Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: cheapgoose
wait, so god might have started the big bang?

what happened to that 7 days of creation thing? or did that evolve into something else.

I'm being serious here, too lazy to research, someone please sum up creationism in a few words. no need for an essay, just wanna know what people are trying to teach kids in the south.

If you really want to see where the majority of work in creationism is going on, check this website out: http://www.answersingenesis.org

Almost all of the arguments put forth by evolutionists are misunderstood on this website.

fixed

yup, there nothing much more disengenous than creationist literature. its always the same old tired refuted arguements based on old information or plain incorrect information since they know their audience doesn't know enough to know better or see the strawmen, or care enough to fact check, or even want to really think about it, its just for the protection of ignorance, to confirm their beliefs. its not science for them after all, its faith, its politics. and those always use arguements that have nothing to do with validity or facts. that they knowingly constantly use the same disinformation(lies) to push their movement tells you something about it. facts are unimportant after all. they are saving souls. whats a little lie to save a soul?

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.natcenscied.org/

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Falcon39

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Listen, as a Christian I can't accept evolution. God created the world, universe, and everything in it. Some Christians will say that God created one species and allowed it to evolve. I don't see Genesis as saying anything like this. That's just my belief.

Listen, as a Christian I accept some type of evolution. God started the world, and put it on it's course. Genesis says that. No one has been able to prove or disprove that.


<<<Silently waits for the "Big Bang" morons to come out.

It is your right to disbelieve Big Bang but calling some of the smartest, most well educated and renouned men on the planet "morons" is going to far. Big bang isn't just some idiotic theory put in place by some pimply teen in his basement - it is an extremely robust theory that explains a hell of a lot about the universe in it's current state. I'm not going to try to convert you to believe in it, but I think calling people like Carl Sagan, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Edwin Hubble and even Albert Einstein "morons" says more about you than it does about them.

No, not really. I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion. Why that could not be creationism in and of itself? All the so called intelligent people you listed would say that can't be. Yet they can't say what is either.

Is that intellegence on their part, or an avid ignorance of something that they dont' get because they can't "prove" it? I don't know the answer to that question. Sounds like you think you have it figured out better than I do.

Instead of telling you why God could not have created the big bang and induced creationism, why don't you tell me why a big block of cheddar cheese couldn't have created the universe. When you can answer that, you have answered your own question.

Wow. Just wow. That's the best you have? You reduce it to that? :laugh: Actually I expected that, that type of comment usually happens at least once or twice in a conversation like this.


If we go that route let's just call that Big Bang a giant fart from another dimension eh? Is that fair to say?

As expected. You cannot seem to grasp the idea that the question I asked you was the exact one that you ask of us with cheese in place of god. That should not change the answer in any way.

Once again, you ask us to tell you why god could not have created the big bang. I then ask you to tell me why a block of cheese could not have created the big bang. The point of this is to show you that your question is rediculous.

You cannot walk up to a person and say "X created you, me, and the entire universe, prove me wrong" That is just rediculous.

Wow, reading comprehension and spelling own you. Re-read the post, this time slow down and take a deep breath. I know it's hard to read correctly, but try this statement again:

"I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion."

I did not make the statement that he did. It is my belief, yes. But I am not holding you to prove me wrong. I am asking you why it is not a possibilty.

You state once again that replacing God with cheese is acceptable and makes sense to do. Hell you even try to make a logical argument for doing so. It's gets a good laugh, but once again answer this question :

Putting on the twisted alien42 logic hat: Can I replace Big Bang with gigantic fart? Or is there more to it than that ?

While your direct statement is different, the meaning is the same. Rather than saying "X created the me, you and the universe", you are saying, "why couldn't X have created the universe"? You are assuming that X exists in the first place. Everyone knows what happens when you assume.

Creationists have a pre conceived goal when they go looking for evidence on their position. That goal is to prove that their story is correct. They only want to look at and admit data that is for their cause. Should they find any evidence that says otherwise, "oh it is god just testing my faith"

Evolutionists FIRST look for evidence, then based on that evidence, they create a theory. That is the difference. Evolutionists have a reason for their theory, and Creationists have to find a reason for their theory.

