Evolution observed in bacteria?

[cslewislover]

Well, I'm not really referring to YEC, but OEC and Iders. They get pretty detailed in their criticisms of evolutionary theory being able to explain the Cambrian Explosion, and many many other things. I certainly don't automatically believe fossils are transitional forms just because they may look like it. A number of my teachers used to say, "You know what assume means?" "Ass out of U and me." One of my anthropology profs also often said, "Correlation is not causation."

There's a lot we don't know, and I don't think anyone should make data fit their theory (whether it is darwinism of creationism) just because that's "all there is" to fit it into. Science should be looking at data and trying to figure out the truth of it, not just trying to make their theory look like the truth. This is what I keep in mind when I read things, and to me a lot of what the darwinists claim is not supported, as far as I can tell. They usually just say "we're right, and you're wrong, so there!" Sounds real childish. I'm not griping at you, Himan, I'm just saying what I've observed, and what I've observed in many scientists' behavior doesn't make me think that they are necessarily right. If someone knows the truth, there certainly isn't any reason to be a bully about it or put others down about it either. I don't think behavior like this is from God, so I question everything that person has to say (again, this goes for persons on all sides).

My view so far is that however plants and animals change, God is the one who put it in place or specifically makes it happen. I do believe that God created everything and that he's a personal God, so he just doesn't leave things to chance. So I guess if I were involved in this aspect of science, I would feel that I was observing and trying to understand God's mechanisms for creation and change and I would think of it in those terms, not the terms of atheists who only want to think of it within the realm of nature. I'm wondering if I'm making sense to others at this point, so I'll stop.

I see you've posted something else while I was writing; I'll see if it applies.

I would have to look at that, but how can people be so sure they're transitional when they weren't there? It's like a puzzle piece that looks like it'll fit, but when you go to try it out, it actually doesn't. I'm just saying. With things like this, like any elegantly written work, it can be very convincing for those who want to believe it, but it may not prove anything. It's telling that the review is written by someone who denounced his faith. He wants to believe the book because everyone needs to believe in something. I'm not saying the book may not have truth in it, but I'm questioning the review.

[Himantolophus]

Well, I'm not really referring to YEC, but OEC and Iders. They get pretty detailed in their criticisms of evolutionary theory being able to explain the Cambrian Explosion, and many many other things. I certainly don't automatically believe fossils are transitional forms just because they may look like it. A number of my teachers used to say, "You know what assume means?" "*** out of U and me." One of my anthropology profs also often said, "Correlation is not causation."

Well, there are a lot of OEC/Profressive creationists on this site and I do not have a problem with that belief because, simply, I cannot refute their belief. If God was the causation for every genetic change and every new species,no one can ever determine. If the genetic change was truly random or God-induced, it is untestable. Therefore I cannot refute nor support the idea of OEC. The idea of YEC, is refutable by looking at the evidence simply because of the timescales required for belief in YEC.

As the the transitional fossils, I can't force you to accept anything. But evolution requires transitional forms for the theory to make sense and if scientists find a fossil that is half-fish, half-amphibian, I have to believe it is transitional between the two. why would it exist otherwise. Clearly this "fishibian" didn't NEED the stumpy legs if it was a fish and clearly didn't need fins if it was living on mud. Evolution predicts such creatures should exist because deletion/addition of limbs is normally not instantaneous, but gradual.

There's a lot we don't know, and I don't think anyone should make data fit their theory (whether it is darwinism of creationism) just because that's "all there is" to fit it into. Science should be looking at data and trying to figure out the truth of it, not just trying to make their theory look like the truth. This is what I keep in mind when I read things, and to me a lot of what the darwinists claim is not supported, as far as I can tell. They usually just say "we're right, and you're wrong, so there!" Sounds real childish. I'm not griping at you, Himan, I'm just saying what I've observed, and what I've observed in many scientists' behavior doesn't make me think that they are necessarily right. If someone knows the truth, there certainly isn't any reason to be a bully about it or put others down about it either. I don't think behavior like this is from God, so I question everything that person has to say (again, this goes for persons on all sides).

