Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[GodsGrace101]

You can belive whatever you want, its still not science and not supported by data.

What you believe is not supported by data either.
Science keeps making discoveries but they still don't understand about everything and may never,,,and they still don't understand how life began.

If you know how life began, maybe you could cue us in?

 

[VirOptimus]

Unfortunately, Dr. Tour says it better than I can.
Want to talk about theology?
I'm good to go.

Oh. And science can be mixed with theology...
you seem to have a problem with this, but Christianity does not -- at least mainline christianity does not.

And why is arguing with anything rude?
What is it that Dr. Tour says that you don't agree with?

Science is a description of physical reality, nothing more, nothing less.

If you try to mix that with religion you end up with stupid concepts like ID, and its just religion and no science.

Im not interedted in theology as Im an atheist.

 

[VirOptimus]

What you believe is not supported by data either.
Science keeps making discoveries but they still don't understand about everything and may never,,,and they still don't understand how life began.

If you know how life began, maybe you could cue us in?

Im not responsible for your education, but no, I dont know and thats ok. I dont insert magic as soon as I dont know how something work.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Science is a description of physical reality, nothing more, nothing less.

If you try to mix that with religion you end up with stupid concepts like ID, and its just religion and no science.

Im not interedted in theology as Im an atheist.

I'm not interested in science because I'm a Christian.

Now isn't that a silly statement?
It's good to be interested in everything.
A person with an open mind wants to know as much as they can. I don't stop knowing about what science is doing because I believe God created everything.

Anyway, I mentioned about theology because THAT LANGUAGE I know. I do not know the language of science.

BTW, some big announcement on April 10th...do you have any idea what it is?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Im not responsible for your education, but no, I dont know and thats ok. I dont insert magic as soon as I dont know how something work.

I know you're not responsible for my education.
You like to say that.

What if YOU were trying to find out about what places to visit in Rome....and you asked me....and I replied that I'm not responsible for your education.

It's pretty nasty.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not interested in science because I'm a Christian.

Now isn't that a silly statement?
It's good to be interested in everything.
A person with an open mind wants to know as much as they can. I don't stop knowing about what science is doing because I believe God created everything.

Anyway, I mentioned about theology because THAT LANGUAGE I know. I do not know the language of science.

BTW, some big announcement on April 10th...do you have any idea what it is?

This is a science sub-fora.

You wanna preach or talk theology there are other parts of the site for that.

If you dont know science then maybe you should educate yourself before posting about subjects you sre ignornst in.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know you're not responsible for my education.
You like to say that.

What if YOU were trying to find out about what places to visit in Rome....and you asked me....and I replied that I'm not responsible for your education.

It's pretty nasty.

Nope, it isnt. When a poster is ignorant and in error its not really my problem, its theirs.

Comparing it to ask for travel tips is apples to oranges.

 

[GodsGrace101]

This is a science sub-fora.

You wanna preach or talk theology there are other parts of the site for that.

If you dont know science then maybe you should educate yourself before posting about subjects you sre ignornst in.

I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....

I know enough to know that we cannot go back to before the big bang...and thus we know new knowledge in increments and nothing big has happened to explain our presence in this universe.

I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.

You have a universe,,,something had to start it,,,and you do not know what.

Intelligent design makes much more sense than chemicals coming together in just the right amount and just the right ones to cause humanity (or life of any type).

This cannot even be repeated in a lab and we know what is needed for life.

So, I'll remove myself now.
However, I haven't learned ANYTHING from this thread...I thought I might.

And no need to be sorry about that....
I wasn't really expecting to.

As to fossils, yeah...where's the change?
I see animals in each strada, but I don't see the change.

No matter.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....

I know enough to know that we cannot go back to before the big bang...and thus we know new knowledge in increments and nothing big has happened to explain our presence in this universe.

I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.

You have a universe,,,something had to start it,,,and you do not know what.

