Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Jan Volkes]

Lets face it, the truth of creation is a real psychological threat to people with certain evolutionary beliefs and like any other threat, it must be warded off at all costs.

Of course creationism is true, they wouldn't teach it in schools in Texas if it wasn't true.

Evolution was happening and doing it's thing long before there was anyone around to even question it.

 

[RickG]

Scientists don't know how far back oxygen goes.

'Almost certainly biological'

All in all, the researchers suggest atmospheric oxygen levels 3 billion years ago were about 100,000 times higher than what can be explained by regular chemical reactions in Earth's atmosphere. "That suggests the source of this oxygen was almost certainly biological," Crowe said.

"It's exciting that it took a relatively short time for oxygenic photosynthesis to evolve on Earth," Crowe added. "It means that it could happen on other planets on Earth, expanding the number of worlds that could've developed oxygenated atmospheres and complex oxygen-breathing life."

Future research can look for similarly aged rocks from other places, both on and outside Earth, to confirm these findings. "Research could also look at earlier rocks," Crowe said. "Chances are, if there was oxygen 3 billion years ago, there was likely oxygen production some time before as well. How far back does it go?"

Keep in mind that the oxygen levels they are talking about are still very very low. Also, the first simple animals do not appear in the fossil record until some 600 Ma and terrestrial animals did not appear until around 500 ma. Here's a few papers I recommend for you to review.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1354478/1/1354478_Shields-Zhou%20and%20Och_2011.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...tion_Event/links/542086680cf241a65a1e4105.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...al_cycling/links/0912f5118c43f33583000000.pdf

 

[Oncedeceived]

Keep in mind that the oxygen levels they are talking about are still very very low. Also, the first simple animals do not appear in the fossil record until some 600 Ma and terrestrial animals did not appear until around 500 ma. Here's a few papers I recommend for you to review.

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1354478/1/1354478_Shields-Zhou%20and%20Och_2011.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...tion_Event/links/542086680cf241a65a1e4105.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...al_cycling/links/0912f5118c43f33583000000.pdf

They are saying themselves that "something biological" needed to produce it at whatever levels they found. It could not have been produced by the chemical makeup of the earth itself...did you catch that?

I haven't looked at the links yet but the I've read up on the GOE.

 

[RickG]

As we have determined we have not crossed paths much so I was wondering about your position. What makes you a Christian? I mean no disrespect nor am I questioning you being a Christian; I would just like to know what it was that compelled you to being a Christian.

Like most Christians brought up that way. You do realize that there are not only numerous Christians that have no problem with evolution, but several major denominations have recognized it as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course creationism is true, they wouldn't teach it in schools in Texas if it wasn't true.

Evolution was happening and doing it's thing long before there was anyone around to even question it.

Evolution is a process that we have labeled and interpreted according to discoveries we have made. Creationism has been around since mankind first put word in written form and before by mouth.

 

[RickG]

They are saying themselves that "something biological" needed to produce it at whatever levels they found. It could not have been produced by the chemical makeup of the earth itself...did you catch that?

I haven't looked at the links yet but the I've read up on the GOE.

The "Molybdenum isotope evidence for mild environmental oxygenation before the Great Oxidation Event" paper I linked previously describes a source for some oxygen before the GOE.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like most Christians brought up that way. You do realize that there are not only numerous Christians that have no problem with evolution, but several major denominations have recognized it as well.

Since you are unaware of my position you have no way of knowing that I accept evolution as defined in Biological terms: Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

So you were brought up a Christian, why do you remain so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The "Molybdenum isotope evidence for mild environmental oxygenation before the Great Oxidation Event" paper I linked previously describes a source for some oxygen before the GOE.

I'll take a look, but does that mean that you disagree with the article I provided?

 

[RickG]

Since you are unaware of my position you have no way of knowing that I accept evolution as defined in Biological terms: Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

So you were brought up a Christian, why do you remain so?

I admit that it is difficult, not from my knowledge in science, but from the "creation science" and its deliberate misrepresentations of the sciences. If one has to do that to support their belief in God, that is not much support for a God of any kind. The only thing that keeps me a Christian is recognizing that the bible, especially Genesis is a product of man and not literal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not off the top of my head, no. When I look at what it's done to its advocates on this forum I'd have to say that I can't see any merits in creationism.

That colon was intentional.

 

[Jan Volkes]

They are saying themselves that "something biological" needed to produce it at whatever levels they found. It could not have been produced by the chemical makeup of the earth itself...did you catch that?

Stromatolites.

 

[RickG]

I'll take a look, but does that mean that you disagree with the article I provided?

Absolutely not. The article you provided and the ones I linked are in agreement. The thing to understand is that none of them, including yours, puts pre-GOE anywhere near today's level.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is a process that we have labeled and interpreted according to discoveries we have made.

Just like the other scientific theories that you already accept.

Creationism has been around since mankind first put word in written form and before by mouth.

Creationism has been around longer than Geocentrism. Doesn't make it true.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ancient_wisdom

Appealing to ancient wisdom is a fallacy. Something doesn't become true just because it has been held dogmatically for centuries.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I admit that it is difficult, not from my knowledge in science, but from the "creation science" and its deliberate misrepresentations of the sciences. If one has to do that to support their belief in God, that is not much support for a God of any kind. The only thing that keeps me a Christian is recognizing that the bible, especially Genesis is a product of man and not literal.

I find dishonest people in all areas of life. There are always going to be those who misrepresent deliberately or by simply misunderstandings.

I find that the Creation Narrative in Genesis which is very similar in what we find in reality to be quite intriguing. To claim that life followed a certain sequence and that life had certain 'kinds' that followed after kinds of the same seems to imply evolution/earlier forms. While there are sequences that "appear" to be out of step with our understanding or evidence now in hand it seems to me quite reasonable to think that we don't have all the info we need or we don't have a full understanding of the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Absolutely not. The article you provided and the ones I linked are in agreement. The thing to understand is that none of them, including yours, puts pre-GOE anywhere near today's level.

I never claimed the level was at where we are today.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Stromatolites.

Do you mean Cyanobacteria?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just like the other scientific theories that you already accept.

Yes.

Creationism has been around longer than Geocentrism. Doesn't make it true.

It doesn't make it false either.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ancient_wisdom

Appealing to ancient wisdom is a fallacy. Something doesn't become true just because it has been held dogmatically for centuries.

Tell that to the person who was claiming that evolution was around longer then.

 

[RickG]

I never claimed the level was at where we are today.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find dishonest people in all areas of life. There are always going to be those who misrepresent deliberately or by simply misunderstandings.

I find that the Creation Narrative in Genesis which is very similar in what we find in reality to be quite intriguing. To claim that life followed a certain sequence and that life had certain 'kinds' that followed after kinds of the same seems to imply evolution/earlier forms. While there are sequences that "appear" to be out of step with our understanding or evidence now in hand it seems to me quite reasonable to think that we don't have all the info we need or we don't have a full understanding of the universe.

Let's get this straight. You find that the Genesis account parallels the appearance of organisms in the fossil record. However, if the order doesn't match it doesn't count against Genesis since you can imagine a fantasy land where the fossil record is different and matches Genesis.

Seems like you are starting with the conclusion and accepting/rejecting reality based on that already held conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

No problem.