Creationism, especially YEC is guilty of using the "assumption first, evidence later" argument. Despite what you posted, science does not go this way. Evolutionary theory has evolved itself over the years as we discovered new things. The scientists in the 1800's made these discoveries and revised their thinking even before the term "evolution" was coined. The theory was supported by several convergent lines of evidence and thus made it to the "theory" stage. As it is the only theory that is testable and backed by all of the evidence, of course curreny biologists/geologists will make their studies with evolution as the foundation. As they say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
This doesn't mean that a breakthrough can't be made to change Darwinian evolution, especially if a new mechanism is discovered. Science is not set in it's ways like religion. Evolution, even in primitive form has only been around 150 years and has survived all challenges so far. There are legions of experts in the field that criticize each others work and publish in peer-reviewed literature. Junk-science rarely gets through the process. YEC, on the other hand, has remained rigid and unchanged for 2000+ years DESPITE all of our new knowledge. So who's more worthy of criticism?

My view so far is that however plants and animals change, God is the one who put it in place or specifically makes it happen. I do believe that God created everything and that he's a personal God, so he just doesn't leave things to chance. So I guess if I were involved in this aspect of science, I would feel that I was observing and trying to understand God's mechanisms for creation and change and I would think of it in those terms, not the terms of atheists who only want to think of it within the realm of nature. I'm wondering if I'm making sense to others at this point, so I'll stop.

well, the naturalistic explanation makes sense to most scientists so why change that? How can you test God's mechanism if it existed? How do you apply the scientific method to God? What if evolution was created by God AS his mechanism??

Again we cannot prove anything in the distant past but we can get strong evidence from what is preserved in the rock. Rock doesn't and can't lie to us. And scientists have no obligation to "make things support evolution" or any crazy conspiracy that creationists have about science.

I would have to look at that, but how can people be so sure they're transitional when they weren't there? It's like a puzzle piece that looks like it'll fit, but when you go to try it out, it actually doesn't. I'm just saying. With things like this, like any elegantly written work, it can be very convincing for those who want to believe it, but it may not prove anything. It's telling that the review is written by someone who denounced his faith. He wants to believe the book because everyone needs to believe in something. I'm not saying the book may not have truth in it, but I'm questioning the review.

Well, that book provides evidence. Every creationist wants to see it and there it is in front of them. It's up to them to be in denial, or accept it, or adapt it into their own theories. What do creationists want to see from evolutionists that will satisfy them? Do they realize that that may not ever be possible? Meanwhile, the proof (and the evidence) from the creationist end (particularly YEC) is continually lacking...

[Kurieuo]

Well, I'm not really referring to YEC, but OEC and Iders. They get pretty detailed in their criticisms of evolutionary theory being able to explain the Cambrian Explosion, and many many other things. I certainly don't automatically believe fossils are transitional forms just because they may look like it. A number of my teachers used to say, "You know what assume means?" "*** out of U and me." One of my anthropology profs also often said, "Correlation is not causation."

Well, there are a lot of OEC/Profressive creationists on this site and I do not have a problem with that belief because, simply, I cannot refute their belief. If God was the causation for every genetic change and every new species,no one can ever determine. If the genetic change was truly random or God-induced, it is untestable. Therefore I cannot refute nor support the idea of OEC. The idea of YEC, is refutable by looking at the evidence simply because of the timescales required for belief in YEC.

And vice-versa -- without a known mechanism to account for the changes claimed, Neodarwinian Evolution stands on the same grounds. We we know there are gaps in certain records as Gould and Eldredge revealed in their paper proposing punctuated evolution over gradual as Darwin understood. Where does one go to from there?

Well, that book provides evidence. Every creationist wants to see it and there it is in front of them. It's up to them to be in denial, or accept it, or adapt it into their own theories. What do creationists want to see from evolutionists that will satisfy them? Do they realize that that may not ever be possible? Meanwhile, the proof (and the evidence) from the creationist end (particularly YEC) is continually lacking...

