Some scientists will be upset...

[Spirithawk]

A Native American concept that is greatly misunderstood is that we believe some things just were never meant to be known. We call such things a "great Mystery" and in recognising them as such say that's enough believing that such knowledge belongs solely to the Creator.

[torpedoman]

I find it amusing that they find one bone/tooth whatever and two weeks later they have a whole new creature and they can tell you what they ate how they behaved and who they dated on saturday night, Give me a break,!

[billy_56081]

I agree with you tman, I took quite a few anthro classes in college and wondered how they created a whole creature out of a small fragment of jawbone. Sometime I felt the "science" had started at the "conclusion" and worked backwards from there.

[MGMorden]

Exactly McMorden, that is why the ape/human DNA link is invalid. And again depending on the source the percentage of chimp/human DNA matches is from the low to mid nintey percentile. Actually it has been downgraded with more accurate testing.

Exactly what?  As I said, evolutionary theory explicity states that we SHOULD have a lot of DNA in common with animals in general, and mammals (like your quoted dogs and pigs) in particular.  The data supports that a large percentage of our DNA would match those animals so saying "they have a high match too" isn't disproving anything.  It's more evidence IN SUPPORT.  The fact remains that of every living animal, our DNA is most closely related to that of a chimp, as it is the most recently/closely related animal to our species.  Dogs and pigs are related too - just farther back, which is why we have a high matching DNA content there too - but LESS than we have with a chimp.

[ironglow]

I find it amusing that they find one bone/tooth whatever and two weeks later they have a whole new creature and they can tell you what they ate how they behaved and who they dated on saturday night, Give me a break,!

   Yep;
  Here's "Nebraska man", with an illustration of the man they built around a tooth.

   http://www.conservapedia.com/Nebraska_Man

[DDZ]

When you spend your life sifting through dirt searching for a particular thing there is an awful strong desire to make bone fragments into what you are looking for, or what you want to find.
 

[DDZ]

It really is a stretch of the imagination to believe the evolution theory. There are so many holes in the fossil records that its a joke to even imply evolution based on fossil records. If anything the fossil records support creation, because of the sudden appearance of new species. Evolution is based on transitional creatures, but fossil records show nothing to support this.
Biologist Edwin Conklin once said. "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop. Sir fred Hoyle of Cambridge University, said the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials there. So in other words no chance at all.     

[billy_56081]

I started out in college a believer in evolution. I took alot of anthropology classes as general eds because I really liked that field. By the time I finished college I was a doubter of the THEORY of evolution. As with the bones built into a creation that they want it to be the DNA is the same way. If Mr. McMordan were up on current events in this he would know that the human/chimp DNA profile is now much further apart than at first reported.

[MGMorden]

If Mr. McMordan were up on current events in this he would know that the human/chimp DNA profile is now much further apart than at first reported.

I actually stay on top of this stuff pretty well.  The chimp DNA profile remains the closest match to ours on the planet. 

And as I've said countless times, as you stress the word "THEORY", a theory as the word is used in science isn't a wild guess.  It's an idea that has had a significant amount of EVIDENCE put forward that can support it.  Remember, gravity, the idea that when dropped things fall back to the ground, is also "just a theory".

[DDZ]

When an object is dropped and it falls to the ground. That is pretty much fact. Gravity is a fact also. It can be proven over and over again. Evolution can't be proven. I don't even see the idea of evolution as a theory. Its mostly a religion. Its all an idea to remove a higher being, (God) and reduce mankind to just another species no less, and no more, important than an aardvark. The fact is there is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices. 
 Why do we have moral values? How does evolution create moral values, personal responsibility, or compassionate treatment of others.
Evolutionary modern science implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, or no absolute guiding principles for human society.
Take Hitler for example. He had a strong belief in evolution, and his actions were absolutely consistent with his belief of evolution.   

[MGMorden]

When an object is dropped and it falls to the ground. That is pretty much fact. Gravity is a fact also.
 It can be proven over and over again.

There is a ton of evidence that things do so, and so they are filed in support of the THEORY of Gravity.  Not debatable on this one.  There is no scientific law of gravity - it's still at the theory level.

