• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

The evolutionist mindset

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by npetreley, Aug 11, 2002.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    I can imagine certain things could possibly have happened in spite of the fact that there is no confirming evidence in the fossil record, my imaginary scenario violates laws of physics, and nothing like what I imagine has ever been observed. Therefore evolution has earned its reputation as being a fact.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ardipithecus

    ardipithecus Member

    239
    +1
     

    That certainly does not describe evolution which has loads of confirming evidnece in the fossil record, does not violate any laws of physics, and the basic proposed mechanism have been observed and thus quite rightly deserves to be considered factual.

     
     
  3. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    What I love is the subtle difference; chickenman's article was "a creationist mindset", because honesty compelled him to admit that not all creationists think that way, only some.

    Nick's article is titled "The evolutionist mindset", because whatever would compel him to admit that not all evolutionists think that way, he doesn't have it.
     
  4. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "That certainly does not describe evolution which has loads of confirming evidnece in the fossil record, does not violate any laws of physics, and the basic proposed mechanism have been observed and thus quite rightly deserves to be considered factual."

    Gould and Eldredge admit there aren't "loads" of evidence in the fossil record. It's sad to see lesser educated evolutionists blindly holding on to the worn-out myth that there is. Please note that no evidence is presented, just the usual unfounded proclamations that there are "loads" of it.

    The "basic proposed mechanism" has NOT been observed. None of the key tenets of Darwinism have been observed.

    Despite all the evolutionist histrionics, evolution remains an unproven theory.
     
  5. edgeo

    edgeo Member

    244
    +1
     
  6. Caffeine Socialism

    Caffeine Socialism Imagine all the people.

    380
    +0
    I suggest that our knight in shining armor come up with a more plausible origin of life theory that has a better explanation for how humans are related to the most lowly bacterium (are they really that lowly?).

    Hint: Creationism is an -ism.
     
  7. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    I guess you will have to provide a reference for this. Before you do, let me explain that I am wincing, because, while I know you will find no such "admission" in their writings, you will find that they commented on the state and quality of the fossil record as it pertains to fine-grained transitionals. I hope you will kindly skip all of those irrelevant quotes and go straight to the ones where they admit that there isn't much evidence for evolution in the fossil record. (Note, I didn't ask you for quotes saying that species-level transitional fossils are rare, or that there is little evidence for gradualism in the fossil record - because you didn't claim that they "admitted" that. I only ask for those that show them admitting that there is little evidence for evolution in the fossil record.)

    I'll wait. 
     
  8. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "The oldest human fossils are less than 4 million years old, and we do not know which branch on the copious bush of apes budded off the twig that led to our lineage. (In fact, except for the link of Asian Sivapithecus to the modern orangutan, we cannot trace any fossil ape to any living species. Paleontologists have abandoned the once popular notion that Ramapithecus might be a source of human ancestry.) Thus, sediments between 4 and 10 million years in age are potential guardians of the Holy Grail of human evolution---the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all."

    Stephen Jay Gould, "Empire of the Apes", Natural History, May 1987.
     
  9. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    you'll notice that gould is talking about 4-10 million years ago, the earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and life at least 3 billion (or is it more) years. Gould comments on a scarcity of fossils for this specific window of time.

    That in no way validates your claim.
     
  10. sbbqb7n16

    sbbqb7n16 Veteran - Blue Bible Dude

    +155
    Christian
    Single
    Well I have been touring New York recently and I noticed soemthing in the Musuem of Natuarl History... there is a lot of open space filled in by scientists on quite a lot of the fossils there. In fact I remember one that has 1/2 a jaw on one side.. some of a forehead... and a couple other bits and pieces here and there... however the "scientist" behind it all showed the whole rest of the skull and what it exactly looks like based off the minute pieces... then claims that it is proven to be a human fossil for x-million years ago. I have observed that you have to have the mindset of "evolution is true" to believe in what the fossils supposedly represent. However I found it quite easy myself to see where the possiblity that it was possibly not a full grown individual... someone with a birth-defect (not a new species), a midget, not even a human, not even fossils from the same creature... it doesn't seem concrete enough to claim that all human life comes from some other people unless you already believe that we did. Just my thoughts
     
  11. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    In many cases, the fossil pieces you're looking at match with similar pieces from other, more complete fossils; you aren't always seeing the best possible demonstration in the world.

    I think it's concrete enough to be VERY convincing; essentially, we have a long series of hominids with gradually fuller and rounder skulls over a period of millions of years, and *MANY* instances of some of those skulls. An alternative theory would have to be something like "and then, for a million years, every human that was born grew to about 4' tall, with a deformed skull, and then died".
     
