Creation scientists

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian,

Questions please.

What was the very first living organism(?) that evolvedinto another, then another?

Evidence suggests a prokaryote, a chemical autotroph, around undersea volcanic vents.

In 1993, before alkaline vents were actually discovered, geochemist Michael Russell from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, US, suggested a mechanism by which life could have started at such vents.1 His ideas, updated in 2003,2 suggest life came from harnessing the energy gradients that exist when alkaline vent water mixes with more acidic seawater (the early oceans were thought to contain more carbon dioxide than now).

This mirrors the way that cells harness energy. Cells maintain a proton gradient by pumping protons across a membrane to create a charge differential from inside to outside. Known as the proton-motive force, this can be equated to a difference of about 3 pH units. It's effectively a mechanism to store potential energy and this can then be harnessed when protons are allowed to pass through the membrane to phosphorylate adenosine diphosphate (ADP), making ATP.

Russell's theory suggests that pores in the hydrothermal vent chimneys provided templates for cells, with the same 3 pH unit difference across the thin mineral walls of the interconnected vent micropores that separate the vent and sea water. This energy, along with catalytic iron nickel sulfide minerals, allowed the reduction of carbon dioxide and production of organic molecules, then self-replicating molecules, and eventually true cells with their own membranes.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrothermal-vents-and-the-origins-of-life/3007088.article

Life brought forth by the Earth.  Who would have guessed?

Did this original organism(?) (if that is the correct term) start the evolution into all things over the multiple megaannums,  gigaannums, or even teraannums ............?

Evidence from extremely old rocks suggests that it happened surprisingly quickly after the Earth cooled and oceans formed.

I am taking a general assumption that plant organisms only evlove plants and that animal organisms
follow the animal kingdom?

Prokaryotes existed for an extremely long time before nucleated cells, which led to fungi, plants, and animals.

I am simply curious about the origins ... as in original origins of what the scientific community has to say about such.

The real key, I think is that in cellular life, the one absolutely essential organelle, is the one that is most simple.    The cell membrane is basically a phospholipid bilayer that spontaneously self-assembles into enclosed cells.

[The Barbarian]

Again, change, evolution is not.

That's what the word means; change.

evolve (v.)
1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolve

If this confuses you, use Darwin's term:  "descent with modification."

The theory of evolution incorporates change into its deep time scenario of simple to complex life through mutations.

No, that's a common superstition, but it's wrong.   For two reasons.  First, you confused evolution (descent with modification) with a consequence of evolution (common descent).  Second evolution doesn't necessarily lead to more complexity.   Our skeletons, for example, are less complex than those of the therapsid reptiles from which mammals evolved.

That being described above is not change due to mutations, but rather change by way of adaption to a changing environment.

Which happened because of mutations.   There was a change in allele frequencies in these populations, due to some mutations being favored over others by natural selection.

The catalyst is the changing environment, not mutation.

That was Darwin's great discovery.   He even pointed out that a well-fitted population, in a constant environment would be prevented from evolving much, because of natural selection. You seem to have become a Darwinist.

One would think such changes probably begin in the immune systems which God placed within His creatures to address the problems of changing environment.

Immune systems normally have very little or nothing to do with it.   For example, the evolution of a new digestive organ by lizards introduced to a new environment was favored by a less-nutritious food supply that needed longer digestion.  Would you like to learn about that?

Creatures apparently already have the built in ability to adapt and change.

As Darwin noted.

This of course is more likely to be the result of design than random chance.

Darwin demonstrated that it wasn't due to either of those.  Want to see an example?

Apparently all life has always had the ability to change or adapt to the changes which occur in their environment. This is observable scientific fact in that we observe many changes between todays plants and animals, and those of the past, including a widespread reduction in size alone in the fossil record.

No, that's wrong.  Giraffes, elephants, and hominins (including us) are larger today than they were in the past.   

As is unquestionably obvious, the earths environment in the past supported plants and animals of a much larger size and variety than now exists.

See above. Your assumption is wrong.

Though evolutionists do understand that all change is not from simple to more complex according to the evidence, their theory is completely dependent upon change from simple to complex.