As I said, the word "theory" isn't used the same way in a scientific sense as it is in the common vernacular.  What most people consider a theory science deems a hypothesis.  A "theory" isn't just a wild guess.  It's something with a significant amount of evidence to show that this is a likely and plausible scenario.  

Evolution can't be proven. I don't even see the idea of evolution as a theory. Its mostly a religion. Its all an idea to remove a higher being, (God) and reduce mankind to just another species no less, and no more, important than an aardvark. The fact is there is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.  

That last sentence is complete nonsense.  Evolution certainly could produce a being that could make choices.  What do you have to offer in support of that statement?

The simple fact is that there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of evidence in the fossil record to support this.  Your claim earlier that there is no gradual changes observable is completely off-base.  There are indeed gradual changes observable in the fossil record - that's what the whole thing is about!  The creationist view instead seems to be to just say "Well, I know that there's evidence of it, but it just seems too strange, so I'd rather believe it was just magic.".  

Why do we have moral values? How does evolution create moral values, personal responsibility, or compassionate treatment of others.
Evolutionary modern science implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, or no absolute guiding principles for human society.

Absolutely, completely, 100%, cannot stress enough untrue.  Evolutionary science would be DIRECTLY responsible for development of an ethical code within a species.  Any species without such a code would quickly destroy itself, or at best reduce itself to a population level that was non-competitive with neighboring groups.  In a sense, a basic code of ethics is required for evolution because those would be the groups that survive and reproduce.

Take Hitler for example. He had a strong belief in evolution, and his actions were absolutely consistent with his belief of evolution.    

And hence, Godwin's Law is invoked.  For those unaware, Godwin's Law isn't really a scientific law.  It's a humorous statement made in the early days of the Internet that stated that as the length of an Internet debate grows larger, the probability of one party accusing the other of acting like Hitler approaches 100%.  Usually the last desperate attempt of a failing argument.

[ironglow]

  DDZ, Billy;

    For one who observes history with it's ebb and flow through the centuries an obvious conclusion manifests itself, without straining in the least.  The two major schools of thought impose themselves upon social/political thought, in fact they are the masters of it.
   So, what are those 2 schools ? Quite simply, they are the Evolutionary dialectic vs the Creator dialectic.  Let's take a quick overview of both...

    THE EVOLUTIONARY DIALECTIC:
   1.  All creatures including men are an accidental happening, with no spirit, soul aim or direction.  Mankind is just an advanced animal, no special aim in view, although through the evolutionary process, some are more advanced than others.

  2.  Since men are only advanced animals..the superior specimens will feel free to elevate or eliminate the less advanced as they see fit, much as we do in developing a breed of dog or cattle.. thus we have  the holocaust, abortions and politicians who seem to think they know what's best for everybody.

  3.  The foundational values of the evolutionary dialectic allow and even encourages the Nazi view of breeding a super race, the idea of certain "elites" (politicians) ruling the lesser (taxpayers).  Since they see no system of rewards & punishments beyond physical death, they must build their 'heaven' here on earth, using the strongest power available, the power of government.
  
 4.  This same denial of the hereafter compels the "levelling of the field" here on earth..such as promised by Marx & Engels, Lennin and Stalin.  The old Communist axiom, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", fits closely with American unbelievers' slogan, "spread the wealth".

 5.  Evolutionary unbelievers tend to follow man made "ethics" as guideposts.

    THE CREATOR DIALECTIC:
1)  The Creator dialectic believes all creatures to have been created, while mankind being special was created in the image of God.  Thus, each individual is unique and entitled to respect as such.  Although some may be given more physical or intellectual 'gifts', no one individual is more valuable than another in God's eyes.

 2.  Since men are created by God in his image, each is entitled to "certain unalienable rights" (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness).  Each person is responsible for his/her own actions and must answer to his/her own trespasses, thus creator inclined believe strongly in "individual rights"... while those of the evolutionary model favor "group rights"..such as a farmer may grant his herd of cattle.  .. No "more advanced human: should be able to rob each of their individual rights.

