Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

Project2501 · Nov 10, 2004

JAL said:
You example is indeed an amazing illustration of fossil rarity. And I did not mean to imply that the paucity of transitional forms is an insurmountable problem. You say it is not a problem at all. Perhaps you're right, but I'm not entirely convinced that your response meets the force of my objection. Allow me to rephrase the arguents to show why:
- My argument: Regardless of the total number of fossils existing today, we should see the following RATIO: For each fossil of a species found, there should be a thousand times as many transitional fossils found.
- Your reply: There are many good reasons for the low numer of total fossils.
- In other words, your reply doesn't seem to address my argument. I was arguing about RATIOS, whereas you were arguing about TOTALS. My argument has nothing to do with the total number of fossils or their rarity.

Again, I'm not saying that my objection is insurmountable. But I'm not sure it can be trivially dismissed in a cavalier manner, either. So here is my stance. Evolution has enough supporting evidence that I currently accept it as a very good possibility, but only as a possibility.

There are a few problems with what you have claimed there. The vast majority of all the species that have ever existed are extinct, and so none of these are transitional to anything alive today, having existed on side branches that since died out. However those side branches will have had common ancestors with other branches, and we should see patterns that demonstrate this - and we do. The therapsids are an example of this, since these fossils that we find are mostly (if not all) on side branches, but show the characteristic evolution of the jaw and skull, so they demonstrate the transitional features that we are looking for in the fossil record. Other than those species which became extinct directly, all organisms are transitional so I am not certain what your request is. you want lots of transitional series? The problem with that request goes back to my original point in that fossilisation is rare and very environmentally dependent, so the odds of us getting an organism, and then one if its descendents is actually quite rare, especially since there are a large number of other organisms as well, we are far more likely to find fossils relating to other species that have become extinct.

So what we should see is evidence that the species we find share ancestral relations in an appropriate order, and we do. transitional series are rare, but the fact that they exist at all is significant evidence for evolution, and against special creation within a very short timeframe.

Project2501 · Nov 10, 2004

JAL said:
Well, good. This is a more direct response to my objection. The theory of PE addresses ratios, not just total fossils, and thus tries to solve the problem that I raised. The problem is that PE doesn't seem very plausible to me. After all, it's hard enough for we creationists to accept the idea of transitional forms, surely you don't think PE will be EASIER for us to accept? PE seems much harder to accept than slow transitions, but feel free to clarify where I might be misunderstanding PE.

punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution takes place in geographically small areas over geologically short timescales. geologically short, is hundreds of thousands of years.

Project2501 · Nov 10, 2004

reconciliation said:
The biologic and genetic diversity in nature cannot be a result of "a random process which didn't have people in it's mind", as one famous evolutionist described evolution.

quote and reference please, or I could just as easily say a famous creationist said "we are only really doing this for the money, we know we are wrong"

I claim there is no evidence for evolution which couldn't be understood better in the light of the Bible and creationism.

manatee toenails, atavistic whale hind limbs, telomeres in the centre of human chromosome 2, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the extensor coccyxis, the path of the urethra, post auricular muscles, Quoll offspring, the petals on poinsettia and hyena reproduction (if the pain of human childbirth is due to eve eating an apple, hyenas must have eaten a whole sack of them)

reconciliation · Nov 15, 2004

artybloke said:
Define "active Christian" (that usually means "people who agree with the tiny little bit of the Church I go to" I've found.)

I mean Christians who live by their faith. They are people who read the Scriptures, pray continually and usually belong to some living church and regard evangelizing as our calling.

reconciliation · Nov 15, 2004

Mistermystery said:
It's sad to see that you parroted everything (right down to the "small but growing number"), without looking into it any further. So they reject evolution out-right? No. Do they reject an old Earth? No. They challange and ask questions about neo-darwinism, That doesn't mean that they reject it.
Scientists do not debate whether evolution took place, but they do argue about how it took place.