Nope.  For example, mammals developed much more efficient jaws by simplifying them.    Likewise more effective limbs by simplifying the shoulder girdle.    You've been completely misled about this.

Which of course the theory of natural biological random chance evolution is.

As you learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

No divergence of the two populations into unique species was or has been observed.

No,that's wrong, too.  Even creationist organizations like AIG and ICR now admit that speciation is a fact.   Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Rella]

Evidence suggests a prokaryote, a chemical autotroph, around undersea volcanic vents.

In 1993, before alkaline vents were actually discovered, geochemist Michael Russell from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, US, suggested a mechanism by which life could have started at such vents.1 His ideas, updated in 2003,2 suggest life came from harnessing the energy gradients that exist when alkaline vent water mixes with more acidic seawater (the early oceans were thought to contain more carbon dioxide than now).

This mirrors the way that cells harness energy. Cells maintain a proton gradient by pumping protons across a membrane to create a charge differential from inside to outside. Known as the proton-motive force, this can be equated to a difference of about 3 pH units. It's effectively a mechanism to store potential energy and this can then be harnessed when protons are allowed to pass through the membrane to phosphorylate adenosine diphosphate (ADP), making ATP.

Russell's theory suggests that pores in the hydrothermal vent chimneys provided templates for cells, with the same 3 pH unit difference across the thin mineral walls of the interconnected vent micropores that separate the vent and sea water. This energy, along with catalytic iron nickel sulfide minerals, allowed the reduction of carbon dioxide and production of organic molecules, then self-replicating molecules, and eventually true cells with their own membranes.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/hydrothermal-vents-and-the-origins-of-life/3007088.article

Life brought forth by the Earth.  Who would have guessed?

Evidence from extremely old rocks suggests that it happened surprisingly quickly after the Earth cooled and oceans formed.

Prokaryotes existed for an extremely long time before nucleated cells, which led to fungi, plants, and animals.

The real key, I think is that in cellular life, the one absolutely essential organelle, is the one that is most simple.    The cell membrane is basically a phospholipid bilayer that spontaneously self-assembles into enclosed cells.

So simply stating, life came into being with no acknowledged creator?

[The Barbarian]

So simply stating, life came into being with no acknowledged creator?

God says that the Earth brought forth living things.   All the evidence so far, supports Him.    Which is not surprising.   You might as well ask if hurricanes form with no acknowledged Creator.    What does that even mean?

[Rella]

God says that the Earth brought forth living things.   All the evidence so far, supports Him.    Which is not surprising.   You might as well ask if hurricanes form with no acknowledged Creator.    What does that even mean?

No specific meaning.

I have been reading this subject in  many links but the Encyclopedia Britannica and
what I paraphrased in the following clearly articulates my thoughts on the subject,
and says exactly what I have been trying to say for years.With a few thoughts of my own.

https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution

I can post others, but this one is understandable to the average non scientist.


If  we humans are Homo sapiens, and a culture-bearing upright-walking species that lives on the ground and if we very likely first evolved in Africa as I have read about 315,000 years ago.... I am merely trying to pinpoint from what we are specifically linked in what scientists claim we are linked back in history.

From what I have read we are now the only living members of what many zoologists refer to as the human tribe, Hominini, and while they claim  there is abundant fossil evidence to indicate that we were preceded for millions of years by other hominins, such as Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and other species of Homo, and that our species also lived for a time contemporaneously with at least one other member of our genus, the Neanderthals.

There is a specific reason, actually 3, that drives me in this quest.

First... I will be totally clear that I have not changed my mind at all in thoughts that evolution of man is not a true evolution. Not man as you are.

And I certainly do not,nor ever will agree that man, as you are, came about 315,000 years ago.

Nor the millions of years time lines for other hominems .

The very idea that we and the apes, both living and extinct, are also somehow related is totally beyond comprehension.(Even Darwin was not that nuts)

The following make me shake my head.

There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a "missing link" along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent.

In other words it is an assumption. And as such cannot be thought of any value.