 3.  The foundational values of the Creator dialectic leads to such governments as was adopted by our forefathers in America.  This dialectic offers the greatest freedom, since each is as entitled to freedom as any other.  Some resulting values from the "equal worth, equal responsibility" view are; one man = one vote, right to keep and bear arms, freedom of movement, freedom of worship and the wages of a man's labors, belongs to him (right to property).

 4.  With the Creator dialectic, within certain social constraints, what a man earns ..is his.  Any person well attuned to the Creator wil readily offer a portion of his riches to the less fortunate, however with government taking most of the available share he is more constrained.  Still, figures prove that the more Creator oriented (conservatives) still do give to charity in a much greater portion than the evolutionary liberal) model people.

 5.  Creator types tend to put greater value upon God given "morals" as guideposts.

    


    In the final analysis..it is simply a matter of where yiour FAITH is ! That's the way I see it...and I'm sticking with it !  

[Pot-Bellied Stallion]

Just a few observations, then I will not read this thread again.  It is turning into the old, stale, boring Evolution vs. Creationism argument that no one will truly ever win because no one is willing to give up his/her beliefs.

Just the opposite of Billy, I started out in school with the belief that I would eventually go to the seminary and become a preacher.  I had the religious background, had read the Bible throughout several times and had taken classes in both old and new testament studies.  However, as I saw more and more of the world and things started to fall into logical order, I began to doubt some things I had read and things I had learned from the profs who taught the religion classes.  I, therefore, grew farther and farther away from an organized religion and closer to the kind of belief that Spirithawk talked about.  I think that true faith and belief is only found in the heart and mind of individuals, and not in some script that is thousands of years old.  After all, when you take 'Gone With The Wind' and translate it hundreds of times, omit paragraphs or even chapters, and mold it to what you want it to be, then the original story is totally lost.

As for as the fossil record being incomplete - of course it is.  There are probably hundreds of species that perished in an area that wasn't conducive to the fossilization process.  Therefore, we do not have a record of their existence, nor will we ever have that record.  They simply existed for a period of time and then disappeared.  On the other hand, a perfect example of the process of evolution can be seen in the fossil record of the horse, from orohippus found in the Eocene sediments, Mesohippus, Miohippus, etc. up to the modern horse.

Often I envy those who truly have a strong belief in a creator.  At those times it would be nice to have something to give thanks to or lay blame on or ask forgiveness from or just say, "The Devil made me do it".

[DDZ]

I don't know MG what do you have to offer for saying that statement is nonsense. Evolution does remove the freedom of choice and the obligation of personal responsibility since evolution says that people are nothing more than predictable animals of instinct programmed by their glands and the environment. Evolution reduces man to just a complex machine or a genetic accident.

Where is all this evidence you speak of that shows transition of species? Lets look at the evolution of flight for instance. Flight had to evolve among insects, birds, mammals, and reptiles. You would think for evolution to happen that there would be millions of not quite ready for flight creatures that would exist in each of the four different evolutions, but there is no fossil evidence whatsoever. While multiple winged creatures have been uncovered, not even one partially winged creature has been discovered. Just like every other major animal group, flying creatures appear suddenly, fully developed, and with no apparent ancestors.   

So what you are saying is mans ethical code is no different than a dog, cat, pig, horse or a sea urchin.  What moral values, personal responsibility, or compassionate treatment of others, do animals have?

So Godwins law is always a last ditch attempt at a failing argument. I don't care who's law it is, nor did I know its called Godwin's law, but it makes sense to me. Hitler was very devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. His organized slaughter was what he adopted to secure the destiny of his race. Is this not consistent with evolutionary morality. You know, "survival of the fittest". He reverted to the tribal past, and demonstrated to the world in his madness, the methods of evolution.

Your amoeba to man belief is just a religion. You have your belief and I have mine. There is nothing you can say about evolution, to get me to believe any of it, because I do know its nothing but a religion.     

[Pat/Rick]

Maybe when we read about some of the theories and hypothesis that some of these folks come up with, we should remember to follow the (grant) money? The better the story, the more the money.