As to your other statement, could the big bang not be a big bang at all? Yes, it is quite possible. While it would be illogical to assume a fart caused it all(no more illogical than assuming a higher being caused it), it could be possible.

I have a question for you. Why do you believe in whatever religion you believe in? What makes your religion valid and others false?

Why do you believe in whatever scientific theories you believe in? What makes the ones you believe in right and the other opinions or theories false? Most likely it is because you believe the things you do becasue they have become clear to you.

I have multiple reason for which I believe in scientific theories.

1. Evolution is a theory that was created because of evidence. Creationism was made first, then people looked for evidence supporting it.

2. It has been scientifically proven that evolution on happens every small levels every day. Look at roaches becomming more resistant to pesticides, or finches using sticks to get worms rather than beaks. Creatures being born with some kind of beneficial ability that is not the norm.(Geniuses anyone?)

3. Creationism has no support for any of its arguments.

I wouldn't say there is zero support for a creationist's argument. And no Evolution was not a theory that was created because evidence anymore than religion was a theory created by evidence.

Totally agreed to the second point. Except I dont' think that is evolution in the sense that most evolutionists see evolution.

I could be wrong here though. To the scientific minds who study evolution:

Is a roach becoming immune to a 3-4 year old pesticide evolution?

I would say eventually becomming immune to a disease is evolution. The species is progressing into being more biologically capable of surviving in the future.

I was not aware that people who began any religion walked up and presented facts first. Wasn't it just some person or group saying "X" now believe it or your a heretic.

Every time I ask ANY creationist for support, they say something like "God made you and I" "God Loves you and I" "Jesus Saved You!" "We are all god's children" "god is love!"

No evidence has ever come accross me.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

Yes, they are. Religion is not scientific in any sense of the word. The fact that your friends are biologists has nothing to do with the fact that they are religious.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

I used to be Agnostic. Then I realized that it was pointless. Believing that it is possible to have a god and it is possible to not have a god, but not being sure as to what. Why does it even have to be a god? Why not some other object? God is an idea created by man. The idea of god stands on equal grounds with the boogie man and santa clause. Why would you say it can either be a god, or no god? If you believe god is possible, then you must also believe the boogie man and santa clause are both equally possible, or you are a hypocrite.

You sound like militant athiest. You are no better than the fundamentalist wackos blowinging themselves up for Allah, shooting Palestinians for more land, etc...

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

Yes, they are. Religion is not scientific in any sense of the word. The fact that your friends are biologists has nothing to do with the fact that they are religious.

I would say that's a rather narrow minded view. Just because you are incapable of reconciling science and religious beliefs does not mean others are incapable.

The biologists I know are doing research in evolution, DNA & genetic mutation, etc... and they run the spectrum from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic. BTW, they're not my friends, they're people my wife works with.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The problem with the Bible is that it is stone, you can't change it, you can't add to it. At least Science is willing to accept changes and admit mistakes in order to get the answer that is most correct.

Believing in something as infallible truth isn't faith. Having a will to question what has been said to be truth and going out on a limb to challenge that truth takes real faith.

I believe in a higher power as there are things current science simply cannot explain. However I also believe one of the more important messages of the bible expressed the duty of man as a Sheppard to God?s creations, what better way to fulfill such a duty than through science - by understanding our universe better? Even in the Bible God didn?t seem to answer many questions, now that he no longer talks to us (convenient) as he did to prophets ?back in the day?, how are we to get updates or better understanding? Or simply find out who was lying and who wasn?t? The Bible wasn?t written by one person, it wasn?t even assembled by one person, it would have been VERY easy for someone to throw in erroneous parts.

Assume everyone has their memories erased and all forms of religion and their history are somehow destroyed ? what happens then? Many new ones would spring up to explain what we cannot explain, however I believe the world would be a more reasonable place with people willing to seek out logical explanations before jumping to fantastic conclusions.