They continue:

In fact, the human "family tree" may be better described as a "family bush," within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

My quest is

1st..  I am a non believing in evolution person , who believes that Adam was the man God created in the book of Genesis,separate from any other that is referenced in that book.

I find it of interest that within the link I posted they say it is theory that we have a common ancestor that they cannot prove.

Yet I also am not a YE believer. However,  the millions and billion year theories fall on my deaf years. I do believe that earth proper had its start well before our direct ancestor Adam ever came on the scene.

2nd.  We are given a specific explanation of how God created Adam and breathed life into his nostrils. Either this is a lie if we came from even an evolutionery bush
or science has it wrong about us. Our HomoSapien lineage.

3rd.  If science got it right...then at what point, during the thousands to million of years and before... as Homo Sapiens were coming into their own.... did God decide that man, as in homo sapiens,  that man would be offered eternal life and He would send His Son to die for our sins so we may be saved and live?

That was not  315,000 years ago or earlier.

That was less then 10,000 years ago when God changed His plans.

[The Barbarian]

The following make me shake my head.

There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a "missing link" along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent.

Yes.   It's very rare that we can identify the precise species that gave rise to another in the fossil record.  We typically know the genus in such cases, but not the precise species.   There are some exceptions, like horses, where we can cut it that fine.

In other words it is an assumption.

No.   It's a conclusion from evidence, such that even YE creationists like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood admit it to be "very good evidence."

They continue:
In fact, the human "family tree" may be better described as a "family bush," within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

Yes.  In fact, there is genetic evidence of occasional hybridization in the various lineages.

My quest is

I find it of interest that within the link I posted they say it is theory that we have a common ancestor that they cannot prove.

Nothing in science is proven.   A theory only becomes a theory when it is repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

2nd.  We are given a specific explanation of how God created Adam and breathed life into his nostrils. Either this is a lie if we came from even an evolutionery bush
or science has it wrong about us. Our HomoSapien lineage.

Or it's an allegory for God giving man an immortal soul apart from evolution.   One of those. 

3rd.  If science got it right...then at what point, during the thousands to million of years and before... as Homo Sapiens were coming into their own.... did God decide that man, as in homo sapiens,  that man would be offered eternal life and He would send His Son to die for our sins so we may be saved and live?

He didn't tell us.   And of course, a soul leaves no evidence.   I suppose He didn't think it was important for us to know.    If the first man and women were Cro-Magnons or H. ergaster, would it matter?   I don't think so.

That was not  315,000 years ago or earlier.

There were humans essentially identical to us, about 40,000 years ago.  But we don't know which kind of human Adam happened to be.    And God,being eternal, does not change plans.   

[Amo]

http://bibliotecapleyades.lege.net/ciencia/ciencia_forbiddenarcheology04.htm

The Museum of Forbidden Archeology

"If we imagine the history of humanity as giant museum, containing all knowledge on this topic, then we shall find that several of the rooms of this museum have been locked. Scientists have locked away the facts that contradict the generally accepted picture of history. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson have, however, opened many of the locked doors and allowed laymen as well as scientists to see inside. Even scientists have been influenced, and rightly so. The Hidden History of the Human Race compels the world of science to enter new territories and calls into question many revered theories about humanity and human history."

-Walter J. Langbein
PARA Magazine, Austria

Anomalous Discoveries From The California Gold Mine

In 1849, gold was discovered in the gravels of ancient riverbeds on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in central California, drawing hordes of rowdy adventurers to places like Brandy City, Last Chance, Lost Campe, You Bet, and Poker Flat. Occasionally, the miners would find stone artifacts, and more rarely, human fossils.

Altogether, miners found hundreds of stone implements - mortars, pestles, platters, grinders, and so forth. Many of the specimens found their way into the collection of Mr. C.D. Voy, a part-time employee of the California Geological Survey. Voy's collection eventually came into the possession of the University of California, and the most significant artifacts were reported to the scientific community by J.D. Whitney, then the state geologist of California.

