I want some answers

[Mr. P]

Yup, Mr. P. Have to agree with you here. This subject is guaranteed to start a tempest in the toilet!

Yup, 100% Guaranteed.

 

[Powerman]

Yup, Mr. P. Have to agree with you here. This subject is guaranteed to start a tempest in the toilet!

But why? It shouldn't start any trouble. And it's usually the good Christians who get out of control after they realize there isn't much substance to the bible with regards to logic.

 

[5stringJeff]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that there are no transitional fossils? Because if you are I don't need to waste time talking to you.

And answer this question for me. Where are the ancient fossils of humans? That's right. There are none because we didn't exist in our present state millions of years ago.

Riddle me this (with the relevant parts bolded):

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:


‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

 

[Powerman]

You obviously don't understand logical proofs. And if you re-read, I stated that it was outside the scope of the thread to prove the existence of God and the deity of Christ. But here's a short proof of the former:

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
a. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
b. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

You're right...I don't understand your logical proofs. But it's not because of any lack of intellectual capacity. It's because your talking in circles and making absolutely no sense. I'm sure it makes sense to you but everything you just said is complete insanity and has no substance.

 

[Nienna]

I see a few threads here pertaining to evolution.

I can understand if from a scientific standpoint you might not be completely sold on evolution.

But if you believe in creationism or ID why don't you apply the same thought process to that?

Why must there be a high standard of proof for evolution which so many of you despise yet you don't apply that to your own beliefs concerning faith? With faith there is no standard of proof. It's quite silly actually.

Biblical Creationism is different from Intelligent Design. Many who believe in Intelligent Design are evolutionists. They simply believe there was an "intelligent force" involved in the process. Biblical Creationists believe that God created the universe exactly the way He said He did, spelled out in the book of Genesis.

Belief in macroevolution and creationism do employ the same processes of proof. Both involve historic, unrepeatable, unobservable occurences. We can only take the pegs we find in nature in the present and try to see which theoretical hole they best fit. Both macroevolution and creationism are beliefs.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'd love to continue but I owe my wife a date.

 

[Powerman]

Riddle me this (with the relevant parts bolded):

Dude if you want me to read a link try not to give me religious propaganda. I'm very familiar with that website and the lies they spew.

Try using a credible source of information instead of religious propaganda.

 

[Powerman]

I'd love to continue but I owe my wife a date.

We'll pick it up another time then. Have a nice night. And be sure to tip well!

 

[Nienna]

You obviously don't understand logical proofs. And if you re-read, I stated that it was outside the scope of the thread to prove the existence of God and the deity of Christ. But here's a short proof of the former:

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
a. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
b. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Actually, I believe it is because the universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause.

 

[Powerman]

Biblical Creationism is different from Intelligent Design. Many who believe in Intelligent Design are evolutionists. They simply believe there was an "intelligent force" involved in the process. Biblical Creationists believe that God created the universe exactly the way He said He did, spelled out in the book of Genesis.

Belief in macroevolution and creationism do employ the same processes of proof. Both involve historic, unrepeatable, unobservable occurences. We can only take the pegs we find in nature in the present and try to see which theoretical hole they best fit. Both macroevolution and creationism are beliefs.

But macroevolution has proof and creationism doesn't....one is science and one isn't. Pretty simple to see the distinction. You can't lump them together as equals.

Evolution= tons of evidence
Creationism=Zero evidence

 

[Nienna]

But macroevolution has proof and creationism doesn't....one is science and one isn't. Pretty simple to see the distinction. You can't lump them together as equals.

Evolution= tons of evidence
Creationism=Zero evidence

Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "science." I favor something along the lines of this:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

 

[Powerman]

Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "science." I favor something along the lines of this:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

Yeah...I'm all about the scientific method. My point is evolution uses the scientific method while ID and creationism don't. What's so tough to undersand about that?

 

[Nienna]

Yeah...I'm all about the scientific method. My point is evolution uses the scientific method while ID and creationism don't. What's so tough to undersand about that?

I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you can observe one species morphing into another over millions of years.

 

[Annie]

The view you reference is called "young-earth creationism," and is not held universally by all Christians. There are many Christians, including me, who believe that the universe was created, by God, through the 11-12 billion year time span that scientists determine is the age of the universe. We view the six days of creation to be more like six different time periods, during which God was actively involved in creating different things (the earth, the stars, plants, land, oceans, animals, etc.). Therefore, we see no conflict between our faith and the existence of fossils, dinosaurs, etc.

Jeff, you sure you're not Catholic? J/K You summed up pretty much how I can reconcile God and evolution. Personally I could care less how someone else believes the world came to pass, but I taught my own children that God created the beginning-everything. Evolution was His passing time and letting things work towards more perfection, the way each of us tries to do over our lifetime. I do see evolution that way, which is why I'm for teaching that in school, along with Big Bang.

It seems to me that the 'alternatives' should find mention in science curriculum at some time, just not sure that they should be put on the same platform. As I've said before, much easier for private schools to address, as parochial has theology classes and 'secular' private have philosophy or ethics type classes. Sadly, I've heard of few public schools that address science outside of science.