Intelligent design makes much more sense than chemicals coming together in just the right amount and just the right ones to cause humanity (or life of any type).

This cannot even be repeated in a lab and we know what is needed for life.

So, I'll remove myself now.
However, I haven't learned ANYTHING from this thread...I thought I might.

And no need to be sorry about that....
I wasn't really expecting to.

As to fossils, yeah...where's the change?
I see animals in each strada, but I don't see the change.

No matter.

This here just shows that you really know nothing about science.

You couldnt have reinforced my previous posts more even if you tried.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is how I understand things to be: There's a higher power than us...call it God. God is spirit...there's something in us that wants to know this spirit and what we have to do with it. We don't really seem to have "peace" until we come to grips with this idea.

Not everyone believes in spirit or lacks 'peace' because of it.

God reaches out to let Himself be known..we could accept Him or deny Him, but the world turns anyway. No matter what we personally want to believe. There's something in us different from other animals...I believe it's our spirit. Jesus came to teach us how to belong to the Kingdom of God here on earth. If we belong to it here, we'll also belong to it after death. The Kingdom is right here, right now. It's a place...a different dimension...It has a population, and a King, and rules. Christians that are waiting for death to get their "reward" are not seeing this reality. Jesus spoke about this Kingdom..,not about being saved...

For me it's not a matter of wanting to believe, but wanting to know how the world is, to the extent that we can understand it; crudely, what we can show to be true. The concept of spirit, in any more than a metaphorical sense, is simply contrary to how we know the world works. The forces and particles significant to our everyday lives have been thoroughly explored. There may well be forces we haven't yet found, but they are too weak or too short range to be significant, or we'd have detected them. There may be particles we haven't found, but if they have significant interaction with those we're made of, we'd have seen them (if fact, we'd have made them). This is the real-world problem of interaction, not to mention the conservation of energy problem.

You can believe in an ineffable, undetectable spiritual realm where souls & spirits roam with gods, angels, devils, etc., but if it has no connection to, interaction with, or influence on, the observable physical world, it's just an imaginative fantasy, however comforting.

Agreed. I also believe most of them were right.

Do you have an estimate for that, or is it just a belief? When I think of people dying for causes, indoctrination, propaganda, and manipulation come to mind; wars, cults, fundamentalism, martyrdom.

One of our problems these days is that many don't think anything is worth fighting for. We just accept what comes our way...we're not as free as we'd like to think we are; but we've accepted this already - and don't even know that we have.

The same things are worth fighting for as ever - family, community, freedom... but from our earliest recorded history, our tribal and territorial instincts have been hijacked, and our lives made commodities, to serve the purposes of others - by 'the will to power' as Neitzsche had it.

We could come to belief by study.
Or we could come to belief by searching for God and wanting HIM, more than we want scripture. It's kind of like wanting a book written about your girlfriend...instead of wanting your girlfriend.

More like wanting your imaginary friend rather than a book about your imaginary friend; that's wishful thinking. Girlfriends are real, tangible people.

Scientology is a religious movement.
New Age is a religious movement.
Women had a movement.
Civil rights was a movement.

They began with an idea and some persons caused it to grow and worked toward that.

I don't think of Christianity that way. I don't think of it as a deliberate movement.

​

Jesus died. The Apostles saw Him alive again...He had taught them a lot of things about God and how they could be close to Him (as opposed to what the Pharisees were doing) and they wanted to spread the good word..the good news. I don't think they sat around and said...we have to do this...and the way it grew!

I was taught that Jesus exhorted the apostles to 'spread the Word' - that's what 'apostle' means:

"An apostle is a messenger and ambassador. Someone who champions a critical reform movement, belief or cause (more so in the Christian context). "​

The Apostle John wrote the gospel of John.

Apparently there's some debate about that among scholars.