J.D. Whitney thought the geological evidence indicated the auriferous--or gold-bearing-- gravels, and the sophisticated stone tools found in them, were at least Pliocene in age. But modern geologists think some of the gravel deposits, which lie beneath volcanic formations, are much older.

The Age of the Auriferous Gravels

The majority of gold-bearing gravels were laid down in stream channels during the Eocene and Early Oligocene. During the Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene, volcanic activity in the same region covered some of the auriferous gravels with deposits of rhyolite, andesite, and latite.

In particular, widespread andesitic mudflows and conglomerates were deposited during the Miocene. These attained a considerable thickness, varying from more than 3,000 feet along the crest of the Sierras to 500 feet in the foothills. The volcanic flows were so extensive that they almost completely buried the bedrock landscape of the northern Sierra Nevada mountain region.

Over the course of time, rivers carved deep channels up to a couple of thousand feet below the level of the prevolcanic gravels. This allowed Gold Rush miners to reach the auriferous gravels by digging horizontal tunnels into the sides of the channels. The advanced stone tools found in these tunnels could be from Eocene to Pliocene in age. California State Geologist J. D. Whitney (above) concluded that modern man existed in California previous to the cessation of volcanic activity in the Sierra Nevada.

Anomalous Finds at Tuolumne Table Mountain

Finds from mine shafts can be dated more securely than those from hydraulic mines and surface deposits of gravel. Many shafts were sunk at Table Mountain in Tuolumne County. Whitney and others reported that miners found stone tools and human bones there, in the gold-bearing gravels sealed beneath thick layers of a volcanic material called latite.

Discoveries from the auriferous gravels just above the bedrock are probably 33.2 to 55 million years old. The more important discoveries from Table Mountain add up to a considerable weight of evidence. J.D. Whitney personally examined a collection belonging to Dr. Snell, consisting of stone spoons, handles, spearheads, and a human jaw - all found in the auriferous gravels beneath the latite cap of Tuolumne Table Mountain. Whitney remarked that all the human fossils uncovered in the gold-mining region, including this one, were of the anatomically modern type.

Writing 11 years before the discovery of the Java ape-man, Pithecanthropus erectus, Whitney concluded that,

"Man, thus far, is nothing but man, whether found in Pliocene, Post-Pliocene, or recent formations."

Mortar and Pestle from Table Mountain

This mortar and pestle were found by J.H. Neale in tertiary deposits dating 33-55 million years old.

On August 2, 1890, J.H. Neale signed the following statement about his discoveries:

"In 1877 Mr. J.H. Neale was superintendent of the Montezuma tunnel Company, and ran the Montezuma tunnel into the gravel underlying the lava of Table Mountain, Tuolumne County.... At a distance of between 1400 and 1500 feet from the mouth of the tunnel, or of between 200 and 300 feet beyond the edge of the solid lava, Mr. Neale saw several spear-heads, of some dark rock and nearly one foot in length. On exploring further, he himself found a small mortar three or four inches in diameter and of irregular shape. This was discovered within a foot or two of the spear-heads. He then found a large well-formed pestle....

"...Mr. Neale declares that it is utterly impossible that these relics can have reached the position in which they were found excepting at the time the gravel was deposited, and before the lava cap formed. There was not the slightest trace of any disturbance of the mass or of any natural fissure into it by which access could have been obtained either there or in the neighborhood."

The Calaveras Skull

The most notorious fossil discovered in the Gold Rush mines of California was the Calaveras skull. In February 1866, Mr. Mattison, the principal owner of the mine on Bald Hill, near Angels Creek, removed this fossilized skull from a layer of gravel 130 feet below the surface. The gravel was near the bedrock, underneath several distinct layers of volcanic material.

It was examined by J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, who presented a report on the Calaveras skull to the California Academy of Sciences on July 16, 1866, affirming that it was found in Pliocene strata. This discovery caused a huge sensation in America and many believed it was a hoax.

Broken stone pestle from Table Mountain

In 1891, George F. Becker told the American Geological Society that in the spring of 1869, Clarence King, director of the Survey of the Fortieth Parallel, and a respected geologist, was conducting research at Tuolumne Table Mountain.