 

[MissileMan]

I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you can observe one species morphing into another over millions of years.

From your article:

When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.

I believe this same method is used in geology and anthropology. This in my opinion is where ID/creationism falls short...it can be called a hypothesis, but lacks enough substance to move into the theory category.

 

[Powerman]

I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you can observe one species morphing into another over millions of years.

Think of it like forensic science...

Your understanding of observing things is pretty primitive. No offense.


Obviously no event that takes millions of years to occur can be observed because no one can live that long. But to suggest that it must not be true since you don't have a first hand video taped account of it is just silly.

For example...continental drift...we can't 'observe' the continents moving over millions of years by your ridiculous standard of proof but we know that they did move.

 

[Nienna]

From your article:



I believe this same method is used in geology and anthropology. This in my opinion is where ID/creationism falls short...it can be called a hypothesis, but lacks enough substance to move into the theory category.

Actually, I don't think I posted that article, but okay... creationism involves geology and anthropology too. What you were talking about here was the primary cause, what happened in the beginning. The two theories we must juxtapose are Creation Week and The Big Bang. Neither of these can be observed/experimented upon.

As we move into geology, we can employ the scientific method for both working hypotheses. Observe a rock formation. We see thousands of strata with some polystrate inclusions (Stuff stuck into the rock which spans many layers). We test this observation against both working hypotheses.

Evolutionists/materialists believe that rock layers were laid down one at a time over millions of years. How to explain the intrusions? If they were stuck in the the outcropping as it formed over millions of years, an intrusion such as a stick or an animal would have rotted away at the top before the next layer could have been deposited. Or if it had been intruded after the rock layers formed, there would be evidence of cracking/breakage around the intrusion.

Creationists believe that rock layers were deposited very quickly, laid down wet, and dried together (as would have occurred in a global flood). Intrusions pose no problem for this theory. They can exist intact because they had no time to rot. There is no breakage around them in the rock formation because the entire formation was wet when it was deposited. So we test this even farther. Is it possible for several layers of rock to form simultaneously? This is something we can experiment with, and scientists have. In labs with water tanks and I even read of one experiment where they dammed up part of a beach to test this on a larger scale. In both cases, scientists found that water has a sorting action, and different types of sediment/debris will sift itself and form layers simultaneously.

Anthropology: I have a soccer game to go to. If you would like to provide a scenario, I would be glad to apply Creationism to it.

 

[Nienna]

Think of it like forensic science...

Your understanding of observing things is pretty primitive. No offense.


Obviously no event that takes millions of years to occur can be observed because no one can live that long. But to suggest that it must not be true since you don't have a first hand video taped account of it is just silly.

For example...continental drift...we can't 'observe' the continents moving over millions of years by your ridiculous standard of proof but we know that they did move.

No one (whom I have heard of) doubts that continental drift exists, or that there appeared to be a single land mass in the beginning. The only question is actually a question of stasis. Are the continents moving now as they have always been moving, or was there a catastrophe (such as a deep-sea eruption) which broke the plates and thrust them apart initially, with the plates losing momentum until they achieved their present "drifting" status? When I think of the force which must have been necessary to rend tectonic plates, I (of course) favor the latter theory.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Well if you believe god is allpowerful and can do anything, then it's nothing for him to create humanity, plus a fossil record which appears to support evolution to lure the nonbelievers away from god.

Actually, the fossil record does anything BUT support evolution. Here's my take on it and I won't mention religion once:

You know the geological chart that shows the "earliest" life forms at the bottom and the "advanced" ones at the top? Everything is neat and orderly on paper, but there's one problem: NOWHERE ON EARTH do the actual strata layers match the chart! Nowhere! Not even once! To make matters worse, some of the so-called "earlier" forms have been found in layers ABOVE the so called "advanced" forms, or even in the SAME strata. Several skeletons of horses that are believed to have been evolutionary ancestors have been found MIXED TOGETHER!!!! Yeah baby...supposedly millions of years apart, but judging from the actual fossils, it appears that the "Dawn Horse" actually got pretty chummy with his "descendants". It just amazes me to see how all this phony bullshit is taught in schools as fact, when the hard evidence shows that Darwin was and always will be a fraud. If you think about it, evolution sounds as remarkably ridiculous as the old belief that rats sprang magically from garbage, or that maggots come spontaneously from rotten meat.

Or that Kerry would ever become president!!! :teeth:

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

No one (whom I have heard of) doubts that continental drift exists, or that there appeared to be a single land mass in the beginning. The only question is actually a question of stasis. Are the continents moving now as they have always been moving, or was there a catastrophe (such as a deep-sea eruption) which broke the plates and thrust them apart initially, with the plates losing momentum until they achieved their present "drifting" status? When I think of the force which must have been necessary to rend tectonic plates, I (of course) favor the latter theory.

Here's something in the Bible that may support C.D....

A guy in the Bible named his son Peleg, "for in those days was the earth divided." My mom has an English-to-Hebrew dictionary in the back of her Bible, and when I looked up "divided", the word is "Peleg" which means roughly "channel of water" and is also related to the word "earthquake." Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!