[MGMorden]

I don't know MG what do you have to offer for saying that statement is nonsense. Evolution does remove the freedom of choice and the obligation of personal responsibility since evolution says that people are nothing more than predictable animals of instinct programmed by their glands and the environment. Evolution reduces man to just a complex machine or a genetic accident.

Evolution says none of that.  All evolution says is that an individual born with some trait about themselves that makes them more likely to survive will be more likely to do so.  With that survival comes a greater likelyhood to mate, and pass on their genes, likely conveying the survival advantage to their offspring.  It could be something as simple as a level head - increased intelligence, or physical traits such as increased height.  To argue that different people don't exhibit different traits is pointless.  In what way does ANY of this have to do with choice or freedom? 

It's an incredibly basic thing.  Just take the following simple scenario:  a large herd of animals come through and eat all the low hanging fruit from the trees.  There is very little remaining fruit left.  Half the population is tall enough to reach the remaining fruit.  The other half cannot reach it.  Which half is going to starve to death?  The shorter ones.  Who wants to take bets that after the shorter people perish, the next generation won't be, on average, taller than the previous?   Simple as that.  Repeat this process ad infinitum over countless millions of years and many traits become pronounced.

Where is all this evidence you speak of that shows transition of species? Lets look at the evolution of flight for instance. Flight had to evolve among insects, birds, mammals, and reptiles. You would think for evolution to happen that there would be millions of not quite ready for flight creatures that would exist in each of the four different evolutions, but there is no fossil evidence whatsoever. While multiple winged creatures have been uncovered, not even one partially winged creature has been discovered. Just like every other major animal group, flying creatures appear suddenly, fully developed, and with no apparent ancestors.   

You have to understand that evolution is goalless. It's not like a building where you can build it up in stages, knowing that the final product will be useful.  No, anything that does not convey an immediate survival benefit would not be passed on (or at least, wouldn't be anymore likely to be passed on).  We DO have examples of animals that are somewhat in between these stages however, right here on Earth.  "Flying" squirrels for example.  They don't really fly.  They have patches of skin to glide.  That ability to glide conveys increased survivability.  The squirrels who aren't able to glide as far will quite possibly meet a swifter end due to predators catching them (unable to escape) or lack of ability to secure food.  The ones who are by chance born with bigger flaps and can glide farther will be more likely to survive and make babies.  Those babies will be more likely to have papa's big gliding surface.  In time I'm sure some of them may even be able to flap a bit to maintain their altitude for longer.  So forth, and so forth.  Though the future is impossible to predict, it's almost a guarantee that within some period in the future that species will have moved to full flight capability, much as bats already have.

Take whales for example.  Most species still have the rear bone structure present that would have been needed for when they walked on land.  They have completely transitioned however - they still have to breath air, but spend all their time in the water at this point.  Want another step along the way?  Look at the walrus.  An in-between creature.  Very, very comfortable in the water, and most of it's body has morphed into a vessel more suited to use in the water than on land, but it still comes up onto land for periods of time.  A little less evolved: the beaver.  Still very at home in an aquatic environment, it has webbed feet, and some adaptions that help, but as a species it hasn't progressed nearly to the point of the walrus.

We see the same in the fossil record.   Creatures of all sorts - some at various stages of evolution.  Some of the smaller species of dinosaurs (which are though to be the ancestors of modern birds) are starting to exhibit bird-like traits like hollow-bones (lighter - good for jumping farther - or gliding if they had skin flaps to accommodate this) for example. 

All in all, if a giant superhero in the sky is just making this stuff at random, he sure does like to throw out all his toys and buy new ones all the time.  Take a snapshot of nearly any point in time, and the animals there are constantly shifting.   Peek at 10 million years ago and you have one set of animals.  Snapshot 25 million years ago and you have DIFFERENT ones.  40 million years ago yet a different set.  And so forth, and so forth.  Even once you get back into the dinosaur age (65 million years ago) you see a giant shift in species, but then over the eons they keep changing as you go farther back too. 

You keep saying that we have no evidence of transitional species - I'd say you have to be wearing blinders NOT to see it.