Becker stated :

"At one point, close to the high bluff of basalt capping, a recent wash had swept away all talus and exposed the underlying compact, hard, auriferous gravel beds, which were beyond all question in place. In examining the exposure for fossils, he [King] observed the fractured end of what appeared to be a cylindrical mass of stone. The mass he forced out of its place with considerable difficulty on account of the hardness of the gravel in which it was tightly wedged. It left behind a perfect cast of itself in the matrix and proved to be part of a polished stone implement, no doubt a pestle."

Becker added:

"Mr. King is perfectly sure this implement was in place and that it formed an original part of the gravels in which he found it. It is difficult to imagine a more satisfactory evidence than this of the occurrence of implements in the auriferous, pre-glacial, sub-basaltic gravels."

From this description and the modern geological dating of the Table Mountain strata, it is apparent that the object was over 9 million years old.

William H. Holmes Challenges J.D. Whitney

Some of the Calaveras skull hoax stories were propagated by scientists such as William H. Holmes, anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution. Upon examining the actual Calaveras skull at the Peabody Museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he concluded that,

"the skull was never carried and broken in a Tertiary torrent, that it never came from the old gravels in the Mattison mine, and that it does not in any way represent a Tertiary race of men."

Holmes also discredited Whitney's dating of anomalous stone tools discovered at the California gold mines, asserting they were from the local Digger Indians. One might ask why Holmes and others were so determined to discredit Whitney's evidence for the existence of Tertiary humans. The following statement by Holmes provides an essential clue:

"If these forms are really of Tertiary origin, we have here one of the greatest marvels yet encountered by science; and perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood to-day, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted."

In other words, if the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an imposing array of them, must go.

[Amo]

http://morien-institute.org/anomalies.html

Interesting article addressing more problematic discoveries disrupting the current prevalent evolutionary and historical narratives. A particular point of interest brought up in the article, suggests that many of the finds seeming to indicate a primitive humanity, may be the result of humanities recoveries after catastrophic events which destroyed their societies and technology. Thus leaving a record of the primitive instruments used for survival while rebuilding societies and tech., rather than the scenario postulated by those seeking only to establish the evolutionary theory with evidence being interpreted according to the same. The flood scenario unquestionably details an event which would require rebuilding societies starting from scratch. As no doubt several other catastrophic events which followed would as well. These scenarios simply will not be considered by those of the evolutionary faith.

[Rella]

.



Or it's an allegory for God giving man an immortal soul apart from evolution.   One of those. 

If it is an allegory the entire written word of scriptures can be considered as such. You can't pick and chose what is real or
in there as example just to suit a given belief.

Do you believe that man has an immortal soul?

Do you believe he received it 40,000 years ago? "There were humans essentially identical to us, about 40,000 years ago."

But we don't know which kind of human Adam happened to be.  

YOU are a decendent from Adam. what kind of human are you? Or is it your contention that interbreeding such as with Neanderthals after Adam's creation would change that? 

Is it not possible, given that nothing is provable, that Adam could have been created divinely unique? And at a later time in God's plan?

Does he HAVE to be linked with others ?
" It's very rare that we can identify the precise species that gave rise to another in the fossil record.  We typically know the genus in such cases, but not the precise species."

[The Barbarian]

Is it not possible, given that nothing is provable, that Adam could have been created divinely unique? And at a later time in God's plan?

If so, it's hard to understand why God would rig it so it looked like Adam was descended from other homninins.

Does he HAVE to be linked with others ?

Since God is truth, it seems unlikely that He would fake evidence.

[The Barbarian]

http://morien-institute.org/anomalies.html

Interesting article addressing more problematic discoveries disrupting the current prevalent evolutionary and historical narratives. A particular point of interest brought up in the article, suggests that many of the finds seeming to indicate a primitive humanity, may be the result of humanities recoveries after catastrophic events which destroyed their societies and technology.

The problem is evidence.   You don't have any.   If there was a highly complex technological society before the neolithic, there would be abundant evidence for it all over the Earth.  And there isn't.   

