Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah throw that out there like I wouldn't put you in check for saying I am getting it.

God existed before man just like the mountain did. Without man, God still exists. Without God, man ceases to exist.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Not true. There is no documented case of mass species mutation. Adaptation would have begun through a species (especially sexual) of two.

Not only that Genesis never states that the light is the sun. I am taking the creation story, but I am not interpreting the light as being the sun. I am treating it as just what the Genesis verses say, that in the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void; ... and G-d said let there be light [not sun]...

And you are therefore believing that God wants everything in His book to be open to such widely varying interpretation? The concept is ridiculous at best, and it leaves me with the impression that you are just grasping at straws in an attempt to prove that the creation story is not "lying".

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: kogase
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.

Wow buddy, just wow. That's a pretty bold claim to make about the Bible, considering the Bible doesn't offer much to support your view.

:laugh: Agreed...

that is a pretty outlandish statement there, kogase.

Although I do agree with some of your statements, this one is obviously false.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: kogase
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.

Wow buddy, just wow. That's a pretty bold claim to make about the Bible, considering the Bible doesn't offer much to support your view.

It's just as bold a claim as saying some books in the Bible should be taken literally and some should not. I'm just taking it one step further.

 

[dnuggett]

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.

What about the opposite, with a scientist proving God exists. Are you going to throw that out?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: DaShen
Not true. There is no documented case of mass species mutation. Adaptation would have begun through a species (especially sexual) of two.

Not only that Genesis never states that the light is the sun. I am taking the creation story, but I am not interpreting the light as being the sun. I am treating it as just what the Genesis verses say, that in the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void; ... and G-d said let there be light [not sun]...

And you are therefore believing that God wants everything in His book to be open to such widely varying interpretation? The concept is ridiculous at best, and it leaves me with the impression that you are just grasping at straws in an attempt to prove that the creation story is not "lying".

Without allowing for such widely varying interpretations, we take away the aspect of choice. But I digress.

The creation story is written in a poetic prose style. It can also be just a way to say that G-d created everything and man is fallen. That is the point of the creation story to show G-d is in complete control and man mucked things up by choosing something other than what G-d provided. All I am saying is that the story very clearly follows a pattern from what we have discovered in science, which is quite fascinating.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
What about the opposite, with a scientist proving God exists. Are you going to throw that out?

Obviously not. As an agnostic I'm leaving open the possibility that a supreme being exists. That's where one makes the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: kogase
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.

Wow buddy, just wow. That's a pretty bold claim to make about the Bible, considering the Bible doesn't offer much to support your view.

It's just as bold a claim as saying some books in the Bible should be taken literally and some should not. I'm just taking it one step further.

Hermeneutics. Look it up.

**EDIT**
Historical writing should be taken literally unless clues point to otherwise. A good way to tell this is to have a broad understanding of the story as a whole. Not only that writing style and word choice (metaphors...) need to be examined before interpretation.

**EDIT**
I mean you can take that idea of interpretation into any reading your do.

What is the writer's intent? Is it to write a historical fact or fiction? Is it written as a story, or something else? What writing style was taking? Is the story or history close to the time of the actual event? ... and so on.

I mean even the story of Job, is considered to be just a moral story by some theologians because of the way it is written. Some people beleive that it is literal, but who really knows. All I can say is that the book is written in a theatrical manner.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Without allowing for such widely varying interpretations, we take away the aspect of choice. But I digress.

The creation story is written in a poetic prose style. It can also be just a way to say that G-d created everything and man is fallen. That is the point of the creation story to show G-d is in complete control and man mucked things up by choosing something other than what G-d provided. All I am saying is that the story very clearly follows a pattern from what we have discovered in science, which is quite fascinating.

Isn't there a scientific term for the way people find meaning, relationships and patterns in two distinct ideas where none was intended to exist?

Anyway, the very fact that we have to argue about interpretations is what reveals the Bible for what it really is. The material in it wasn't meant to be debated and analyzed, it was meant to be taken literally by simple people who weren't going to question it. Many of the myths in the Bible, including the myth of a supreme being, are relics of bygone days that have little significance in the modern world.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: kogase
A true scientist approaches everything objectively, and a scientist who believes life on this planet developed spontaneously from inorganic matter without proof and approaches all research with the intent to prove that is no better than the scientist who believes that God created everything and approaches all research with the intent to prove that. Both are just following a personal agenda.

Okay, sure. But I contend that its impossible to be objective when you're talking about the origin of life. It has profound consequences, whatever you believe.