The problem with the Bible is not a mistrust in a faith in God, it?s a mistrust or lack of faith in man. Say/believe what you want, man created the Bible ? whether instructed by God or not ? ever play the game ?telephone?? ? yeah that?s essentially the Bible...its this very reason why its so easy to believe that the Bible is real because it was written so long ago, yet the same mistrust in man is what stops us from changing it or adding to it ? I wonder what happened between now and then that changed that ? the scientific revolution perhaps? With Science we can actually ?trust? our fellow man because we can see for ourselves whether or not we get the same results.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

Yes, they are. Religion is not scientific in any sense of the word. The fact that your friends are biologists has nothing to do with the fact that they are religious.

I would say that's a rather narrow minded view. Just because you are incapable of reconciling science and religious beliefs does not mean others are incapable.

The biologists I know are doing research in evolution, DNA & genetic mutation, etc... and they run the spectrum from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic. BTW, they're not my friends, they're people my wife works with.

Okay, what does their religion have to do with science again? You are making this claim with no clarification, and I still say you are wrong. They are irreconciliable. The minute any of the "scientists" starts researching anything regarding the begining of life or the universe, they just attribute it to God and their research is over! That's not science.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

Yes, they are. Religion is not scientific in any sense of the word. The fact that your friends are biologists has nothing to do with the fact that they are religious.

I would say that's a rather narrow minded view. Just because you are incapable of reconciling science and religious beliefs does not mean others are incapable.

The biologists I know are doing research in evolution, DNA & genetic mutation, etc... and they run the spectrum from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic. BTW, they're not my friends, they're people my wife works with.

Okay, what does their religion have to do with science again? You are making this claim with no clarification, and I still say you are wrong. They are irreconciliable. The minute any of the "scientists" starts researching anything regarding the begining of life or the universe, they just attribute it to God and their research is over! That's not science.

I don't probe them about their specific religious beliefs. I just know that in their mind, they have no problem reconciling their research and their religious & spiritual beliefs. Just because you are incapable of wrapping your head around doesn't make it impossible. I can't figure out quantum physics & mechanics, using your reasoning...that makes it impossible for those things to exist.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I don't probe them about their specific religious beliefs. I just know that in their mind, they have no problem reconciling their research and their religious & spiritual beliefs. Just because you are incapable of wrapping your head around doesn't make it impossible. I can't figure out quantum physics & mechanics, using your reasoning...that makes it impossible for those things to exist.

Why do you say I'm "incapable of wrapping my head around it"? I certainly can, watch: they believe in whatever science is conveniently parallel to their religious beliefes. If they truly believed in science they wouldn't believe in God, something that remains, as of yet, unproven by science. It's as simple as that.

Edit: Your last sentence makes no sense whatever. If you don't understand quantam physics, go learn about it. People have done plenty of scientific research that would prove helpful to you.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I don't probe them about their specific religious beliefs. I just know that in their mind, they have no problem reconciling their research and their religious & spiritual beliefs. Just because you are incapable of wrapping your head around doesn't make it impossible. I can't figure out quantum physics & mechanics, using your reasoning...that makes it impossible for those things to exist.

Why do you say I'm "incapable of wrapping my head around it"? I certainly can, watch: they believe in whatever science is conveniently parallel to their religious beliefes. If they truly believed in science they wouldn't believe in God, something that remains, as of yet, unproven by science. It's as simple as that.

Edit: Your last sentence makes no sense whatever. If you don't understand quantam physics, go learn about it. People have done plenty of scientific research that would prove helpful to you.

So you're implying that because these people have religious beliefs their research is faulty?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
So you're implying that because these people have religious beliefs their research is faulty?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that any research they do involving topics that are irreconciliable with their religious beliefs are faulty. Unless, of course, they give up their religion in the process. Or prove the existance of God.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
So you're implying that because these people have religious beliefs their research is faulty?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that any research they do involving topics that are irreconciliable with their religious beliefs are faulty. Unless, of course, they give up their religion in the process. Or prove the existance of God.

Be more specific. What "topics" would be irreconciliable with their religion? There are tons of scientists who are Christians. My buddy's dad is a Chief Physicist (and PhD in Physics) with Northrop Grumman, and has been a rocket scientist for over two decades. He is Christian and believes that the two are not mutually exclusive. Many founders of the laws we use today were Christians, to say there aren't mutually exclusive is calling them fools. There are always going to be things that science cannot explain.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

Do you think you are making an intelligent contribution?

the·o·ry , n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

I'm still waiting for evidence....but then again I'm a cynic.