So what you are saying is mans ethical code is no different than a dog, cat, pig, horse or a sea urchin.  What moral values, personal responsibility, or compassionate treatment of others, do animals have?

You're referencing different things. Ethics and morals are NOT the same thing.  Almost all animals DO have a code of conduct that they come to respect.  Dogs for example have evolved towards and alpha-male dominated structure.  He maintains order and authority within the group.  They typically do not randomly attack and kill one another.  Sure there are altercations - just as there are with all animals, but there is a code that develops that pretty much reinforces that you don't attack other members of the packs without provocation.

Mankind also has such restrictions, and it's present in ALL people - not just the religious.  That is our ethical code.   Morality is a wholly different subject and is essentially a creative work of man.

So Godwins law is always a last ditch attempt at a failing argument. I don't care who's law it is, nor did I know its called Godwin's law, but it makes sense to me. Hitler was very devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. His organized slaughter was what he adopted to secure the destiny of his race. Is this not consistent with evolutionary morality. You know, "survival of the fittest". He reverted to the tribal past, and demonstrated to the world in his madness, the methods of evolution.

What Hitler practiced was eugenics, not evolution.  Evolution is a natural phenomenon that occurs independent of man's desires.  In the same light, death is a natural phenomenon.  All things that are born on this Earth eventually die.  Does that mean that all people who believe that truth are now murderers because they "believe in death"?  Of course not.  Acknowledging a natural phenomenon is in no way, shape, or form the same as twisting it or forcing it to your own purposes.

Your amoeba to man belief is just a religion. You have your belief and I have mine. There is nothing you can say about evolution, to get me to believe any of it, because I do know its nothing but a religion.     

Evolution is science.  Science is wholly different different from religion in the most basic sense.  That is this:  Those who follow a religion profess their "faith".  Essentially, I'm going to believe what I believe, no matter what you say, because I have "faith" in that.  Faith is just that: believing an idea absent any rational reason to do so.  Science takes a different approach: I am going to believe whatever explanation has the most evidence to support it.  I will adjust my beliefs as needed as new explanations or new evidence dictate. 

Evolution has more evidence to support it at this point.  It's certainly POSSIBLE, and has been forcibly done in labs and through breeding practices with animals like dogs.  So we already know that it CAN happen - the question is: did it?  The fossil record certainly supports that.  I have no "faith" in it, because "faith" isn't needed.  Belief without evidence is an unnecessary conviction when evidence is provided, and is not the religious approach.   That's a religion about as much as "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

[ironglow]

 
The Creator dialectic says all beings were created and certain things back his contention..so he goes on with his faith..
The Evolutionist dialect says things evolved and similar species appear related, so he continues with his faith..
    God cannot/will not be put in a Petri dish, so he cannot be proven to the satisfaction of some scientists.  The "fossil record' is not a record at all, but a random collection of sometimes quite similar fossils without the "assumed" bridges to support the mass...so the Creator group is not convinced.
   Consequently, we have two schools of faith, both have a whole heirarchy, sacred writings, doctrines, evidences, sages and novices.  Both seek to evangelize and/or convert.
        They each have their "gospel" and usually resist the other gospel.  Generalizing; Those closest allied with the Creator type frown on anyone bringing the evolutionary gospel into their churches and sanctuaries...while most often those of the evolutionary persuasion, resist with all their powers the introduction of the Creator gospel into their churches and sanctuaries (high schools & colleges).
       
     As I see it, the only REAL difference is, one side admits it to be articles of faith and/or religion, while the other side denies it..
   
    I see these debates on origins as being a cover for current, grander designs.  How can we improve medicine, technology or science for today's mankind by arguing over calcified remains of 2.5 million years past ?  We can better see the subsurface designs not by listening to the arguments about 'stone bones', but by observing how each dialectic views and treats human beings and the world.  I will put down characteristics of both groups without assigning them..you decide which is attributable to the evolutionists and which is attributable to Creationists.

  A) One figures people to be simply organisms, while the other figures each human being to be unique and worthy of equal respect.

 B) One side is inclined to treat people as "groups", while the other is likely to view them as individuals..as the basis of human rights.