But, I notice that you italicized the word believe, probably to stress your point that creationists believe something without proof, while scientists have proven what they believe.

I can reject evolution simply based on my faith, or I can reject evolution based on the evidence.

If someone says they don't believe evolution simply because the Bible says that God created the world, then I respect that person, because if the Bible is true, then they are right and all the evolutionists are wrong.

Scientific evidence is not the main reason I believe in God. Science does not hold the key to truth. I believe in God because I know who God is, because he has revealed himself to all of us.

But there is nothing in this world that goes against what God has said, and my study of evolution can enable me to counter those who would claim otherwise, and help those you have been lied to.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: DaShen
Without allowing for such widely varying interpretations, we take away the aspect of choice. But I digress.

The creation story is written in a poetic prose style. It can also be just a way to say that G-d created everything and man is fallen. That is the point of the creation story to show G-d is in complete control and man mucked things up by choosing something other than what G-d provided. All I am saying is that the story very clearly follows a pattern from what we have discovered in science, which is quite fascinating.

Isn't there a scientific term for the way people find meaning, relationships and patterns in two distinct ideas where none was intended to exist?

Anyway, the very fact that we have to argue about interpretations is what reveals the Bible for what it really is. The material in it wasn't meant to be debated and analyzed, it was meant to be taken literally by simple people who weren't going to question it. Many of the myths in the Bible, including the myth of a supreme being, are relics of bygone days that have little significance in the modern world.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I know that quoting scripture seems stupid since you don't believe this stuff, but indulge me for a second. I understand your POV. Believe me I do. But when Jesus says this, it is very clear that every single word and dot in the scriptures is very important to the meaning of the scripture.

Also, you are wrong about scriptures needing to be taken literally all the time. Scholars and theologians were very prominent in ancient times. Scripture interpretation was key to understanding even back then (especially back then). King Herod even got scholars to interpret prophecy to figure out where Jesus would be born... and so on. So that argument is bologna IMO.

But again, I understand where you are coming from, but you have to understand that there are concrete reasons for belief.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: kogase
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.

Wow buddy, just wow. That's a pretty bold claim to make about the Bible, considering the Bible doesn't offer much to support your view.

It's just as bold a claim as saying some books in the Bible should be taken literally and some should not. I'm just taking it one step further.

You're absolutely right. I agree completely. The Bible is truth from the beginning to the end, and I believe Genesis 1-11 to be a historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis.

 

[Trevelyan]

Cool, I just noticed that Answers in Genesis found the article. Hopefully they will have a response soon. This should be interesting:

http://info.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/?p=696

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: kogase
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.

Wow buddy, just wow. That's a pretty bold claim to make about the Bible, considering the Bible doesn't offer much to support your view.

It's just as bold a claim as saying some books in the Bible should be taken literally and some should not. I'm just taking it one step further.

You taking it one step further is where the problem lies. That step further is in the wrong direction when speaking of what the Bible contains. Have you read it to know what Jesus says about the father? I am guessing not, or you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement.

You cannot logically take the context of the importance of God in the Bible, and say that because some religious work is to be interpreted that the importance of God is to be interpreted as well.

To illustrate this point:

Say a scientist comes up with a theory. The theory's fondation is 1+1=2. Let's say this theory does indeed lead to new discoveries, but the way that the discoveries should be arrived at is somewhat open to intrepetation depending on who is reading the theory and their understanding of what was originally written by the scientist when he wrote the original theory.

Since the way to apply this theory is open for interpretation, should we then discard the equation 1+1=2 in this theory? Or does this piece hold even though the rest is open for interpretation?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Okay, sure. But I contend that its impossible to be objective when you're talking about the origin of life. It has profound consequences, whatever you believe.

But, I notice that you italicized the word believe, probably to stress your point that creationists believe something without proof, while scientists have proven what they believe.

I can reject evolution simply based on my faith, or I can reject evolution based on the evidence.

If someone says they don't believe evolution simply because the Bible says that God created the world, then I respect that person, because if the Bible is true, then they are right and all the evolutionists are wrong.

Scientific evidence is not the main reason I believe in God. Science does not hold the key to truth. I believe in God because I know who God is, because he has revealed himself to all of us.

But there is nothing in this world that goes against what God has said, and my study of evolution can enable me to counter those who would claim otherwise, and help those you have been lied to.

I italicized "believes" when referring to both the abiogenesist and the creationist, because I wanted to stress the fact that they both already think they know the answer, when neither has proof. They already believe something, and nobody can convince them otherwise, and now they are just trying to find "proof" so everybody else will believe it too.