Thus leaving a record of the primitive instruments used for survival while rebuilding societies and tech., rather than the scenario postulated by those seeking only to establish the evolutionary theory with evidence being interpreted according to the same.

Evolution isn't about human technology.   It seems like for you, "evolution" is a basket into which you toss anything that you don't like.

The flood scenario unquestionably details an event which would require rebuilding societies starting from scratch. As no doubt several other catastrophic events which followed would as well.

It all comes down to evidence.   Or lack of it, in this case.

[Rella]

If so, it's hard to understand why God would rig it so it looked like Adam was descended from other homninins.

Since God is truth, it seems unlikely that He would fake evidence.

Why would you say God rigged it tolook like Adam was descended?

What evidence??

[Rella]

The problem is evidence.   You don't have any.   

It all comes down to evidence.   Or lack of it, in this case.

" It all comes down to evidence.  Or lack of it "

Right back at you.

Barbarian....

I understand you are totally into what you believe and there is no room for expansion of other ideas... but have you had to work hard at learning to be this obtuse or does it come naturally?

[Alan]

Right back at you.

This is where the discussion continues to go around in circles. There IS a plethora of evidence to support common decent, it's just that some people refuse to accept that evidence as the undisputed truth.

[Rella]

This is where the discussion continues to go around in circles. There IS a plethora of evidence to support common decent, it's just that some people refuse to accept that evidence as the undisputed truth.

I accept within reason.

I do not accept when it comes to Adam.

So I let it go.

[The Barbarian]

Why would you say God rigged it tolook like Adam was descended?

What evidence??

For example, the numerous fossil transitional forms between other hominins and modern humans, cited by YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, as "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

But also genetics, which shows humans and chimpanzees to be more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.   And evolutionary development, which shows how genes like NOTCH2NL are associated with rapid brain growth in human species, but not other hominins:
https://www.hhmi.org/news/meet-three-new-genes-may-have-influenced-human-brain-size

[The Barbarian]

I accept within reason.

I do not accept when it comes to Adam.

Interestingly, neither did the man who co-discovered the mechanism of evolution with Darwin.   Alfred Russel Wallace independently  discovered natural selection, just as Darwin was about to publish his book.   Darwin invited him to join him in announcing the discovery, and considered Wallace to be the co-discoverer of natural selection.

Wallace resisted the idea that evolution could include man, and insisted that a unique intervention by God was necessary.

[Rella]

Quote from: Rella on Yesterday at 15:41:58
Why would you say God rigged it tolook like Adam was descended?

What evidence??

For example, the numerous fossil transitional forms between other hominins and modern humans, cited by YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, as "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

But also genetics, which shows humans and chimpanzees to be more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.   And evolutionary development, which shows how genes like NOTCH2NL are associated with rapid brain growth in human species, but not other hominins:
https://www.hhmi.org/news/meet-three-new-genes-may-have-influenced-human-brain-size       

Sorry Alan.... Cannot quite let this go yet.

And let me point out , if genes are you main basis.....

Take common flour, oil, salt and water.

What do you have?

You have The perfect oil pie crust .... https://cozypeachkitchen.com/oil-pie-crust/

or

You have  Unleavened bread for Communion.... https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/241680/unleavened-bread-for-communion/

or Matzah even .............https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/213682/matzah/

Cant you just see the looks of consternation on many faces if you would walk into prepare communion and simply say "I have the Matzah.".

Or at a Sedar dinner when the hostess says "Please pass the communion bread."  after it has been blesed?

Or if running shy a of cummunion bread one pulled frozen from the freezer, an oil crust, cut it up and zapped it in the oven a bit.....

Just because something has the same does not mean original intent was to be the same... it simply means that God used some of the same when creating, then added to it to form his creation.

As in above recipes.... adding sugar and baking powder can net you a cake.... adding sugar and baking powder and flavorings can be a great base for a variety of cookies.

Same start up ingredients but not the same end product. 

So enter today, year 2020. I can guarantee that by the end of this year someone will have come up with a new food using the flour, oil, water, salt, likely sugar, baking powder, flavoring, and whatever they imagine and it will be a totally different product then was had even 100 years ago. That is not evolution....

