Need A Belief System Be Rational???

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, the fossil record is full of proof of evolution. We can see how humans evolved from lower primates. We can see how birds evolved from dinosaurs.



Um, okay... the whole of the paleontological community would dispute that...

Look, I kind of get it.. If man evolved from Apes, then there is no divine plan, or a self-loathing diety that created man in his own image only to inflict horrid misery on him.

Wrong again....


As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment (1980, 96[18]:95).

 

[alang1216]

As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment (1980, 96[18]:95).

While it is always good to get your science from a news reporter, the central theory of Darwin was descent from a common ancestor. That is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of scientists from multiple fields, including the fossil record. Darwin proposed a simple mechanism over 150 years ago. It is hardly surprising that we've learned the process is not so simple but nothing has changed the fundamental theory of descent from a common ancestor.

 

[Donald H]

Where is the list of intermediate speicies that you claimed to have?

Why has there been zero proof of Darwin's theory in a century and a half?

Why are you an inveterate liar?

In this 21st. century, a debate over evolution vs. creation is redundant hon.
As to my position on the question? My position is clearly illustrated in the link featuring Richard Dawkins.

If you have any ambition of promoting a non-literal interpretation of your bible and your religion, I may be convinced to entertain some of your ideas.

There's nothing in it for me to make mockery of the preposterous nonsense of literal bible beliefs.

Creation beliefs over Darwinian evolution? Give us a break!

Maybe some other Christians can bring something new and rational to the discussion. Christian beliefs are evolving rapidly and hence leaders of the world's biggest Christian churches are running away from 'creation' themselves!

 

[PoliticalChic]

In this 21st. century, a debate over evolution vs. creation is redundant hon.
As to my position on the question? My position is clearly illustrated in the link featuring Richard Dawkins.

If you have any ambition of promoting a non-literal interpretation of your bible and your religion, I may be convinced to entertain some of your ideas.

There's nothing in it for me to make mockery of the preposterous nonsense of literal bible beliefs.

Creation beliefs over Darwinian evolution? Give us a break!

Maybe some other Christians can bring something new and rational to the discussion. Christian beliefs are evolving rapidly and hence leaders of the world's biggest Christian churches are running away from 'creation' themselves!

Where is the list of intermediate speicies that you claimed to have?

Why has there been zero proof of Darwin's theory in a century and a half?

Why are you an inveterate liar?

 

[Donald H]

While it is always good to get your science from a news reporter, the central theory of Darwin was descent from a common ancestor. That is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of scientists from multiple fields, including the fossil record. Darwin proposed a simple mechanism over 150 years ago. It is hardly surprising that we've learned the process is not so simple but nothing has changed the fundamental theory of descent from a common ancestor.

Wise words, presented in a fair way that can help to narrow the gap in this discussion. Darwin didn't get it 100% right and it's fair to say that science seldom does in it's quest for the truth.

Her premise that bears repeating:

In the fossil record, missing links are the rule:

Of course it's the rule! And it always will be for several logical reasons.

I can't see any other of her points than that one worth exploring further.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong again....


As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

And where did he get his doctorate in biology?

The point is, the fossil record shows that species change over time. The problem with citing the lack of "transitional forms" is that very few individuals are fossilized. What we do have shows changes over time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And where did he get his doctorate in biology?

The point is, the fossil record shows that species change over time. The problem with citing the lack of "transitional forms" is that very few individuals are fossilized. What we do have shows changes over time.

Where did you get yours???


The fossil record does nothing of the sort.....simply one more lie that morons...you....have been trained to accept.



Unlike you, I have informed myself.



Now.....to utterly eviscerate you:


There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

 

[JoeB131]

Unlike you, I have informed myself.

The Home School University of Crazy doesn't count...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Home School University of Crazy doesn't count...

Get your hoof out of your mouth.

Every item I provided was linked, sourced and documented.

They are all correct, by experts.

You...nothing but lying scum.

 

[JoeB131]

Get your hoof out of your mouth.

Every item I provided was linked, sourced and documented.

They are all correct, by experts.

You...nothing but lying scum.

You can link to all sorts of crazy, but at the end of the day, Evolution is accepted by almost all scientists as being fact, based on the fossil record.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can link to all sorts of crazy, but at the end of the day, Evolution is accepted by almost all scientists as being fact, based on the fossil record.

View attachment 590328
View attachment 590329
View attachment 590330

Really?

After a century and a half with no one able to show proof?

And, of course, there's this, when politics is involved:
Nov 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.



August 19th 1934: Some 90 percent of German voters approved a referendum that made Adolf Hitler “Führer und Reichskanzler” (“leader and chancellor”).



On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, 10 April 1938, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

 

[JoeB131]

Really?

After a century and a half with no one able to show proof?

Yup, we have whole museums full of fossils that's how much "proof" we have.

And this is where the weird robot malfunctioned...

<enter-data Evolution - Sum Hitler... MALFUNCTION!!!>

And, of course, there's this, when politics is involved:
Nov 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.