Do you also realize that the therory of evolution has basically contorted itself, because of a lack of evidence, into something similar to creationism......a disprovable postulate. No longer did species gradually evolve, now there were a series of geographically specific mutations cause, you know, that way they'd be nigh impossible to uncover.

Species go extinct all the time.....including plenty of species we've never documented....especially species before man began documenting and keeping track. I mean, hell, we're trying desperately to save numerous species from instinction.....why haven't we seen any benefitial mutations to save any of them? 2,000 years should be more than enough time for one of the millions of spceies on earth to have radically changed, but, instead, the number of species in existence is declining.

Evolution makes sense. There's a logic to it. I think it's faulty logic, but there's logic nonetheless and I'm certainly not going to call anybody an idiot for believing in it. It's a work in progress, what can you expect. To me, however, creationism is more logical.

Go on and call me an uneducated fundamentalist sheep. You're not going to hurt my feelings and you're not going to help your cause, but you are going to make yourself feel better about having, at some point in acquiring your beliefs, agreed to just take somebody's word for it.

As a whole, evolution on the planet Earth has always been a disprovable postulate. There are no witnesses, only scientific data. Mankind?s understanding of what evolution is has evolved over the years as more has been learned about natural systems.

Your expectations of evolution jumping though a hoop for you are silly. If I go against the bible can I then expect lightening to strike me down?

I don't think you?re sheepish. Your just ignorant.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Falcon39

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

I'm still waiting for evidence....but then again I'm a cynic.

Do you also realize that the therory of evolution has basically contorted itself, because of a lack of evidence, into something similar to creationism......a disprovable postulate. No longer did species gradually evolve, now there were a series of geographically specific mutations cause, you know, that way they'd be nigh impossible to uncover.

Species go extinct all the time.....including plenty of species we've never documented....especially species before man began documenting and keeping track. I mean, hell, we're trying desperately to save numerous species from instinction.....why haven't we seen any benefitial mutations to save any of them? 2,000 years should be more than enough time for one of the millions of spceies on earth to have radically changed, but, instead, the number of species in existence is declining.

Evolution makes sense. There's a logic to it. I think it's faulty logic, but there's logic nonetheless and I'm certainly not going to call anybody an idiot for believing in it. It's a work in progress, what can you expect. To me, however, creationism is more logical.

Go on and call me an uneducated fundamentalist sheep. You're not going to hurt my feelings and you're not going to help your cause, but you are going to make yourself feel better about having, at some point in acquiring your beliefs, agreed to just take somebody's word for it.

2,000 years is no where near enough time to expect to see significant amounts of macro evolution. Despite that we have witnessed some evolution in our time studying evolution. You must not underestimate the vast amounts of time that evolution has been happening for. Never underestimate just how long 2.5 billion years is - that is a ridiculously long period of time.

I agree. But we also have a ridiculous number of species on this planet and they don't all evolve at once. The fossill record would be jam acked with transitional species if this had been going on for several billion years yet scientists are still trying to find one. That's why the new evolution doesn't rely on this theory.

If you are genuinely interested in debating evolution and creationism come visit http://www.evcforum.net where you will find there are people a hell of a lot more intelligent than me who can guide you through exactly how evolution works and show you the staggeringly large amount of evidence there really is.

Sure, I'll check it out. But, my reply here wasn't out of interest in CvE, but, rather, in response to a comment I thought deserved a quick riposte.

Try Google sometime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/scien...1144468800&en=c806762976abd604&ei=5087

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
So you're implying that because these people have religious beliefs their research is faulty?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that any research they do involving topics that are irreconciliable with their religious beliefs are faulty. Unless, of course, they give up their religion in the process. Or prove the existance of God.

Be more specific. What "topics" would be irreconciliable with their religion? There are tons of scientists who are Christians. My buddy's dad is a Chief Physicist (and PhD in Physics) with Northrop Grumman, and has been a rocket scientist for over two decades. He is Christian and believes that the two are not mutually exclusive. Many founders of the laws we use today were Christians, to say there aren't mutually exclusive is calling them fools. There are always going to be things that science cannot explain.