[Texas Conservative]

This is where the discussion continues to go around in circles. There IS a plethora of evidence to support common decent, it's just that some people refuse to accept that evidence as the undisputed truth.

Because it is not the undisputed truth.  Any real scientist should also concede it is not the undisputed truth.  If they don't, they have a theology in common descent instead of just scientific knowledge.

[Rella]

Interestingly, neither did the man who co-discovered the mechanism of evolution with Darwin.   Alfred Russel Wallace independently  discovered natural selection, just as Darwin was about to publish his book.   Darwin invited him to join him in announcing the discovery, and considered Wallace to be the co-discoverer of natural selection.

Wallace resisted the idea that evolution could include man, and insisted that a unique intervention by God was necessary.

  And before my coffee you sent me researching him 

I found this excruciatingly long article on him and his "spirituality".

"Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man,and Evolution: An Analytical Essay" written by by Charles H. Smith, Ph.D.

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/essays/ARWPAMPH.htm

And while what you wrote seems to approach my beliefs he also wrote

""...our condition and happiness in the future life depends, by the action of strictly natural law, on our life and conduct here. There is no reward or punishment meted out to us by superior beings; but, just as surely as cleanliness and exercise and wholesome food produce health of body, so surely does a moral life here produce health and happiness in the spirit-world.."

"  "...Not only is a healthy body necessary for a sound mind, but equally so for a fully-developed soul--a soul that is best fitted to commence its new era of development in the spirit world. Inasmuch as we have fully utilised and developed all our faculties--bodily, mental, and spiritual--and have done all in our power to aid others in a similar development, so have we prepared future well-being for ourselves and for them..."31"

Which is counter to my beliefs, and I assume yours also. In that mine are only God, Son, Holy Spirit and eternity centered around them....  But that is a different subject.

While you point out " Wallace resisted the idea that evolution could include man, and insisted that a unique intervention by God was necessary."

I agree. a unique intervention by God is a certainly.

I do not recall reading, though could have missed it... where he said that mankind... as in Adam is a stand alone creation and that is what I believe.

[The Barbarian]

Adam stands alone, because while his body was produced from nature, his soul was given directly by God, as is the soul of every one of us.

[The Barbarian]

Because it is not the undisputed truth.  Any real scientist should also concede it is not the undisputed truth.  If they don't, they have a theology in common descent instead of just scientific knowledge.

In the sense that gravitation isn't undisputed truth.   In fact, evolution is more solidly established than gravity.  We know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

[Texas Conservative]

In the sense that gravitation isn't undisputed truth.   In fact, evolution is more solidly established than gravity.  We know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

Now you are mixing terms common descent and evolution in order to prove your point.   

You are great at obfuscation.

[The Barbarian]

Now you are mixing terms common descent and evolution in order to prove your point.

Nope.  In fact, you just confused the two.   You confused evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) with consequences of evolution (common descent).   

You are great at obfuscation, albeit probably unintentionally.

It appears that you similarly confused microgravitation with macrogravitation.  Everyone knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun.   We can directly observe it.   But no one has ever observed the Solar System revolve around the galaxy center.    You're good at obfuscation.

[Texas Conservative]

Nope.  In fact, you just confused the two.   You confused evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population over time) with consequences of evolution (common descent).   

You are great at obfuscation, albeit probably unintentionally.

It appears that you similarly confused microgravitation with macrogravitation.  Everyone knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun.   We can directly observe it.   But no one has ever observed the Solar System revolve around the galaxy center.    You're good at obfuscation.

You replied to my reply of Alan's post.  The term used was common descent.  Then you go with using "evolution."  I didn't change terms, you did.  Then you accuse me of obfuscation to deflect from your clear misrepresentation in your post.  I didn't even mention gravity or respond to your use of gravity.   

Try harder next time.   

[Rella]

Adam stands alone, because while his body was produced from nature, his soul was given directly by God, as is the soul of every one of us.