You say that science is not the key to "truth". I agree with you, and to paraphrase Indiana Jones, science is the key to fact, not truth. I don't believe in "truth", and that's my own personal subjective belief. As you can see, I'm not a completely objective observer either, and hold my own faith in certain things, which is why out in the real world I respect your belief in God, even if I sound like a jerk on ATOT.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
You're absolutely right. I agree completely. The Bible is truth from the beginning to the end, and I believe Genesis 1-11 to be a historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis.

I agree with you Genesis 1-11 is historical, but it is written in a way the layman can understand. If G-d revealed creation to Moses to write down, would Moses have written that G-d said let there be a Big Bang where photons and matter will be forms and very simple atoms like Hydrogren and Helium would form first and photons would hit the matter creating light and dark... and so on. No. He would say. G-d said, let there be light, and there was light.

And G-d created this and that.... he wouldn't go into detail. He probably wouldn't even be able to clearly describe what G-d revealed to him unless G-d told him what to write and made it simple to understand. Overall what I get from the Genesis story is that G-d is all powerful, that He created everything somehow (by just speaking/thinking it), and somehow we mucked up creation. Simple

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
You're absolutely right. I agree completely. The Bible is truth from the beginning to the end, and I believe Genesis 1-11 to be a historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis.

In that case I respect your consistancy, see my last post.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: 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...

I do not see how my view is in any way similar to those who take theirs and the lives of others for the sake of their views. While I consider myself to be an atheist, I do consider myself to be as close to agnostic as possible without actually being one. While at the moment I do not believe a god exists, I do keep my mind open. If evidence is shown that suggests something contrary to what current evidence suggests, then I will look into it with a fair perspective.

My beliefs are not in any way extreme or biased based on my preferences. Honestly, I wish there was a god(I hope there is). I would be overwhelmed with enjoyment if I was to be able to see my father again.(Although at this period in time, I doubt that it will ever happen)

Do not get me wrong, I technically was a Christian for a large portion of my life. I went to church regularly and prayed and all of the things they do. However, when I eventually got deeper into it and questioned what they were speaking of, they simply avoided the question or changed the subject, as they did not have an answer.

I simply believe in the theory that has the most evidence. At the moment, it appears to be the theory of Evolution that has the most evidence and support. If a brand new theory came out and it had evidence that suggested that it was true, then I would take some time and examine it.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Okay, sure. But I contend that its impossible to be objective when you're talking about the origin of life. It has profound consequences, whatever you believe.

But, I notice that you italicized the word believe, probably to stress your point that creationists believe something without proof, while scientists have proven what they believe.

I can reject evolution simply based on my faith, or I can reject evolution based on the evidence.

If someone says they don't believe evolution simply because the Bible says that God created the world, then I respect that person, because if the Bible is true, then they are right and all the evolutionists are wrong.

Scientific evidence is not the main reason I believe in God. Science does not hold the key to truth. I believe in God because I know who God is, because he has revealed himself to all of us.

But there is nothing in this world that goes against what God has said, and my study of evolution can enable me to counter those who would claim otherwise, and help those you have been lied to.

I italicized "believes" when referring to both the abiogenesist and the creationist, because I wanted to stress the fact that they both already think they know the answer, when neither has proof. They already believe something, and nobody can convince them otherwise, and now they are just trying to find "proof" so everybody else will believe it too.

You say that science is not the key to "truth". I agree with you, and to paraphrase Indiana Jones, science is the key to fact, not truth. I don't believe in "truth", and that's my own personal subjective belief. As you can see, I'm not a completely objective observer either, and hold my own faith in certain things, which is why out in the real world I respect your belief in God, even if I sound like a jerk on ATOT.

Keep in mind one of the definitions of fact is:

Something believed to be true or real.

So science is the key to something believed to be true or real. To me that sounds a lot like a what a religion is trying to accomplish.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I simply believe in the theory that has the most evidence. At the moment, it appears to be the theory of Evolution that has the most evidence and support. If a brand new theory came out and it had evidence that suggested that it was true, then I would take some time and examine it.

I would do the same.

If my beliefs are True than any true evidence will only bolster what I believe. So I shouldn't be scared of scientists and other who are also looking for the truth without an objective. I should take whatever is true and weigh it against what I believe.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
You're absolutely right. I agree completely. The Bible is truth from the beginning to the end, and I believe Genesis 1-11 to be a historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis.