For the record some "creationists" are evolutionists...

However to answer this myself, proof from the evolution end I find particular lacking. It is not for my misunderstandings, because I am quite familiar with it. I am just not convinced like the masses found in education today I've studied along side. A nice idea, but I can't force myself to believe it. I see it more backed more by popular propaganda in the media and masses than really scientific evidence or rationality.

[Himantolophus]

However to answer this myself, proof from the evolution end I find particular lacking. It is not for my misunderstandings, because I am quite familiar with it. I am just not convinced like the masses found in education today I've studied along side. A nice idea, but I can't force myself to believe it. I see it more backed more by popular propaganda in the media and masses than really scientific evidence or rationality.

well, maybe "proof" is lacking, you got me there but we can never prove anything regarding origins.

The evidence is everywhere though. Several fields of science have their roots firmly rooted in evolutionary theory and it sure as heck isn't due to "propaganda or the media". Evolution has just been robustly supported over the last 100 years and until/if we discover anything different, evolution will continue to be the foundation of modern science.

I guess you could put it simply. There are two alternatives: creationism (OEC or YEC) or naturalistic evolution. since most scientists would prefer not to mess with the supernatural, it's naturalistic evolution that stand alone as the strongest theory.
I still don't see how "propaganda and media hype" is swaying science, we who work in science really could care less about what's en vogue. I could also turn that around and say that the "propaganda and the masses (half this country at last count) are all about ID and creationism. I think theistic evolution, and maybe even OEC, makes the best arguments for our origins and history because it addresses the evidence accurately and also recognizes God as a potential creator.

[Kurieuo]

However to answer this myself, proof from the evolution end I find particular lacking. It is not for my misunderstandings, because I am quite familiar with it. I am just not convinced like the masses found in education today I've studied along side. A nice idea, but I can't force myself to believe it. I see it more backed more by popular propaganda in the media and masses than really scientific evidence or rationality.

well, maybe "proof" is lacking, you got me there but we can never prove anything regarding origins.

The evidence is everywhere though. Several fields of science have their roots firmly rooted in evolutionary theory and it sure as heck isn't due to "propaganda or the media". Evolution has just been robustly supported over the last 100 years and until/if we discover anything different, evolution will continue to be the foundation of modern science.

I guess you could put it simply. There are two alternatives: creationism (OEC or YEC) or naturalistic evolution. since most scientists would prefer not to mess with the supernatural, it's naturalistic evolution that stand alone as the strongest theory.
I still don't see how "propaganda and media hype" is swaying science, we who work in science really could care less about what's en vogue. I could also turn that around and say that the "propaganda and the masses (half this country at last count) are all about ID and creationism. I think theistic evolution, and maybe even OEC, makes the best arguments for our origins and history because it addresses the evidence accurately and also recognizes God as a potential creator.

You use science as a collective term and not all science agrees with evolution. In fact, it is precisely science which makes me question evolution as a viable means to naturally account for what we see today. While mechanisms are proposed, no agreed mechanism(s) are agreed upon as the driver because there are flaws with all scenarios. Plainly put, the evolutionist at the end of the day says it happened but it must be noted they don't exactly know how it all happened - it just did. Instead of placing their belief in a divine creator, they choose to believe the universe is a closed system and that a natural mechanism must exist within it. Why not - this is how science works right? True, but then science may therefore never be able to answer ultimate questions about life and origins because of such restrictions.

The propaganda is more the modern "elite" who restrict any rational answer as only possible from modern scientific investigation. This has become engrained into the culture of our day. What is truth becomes what we can sense, not what is in fact true. Such a restriction was born out of Modernity's attack on anything religious and theistic, and is based on unprovable assumptions that all of reality exists within our universe and can be detected with our physical senses.