The most effective example would be if a scientist found a way to disprove the existance of God. A religious person would either discard the evidence and proof or denounce their faith. A more realistic example would be a scientist finding proof that man developed from single-celled organisms, which in turn developed from inorganic matter. The religious person would either discard this evidince and proof, or denounce their faith. In any case the bias of the religious person is extreme, and I would take much of what they said with a grain of salt.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: Smartazz
Evolution does make sense and so does creationism, neither has a huge ammount of proof, I'm beginning to see both sides of this issue now.

Why do both sides make sense now? Perhaps your IQ is dropping while reading this thread?

BTW- which holy book's story of creation are you leaning towards and why?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ultimately, the universe is a closed system. the local solar system is a very good approximation of a closed system as far as energy transfer is concerned.

Okay, sure I would say I agree with that.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and anyway, it is always the creationists using the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law, and them always being smacked down when it is pointed out that any ability to collect energy into something useful on earth is because of a lot of entropy in the sun (or a little nuclear entropy, whichever the case may be given the atomic age) [though i will admit i have seen some people try to counter this argument by claiming the second law doesn't apply in some fashion or another.

Not sure what you're trying to say exactly here. The main point creationists bring up is that undirected energy contributes to entropy, it does not decrease it.

The only examples of entropy being decreased using energy involve complex machines (biological or man-made). Snowflakes and crystals don't count, because of the difference between order and complexity, which physicists understand:

?The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.?
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it is the creationists that are wrong in their interpretation of the 2nd law, not the other way around.

These are not interpretations of the 2nd law, merely the observation that only directed energy has the possibility to lower entropy in a system such our earth, and that purely natural forces are not capable of such direction to the extent that biological evolution (from molecules to cells) requires.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
life is only complex because we think it is so, not because it is complex or has to happen in a specific fashion. and life only appears ordered because, again, we think it is so.

Information and matter are separate, that is true. But it doesn't take the study of information theory to observe the complexity of life... what does it take? A mind.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
keep in mind that the human brain is the best pattern recognition device ever created.

I agree completely

Originally posted by: ElFenix
maybe the most apt example is the old cliche of 1000 monkey on 1000 typewriters. eventually one will type something that has some secondary meaning to a person. but it isn't any less random or any more ordered than anything any other monkey types.

The value of information depends on the ability for others to understand it, sure. But we're talking about systems that the ability to store, transmit and receive vast quantities of information, and your belief is that this information was able to arise by purely naturalistic means, whereas I content that useful information does not arise by chance, and that even in small steps, the information could not slowly accumulate from molecules to complex biological organisms, as evolution requires.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Falcon39
To be fair, fossilisation requires very specific parameters that are met very rarely - the odds of something being fossilised are extremely slim so only a very tiny amount of the history of the Earth can be found in the fossil record. Still we have managed to turn up some pretty eyebrow-raising stuff, including what was mentioned in this article.

This doesn't make any sense. Okay, why do you think that a certain species is alive today? Because the species that came before it, its ancestors, all survived for millions of years. Evolution predicts that the most fit will survive and its beneficial genes will spread throughout the population (think about the moth example).

So, that means the ancestors of a species... all of them in the long chain, would almost certainly have to existed in large numbers! This is the demand of gradualism. If not, then the species would almost certainly have died off, and not passed on its beneficial genes, slowly allowing for evolution.

So where are these vast amounts of intermediate fossils? One is not enough... we should find them ALL THE TIME. They should be ABUNDANT! We're talking millions of years of breeding, the species slowly adapting to the environment, and the ancestors of modern-day species being in abundance (because they were the most fit). Where is the record of this???

But we don't find that AT ALL. Instead, we have only a few example to give, a handful of hardly convincing transitional forms, many of them analogous to the modern-day platypus.

You say that the reason is because its very unlikely that anything is fossilized. Well to that I'll respond with this:

"Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ?successive approximation? has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ?end forms? to have more chance of fossilization than the ?intermediates?. Sampling errors (which includes the ?poverty of the record? argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps."

Species usually stay the same for very long periods of time, and a general change occurs in their genotype and phenotype during periods when conditions change Combine that with the low chance of fossilization, and you have your explanation for "gaps". And even in cases of gradual evolution, gaps are inevitable.