Wow, I think your software if off, where you sequed into "Hitler".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup, we have whole museums full of fossils that's how much "proof" we have.

And this is where the weird robot malfunctioned...

View attachment 590466
<enter-data Evolution - Sum Hitler... MALFUNCTION!!!>



Wow, I think your software if off, where you sequed into "Hitler".

Soooo sorry....you won't be allowed to hide your lies.


I don't mind rubbing your ugly face in it again:


There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471




Now....how about you repeating you lie about fossils proving your lies????

 

[Ringtone]

And, if so, how do 'rational' and 'high body count' fit together????



1.It seems ‘rational’ for a system of belief be just that, based on reason and logic. It just seems that that relationship should be a part of the human condition. After all, we are known scientifically as Homo sapiens…..which translates to ‘man the wise.’

Of course it should go without saying that the above pertains to adults, not children. It’s just that we run into a problem in contemporary America in that the dominant political party infantilizes its adherents. Imagine actual adults believing that their party will take care of them from cradle to grave, and they have nothing to give up….well, except for freedom, liberty and the right to make their own decisions.
And.....when obedience is the coin of the realm......how to accomplish one's own survival?
This is where ‘rational’ comes in.





2. But today, a most specific consideration of rational, as it pertains to religion. That dominant political party goes far out of its way to ridicule, marginalize, and de-legitimize religion. And by religion, I don’t mean the ersatz version substituted by the Left, the worship of man himself, and the collectivization of man, what we call government. This faux religion, Militant Secularism, projects its desire to be considered a real religion by draping itself in a number of religious trappings.

For example, they refer to their candidates as god, Jesus or the messiah. They kneel as one might in church..

View attachment 588736

Democrats kneel for 8 minutes as they propose âtransformativeâ new police procedures, accountability - The Boston Globe

A sweeping overhaul of police oversight and procedures is being proposed by Democrats in response to the deaths of black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.

www.bostonglobe.com

3. From the perspective of history, the religion of the Founders, the Judeo-Christian faith, was the reason for the success of Western Civilization, while the ‘religion’ of the Left gave us the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, all of which resulted in piles of bodies.
See where ‘rational’ might fit in to judging a belief system?

4. “Why Do Atheists Think They’re the Party of Reason When They Reason So Poorly?”​

…Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and Victor Stenger telling us about The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, and The Center for Inquiry pronouncing it’s time for science and reason.”
Why Do Atheists Think They're the Party of Reason When They Reason So Poorly? - The Stream



I shouldn’t have to point out that replacing the ol’ time religion with science and reason is why the French Revolution resulted in an abattoir……that means ‘slaughter house.’ As did every other movement with that basis.
After all, science might tell us what we can do.....


......but not what we should do.

Atheists are notoriously bad thinkers.

 

[JoeB131]

Soooo sorry....you won't be allowed to hide your lies.


I don't mind rubbing your ugly face in it again:


There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

What does that have to do with Hitler? I mean, you took a discussion about evolution and started talking about Hitler... Seriously, what the heck?

There is plenty of proof of natural selection and evolution in the fossil records, in that life changes over time. We can see that humans only existed in the fossil record for 7 million years, and modern humans for only the last 500,000 or so...

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does that have to do with Hitler? I mean, you took a discussion about evolution and started talking about Hitler... Seriously, what the heck?

There is plenty of proof of natural selection and evolution in the fossil records, in that life changes over time. We can see that humans only existed in the fossil record for 7 million years, and modern humans for only the last 500,000 or so...

I proved no such thing exists, yet you keep lying about it.

That's the problem for those who are incapable of learning.

 

[JoeB131]

I proved no such thing exists, yet you keep lying about it.

That's the problem for those who are incapable of learning.

Um, do you even read the posts you are responding to?

 

[Baron]

, the religion of the Founders, the Judeo-Christian faith,

Jesus condemned Judaism as a satanic teaching, why are you babbling about the 'Judeo-Christian faith'"
I'm gonna be strictly disagree with you.
Christians are Christians, Jews are Jews.

 

[Meriweather]

Christians are Christians, Jews are Jews.
Jesus condemned Judaism as a satanic teaching, why are you babbling about

In John 8:44, Jesus did not condemn the Jewish faith; he condemned those twisting the Jewish faith for their own purposes instead of God's. That being said, Christians are Christians; Jews are Jews, and Christianity is deeply rooted in the Jewish faith.

 

[Baron]

In John 8:44, Jesus did not condemn the Jewish faith; he condemned those twisting the Jewish faith for their own purposes instead of God's. That being said, Christians are Christians; Jews are Jews, and Christianity is deeply rooted in the Jewish faith.

You can tell this fairy tale your grandma.

Christianity vs Judaism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What's the difference between Christianity and Judaism? Christianity and Judaism are two Abrahamic religions that have similar origins but have varying beliefs, practices, and teachings. Crucifix in the sunset. About Judaism and Christianity The definition of Christianity varies among different...

www.diffen.com

After Jesus all former roots were cut off