 C) One school of thought is inclined toward personal charity, while the other is more inclined to redistribute other's resources.

 D) One group tends to look at populations as divided into "classes", while the other sees individuals, some self sufficient, others needing help.

 E) While one group seeks to gain advantage by conversion, the other may seek to demonize those who disagree.

 F) One dialectic believes strongly in individual fredom to be the ideal, the other leans toward "collective" progress.

 G) One school's way of viewing humanity, more or less as mindless cattle, leads to believing people must be led in herds or groups..by an elite of group of the "uber-evolved" class...(e.g. Nazi Germany) .  It also manifests itself in the notion that the "masses" must be ruled and either encourageed or liquidated, according to their value to the state.  This also holds with the Marxist/communist state.

  As I already stated, don't listen to their propaganda...watch what they do and how they treat people.  Do they use "class" and personal wealth to divide people ? Do they as the Nazis did..have certain groups who they use a "whipping boys", just to distract the "masses" from their actual plans ?

   Although both major political parties in this country are more or less corrupt, one can see the Creator vs evolutionary pattern has each invested itself in it's respective host.  In a general way the conservative vs liberal philosophies are similarly invested.

[billy_56081]

As I said, I started out in my classes as a believer and ended them as a skeptic. No Mr. MgMorden evolution is not a fact, it is a theory that is supported by some very very shoddy science. Building a complete creature from a tooth and a few fragments of bones is the design of someone who starts with the answer and builds thier evedence tosupport it.

[powderman]

As I said, I started out in my classes as a believer and ended them as a skeptic. No Mr. MgMorden evolution is not a fact, it is a theory that is supported by some very very shoddy science. Building a complete creature from a tooth and a few fragments of bones is the design of someone who starts with the answer and builds thier evidence to support it.

BILLY. YEP, agreed Sir. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

  I do tend to agree with the Creator school because to my way of thinking it is more logical and will serve humanity best in the long run....so long as the imposters are continally weeded out. That's just my $.02...

[torpedoman]

I have no problem merging the two theories  given the explanation of how gods time works.

[DDZ]

Hey, happy new year MG.
Now about these transitional fossils. The reason I keep saying there are no fossil records of species transforming from one species to another is because, there are none. I'm not talking about horses once being small now they are big. They are all still horses. Or the 100 some varieties of dogs. They are all still dogs, just different. I'm talking about the transformation from one species into something completely different. Like the cow or hippo, to whale theory. Or the amoeba to man theory, which is what evolution is based on.
The evolutionists idea of a simple single cell is false, because there is no such thing as a simple single cell. The simple single cell that they think emerged from whatever, is so complex that it could not have just happened. Let alone change into what humans are.

If this transformation of life did happen, the rocks would be full of transitional species, but there are none. Evolutionists say they just haven't been found yet. That one is real easy to believe huh? There are massive holes in the evolution theory, so yes, it does take a bunch of faith to believe it.

I'm sure you will debunk the article as being a lie, but that is ok. I and many others know its content is true.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/creation-evolution-fossil-record.asp     

[ironglow]

Happy new year all;
     That is exactly what I was referring to as "bridge" fossils.  Certainly we can easily recognize localized adaptations of any given species..short, stocky bodies in arctic areas or tightly curled/frizzy hair in equatorial areas.  There are plenty of adaptations...but no bridge or crossover fossils clearly demonstrating movement from one species to another.

[Scibaer]

bridge fossils... there is one theory of evolution that suggests that species dont change as slowly as once thought.
there are no bridge fossils because of this.
think of it this way, what came first the chicken or the egg ? answer is the egg.
there was a bird who laid an egg. this egg mutated and  the first chicken was born. there is no intermediary animal.
there is a scientific ( remember methodology ) term for this and it is well studied and understood, but to be honest i cant recall its name.
however, all species are and have been subjected to this form of change ( evolution ).
darwin was explaining exactly this evolutionary change, when he was describing the small changes he saw in finches.
simply put, mutation is the engine that drives evolution.

edited to add... the scientific term i was trying to recall is 'bio-genesis'

[ironglow]

bridge fossils... there is one theory of evolution that suggests that species dont change as slowly as once thought.
there are no bridge fossils because of this.
think of it this way, what came first the chicken or the egg ? answer is the egg.
there was a bird who laid an egg. this egg mutated and  the first chicken was born. there is no intermediary animal.
there is a scientific ( remember methodology ) term for this and it is well studied and understood, but to be honest i cant recall its name.
however, all species are and have been subjected to this form of change ( evolution ).
darwin was explaining exactly this evolutionary change, when he was describing the small changes he saw in finches.