Systematic gaps are a pattern. We're not talking about data sampling errors.

Unless, of course, you buy into punctuated equilibrium. It sounds like you might. After all, what better way to explain away transitional fossils than to say that all the important, highly controversial, and ultimately most significant changes happened in small, isolated populations that never left fossils. Way to remove evolution from the realm of scientific testability... I think that's called a belief.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Feldenak
So you're implying that because these people have religious beliefs their research is faulty?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that any research they do involving topics that are irreconciliable with their religious beliefs are faulty. Unless, of course, they give up their religion in the process. Or prove the existance of God.

Be more specific. What "topics" would be irreconciliable with their religion? There are tons of scientists who are Christians. My buddy's dad is a Chief Physicist (and PhD in Physics) with Northrop Grumman, and has been a rocket scientist for over two decades. He is Christian and believes that the two are not mutually exclusive. Many founders of the laws we use today were Christians, to say there aren't mutually exclusive is calling them fools. There are always going to be things that science cannot explain.

The most effective example would be if a scientist found a way to disprove the existance of God. A religious person would either discard the evidence and proof or denounce their faith. A more realistic example would be a scientist finding proof that man developed from single-celled organisms, which in turn developed from inorganic matter. The religious person would either discard this evidince and proof, or denounce their faith. In any case the bias of the religious person is extreme, and I would take much of what they said with a grain of salt.

It's very easy to accept that God created base organisms that have evolved into fauna as we know it today. Yes, if there was evidence of unicellular evolution then he would have to choose one or the other, but it's also not a stretch to say that God could have created every species from a single cell. When the Bible says he created certain things, it did not say how he did it.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
They came up with the terms, not the acutal feeling or emotion. Just because you call something by a name doesn't mean you now created it.

Your theory is very poor in logic. Man also invented the idea of evolution, did they not? Are trying to tell me if man hadn't inventeed this idea, than it wouldn't have existed? Evolution happened way before man, and way before man invented the term.

Man came up with the term shark, dinosaur, mountain, you name it. So do you mean to tell me that without man a shark or mountain does not exist?

Now you are starting to get it . Without man, the mountain still exists. Without man, god ceases to exist.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's very easy to accept that God created base organisms that have evolved into fauna as we know it today. Yes, if there was evidence of unicellular evolution then he would have to choose one or the other, but it's also not a stretch to say that God could have created every species from a single cell. When the Bible says he created certain things, it did not say how he did it.

Oh? Let's look at this bit from Genesis:

001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,

001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.

Here we see that God created every bird and sea creature in one day. I know some people like to say "what is a day? it could be a million years", but if we read that we see that he had created the light and the dark already, and therefore normal day cycles. So, yes, he created all these creatures in a day. Genesis doesn't mention anything about one celled organisms, or inorganic matter, for that matter.

 

[kogase]

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
It's very easy to accept that God created base organisms that have evolved into fauna as we know it today. Yes, if there was evidence of unicellular evolution then he would have to choose one or the other, but it's also not a stretch to say that God could have created every species from a single cell. When the Bible says he created certain things, it did not say how he did it.

Oh? Let's look at this bit from Genesis:

001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,

001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.

Here we see that God created every animal besides humans in one day. I know some people like to say "what is a day? it could be a million years", but if we read that we see that he had created the light and the dark already, and therefore normal day cycles. So, yes, he created all these creatures in a day. Genesis doesn't mention anything about one celled organisms, or inorganic matter, for that matter.

There's a big difference between being religious and taking the Bible as literal truth.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
There's a big difference between being religious and taking the Bible as literal truth.

If that's the case, who gets to decide what from the Bible to take literaly? Seriously, if anyone bothered to look at the Bible from a reasonable scientific perspective, one could see that the Bible isn't about faith. It's not about God or Jesus. Hell, you don't have to believe in God to be a Christian, that's not the point of the Bible. The Bible is a book that advises people to live righteously. People who can't see that and insist on believing in God are weak minded. They can't "wrap their heads around" the fact that not everything is understood, and not everything can be understood. So they insist on believing in God, who can fill in all the blanks in their understanding of the universe with a statement as simple as "God did it, so there".