Mr. P
VIP Member
Yup, 100% Guaranteed.mom4 said:Yup, Mr. P. Have to agree with you here. This subject is guaranteed to start a tempest in the toilet!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup, 100% Guaranteed.mom4 said:Yup, Mr. P. Have to agree with you here. This subject is guaranteed to start a tempest in the toilet!
mom4 said:Yup, Mr. P. Have to agree with you here. This subject is guaranteed to start a tempest in the toilet!
Powerman said: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.
Charles Darwin said: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 books 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 Darwins 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 Darwins Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
gop_jeff said: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.
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.Powerman said: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.
gop_jeff said:I'd love to continue but I owe my wife a date.
gop_jeff said: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.
mom4 said: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.
Powerman said: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
mom4 said: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
I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you can observe one species morphing into another over millions of years.Powerman said: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?
gop_jeff said: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.
mom4 said:I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you can observe one species morphing into another over millions of years.
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.
mom4 said:I guess I'm having trouble understanding how you can observe one species morphing into another over millions of years.
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.MissileMan said: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.
Powerman said: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.
rtwngAvngr said: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.
mom4 said: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.