      Yes Scibear;
           When it was finally proven to evolutionists that the timeline was not adequte and having to admit they had found no bridge fossils, naturally rather than to admit the possibility of a Creator, they found it imperative to "spin" or at least offer.... SOMETHING.
    That is when they came up with the "hopeful monsters" theory...somewhat akin to "its a lemur today but tomorrow morning it remarkably is suddenly a pygmy !      Now that takes a world of faith...in men who have changed their tune quite often..

[Scibaer]

nothing has been "finally proven" to evolutionists ( a term used to denigrate modern science, by the way ).
bio-genesis was recognized and being understood as science by 1745. its not something that science has recently came up with.
there is no spin by science, the word theory, when used in science, refers to an explanation of reality ( tested by scientific methodolgy, that has been thoroughly tested) so that scientists in that field agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found, and often is.
if you read the hopeful monsters hypothesis, it supports bio-genesis, and is a slang term for rapid evolutionary changes.
the momma frog lays eggs, the eggs turn in to tadpoles( bio-genesis ), which sprout legs and drop off their tails( rapid evolutionary change )and become young frogs.
the egg to frog example is used for demonstration purposes, not to prove a theory.
men ( scientists ) have not "changed thier tune" its a part of good science and sound logic to amend statements in science when new, provable, repeatable, testable and describable evidence is found. as it should be done. 

[DDZ]

Yes, Happy new year to all!

You are exactly right IG. When the evolutionists found out that no bridge fossils would ever be uncovered to support their faith, they just had to come up with some other theory. They couldn't just say well God must have created the heavens, earth, and everything living. Hence we have the "it must have happened to fast for any fossils to be created" theory. Yes it does take a world of faith to believe this,
The idea that life just sprang from the mud is about as far fetched of an idea as you can get.

[Scibaer]

there is no scientific term describing 'bridge fossils'. nor is it a proposed explanation for the observable phenomenon of bones or fossils that show the evolutionary process. the OP stated 'some scientists will be upset' alluding to the fact that teeth were found and they show modern humans to be much older then previously thought. well, if and when that happens, it will a base of knowledge to the theory of human evolution and changes will be made.
modern science will not throw in the towel and say 'case closed, there goes the theory of evolution!'. this is not about "belief". you must first understand the scientific method before you can attack it. you must understand what is really being said. no hypothesis says that animals sprang up from mud.
but, dont clean your bathroom and mold will grow.. so yeah an understanding of basic science biology is in order at some point.

if you believe that GOD created everything, and not attribute anything to evolutionary processes, they you must believe that all creatures we have now have lived since the beginning of the earth, when GOD seeded the earth, after splitting the firmament from the waters. a faith by the way, defined as the confident belief of a concept or idea and not resting on logical proof or material evidence.

so i have a simple question...
now, why dont scientists find modern animals in the fossil record then ?
and a supporting question..
why dont scientists dig up dinosaur bones laying along side modern animals bones then, dated to the same age ?

[DDZ]

Scibaer   
I don't think I need to know much about biology to know that evolution is just a belief and not fact. God gave me common sense and the ability to read, and reason.
So the people that don't know much about biology should just shut their mouth and accept everything the evolutionists say. Sounds like the path most college science professors take. " I'm teaching evolution and I don't want to hear any arguments toward it. It kind of leads to bad science since mindless theories are repeated over and over with greater and greater confidence.
 