[Himantolophus]

While mechanisms are proposed, no agreed mechanism(s) are agreed upon as the driver because there are flaws with all scenarios. Plainly put, the evolutionist at the end of the day says it happened but it must be noted they don't exactly know how it all happened - it just did. Instead of placing their belief in a divine creator, they choose to believe the universe is a closed system and that a natural mechanism must exist within it.

But what can we possibly do to test a divine creator scientifcally? If you have people believing in 100% naturalism, people believing in evolution as God's creative mechanism, and people believing in a "hands-on" God that has his hands on all life through all history (and all the beliefs in between), you have to be able to support them with evidence.

You say you have problems with some of the assumptions/mechanisms in Darwinist evolution but there are the same flaws/assumptions involved with OEC/ID/YEC/Theistic Ev. too. It seems like you have to weigh all the evidence as a whole for each theory and pick the one you like, because there will never be any "proof"

The propaganda is more the modern "elite" who restrict any rational answer as only possible from modern scientific investigation. This has become engrained into the culture of our day. What is truth becomes what we can sense, not what is in fact true. Such a restriction was born out of Modernity's attack on anything religious and theistic, and is based on unprovable assumptions that all of reality exists within our universe and can be detected with our physical senses.

Most scientists believe in a God. I don't see any "attacks" on religion except maybe by a few angry atheists. The fact that they are affiliated with evolutionism is just a coincidence. I see the attack on science by the fundamentalist YEC Christians as more damaging as a whole than anything Dawkings is doing.

I still don't see the problems currently existing with evolution as being a problem. We don't know some things and that is not surprising. I see evolution coming out of a creationism-dominated 19th century and the increasing "popularity" of the theory is not due to wars or scientists "paying off" scientists, but due to the analysis of data and evidence. It seems like the majority of science has little problem with what we do AND don't know about evolution.

[Kurieuo]

While mechanisms are proposed, no agreed mechanism(s) are agreed upon as the driver because there are flaws with all scenarios. Plainly put, the evolutionist at the end of the day says it happened but it must be noted they don't exactly know how it all happened - it just did. Instead of placing their belief in a divine creator, they choose to believe the universe is a closed system and that a natural mechanism must exist within it.

But what can we possibly do to test a divine creator scientifcally? If you have people believing in 100% naturalism, people believing in evolution as God's creative mechanism, and people believing in a "hands-on" God that has his hands on all life through all history (and all the beliefs in between), you have to be able to support them with evidence.

You say you have problems with some of the assumptions/mechanisms in Darwinist evolution but there are the same flaws/assumptions involved with OEC/ID/YEC/Theistic Ev. too. It seems like you have to weigh all the evidence as a whole for each theory and pick the one you like, because there will never be any "proof"

I agree entirely with that last paragraph. In fact I wrote there were similar flaws to creation scenarios (in that, within either position one is forced to place their faith in it happening like so), but I must have edited it out when revising my previous post.

I do not claim scientific superiority in this area for any form of divine creation whether Day-Age Progressive, Theistic Evolution, YEC or what-have-you. What we do have is a lot of circumstantial evidence gathered through scientific investigations which can support either 1) Neo-Darwinian Evolution (purely natural without divine guidance); or 2) certain divine creation scenarios (e.g., Day-Age Progressive, Theistic Evolution). I believe we can safely rule out YEC based on science, however these other two are just as supported from what we know through science as is cut-and-dry Neo-Darwinian Evolution (even if all this circumstantial evidence gets touted as evidence over and against rival creation scenarios including those supported by the same).

So in response to your questions (which sparked me to post in this thread to you), "What do creationists want to see from evolutionists that will satisfy them? Do they realize that that may not ever be possible? Meanwhile, the proof (and the evidence) from the creationist end (particularly YEC) is continually lacking...": We need a mechanism and motivation to believe in a purely "natural" Evolution. Circumstantial evidence can be presented to support that all life came from one cell, but without a mechanism there is nothing to really believe in but a story. A story for those who have no religious beliefs on origins. As Dawkin's wrote in The Blind Watchmaker: "although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Evolution is a story for Atheists on human origins, just like the Genesis creation is a story for Jews, Christians and Muslims on human origins. It just so happens we're in a cultural climate where Atheism has peaked, and thus, for now, the Atheist story has much greater influence. That is how I see it anyway.

