Hey creationists: 2 newly-discovered species 500 million years old

Nick the Pilot

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
98
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
New Deep-Sea Animal Species Look Like Mushrooms but Defy Classification

"The animals, described for the first time Wednesday in the scientific journal PLOS ONE, cannot be classified to any existing animal group, though they resemble a few long-extinct species. "It's a very interesting surprise, and it poses lots and lots of questions," says Simon Conway Morris, a biologist at the U.K.'s University of Cambridge who studies early animal evolution.

"Leonid Moroz, a neurobiologist at the University of Florida's Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience in St. Augustine, says that if the new species turn out to be descendants of early animals, the find could "completely reshape the tree of life, and even our understanding of how animals evolved, how neurosystems evolved, how different tissues evolved," he says. "It can rewrite whole textbooks in zoology."

"Scientists have recently been debating the positions of the animals at the base of the family tree, and the new oddballs might be a contender for one of the earliest branches."

(cont.)
 
Won't make a jot of difference, Nick.

They'll just tell you they were created that way, and were put in the ground to be found later, to give the world the appearance of being millions of years old.
 
G!d has done this to test us.

But see how science has no clue? and keep's changing things? Whereas the bible always has been right and always will be right...
 
Is that what they say?

Heavens, but you've got some real problems over there!
 
We've been trying to inform you of the state of belief in this country Thomas.

Your version of Catholicism is virtually unknown here... (prior to grad school ) bible thumpers are us.
 
Actually one of the most irrefutable proofs that creationism is wrong was put forth by DeGrasse Tyson in the Cosmos remake.

We know for a fact what the speed of light is.
We know for a fact that this speed is a cosmological constant. The speed of light is the same everywhere.

A light year is the distance light has travelled in one year's time as measured on this planet.

If the creationists are right, we should not be able to see any further into the cosmos than 6,000 years. Because light has only had 6,000 years to travel from here to there.

But of course we can see light that has travelled millions of years to reach us. That is proof beyond a doubt that the universe is way older than 6,000 years.

Of course none of this will matter to creationists. Their minds are already made up and no fact to the contrary is going to impress them.
 
There's already abundant scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

If one believes that there's an omnipotent G-d who created and controls the universe, there's no conflict in believing that everything our senses perceive is the creation of G-d, possibly for reasons beyond our current understanding.

Science is science and faith is faith.
 
Dan, we know there are plenty of folks who have a religious faith and find no issues with science....

There are however folks who insist that the universe is 7k old, that the great flood through instant canyonification created the Grand Canyon as it drained and the lands rose...that dinos and man walked the planet at the same time, that man was created before animals...and on and on due to literal interpretations of the bible...

and the number of these folks is not insignificant...in the US there are tens of millions...

This is of what we are speaking...we are after all on an interFAITH forum.
 
Wil, I was just adding my two cents to the discussion, agreeing with the previous replies that new scientific discoveries are irrelevant to "creationism". But I wasn't sure who's included under the "creationist" label, so I was trying to say that one can believe that the world was created 5774 years ago without being a crazy fanatic. :)
 
How exactly would that be?

Science dates the earth within plus or minus 50 million years... at 4.54 billion years old.

You are indicating they are 4.54 million years off?

Or since the universe is 13.8 billion years they are that far off as well?
 
Do any New earth creationists come to this forum? I'd be surprised.
 
If G-d is omnipotent and beyond our understanding, then why couldn't He create a world that appears to us to be millions or billions of years old, but is "in reality" about 6000 years old?

I'm not saying that you have to believe that, or that there aren't other viewpoints, but it seems like one acceptable viewpoint, if one believes in G-d.
 
There have been one or two people who stated they believed that creationism could be considered as valid as science. That's about it.

Dan why would this God do that? I mean, I've heard of being sensitive about your age, but this takes the cake!
 
Gordian Knot, my understanding is that He's giving us an environment in which we can exercise our free will, are tested, and can develop. But as I learn more, that answer will probably change.

How is "creationism" defined here? Just so I can be sure we're talking about the same thing. :)
 
Dan0813 said:
If G-d is omnipotent and beyond our understanding, then why couldn't He create a world that appears to us to be millions or billions of years old, but is "in reality" about 6000 years old?

I'm not saying that you have to believe that, or that there aren't other viewpoints, but it seems like one acceptable viewpoint, if one believes in G-d.
Click to expand...
What would make anyone that would be the case?

Why wouldn't someone simply think that 4,000 years ago stories were told around a fire trying to explain creation, just as 4,000 years prior to that, and today...we are still trying to understand things we don't have a handle on...

The difference between today and 4,000 years ago is today we have a better handle on things, not all nailed down, but we understand a lot more. We understand that the biblical stories were allegory, metaphor and that the earth is not the center of the universe...
 
Dan, the main tenant of creationism is that God created all creatures as they exist today. Creationists reject evolution and believe in a a literalistic reading of the Book of Genesis.

Good Ol' Wiki has a decent summation of their beliefs.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Abrahamic God, which, I believe, is the God you speak of, has given us free will not so much so that we can be tested to see if we pass; rather to give us the option to choose how our life will go forward.

Other pantheons have Gods with other motives. For your God, I find it far fetched that he would create an illusion of billions of years of existence if there were really only 6000. That is purposefully throwing a deception in the way of a religious understanding of the universe. Sounds more like something the big S would do (and I don't mean Superman!). But he didn't create the universe. God did.
 
interesting stuff. Does rejection of Creationism imply rejection of a Creator? Does not rejecting evolution require one to not believe evolution might progress according to a plan or design?
 
Well their are creationist, short earthers who deny the science and say the earth is the same age as the Jewish Calendar....

And then their is intelligent design...where a genesis day isn't a day but an era or eons, and the story is metaphor but G!d was behind it all...evolution ok...can't find eyes being made? G!d...
 
Wil, thanks for the reply.

I have professed a creationist belief since the time long ago when I was exposed to the Divine Watchmaker Analogy in a college philosophy class.

I was shaken by Gordion Knot's statement that the main tenent of creationism is that God created all creatures exactly as they are today, and that the entirety of creation is less than 6000 years old. That is not the creationism I believe in.

I have encountered short earthers like you mentioned and never ceased to be amazed that educated, reasonably intelligent people could twist credibility to any extremity just to avoid abandoning a chronology given in the same book of Genesis that mentions fruit from a tree of knowledge (an obvious non-literal metaphor).

What is the correct label for someone like me who believes that the universe and our world with all it's marvelous design could not have arisen chaotically from chance. What do you call someone like me who believes that evolution does occur, but that it is according to intelligent plan.

The existence of DNA is a very recent discovery. We are at the mere threshold of unlocking its secrets. All living things share DNA. As scientists of the future study DNA, I think it will be discovered that DNA holds the secrets to all past and future evolution of life. Junk DNA is not junk, it is the evolutionary future.

What makes sense to me is that the Original Mind (call it God or whatever you wish) presented his/hers/its finest work when it designed DNA. God created all creatures not as static life, but with the wonderful DNA design that allowed for change and infinite diversity in the future.

I obviously believe in intelligent design and creation, but don't know how I should call myself. I don't want to be lumped in with the creationists which Gordian Knot describes. Please help me out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top