Adam stands alone, because while his body was produced from nature

Thank you. This was all I was looking for.

[The Barbarian]

You replied to my reply of Alan's post.  The term used was common descent.

Yes, you confused it with evolutionary theory.   Common descent is a consequence of evolution, not evolution.  And evolutionary theory is the theory that describes and explains the observed phenomenon of evolution.   You probably should know that many creationist organizations like the ICR and AIG admit to a certain amount of common descent, usually including new species, genera, and families of organisms, and sometimes more.    They can hardly deny the fact, since genetics clearly shows common descent.  And we can test that by looking at organisms of known descent.

But it's not evolution.  It's the result of evolution.

I didn't change terms, you did.

Just pointing out that you confused the two.

I didn't even mention gravity or respond to your use of gravity.

Yes.  I used gravity as an example, because most creationists aren't upset by gravity.      Both gravity and evolution are observed phenomena, even if all of the consequences of those phenomena are not directly observed.

Try harder next time. 

No problem; I'm a very patient guy.

[Texas Conservative]

Yes, you confused it with evolutionary theory.   Common descent is a consequence of evolution, not evolution.  And evolutionary theory is the theory that describes and explains the observed phenomenon of evolution.   You probably should know that many creationist organizations like the ICR and AIG admit to a certain amount of common descent, usually including new species, genera, and families of organisms, and sometimes more.    They can hardly deny the fact, since genetics clearly shows common descent.  And we can test that by looking at organisms of known descent.

But it's not evolution.  It's the result of evolution.

Just pointing out that you confused the two.


Yes.  I used gravity as an example, because most creationists aren't upset by gravity.      Both gravity and evolution are observed phenomena, even if all of the consequences of those phenomena are not directly observed.

No problem; I'm a very patient guy.

If you have reading comprehension and actually read what I wrote, you would find in my reply to Alan I used the same term he did.  I did not mention evolution.  Therefore, no confusion of the two.  I was precise on purpose. 

[The Barbarian]

If you have reading comprehension and actually read what I wrote, you would find in my reply to Alan I used the same term he did.  I did not mention evolution.  Therefore, no confusion of the two.  I was precise on purpose.

You didn't mention gravity, either.   I gave you two more examples of phenomena that are not "proven";  I see now that you conflated evolution with common descent.   I suppose you did because it seems similar to you.

Just to make this clear, neither gravity nor evolution are common descent.   I merely used those examples to show you that science never "proves"anything.   Science is essentially inductive, so you can't prove anything thereby.    You can have logical certainty (which is what "proof"is) only when you know all the rules and can deduce from particulars.    In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules.

I realize now, you assumed I was equating evolution and gravity with common descent.  Neither is common descent.

[Texas Conservative]

You didn't mention gravity, either.   I gave you two more examples of phenomena that are not "proven";  I see now that you conflated evolution with common descent.   I suppose you did because it seems similar to you.

Just to make this clear, neither gravity nor evolution are common descent.   I merely used those examples to show you that science never "proves"anything.   Science is essentially inductive, so you can't prove anything thereby.    You can have logical certainty (which is what "proof"is) only when you know all the rules and can deduce from particulars.    In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules.

I realize now, you assumed I was equating evolution and gravity with common descent.  Neither is common descent.

You are dense and like putting words into the mouths of others to seem intelligent.  Your supposes and assumptions make you a donkey's butt.

[The Barbarian]

And we have meltdown.   

[Texas Conservative]

And we have meltdown.   

Another assumption.  You are bad at this.  I am just blunt.

[The Barbarian]

Another assumption.  You are bad at this.  I am just blunt.

And a certified genius.   

[Rella]

And a certified genius.   

I have often heard that  scientists have found there is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes. ?

Not to worry TC. We will always be with you and take care of you....

[The Barbarian]

I have often heard that  scientists have found there is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes. ?

There's some evidence for that.   As you might know, Jews of European ancestry tend to have higher intelligence than most other people of European ancestry, beyond any social factor that can be determined.   But they also are prone to a number of genetic disorders of the nervous system, and there is some evidence that specific genes are related to both.