No, these two scientists do reject the theory. Sternberg has rejected it for a long time ago, and another scientist has done the same. They just don't want to believe in a lie. Sternberg isn't creationist but he understands that evolution would be impossible.

That growing number of scientists means those who really challenge the theory of evolution. You didn't understand the context. It was written about an Intelligent Design-seminary. ID- theory isn't only one interpretation of evolution; it's a challenge against very foundation of evolutionism. In Finland many people think ID equals creationism. It doesn't but it is more consistent with creation belief than evolutionary theories.

artybloke · Nov 15, 2004

I mean Christians who live by their faith. They are people who read the Scriptures, pray continually and usually belong to some living church and regard evangelizing as our calling.

And come to the same conclusions as you, presumably? So if they happen to be Catholic (who have three Biblical readings per mass, and are asked to attend Mass daily if they can, and who also have regular missions) are they still "active Christians"? Are TE's who attend church regularly, read the Scriptures daily, try and evangelise, pray etc, "active Christians?" What about the Orthodox? Quakers? Or are they only "active Christians" if they come to same conclusion as you about what the Bible says?

Joe Meert · Nov 15, 2004

reconciliation said:
No, these two scientists do reject the theory. Sternberg has rejected it for a long time ago, and another scientist has done the same. They just don't want to believe in a lie. Sternberg isn't creationist but he understands that evolution would be impossible.

That growing number of scientists means those who really challenge the theory of evolution. You didn't understand the context. It was written about an Intelligent Design-seminary. ID- theory isn't only one interpretation of evolution; it's a challenge against very foundation of evolutionism. In Finland many people think ID equals creationism. It doesn't but it is more consistent with creation belief than evolutionary theories.

JM: LOL, Glenn Morton has summarized the much ballyhooed imminent demise of evolution on the following page, ID is simply an old hag in new clothing:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Jet Black · Nov 15, 2004

of this small but growing number, how many of them are called steve?

rmwilliamsll · Nov 15, 2004

reconciliation said:
No, these two scientists do reject the theory. Sternberg has rejected it for a long time ago, and another scientist has done the same. They just don't want to believe in a lie. Sternberg isn't creationist but he understands that evolution would be impossible.

That growing number of scientists means those who really challenge the theory of evolution. You didn't understand the context. It was written about an Intelligent Design-seminary. ID- theory isn't only one interpretation of evolution; it's a challenge against very foundation of evolutionism. In Finland many people think ID equals creationism. It doesn't but it is more consistent with creation belief than evolutionary theories.

"an Intelligent Design-seminary."

i suspect this is a mis-typing, but it is a revealing one.

ID can be fully evolutionary, it is directed at teleology only, not the age of the earth, nor common descent, not NS.

"That growing number of scientists means those who really challenge the theory of evolution."

an assertion with no evidence presented, nor none that i am aware of, please point us towards substantiating links. AFAIK there are no major challenges to the TofE from the scientific community.

...

Mistermystery · Nov 15, 2004

reconciliation said:
No, these two scientists do reject the theory. Sternberg has rejected it for a long time ago, and another scientist has done the same. They just don't want to believe in a lie. Sternberg isn't creationist but he understands that evolution would be impossible.

Then why can't I find any evidence of his objections against the theory of evolutions? Btw, even if it's this person, why did you then previously say that "the university of Helsinki" accepted it? You also have some other questions to awnser to, like that claim where you should prove that european scientists never accepted a flat Earth. And I've also seen a couple of pages which make me doubt the credibility of this Sternberg person.

That growing number of scientists means those who really challenge the theory of evolution.

You mean both of them? No credible scientific evidence has been given that shows a support for ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the diversity of life. Evolution however has. Btw, I showed you a link to SCIAM, which says that this is basically unsupported rubbish.

You didn't understand the context.

Sue me. My finnish is not the best to be honest.

reconciliation · Nov 16, 2004

Mistermystery said:
Then why can't I find any evidence of his objections against the theory of evolutions? Btw, even if it's this person, why did you then previously say that "the university of Helsinki" accepted it? You also have some other questions to awnser to, like that claim where you should prove that european scientists never accepted a flat Earth.