The oldest rocks that fossils have been found in were during the Cambrian period. These rocks were so full of fossils that it was referred to as the Cambrian explosion. The animals found there were highly developed creatures. Every major invertebrate alive today is found in Cambrian rocks. Lobsters, shrimp, sponges, crabs, worms, jellyfish, clams, etc.. they appear suddenly, fully developed, without a trace of ancestral development.
The same for fish when they show up in the fossil record they are fully developed. The fossil record offers no clues as to how sea animals acquired hard parts, so its just speculation that invertebrate transformed to fish.
  Amphibians also appear suddenly in the fossil record with no records of fish turning into amphibians.
When mammals appear in the fossil record they are also fully developed. The same with rodents, birds, insects, and plants.
Modern apes, seem to have sprung out of nowhere, they have no fossil record, meaning no record of them being anything else but apes.
The sudden appearance of animals in the fossil record, with no evidence of in between animals is in complete conflict with evolution theory.   
The fossil evidence is so poor that one of the worlds leading paleontologists confesses he has never seen the evolutionary process in the fossil record.
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum in London, has more fossils at his disposal than perhaps anyone in the world. He authored a textbook on the fossil record, in which there was only just one illustration of a transitional form. When he was asked why no transitional creatures were included, Dr. Patterson said “If I knew of any fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.” He said “Gradualism is a concept I believe in because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it…I will lay it on the line---there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” So Genetics demands transitional creatures, yet there is not one such fossil.
Dr. Patterson said. One mourning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. For the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is: can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true. I tried this question on the geology staff at the field museum of National History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school. Imagine that? 

Animals have been found right along side dinosaurs. Lions, camels, horses, tigers, bison, fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrate. The fact is they were always animals, fish, birds etc.. They may have been a bit different years ago, but they remained the same species. Cows didn’t turn into whales, or fish into crocodiles.

Evolution is no more scientific than any other hypothesis about the origins of life. Both creationists and evolutionists operate within the world of faith. So we ask ourselves which makes the most sense. Which model is most consistent with the observable facts? Clearly the only hard core evidence is the geologic and fossil records. They speak in complete consistency with Creation, and strongly contradict evolution. That is why evolution is a theory in crisis. It has failed miserably to explain the world around us. It tragically, with its acceptance has corrupted our culture by providing people with scientific justification to live as they please. Like Darwin, evolution is dead. Most people just don’t know it yet.

So in your belief of evolution where and how do you assume live started? The evolution theory says that it was formed from chemicals in water or something like that. Is that what you believe, or did it happen some other way that your science professor taught you?   

[Scibaer]

Likewise, GOD granted me the ability to read, reason and apply common sense to the problems set before me. I needed no science professors for that.
I never suggested any one shut thier mouths, infact you have presented very good and solid arguments and i enjoy reading what you have presented here.
I just happen to not agree. The Cambrian explosion was an amazing event, no doubt. But like you yourself said, those creatures were different then those we have today. so does not that show some level of evolution ? if not bio-genesis at least ?  yes its does, the change in any animals traits through changes in DNA passed from parent to offspring is by definition biological evolution. i cannot answer where all life started, but changes is animals, or humans over time can clearly be seen and testable evidence can trace such changes, i.e. natural selection. the other side of that coin would be that the first cause of life on earth would be GOD. that all life on earth is the result of GOD's work. And i am ok with that, however the belief and faith that GOD created all life as we know it today, does not explain what we see today in the way of change in any given species. Nor does science, but science is testable. Evolutionary theory states that, life springing from the primordial ooze,  mud if you like, is but one possibility and finding human teeth along with some detritus of questionable age, does not take away or add to that theory. i need to back up, to say the animal fossils that we find in the pre and cambrian era, are not the same animals we find today, i will concede that modern apes did show up in the fossil record as we find them today, but other animals have not, primarily sea creature, though not exclusively so. just because the fossils of an intermediary primate between modern apes and some older primate has not been found, does no prove anything other then it has not been found yet ( setting aside the obvious neanderthals, lucy's, cro-manion's and the like ).
i guess what i need to stress is, if anyone wants to argue the beginnings of life, then thats one issue and separate from the change in species we see today, which i see as a separate argument anyhow.