The gospels were not written to be a story...they were written to acquaint us with the person of Jesus. A chronological bible comes up with some problems that are resolvable, but it gets complicated to write about. For instance...who saw Jesus first? Was there a gardener by the tomb or an angel? Each writer told the story the way he heard it. To be honest, it would bother me more if it agreed in every detail. The story itself is not the point. The point is to show that Jesus was the awaited for Messiah, that He died and was resurrected. Everything hinges on the resurrection.

The person of Jesus and the resurrection are parts of the story - the gospels are the source. If we can dismiss the details as irrelevant because the stories are just representing a greater idea, who's to say that the strangely varying resurrection accounts are not simply representations of the idea that Jesus, his works, and teachings, live on in the world through people's memories and beliefs?

I concede that beliefs are not necessarily coherent or consistent, but selecting one particular aspect of the stories as real, because you believe it, or because everything hinges on it, seems somewhat circular...

... not "plausable"...that would not be enough. I believe it happened.

Yes, I've heard this kind of assertion before. AFAICT it basically means that there is no conceivable evidence that would change your mind. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

You're talking here about the instructions in the DNA....how complicated they are. How could it be by chance?

As I already said, it didn't happen by chance. That's a straw man fallacy.

This is more difficult for me to accept than a man coming back to life. I guess maybe we just need to decide which one is more "plausible"?

The former is contradictory by definition; the principle underlying the latter is demonstrable.

Just because I'm Christian and believe Jesus was resurrected does NOT mean I believe anything that comes along!! I'm not dumb...I'm just a believer.

I'm curious to know why you believe some undemonstrable claims and not others. Many people simply believe what they've been brought up to believe, and dismiss inconsistencies so to retain what they've been taught to believe is important, e.g. "Everything hinges on the resurrection." This is known as confirmation bias.

I hope you're talking just about the 67 the church found to be authentic....Spontaneous remission was considered....I don't remember too much about the study...I just remember that they had thought of everything.

Yes; they had to draw the line somewhere, and it was generally at 'medically inexplicable'. Inevitably, as medical knowledge developed, some of these events turned out to be extremely rare, but medically explicable. And, as I mentioned, given sufficient numbers, even extremely rare events should be expected.

The above is possible. This is the decision that has to be made....

I'm curious to know the criteria - besides prior belief.

I agree with all you've said --- it's all true.

Yet you accept that the main event described was real, despite that accounts with such conflicting descriptions wouldn't even be considered for presenting to a court as evidence of the main event, and the main event itself is a magical claim... So why - besides prior belief?

I think it's reasonable to allow for these differences.

Why?

I don't agree with your last sentence about Paul using the language of Spiritual Awakening. I've never encountered this idea before. I'm not going to ask where you heard it or read of it because anyway I know this isn't the case.

It was based on the particular words Paul used, which were apparently more usually associated with spiritual awakening rather than resurrection. But, OK.

Yes...like I said, I don't believe it's important where He first appeared to to whom...but that He came at all.

How can we be so certain, when the stories differ so much? The whole thing could be a legend.

But the fact is that we KNOW it!

Exactly, for JFK we have multiple independent sources of verifiable evidence that are consistent with each other; for the resurrection stories, we don't.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not everyone believes in spirit or lacks 'peace' because of it.

For me it's not a matter of wanting to believe, but wanting to know how the world is, to the extent that we can understand it; crudely, what we can show to be true. The concept of spirit, in any more than a metaphorical sense, is simply contrary to how we know the world works. The forces and particles significant to our everyday lives have been thoroughly explored. There may well be forces we haven't yet found, but they are too weak or too short range to be significant, or we'd have detected them. There may be particles we haven't found, but if they have significant interaction with those we're made of, we'd have seen them (if fact, we'd have made them). This is the real-world problem of interaction, not to mention the conservation of energy problem.

You can believe in an ineffable, undetectable spiritual realm where souls & spirits roam with gods, angels, devils, etc., but if it has no connection to, interaction with, or influence on, the observable physical world, it's just an imaginative fantasy, however comforting.

