record shows a planet in a dynamic flux. A continental mass moves about at 2 to 4 cm a year and plates bounce off each other like billiard balls. Every time a mass extinction occured in time, it had an underlying environmental reason that resulted in mass "culling" of entire orders . The subsequent recovery of life(in filling of niches) , and the introduction of totally new forms , would, in your mind be representative of "a pre-planned" surplus of only (in many cases) "mildly adapted" species, all of whom were created about the same time and just hung out until their time to go extinct.(Actually, in your model, we couldnt have mass extinctions at all because the entire critical mass of life and all the created forms would possibly already be dead when we needed them, like we need polar bears now)

Id remove the word "intelligent" from the ID title, if that were the only other option that we have. It has gotta be tough being a Creationist, especially when all evidence shoots big holes in the concept.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Well, since you are a Biblical Creationist, for you to lay claim that animals are perfectly adapted to their environments at Creation. To me , this means that all animals that ever lived (even they be extinct and show up in the fossil records from all over the worls, WOuld have all had to be created at once (you did say that Creation is no longer occuring). Therefore, if it dont evolve, and its created , it had to be created alonside of those species that "made it through till today" no?

So how does that make me close to espousing evolution?

youre right, it doesnt, I just read your material too quickly and didnt realize you were talking about the environmwnt. .

I was just trying to understand how you could logically account for all life, both living and extinct , if, as you say, Creation has ceased. Its a revelation (to me at least) that you literlly mean Creation as a one time event.

I dont know where to begin.

Let me get this straight. Correct me if I'm wrong.

All life that ever existed on earth was created at one time.

No new life has ever emerged since Creation.

But life is being exterminated as environment changes.

So we may conclude that over time more and more species will become extinct. Only a very few dominate or lucky ones will be left. Or, perhaps, the only ones left will be the ones God likes since God is an interceding God. He is the one who decides 'thumbs up or thumbs down'.

God didn't like the Dodo bird or the Passenger pigeon.

And, oh yes, I almost forgot. Before A&E ate the apple there was no death. All animals were vegetarians. After the apple was eaten those animals, such as lions, who had the physical means, including the digestive means, turned to killing other animals for food. The reason they didn't do this prior to the apple being eaten was killing other animals for food was evil.

Therefore if we are to be good Christians and not do evil we should all be vegetarians.

Thats what Im having trouble even understanding. I was assuming all along that rl's Creation was going on at times when nobody was watching. Even that makes more sense

Farmerman,

Do you not believe that only a fraction of the total number of species that have ever existed at some point are existing today? I thought that was a given with evolutionists.

Well that's what I believe too, but obviously in a different context.

rl, We have that one single fact incommon, but where I lost the bus was that you explain the fact by a means that is entirely dependent upon a 'process of elimination". Interesting . Ill give you some items to consider tomorrow, I just want to make sure I get my facts staright before I post them.

Im sure others will wish to challenge this new bit of information.

rl, forget about the development of new species for a moment, and answer this: by what rationale might an omnipotent, perfect creator, as necessarily entailed by the ID-iot proposition, provide the means for the extinction of species? If it was good enough for an omnipotent, perfect creator to create, then there should be neither reason nor mechanism for its extinction.

Hi Timber,

Your assumption is that my position must be 'if something occurs, then it must have been God's will for it to occur, or through God's action that it did occur.'

Neither of these represent my position.

Finally something on which we agree ... sorta. Neither condition represents my position either.

But you assert that everything involved in the creation of earth and all animals are through God's action. Is that correct?

By your belief God created and destroyed. Remember the Flood?

Are you now saying that if any species is exterminated it is not the will of God?

If a new species in recent times evolves into another God had nothing to do with it?

Earthquakes, floods, famines and other natural disasters are not the will of God?

Are we to assume then all the plagues, famines, floods and earthquakes the Bible claims God commanded is false?

Or are you saying only some things are caused by God and we have guess which are natural and which are by Devine origin?

God created the universe, the earth and all that life in it, yes.



No, I don't remember it. I wasn't there.

But yes God sent a Flood.



Don't know if it is or not. I would say it would be an error to automatically assume that it is.



This doesn't happen.



Same as above. Don't know if it is or not. I would say it would be an error to automatically assume that it is.




If he said He commanded them then He did. As for other events, see above.



Don't have to guess. You can ask Him.

However if you do, don't be surprised if He says, 'let's talk about you and what you've been doing first.'

(As mentioned previously, since God made you, He really doesn't owe you any explanations. But you are answerable to Him.)

Smarty bird. Hope you are having a great weekend.

Its been a good weekend here, hope yours was too. Thanks for asking.

BTW, rl, is your god omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect?

Hi Timber,

Glad to hear of it.

Well, you know that's a great leading question, and one I'm always willing to discuss; though I'm not sure the Evolution thread is the best place. Some might object that it's way off topic here, though it hasn't stopped any number of detours we've taken.

But if you decide to start a new thread that's ok with me.

They are 3 pretty big topics that you've suggested, so if you don't mind we'll look at them 1 at a time so as to avoid long meandering posts which few folks will have the inclination to fully read.

So, yes, I believe God is omnipotent. I assume you have some objection to that, so put it out there.