The propaganda is more the modern "elite" who restrict any rational answer as only possible from modern scientific investigation. This has become engrained into the culture of our day. What is truth becomes what we can sense, not what is in fact true. Such a restriction was born out of Modernity's attack on anything religious and theistic, and is based on unprovable assumptions that all of reality exists within our universe and can be detected with our physical senses.

Most scientists believe in a God. I don't see any "attacks" on religion except maybe by a few angry atheists. The fact that they are affiliated with evolutionism is just a coincidence. I see the attack on science by the fundamentalist YEC Christians as more damaging as a whole than anything Dawkings is doing.

YECs I think miss the point by focusing too much on creation and even more conservative forms of OEC like Day-Age Progressive are guilty of this. Evolution is an important issue internal to Christianity, and one that I think is best kept for internal discussion. For those outside of Christianity, a different tact is better where rather than get bogged down in trying to disparage Evolution (and this happens vice-versa so it is easy for those who have creation beliefs to get drawn in)... rather than get bogged down it would be better to focus on Christ Himself.

With attacks on religion, let me clarify what I meant. Modernity came out of the "Enlightenment" and is seen as a direct attack on Christianity and any theistic belief since an entity such as God is not empirically verifiable under normal circumstances and thus was deemed irrational by the likes of Kant, Freud and many other thinkers.

I still don't see the problems currently existing with evolution as being a problem. We don't know some things and that is not surprising. I see evolution coming out of a creationism-dominated 19th century and the increasing "popularity" of the theory is not due to wars or scientists "paying off" scientists, but due to the analysis of data and evidence. It seems like the majority of science has little problem with what we do AND don't know about evolution.

Actually Creationism (Young Earth) I have read is largely a 20th century movement which gained momentum through Schofield and his Bible commentary. Evolutionary beliefs I'd expect would have lived in tension along side of many varying creation beliefs before then.

[Daniel]

I have heard it claimed that there wasn't as huge a backlash against evolution in the 19th century as there was today, as Christians such as Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield didn't have a problem with that. I'm honestly not sure if that's so, because Charles Darwin did seem to be aware of the perceived religious ramifications of his theory.

[Robert Byers]

Himan etc
One point.
Yes diversity was greater in the past then today. The fossil record always shows this. The world worked under the command to be fruitfull and multiply and refill the earth. I see it like in the amazon where in a single acre you will have many species of a similiar tree. The diversity there is great but does not crowd out anyone.
Anyways we have the boundaries of scripture and fossil evidence showing great and so rapod speciation from kind. All done within a few centuries after the flood , if that long, and since decline.

[Himantolophus]

So in response to your questions (which sparked me to post in this thread to you), "What do creationists want to see from evolutionists that will satisfy them? Do they realize that that may not ever be possible? Meanwhile, the proof (and the evidence) from the creationist end (particularly YEC) is continually lacking...": We need a mechanism and motivation to believe in a purely "natural" Evolution. Circumstantial evidence can be presented to support that all life came from one cell, but without a mechanism there is nothing to really believe in but a story. A story for those who have no religious beliefs on origins. As Dawkin's wrote in The Blind Watchmaker: "although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Evolution is a story for Atheists on human origins, just like the Genesis creation is a story for Jews, Christians and Muslims on human origins. It just so happens we're in a cultural climate where Atheism has peaked, and thus, for now, the Atheist story has much greater influence. That is how I see it anyway.

I don't consider science's explanation as a story as say compared to the Genesis creation account or the Flood story but I understand your point. Since I already posted that we cannot prove if either is truth or a story, I won't argue this further because I wouldn't care if evolution was naturally or God-guided. Does it really change anything? We know things changed over long periods of time, I seriously don't mind how it was accomplished.