Do you have an estimate for that, or is it just a belief? When I think of people dying for causes, indoctrination, propaganda, and manipulation come to mind; wars, cults, fundamentalism, martyrdom.

The same things are worth fighting for as ever - family, community, freedom... but from our earliest recorded history, our tribal and territorial instincts have been hijacked, and our lives made commodities, to serve the purposes of others - by 'the will to power' as Neitzsche had it.

More like wanting your imaginary friend rather than a book about your imaginary friend; that's wishful thinking. Girlfriends are real, tangible people.

I was taught that Jesus exhorted the apostles to 'spread the Word' - that's what 'apostle' means:

"An apostle is a messenger and ambassador. Someone who champions a critical reform movement, belief or cause (more so in the Christian context). "​

Apparently there's some debate about that among scholars.

The person of Jesus and the resurrection are parts of the story - the gospels are the source. If we can dismiss the details as irrelevant because the stories are just representing a greater idea, who's to say that the strangely varying resurrection accounts are not simply representations of the idea that Jesus, his works, and teachings, live on in the world through people's memories and beliefs?

I concede that beliefs are not necessarily coherent or consistent, but selecting one particular aspect of the stories as real, because you believe it, or because everything hinges on it, seems somewhat circular...


Yes, I've heard this kind of assertion before. AFAICT it basically means that there is no conceivable evidence that would change your mind. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

As I already said, it didn't happen by chance. That's a straw man fallacy.

The former is contradictory by definition; the principle underlying the latter is demonstrable.

I'm curious to know why you believe some undemonstrable claims and not others. Many people simply believe what they've been brought up to believe, and dismiss inconsistencies so to retain what they've been taught to believe is important, e.g. "Everything hinges on the resurrection." This is known as confirmation bias.

Yes; they had to draw the line somewhere, and it was generally at 'medically inexplicable'. Inevitably, as medical knowledge developed, some of these events turned out to be extremely rare, but medically explicable. And, as I mentioned, given sufficient numbers, even extremely rare events should be expected.

I'm curious to know the criteria - besides prior belief.

Yet you accept that the main event described was real, despite that accounts with such conflicting descriptions wouldn't even be considered for presenting to a court as evidence of the main event, and the main event itself is a magical claim... So why - besides prior belief?

Why?

It was based on the particular words Paul used, which were apparently more usually associated with spiritual awakening rather than resurrection. But, OK.

How can we be so certain, when the stories differ so much? The whole thing could be a legend.

Exactly, for JFK we have multiple independent sources of verifiable evidence that are consistent with each other; for the resurrection stories, we don't.

I got this FB,,,but can't read it right now. Ran thru it quick...I think you misunderstood about the girlfriend thing.

Too sleepy,,it's very late here.
Tomorrow.
Thanks for such an interesting conversation!
Good to do some thinking....

 

[Queller]

I misspoke.... .
Not many...
But some are.

Scientists abandoning evolution.
They're opting for intelligent design.

Are they abandoning it because of the science or because of their religious beliefs?

Dr. Todd Wood Biologist and YEC:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.

Answers in Genesis requires all people who work their to agree to this statement:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

One has to wonder why they don't consider themselves as "fallible people who do not possess all information"?

 

[Queller]

I don't know much about these movements, although, generally speaking, I'm against them.

I don't like radical anything...even radical Christianity is wrong and not what Jesus had in mind.

You should really read up on The Wedge Strategy.

 

[Queller]

Of course it does.
If you don't believe in an intelligent being, you'll say that the information in DNA came about by pure chance.

I was wondering if you were going to say something like this.

While it is (mostly) true that mutations in DNA (information) came about by chance, the other half of the equation, natural selection is anything but random.

 

[46AND2]

I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....

Yet you don't know enough about science to know that science doesn't suggest we did.

I know enough to know that we cannot go back to before the big bang...and thus we know new knowledge in increments and nothing big has happened to explain our presence in this universe.