I agree with you Genesis 1-11 is historical, but it is written in a way the layman can understand. If G-d revealed creation to Moses to write down, would Moses have written that G-d said let there be a Big Bang where photons and matter will be forms and very simple atoms like Hydrogren and Helium would form first and photons would hit the matter creating light and dark... and so on. No. He would say. G-d said, let there be light, and there was light.

And G-d created this and that.... he wouldn't go into detail. He probably wouldn't even be able to clearly describe what G-d revealed to him unless G-d told him what to write and made it simple to understand. Overall what I get from the Genesis story is that G-d is all powerful, that He created everything somehow (by just speaking/thinking it), and somehow we mucked up creation. Simple

Yep, I agree with this... God says that he created animals in a day, but should not be taken literally with regards to "time" as we know it. He presented it in Layman's frame of reference.

I still haven't seen anyone explain why evo and creationism cannot currently coexist.
Stephen Hawking: "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it."

 

[dnuggett]

Posted by dguy6789:

Do not get me wrong, I technically was a Christian for a large portion of my life. I went to church regularly and prayed and all of the things they do. However, when I eventually got deeper into it and questioned what they were speaking of, they simply avoided the question or changed the subject, as they did not have an answer.

So thats why you decided there wasn't a God, because the deeper you dove people weren't there to answer your questions? That's hardly a reason. What if tomorrow your car up and quits and you can't figure out whats wrong so you take the car to the mechanic and he can't tell you why it doesn't work either. Are you walking from now on?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

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.

see, that is assuming a fact in contention, that this information is somehow qualitatively different than any other kind. it is not. it is purely random. instead of 1000 monkeys on 1000 typwriters, the magic combination of organic chemicals that lead to life on earth required billions of years with trillions of trillions of interactions per second. the number of random attempts before the 'right' formula was hit upon is mind-boggling. given the number of chances, even the extremely remote possibility has a very real chance of happening at least once.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
You taking it one step further is where the problem lies. That step further is in the wrong direction when speaking of what the Bible contains. Have you read it to know what Jesus says about the father? I am guessing not, or you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement.

You cannot logically take the context of the importance of God in the Bible, and say that because some religious work is to be interpreted that the importance of God is to be interpreted as well.

I can and I did. Ooooohhhhh yeeeeaaaahhh. The importance of God is the importance of fear in my opinion, in getting people who normally wouldn't follow the Ten Commandmants to do so. Just writing a book asking people to be nice to each other wasn't good enough, so they insert God into the picture. There we have the Old Testament. But that wasn't good enough either, because people weren't getting punished enough in their lifetimes by God. In comes the New Testament, with the very central themes of heaven, hell, punishment and rebirth. This is much more effective, as it warns people that bad things will still happen to them even if they don't in their lifetime.

To illustrate this point:

Say a scientist comes up with a theory. The theory's fondation is 1+1=2. Let's say this theory does indeed lead to new discoveries, but the way that the discoveries should be arrived at is somewhat open to intrepetation depending on who is reading the theory and their understanding of what was originally written by the scientist when he wrote the original theory.

Since the way to apply this theory is open for interpretation, should we then discard the equation 1+1=2 in this theory? Or does this piece hold even though the rest is open for interpretation?

That is not a very solid illustration. For one thing, 1+1=2 can be taken literally as imperical fact. It is not open to interpretation, unless... you're a New Age (newage) hippy asking the question: How do you know 1 is 1 mannnnn? How do you know we even exist, man? I mean, funky groovy far out, I might just be dreaming my whole life... RIGHTEOUS!

A much more solid illustration would be giving the equation 1+1=2, which is fact, and then asking why 1=1. Why does 1=1? This isn't really provable for someone who doesn't accept the basic tenets of mathematics. So they fabricate some story about how a mystical being flew through the universe on wings of stardust (let's call him David Bowie) and spotted a planet with a big black obelisk on it. He ground the obelisk into fine black power, mixed it up with water and cast it into the exact same shape, resulting in another black obelisk. Viewing this obesilk from far above, he exclaims "Holy Moses, this is stupendous!" and names it "one". Therefore, long sticks are called "one", and 1=1.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Keep in mind one of the definitions of fact is:

Something believed to be true or real.

So science is the key to something believed to be true or real. To me that sounds a lot like a what a religion is trying to accomplish.

If you use that definition, yeah. I prefer this one: "the quality of being actual". Of course, if you want to get headily philisophical about it you start questioning the reality of anything, moving into the world of impractical newage hippy thought processes. See my newage hippy post for more info.