BUT, science has shown that nature is naturalistic and I am open-minded to a naturalistic explanation BEFORE I settle for a supernatural one. I think it's because the OECists model lacks a mechanism we can explain. At least evolution attempts to test a mechanism. I think a mechanism of macroevolution created by God from the Beginning would allow continuous "creation" yet would not force God to constantly "tinker" with things. How does God do about changing a species into another?

Yes diversity was greater in the past then today. The fossil record always shows this. The world worked under the command to be fruitfull and multiply and refill the earth. I see it like in the amazon where in a single acre you will have many species of a similiar tree. The diversity there is great but does not crowd out anyone.

The diversity is great and doesn't crowd out anyone because you have limits set on populations by carrying capacity/competition/predation. Nothing is allowed to get out of control because resources are limited. The population of humans on this Earth is beyond capacity and we are seeing the stresses imposed on populations by lack of food, lack of water, and rampant diseases.

Also, the fossil record shows what has died over the history of Earth. It shows numerous DIFFERENT faunas separated in time, as in NO MIXING. By themselves in their own eras, they filled the same roles as the species we see on Earth today. BUT, as a YEC you must believe that all of these distinct faunas, with millions of species, occurred together at the same time. Explain how they could all live together in the same niches without one being wiped out or exhaust their resources within a short time? What about basic ecological principles like carrying capacity/competition/space/predation?

Anyways we have the boundaries of scripture and fossil evidence showing great and so rapod speciation from kind. All done within a few centuries after the flood , if that long, and since decline.

You just restated this assertion without answering how this could possibly happen? What's the mechanism and why can't we do this in the lab today? Why did it decline? The Earth has been the same since Post-Flood, right? There should be no reason for it to decline... why not continually "hyperevolve" better and better creatures? Things are far from "optimal" in form

[Robert Byers]

Himan
Mechanism here is the complexity of nature. I don't need to know how it works in order to know it works. A person need not know how babies grow in the womb but they know they do. Its complicated.
The bible and earth evidence shows speciation was a quick event after the flood.

I don't see a problem in faunas overlapping. The fossils from the flood show a certain world. I believe there was a post flood ascendency of mammals and therefore fossils from here would show a different world.
They don't overlap and lets remember the world before the flood was richer, more diversity, and [probably a very different climate.
Fossils make the biblical case for diversity and biogeography.
The earth shows the reality of the biblical flood.

[Himantolophus]

Himan
Mechanism here is the complexity of nature. I don't need to know how it works in order to know it works. A person need not know how babies grow in the womb but they know they do. Its complicated.
The bible and earth evidence shows speciation was a quick event after the flood.

I don't see a problem in faunas overlapping. The fossils from the flood show a certain world. I believe there was a post flood ascendency of mammals and therefore fossils from here would show a different world.
They don't overlap and lets remember the world before the flood was richer, more diversity, and [probably a very different climate.
Fossils make the biblical case for diversity and biogeography.
The earth shows the reality of the biblical flood.

I still ask for a mechanism... if it happened, there was a mechanism. You criticize evolution over a mechanism, I ask you of the same thing.

It's "too complex" isn't an excuse. We know how a baby develops from zygote to newborn. We have it on video nowadays.

There are huge problems with all those faunas living together. Not just overlapping, but all together. You still have not addressed how the planet's biosphere can support all that life. The planet was the same size with the same area so you have the same amount of space/food resources. You still have to explain how this life completely ignored principles like carrying capacity, space limits, food limits, competition, predation, etc.

Weren't humans created from the beginning? Weren't they given dominion over God's creation? Aren't humans mammals? Your "mammal domination" theory is false. Mammals NEVER dominated the planet, even today. Microbes and insects are the dominant organism, both today and in the past.

[Kurieuo]

BUT, science has shown that nature is naturalistic and I am open-minded to a naturalistic explanation BEFORE I settle for a supernatural one.

That is quite circular isn't it? Nature is naturalists? Of course. Self-evident truth. Science didn't need to show anything.