Yet you don't know enough about science to know that there was no "before" the big bang.

I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.

Yet you don't know enough about science to know that science doesn't suggest our DNA came together by chance.

You have a universe,,,something had to start it,,,and you do not know what.

Intelligent design makes much more sense than chemicals coming together in just the right amount and just the right ones to cause humanity (or life of any type).

Sorry, magic does not make more sense. Even if it did, it doesn't mean that intuition is correct. It made more sense to ancient people that lightning occurred because gods were angry than some natural means. How'd that turn out?

This cannot even be repeated in a lab and we know what is needed for life.

We actually don't know what is needed for abiogenesis...if we did, we probably could repeat it in a lab.

So, I'll remove myself now.
However, I haven't learned ANYTHING from this thread...I thought I might.

You aren't trying to learn anything.

You are STILL making the "something can't come from nothing" claim, despite the fact that several of us have been telling you for weeks that science doesn't even suggest such a thing. That none of us believe that something came from nothing. And that the only ones who DO believe something came from nothing are theists.

You have been told repeatedly that evolution is not random, and that it is independent of abiogenesis.

You make no attempt to understand our explanations, and instead just repeat your same misrepresentations of the opposing position, when we have explained to you that we don't even believe the positions you're arguing against.

And no need to be sorry about that....
I wasn't really expecting to.

We weren't expecting you to, either.

As to fossils, yeah...where's the change?
I see animals in each strada, but I don't see the change.

No matter.

Maybe you, unlike any other creationist who has been asked here, can explain exactly what kind of "change" you are looking for? In other words, what would you expect to see if evolution were true, but we actually don't? Be specific.

 

[tas8831]

I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.

I should like to see you arguments regarding this claim, and the evidence you have for it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Are they abandoning it because of the science or because of their religious beliefs?

Dr. Todd Wood Biologist and YEC:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.

Answers in Genesis requires all people who work their to agree to this statement:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

One has to wonder why they don't consider themselves as "fallible people who do not possess all information"?

I'm not saying evolution is a failure...I do wonder what we mean these days be evolution.

Everyone I know believes in micro evolution...changes to existing species,,animal or plant. It's obvious that there are changes in both.

I don't know anyone that believes the earth is 6,000 years old and I'd have a difficult time believing anything they say.

I do believe we're fallible, and I do believe we're still searching for the truth.

Darwin himself had a problem with fossil remains, which no one has mentioned that I remember. He said that the Cambarian (?) explosion creates a big problem for evolution - as he understood it - and that he hoped an answer would be found in the future.

Have we found the answer? No. So we're still searching.

I just think we should keep an open mind...we may NEVER know how all this started and how we got here. Some think they know...but I'd have to ask then.,...how come ALL scientists don't know?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You should really read up on The Wedge Strategy.

I did. From your link.

I do agree that human behavior is changed if we say that we originate in God's image or if we originate from apes.

The idea that we're an animal does seem to create humans that find excuses for their behavior...siting the fact that we are, after all, just animals.

Having said that, I'd have to say that we truly are unique and I do believe in a higher power and I do believe that WE were made in a special way.

I don't know how. Maybe God decided to intervene in caveman days to make a species that is more like Himself,,,or can at lease KNOW HIM.

I do see some kind of intervention by God.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I was wondering if you were going to say something like this.

While it is (mostly) true that mutations in DNA (information) came about by chance, the other half of the equation, natural selection is anything but random.

Natural selection sounds right to me.
The stronger will survive...thus the changes will occur.

I just don't believe one animal changed into a different animal.,,and the fossil record does not prove this. As far as I understand....

 

[sfs]

I just don't believe one animal changed into a different animal.,,and the fossil record does not prove this. As far as I understand....

I don't remember whether I've posted this figure in this thread or not, but to me, this looks very much like one animal changing into another in the fossil record.