  12. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "you'll notice that gould is talking about 4-10 million years ago, the earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and life at least 3 billion (or is it more) years. Gould comments on a scarcity of fossils for this specific window of time.

    That in no way validates your claim."

    We were discussing the alleged evolution of a one-cell organism to man. Gould's statement clearly indicates that there is no fossil evidence of a link between ape and man. So that breaks the alleged evolutionary chain, rendering the one-cell to man hypothesis completely unproven.

    So yes, my claim is validated. Gould acknowledges that the alleged chain from one-cell to man has a clear break in it. The missing link is still missing.

    Please provide irrefutable scientific proof that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that life is at least 3 billion years old. That's sheer speculation on your part.
     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    And in many cases, a few bone fragments is all we have. Care to give us the exact statistics, and demonstrate that the ones referred to are elsewhere complete, or are you just going to wave your hands?
     
  14. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    no, we were discussing evolution
     
  15. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    these are the currently accepted ages, you should provide proof that they aren't correct
     
  16. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    oops, sorry
    make that 3.85 billion years ago
     
  17. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    You mean Niles Eldredge?

    So there it is: creationism's worst nightmare in a nutshell. [...] We now see that successful early human species - like absolutely all other kinds of successful species that have been on Earth over the past 3.5 billion years - remained anatomically stable as long as their ecosystems remained stable.

    The evidence is just too good: ironically, the fossil record of human evolution is one of the very best, most complete, and ironclad documented examples of evolutionary history that we have assembled in the 200 years or so of active paleontological research. And, as we shall see (in Chapter 6), creationist attempts to punch holes in this incredibly well documented history of human evolution are simply puerile and downright wimpy.


    - Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, from the conclusion to chapter 3, "The Fossil Record."

    So (your source) Niles Eldredge is a "lesser educated evolutionist"?
     
  18. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    Thanks for the quote, but I was already aware of the fact that there are some "missing links" in the ape/human fossil transition in the fossil record. Are you going to validate your claim that Gould and Eldredge admitted that there was little evidence of evolution in the fossil record, or are you wrong about that?
     
  19. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    HA!!! Shows how much you know about 'fossils'.

    The best possible fossils you can have are the skulls of the animals. They can show climate, diet, and placement within the animal kingdom. Place those pieces with other evidences and you can get quite alot from just a couple of fragments and teeth or whatnot. Police detectives do the same exact thing that geologists do with the earth.

    When the superficial, canned arguments run out, you creationists switch subjects, declare that you have 101 other things to do, or even attack us for "wasting your time". We get silence. After digging our way through the canned arguments, we get silence. It's as predictable as gravity.

    I have seen it a dozen or more times on this forum in the last 5 months. After utterly nuking your 'stock' arguments you go quite dead in the mouth. I have seen it done when some cocky creationists bring in "Hovind Creationism", or even "Duane Gish Creationism".

    I sat down for a nice dinner over at one of my friends house with some of his family. He was on leave from the Air Force and invited me over. And while we where eating they turned on the television to one of the "christian stations" which (luckly for me) was teaching some silly "bible science" crap.

    I sat there and rebuttled every single claim they presented. They had a hack that was supposed to be a paleontologist (they couldn't even spell paleontologist which just goes to show you what a load this crap is) and he had somewhere between 5 and 6 degrees from who knows where, because they never said where he got all of them from.

    One man pointed to a leg bone and stated ignorantly that "this is the leg bone of a stegosaur, which is one of the large sauropods". What a fraud.
    He aslo pointed to a trilobite on a large map that represents idex animals from the Phanerozoic Eon, and said it was an "elrathia kingi". It WASN'T!!! It was a "PHACOPS RANNA". Frauds, all of them.

    He even talked about the mezozoic era and pointed his fingure down the map to show where it began. HE POINTED TO THE PERMIAN EPOCH then started up. He even stated that scientists take an "OATH OF INDOCTRINATION!!!!!", ???????????????? They even used the 'piltdown man" nonesense and brought in every single rebuttled claim EVER!!!

    These people have no idea what the heck they are saying. These people are "telling lies for god" for the ignorant multitudes... Pathetic!!!
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Whell gawlee. Ah shure bin humileeated bah dem edeekated sciuntists hoo thunk up Nebraska Man cuz theyall hadda tooth frum an exstinked sooeee pig. Dat shews jest howe grate dese fosills kin be frum da skulls.
     
Loading...