I think it's because the OECists model lacks a mechanism we can explain. At least evolution attempts to test a mechanism. I think a mechanism of macroevolution created by God from the Beginning would allow continuous "creation" yet would not force God to constantly "tinker" with things. How does God do about changing a species into another?

Actually, if you believe God used evolution as a mechanism, then you are OEC and you have a mechanism.

As for myself, a mechanism is only required in a paradigm which assumes evolution is the driving vehicle behind all life we see today. I don't need to explain how God changed another species into another, because I don't believe species were changed. No mechanism is required if life was simply created. Your question, asking what mechanism God used to change one species into another, places an unreasonable and misplaced demand upon someone who believes life was simply created. This also begs the question since the question assumes evolution is true and therefore a mechanism must be required. I do not see that any mechanism is required.

Let's also not forget, evolution lacks a mechanism which everyone agrees works. Thus, it is not against a natural explanation I am throwing God into the equation, but rather in the absence any natural explanation and positive evidences against believing a natural explanation is probable including the rapidity with which life emerged despite its complexities (it seems on several occasions early on in Earth's history), the known gaps in transitional fossil records (as Eldredge and Gould highlighted), the punctuatedness of many millions of species appear to burst into being altogether (e.g., Cambrian era), the structure of DNA and biological code (being a programmer it would be foolish for me to believe that complex code simply wrote itself - I wish!), the massive amounts of DNA information required for new appendages, radar, sight, smell... and many more issues.

Considering evolution of species in its various proposed theories together form the only viable natural explanation, and given such does not really explain how it happens and suffers much improbabilities, then I think I am well within my rational right given my personal experiences and what seems evident to me of God's presence in the world and my life, beliefs backed by long traditions and grounded historically in the past with real names and details of people and places and events, in addition to what I judge to be very strong rational arguments for God's existence... I think I am well within my rational right to believe that God indeed created the variety of life we see around us today and no mechanism is necessary.

[Himantolophus]

I can't prove or disprove OEC, so I'm not looking to debate TE vs. OEC because they both share a lot of the same beliefs. If God is part of the evolutionary process, we will never know.

What's your stance on the evolution involved in OEC vs. the kind of hyperevolution used by YEC? What about the speciation claimed by Robert? I still think millions of species in 500 years is beyond OEC/TE evolution.

[Robert Byers]

Himan
Mechanism here is the complexity of nature. I don't need to know how it works in order to know it works. A person need not know how babies grow in the womb but they know they do. Its complicated.
The bible and earth evidence shows speciation was a quick event after the flood.

I don't see a problem in faunas overlapping. The fossils from the flood show a certain world. I believe there was a post flood ascendency of mammals and therefore fossils from here would show a different world.
They don't overlap and lets remember the world before the flood was richer, more diversity, and [probably a very different climate.
Fossils make the biblical case for diversity and biogeography.
The earth shows the reality of the biblical flood.

I still ask for a mechanism... if it happened, there was a mechanism. You criticize evolution over a mechanism, I ask you of the same thing.

It's "too complex" isn't an excuse. We know how a baby develops from zygote to newborn. We have it on video nowadays.

There are huge problems with all those faunas living together. Not just overlapping, but all together. You still have not addressed how the planet's biosphere can support all that life. The planet was the same size with the same area so you have the same amount of space/food resources. You still have to explain how this life completely ignored principles like carrying capacity, space limits, food limits, competition, predation, etc.

Weren't humans created from the beginning? Weren't they given dominion over God's creation? Aren't humans mammals? Your "mammal domination" theory is false. Mammals NEVER dominated the planet, even today. Microbes and insects are the dominant organism, both today and in the past.

It is a ggod excuse. Mechanism need not be figured out to know its going on. My baby thing is a good point for previous centuries.

There is no problem to faunas. It was a richer world then now and what was there is only deduced from scattered remnants of fossils.
By mammal dominance I only mean a clean order of creatures took over from unclean ones previous.
No people are not mammals. Mammals has no meaning in a world of kinds. Its superficial lumping of creatures because they are furry.