Sternberg isn't evolutionist but still he doesn't accept the theory of young earth creation. He belongs to an organisation that resists that idea of random evolution.

I said the university of Helsinki admitted the fact that there is a growing number of scientists who challenge the theory. That doesn't mean the university itself challenges evolutionary theories. ´

"Science" before the Reformation believed that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Still also some medieval scientists pointed out that if people lived on any planet, they would think it is the centre of the universe. But these scientists didn't regard the Earth as flat. The Bible doesn't teach it and the Church has never committed to it.
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

Gordon Freeman · Nov 16, 2004

reconciliation said:
Sternberg isn't evolutionist but still he doesn't accept the theory of young earth creation. He belongs to an organisation that resists that idea of random evolution.

can you give a bit more information about this chap and his group? I did a search for "sternberg evolution" and the first thing I found was an article on the development of the vulva. so some better references might be helpful.

as for the growing number, how many are called steve?

Mistermystery · Nov 16, 2004

reconciliation said:
Sternberg isn't evolutionist but still he doesn't accept the theory of young earth creation. He belongs to an organisation that resists that idea of random evolution.

So.. if he isn't an evolutionist, then what is he? Is he a relevant scientist? from what I've read about him, I'm beginning to doubt that...

I said the university of Helsinki admitted the fact that there is a growing number of scientists who challenge the theory. That doesn't mean the university itself challenges evolutionary theories.

source please, and can you tell me howmany there are "growing"? And even still, that doesn't mean what you seemed to imply at first "that the whole university of Helsinki wasagainst the evolution theory".

[/quote]The Bible doesn't teach it and the Church has never committed to it. http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm[/QUOTE]Oh? What about Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala? I must give you one thing though, it was never an official position of the Chrurch (allthough on the other hand the Mediaeval Church called the greek model heresy). Still, many clergy, especially in the early years of the Church teached it.

Re: Flat earth and the bible:

Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end."

Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the Earth."

Revelations 7:1: "... things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the Earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the Earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. "

Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the Ends of the Earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? "

Jeremiah 16:19 "O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the Ends of the Earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."

Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the Ends of the Earth." (p.s. no tree could ever grow so tall that it was seen everywhere)

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." (p.s. one fixed point to see every kingdom in the world? sounds unpossible to me, eventhough this one can be discarted as a vision).

My personal favorite is job 38:14 though:" The earth takes shape like clay under a seal. "

Have you ever seen a spherical seal?

I thought not.

Some people who are using Isaiah 40, carefully ignore other verses of Isaiah. They point to the verse (To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth) which they think shows that the Bible writers knew the earth was a sphere.

They believe that the word "circle" could actually mean "sphere," since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah's use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a "ball." (He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18) )

Ball is closer to a sphere then a circle will ever be. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was round, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.

Ondoher · Nov 16, 2004

reconciliation said:
Sternberg isn't evolutionist but still he doesn't accept the theory of young earth creation. He belongs to an organisation that resists that idea of random evolution.

Nobody supports random evolution. Evolution is not a random process, natural selection favors those traits most likely to confer a benefit to reproductive success.

gluadys · Nov 16, 2004

reconciliation said:
But these scientists didn't regard the Earth as flat. The Bible doesn't teach it and the Church has never committed to it.
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

The church never committed to a flat earth because the earth was known to be spherical before the church came into existence.

However, the writers of the Old Testament mostly lived either before the scientific facts were established, or out of touch with science,for the bible is written consistently from the point of view that the earth is flat.

This isn't to say that the bible "teaches" that the earth is flat, but it clearly makes that assumption.

Modern Christians are so accustomed to interpreting "flat-earth" passages figuratively, they do so automatically without realizing what they are doing. It never occurs to them that such passages were taken literally by the writers and the first readers/hearers of scripture. The same goes for passages that speak of the earth not moving (which was the real bone of contention around Copernicus theory).

reconciliation · Nov 17, 2004

Mistermystery said:
So.. if he isn't an evolutionist, then what is he? Is he a relevant scientist? from what I've read about him, I'm beginning to doubt that...

He is a structuralist.

Mistermystery said:
can you tell me howmany there are "growing"? And even still, that doesn't mean what you seemed to imply at first "that the whole university of Helsinki wasagainst the evolution theory".

In Finland there were hardly any scientists who challenged the theory of evolution during many decades. Now there are many. Of course when people have perceived vast problems the theory includes, they have made up different alternatives. All evolution critics aren't creationists but many of them believe in some kind of ID. Btw, where did I imply "that the whole university of Helsinki was against the evolution theory"?

Mistermystery said:
Some people who are using Isaiah 40, carefully ignore other verses of Isaiah.

You are misunderstanding the message the Bible has in those verses. The Book uses often allegorical descriptions: we aren't to take it everything literally. But interpretation isn't still impossible because the context determines which verses were meant to be literal and which weren't.

h2whoa · Nov 17, 2004

reconciliation said:
In Finland there were hardly any scientists who challenged the theory of evolution during many decades. Now there are many.

Figures man! Figures!

The question asked essentially was "how many does 'growing' represent".

The answer: many.

Substantiate please. By the way, I am a scientist (I'm a postgrad geneticist), and I work across three well known institutions in Britain and I have never met a geneticist who did not buy evolution.

h2

napajohn · Nov 17, 2004

gluadys said:
The church never committed to a flat earth because the earth was known to be spherical before the church came into existence.

However, the writers of the Old Testament mostly lived either before the scientific facts were established, or out of touch with science,for the bible is written consistently from the point of view that the earth is flat.

This isn't to say that the bible "teaches" that the earth is flat, but it clearly makes that assumption.

Modern Christians are so accustomed to interpreting "flat-earth" passages figuratively, they do so automatically without realizing what they are doing. It never occurs to them that such passages were taken literally by the writers and the first readers/hearers of scripture. The same goes for passages that speak of the earth not moving (which was the real bone of contention around Copernicus theory).

what A LOT OF people fail to realize is that the CHURCH was not limited to the Roman Catholic domination..most of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were preserved in the Eastern Ortodoxy that was based in Constantinople..They were the offshoot Christians that were founded by churches that paul started in Alexandria, egypt and cairo..many of these churches split from the Papacy..the Renaissance was started when the decline of the eastern churches, the Crusades,the rise of Islam forced many of these Christians scientists and intellectuals to go back to the West and change the landscape
of the Roman catholic dominance..often many of these were Bible believers

Mistermystery · Nov 17, 2004

reconciliation said:
<ignoring the rest for a second>
You are misunderstanding the message the Bible has in those verses. The Book uses often allegorical descriptions: we aren't to take it everything literally.

Hey, I'm all for a non-literal interpretation, just to say that everything in the bible is literal is indeed not what the bible meant. Just like that whole 6 literal day thing, and god zapping everything into exsistion are not meant to be literal, the bible could be interpreted diffrently on these issues as well.

gluadys · Nov 17, 2004

napajohn said:
what A LOT OF people fail to realize is that the CHURCH was not limited to the Roman Catholic domination..most of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were preserved in the Eastern Ortodoxy that was based in Constantinople..They were the offshoot Christians that were founded by churches that paul started in Alexandria, egypt and cairo..many of these churches split from the Papacy..the Renaissance was started when the decline of the eastern churches, the Crusades,the rise of Islam forced many of these Christians scientists and intellectuals to go back to the West and change the landscape
of the Roman catholic dominance..often many of these were Bible believers

I am aware of that, but it's hardly relevant. Both the flat-earth concept found in the bible, and the transition to a spherical earth concept pioneered by Greek natural philosophers, occurred before there was any church at all.

Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jet Black

Guest

avid reader

Here's looking at you kid

Active Member

Gordon Freeman

Guest

Here's looking at you kid

Veteran

Legend

Active Member

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

Senior Member

Here's looking at you kid

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency