The Heresy of Darwin

[MaynardGKrebbs]

again all these fossils show are some extict species of fish, it is not proof ,the interpretation is forced upon it,

No, these fossils show us some extinct fish with amphibian characteristics and then later on in time, some extinct amphibians with fish characteristics. Why do they occur? Why do they have this mix of characteristics and why do they go from more fish like to more amphibian like over time? The best explaination is evolution. No interpretation is forced upon it, it is the best explaination for the evidence.

people so much want to prove common descent that they imagine the evidence

Common descent is already an established fact, what evidence do you have to refute all of biology? You haven't been able to show us any yet.

i am sure that without records of our history that in a thousand years if the dolphin became extict and its fossils were found that it would be claimed as a transitional fossil

But it is a transitional fossil, why isn't it?

this is the fraud evolution theory, claiming as "fact" when really it is only theory

Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it. Guess you don't understand science.

but i can understand why people do,its because that is all some people can believe,they cant accept any other interpretation because it involves the supernatural

No such thing as the supernatural.

that is all they were taught to believe,and thats what i believed up until recently,when i realised that all this "evidence" is really only "theory

Kind of like the "theory" that the earth orbits the sun.....

 

[mpok1519]

This is the last thread that I want to start for Great Lent. I believe that our understanding of Genesis is the bedrock for our understanding of the faith. Our Lord stated that unless you believe Moses, you will not believe in Him. I want you to please consider the implications of compromising your faith to appease secular science.

One must understand that natural science and Orthodox theology follow two radically different epistemologies. Theology seeks to understand that which has been revealed in the Scripture. Natural science seeks to find natural explanations for what we observe in the natural world.

Science and Religion: Non-Overlapping Magisteria
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx



Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

Here are some important questions every Orthodox Christian should ask:

If we are the descendants of pre-human forms, did H. erectus and H. Neandertal have souls?

Is the soul something which evolved over time?

Is there anything inherent to the purported fossil ancestors themselves which would suggest that they were not fully ape or fully human?

[SIZE=-1]Reflections on Human Origins[/SIZE]
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

If we are evolved apes, is it an ape that died on the cross?

Why do we believe that Christ died to save us from death if death entered the world before the sin of Adam?

If Christ's death was to save our souls and our bodies, when did our bodies become corrupt under an evolutionary perspective?

An Interview with Father Damascene on Evolution
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/060222155510

Why do you believe natural science's explanations of prehistory, when prehistory is beyond the realm of science? Please do not accuse me of being an ignorant man for understanding that science cannot reach beyond science to discredit Orthodox Tradition.

May God have mercy upon us.

I think everything has a soul; animals, trees, rocks, the wind, people, dirt....it all has some kind of spirit, an essence, a meaning behind its existence....

why don't animals have souls? IMO, Gorillas can talk, paint, and write their emotions and can do math problems ten year-olds aren't capable of; perhaps they do have souls because they can display the same kind of intellegence human exhibit, and have exhibited behavior that can explain possibility of animals to understand the concept of 'God' on some level.

so yes neanderthals did have souls.

 

[sbvera13]

though his tools still contrast to the ones found,and he is being taught to use them

Were you taught to read and write, or did you figure it out on your own?

Does being taught something invalidate the accomplishment of learning it?

 

[mpok1519]

tool use is common all over the animal kingdom, not just in primates too.

its the tool 'making' part that separates humans from the animals.

 

[huggybear]

No, these fossils show us some extinct fish with amphibian characteristics and then later on in time, some extinct amphibians with fish characteristics. Why do they occur? Why do they have this mix of characteristics and why do they go from more fish like to more amphibian like over time? The best explaination is evolution. No interpretation is forced upon it, it is the best explaination for the evidence.



Common descent is already an established fact, what evidence do you have to refute all of biology? You haven't been able to show us any yet.



But it is a transitional fossil, why isn't it?



Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it. Guess you don't understand science.



No such thing as the supernatural.



Kind of like the "theory" that the earth orbits the sun.....

No, these fossils show us some extinct fish with amphibian characteristics and then later on in time, some extinct amphibians with fish characteristics. Why do they occur? Why do they have this mix of characteristics and why do they go from more fish like to more amphibian like over time? The best explaination is evolution. No interpretation is forced upon it, it is the best explaination for the evidence

how can you prove they change, you find one fossil and then say that it fits in with our theory that it came from this fossil,thats all it is
Common descent is already an established fact, what evidence do you have to refute all of biology? You haven't been able to show us any yet

well if its a fact, why is it always mentioned as a "theory" ?

No such thing as the supernatural

you are very confident in what you claim, i think that shows your level of thinking, a wiser way of saying it would have been" i dont "think" there is the supernatural" it is this narrow minded way of thinking one knows it all that holds us back

Kind of like the "theory" that the earth orbits the sun.....
that is something that is directly observable ,that evidence speaks for itself,unlike all the evidence used by evolutionists
which is mostly forced interpretation,

 

[mpok1519]

Kind of like the "theory" that the earth orbits the sun.....
that is something that is directly observable ,that evidence speaks for itself,unlike all the evidence used by evolutionists
which is mostly forced interpretation,

but the evidence is based upon observations too. It is possible to observe the past from the present.

 

[Nathan45]

Were you taught to read and write, or did you figure it out on your own?

Does being taught something invalidate the accomplishment of learning it?

Further issue: i'd think that stone age cavemen were taught to make tools also, except for the very first one to try it. think they thought that up on their own? Yeah, some of them probably did, but for the most part they picked it up from other cavemen.

...

and huggybear, i don't know why i should take anything you say seriously if you don't even know what the word "theory" means.

All scientific theories are called theories.

Guess what: the theory of gravity is still called a theory.

Evolution was a theory 150 years ago, and it's still a theory. It's also very true, just look at the DNA.

1) The DNA between similar animals is similar.
2) DNA has been observed to change and mutate.
3) These mutations are affected by natural selection,
4) some mutations are positive, most are a wash or negative... but the positive mutations stay and the negative mutations get weeded out.
4) Sometimes animals are put into a new environment or find a new nitche or food source, and they rapidly evolve to match that new environment or source of food. In this situation, speciation can occur in a few thousand generations.
5) It's been millions of years. DNA changes all the time, so do environments... put animals in a different environment than they're used too, they evolve to better adapt to it, and suddenly they're a new species after a while.

Can someone explain to me how evolution wouldn't happen? what are you going to do to stop a species from evolving into something totally different, since all animals use the same genetic code, there's really no reason you can't get from A to B.

It's really a pretty straitforward process, and the fossil evidence confirms it all, we have the actual hard bones of all kinds of extinct creatures from the past millions of years...

some of them you can hardly tell if they're apes or human, probably half way in between!! :

Look at the braincase size of the one on the right, and compare it to the one in the middle and left. Look at the brow ridges on the one in the middle and compare it to the one on the left. Compare the chin sizes ( actually the chin difference is hard to see from this angle, but you can find other images, just use google images and search for neanderthals).

Here we've got a human skull, a neanderthal, and a homo erectus:

go to this website for more skull comparisons: ( really cool site i found with google )

http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/cenozoic.htm ?

Don't need to read the text if you don't want, just look at the pictures
what are these creatures? wouldn't you like to know? well, i assure you, the paleontologists, who spend their lives studying this stuff, they do their homework. They can tell the difference between a chimp skull, a human skull, an ape skull, and something totally new. They dot their I's and cross their T's. And the skulls above arn't just some fluke... Other types of hominid fossils are rare ( including a few examples of ones even closer related to humans than these ), but neanderthals and H. erectus are both very common fossils.

 

[flatworm]

how can you prove they change, you find one fossil and then say that it fits in with our theory that it came from this fossil,thats all it is

1. We know life forms change from one generation to the next from present-day observations.

2. If none of them were related, there would be no reason for the fossils to appear in the order they do in the fossil record.

3. If they weren't related, there would be no reason for all life to fit into a single nested heirarchy.

well if its a fact, why is it always mentioned as a "theory" ?

Ever heard of the Germ Theory of Disease? Do you think that's still in doubt? How about Newton's Theory of Gravity- are we really sure things fall?

that is something that is directly observable ,that evidence speaks for itself,unlike all the evidence used by evolutionists
which is mostly forced interpretation,

Actually, you're wrong. Have you ever watched from outside the earth's orbital plane to see the earth revolve around the sun? No. We infer it indirectly from the change in the daily trajectory of the sun across the sky and the changes in constellations. That's called interpretation. In fact, some people, like RichardT here, still don't accept the heliocentric model, by exactly the same mechanism you reject evolution: bald-faced denial motivated by religious dogmatism.

 

[flatworm]

again all these fossils show are some extict species of fish, it is not proof ,the interpretation is forced upon it,

The first was a species with reinforced fins like a mudskipper. The second had limbs, and the third also has a well-developed foot. Some fish.

Again, what do you think an intermediate fossil is? The ridiculous chimera you offered as an example would in fact invalidate the current theory of evolution. What do you want, birth certificates?

We watch speciation happening now. We can see the long term changes recorded in the fossil record. You're like a person who believes oak trees pop into existence 50' tall because the only new growth you see are small twigs and no one can prove to you the limbs didn't appear spontaneously.

people so much want to prove common descent that they imagine the evidence,

The fact you deny the evidence doesn't change the fact it's there. Do you have an alternative that explains not only these fossils' morphology, but also their order in the fossil record and why they exist for every stage between fish and amphibian?

i am sure that without records of our history that in a thousand years if the dolphin became extict and its fossils were found that it would be claimed as a transitional fossil,

Between what and what?

this is the fraud evolution theory, claiming as "fact" when really it is only theory, then someone will say "science doesnt claim fact" well why do all these sources always say "it happened" ?

Because the evidence is too strong to deny, at least without the delusional bracing of religious dogmatism.

but i can understand why people do,its because that is all some people can believe,they cant accept any other interpretation because it involves the supernatural ,but that does not make it true

Show me a complex species popping out of thin air today. Let's get a recorded instance of that, and then you can tell me you have a viable alternative view.

that is all they were taught to believe,and thats what i believed up until recently,when i realised that all this "evidence" is really only "theory"

A "theory" is the highest form of explanation there is in science. You have not been able to refute a single piece of evidence presented to you, you have only stuck your fingers in your ears and refused to consider it.

though his tools still contrast to the ones found,and he is being taught to use them

Question: can you knap flint?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

tool use is common all over the animal kingdom, not just in primates too.

its the tool 'making' part that separates humans from the animals.

WRONG


CHIMPS MAKING TOOLS LINK



Chimpanzees in Senegal have been observed making and using wooden spears to hunt other primates, according to a study in the journal Current Biology.
Researchers documented 22 cases of chimps fashioning tools to jab at smaller primates sheltering in cavities of hollow branches or tree trunks.
The report's authors, Jill Pruetz and Paco Bertolani, said the finding could have implications for human evolution.
Chimps had not been previously observed hunting other animals with tools.
Pruetz and Bertolani made the discovery at their research site in Fongoli, Senegal, between March 2005 and July 2006.
"There were hints that this behaviour might occur, but it was one time at a different site," said Jill Pruetz, assistant professor of anthropology at Iowa State University, US.
"While in Senegal for the spring semester, I saw about 13 different hunting bouts. So it really is habitual."
Jabbing weapon
Chimpanzees were observed jabbing the spears into hollow trunks or branches, over and over again. After the chimp removed the tool, it would frequently smell or lick it.
In the vast majority of cases, the chimps used the tools in the manner of a spear, not as probes. The researchers say they were using enough force to injure an animal that may have been hiding inside.
However, they did not photograph the behaviour, or capture it on film.
In one case, Pruetz and Bertolani, from the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies in Cambridge, UK, witnessed a chimpanzee extract a bushbaby with a spear.
In most cases, the Fongoli chimpanzees carried out four or more steps to manufacture spears for hunting.
In all but one of the cases, chimps broke off a living branch to make their tool. They would then trim the side branches and leaves.
In a number of cases, chimps also trimmed the ends of the branch and stripped it of bark. Some chimps also sharpened the tip of the tool with their teeth.
Female lead
Adult males have long been regarded as the hunters in chimp groups.
But the authors of the paper in Current Biology said females, particularly adolescent females, and young chimps in general were seen exhibiting this behaviour more frequently than adult males.
"It's classic in primates that when there is a new innovation, particularly in terms of tool use, the younger generations pick it up very quickly. The last ones to pick up are adults, mainly the males," said Dr Pruetz, who led the National Geographic Society-funded project.
This is because young chimps pick the skill up from their mothers, with whom they spend a lot of their time.
"It's a niche that males seem to ignore," Dr Pruetz told BBC News.
Many areas where chimpanzees live are also home to the red colobus monkey, which the chimps hunt. However, the Senegal site is lacking in this species, so chimps may have needed to adopt a new hunting strategy to catch a different prey - bushbaby.

The authors conclude that their findings support a theory that females may have played a similarly important role in the evolution of tool technology among early humans.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

how can you prove they change, you find one fossil and then say that it fits in with our theory that it came from this fossil,thats all it is

Well of course. That's how falsification works.
If the hypothesis/theory is true, then there should be things that conform to it (the existence of 'transitional' species, for instance, conforms to the theory of common descent).
More usefully, there would be no things that contradict it. Something that conforms is 'merely' evidence to the theory, but something that contradicts it counts as a disproof of it.

The existence of a linear progression of fossils from the clearly-reptilian to the clearly-avian, complete with a bird-like reptiles and reptile-like birds, constitute great evidence for the reptilian ancestry of aves: if birds are descended from reptiles, then this fossil record is exactly what we should expect.

well if its a fact, why is it always mentioned as a "theory" ?

Because it is an established fact. It is formally still 'only' a theory, just like the atomic theory, or germ theory. They are not called simply 'facts' because the possibility remains, however remotely, that it is false.
For instance, it is possible that atoms do not exist, and instead the universe is populated by magic gnomes. The point is that, although possible, it is vanishingly improbable.

The same cannot be said of common descent. The existence of plethoras of evidence that supports the theory makes it very probable indeed.

you are very confident in what you claim, i think that shows your level of thinking, a wiser way of saying it would have been" i dont "think" there is the supernatural" it is this narrow minded way of thinking one knows it all that holds us back

I agree with you words (if not with your tone). Summarily declaring that the 'supernatural' does not exist without at least some due justification is arrogant at best.
That said, it may be a semantical argument: the supernatural is super natural, above nature. Since, by definition, only nature exists (by some lexicon, at least), his/her claim may be correct.

that is something that is directly observable ,that evidence speaks for itself,unlike all the evidence used by evolutionists
which is mostly forced interpretation,

Agreed, the analogy is flawed. In this case, heliocentrism and geocentrism are personal preferences; there is no 'special' point in space that makes a natural origin for your coordinate system.
Indeed, astronomers today still use geocentrism for most calculations since they are, after all, moving with the Earth.

However, I disagree with you when you say that evidence for common descent is 'forced interpretation'. Could you give an example of evidence used by modern evolutionists, and explain how its use as evidence 'forced'?

 

[Loudmouth]

if you found a fossil that was half human half fish,or something similar that would perk my interest,

But that would falsify the theory of evolution. Humans did not evolve from fish. We evolved from ape ancestors. Perhaps you can try again?

why are there no examples alive today of one species turning into another? or why are there no fossils even of this ?

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Given the rarity of fossilization, the rarity of those fossils making it to the modern day, and the vastness of the Earth we are lucky to have the fossils we do have. Take the passenger pigeon. They once numbered in the billions but went extinct not too long ago. Guess how many passenger pigeon fossils have been found? Zero. Also, if allopatric speciation is the major mechanism of evolution as Gould and Eldredge suggest then transitional fossils between species should be hard to find. However, we have many, many intermediates beteen majory species groups.

how can you prove they change, you find one fossil and then say that it fits in with our theory that it came from this fossil,thats all it is

Proof is for math and alcohol. Science deals in evidence and theories. The theory of evolution states that if two divergent species share a common ancestor then we should find fossils which have a mix of characteristics from those two species. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record, the intermediates predicted by the theory of evolution. We find fish/amphibian intermediates, amphibian/reptile intermediates, reptile/mammal intermediates, human/ape intermediates, bird/dinosaur intermediates, etc. They are all there, as predicted.

 

[Naraoia]

CHIMPS MAKING TOOLS LINK

Übercool

However, they did not photograph the behaviour, or capture it on film.

Too bad. I hope someone will.

 

[Tomk80]

then why dont you draw that conclusion? then why do you come up with your theorys?

Because we do actually have ideas on how matter can come into existence from plasma that have been tested. That is a theory that comes from the things we know.

Furthermore, there are some hypotheses and ideas on how this plasma came into existence that follow from our current understanding. But it is generally admitted that there ideas are very uncertain.


If we didn't have those, we would say that we don't know. In that case, the conclusion of God would still be invalid. How hard is that to understand?

 

[samiam]

again all these fossils show are some extict species of fish, it is not proof ,the interpretation is forced upon it,

people so much want to prove common descent that they imagine the evidence,i am sure that without records of our history that in a thousand years if the dolphin became extict and its fossils were found that it would be claimed as a transitional fossil, every different type of extict species found is claimed as a transitional, but how can you claim that as fact?

this is the fraud evolution theory, claiming as "fact" when really it is only theory, then someone will say "science doesnt claim fact" well why do all these sources always say "it happened" ?

but i can understand why people do,its because that is all some people can believe,they cant accept any other interpretation because it involves the supernatural ,but that does not make it true ,that is all they were taught to believe,and thats what i believed up until recently,when i realised that all this "evidence" is really only "theory"

Could you please tell us about your background of paleontology, and why it is you know enough about this science to doubt the peer-reviewed conclusions of people who have spent their lives studying this science.

From another post I recently posted:

---

I respect someone's right to feel the Earth is only 6,000 years old. If your understanding of God requires a 6,000-year-old Earth, don't let me stop you from having an understanding of God.

But, I ask someone who feels this way to have a little humility. As Jesus said several times, in more than one different parable, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Mat. 23:12; Luke 14:11; Luke 18:14). Don't be so presumptuous to think you know more about astronomy than someone who has studied astronomy their entire life, more about geology than someone who has spent years studying geology, and more about biology than people who have Ph.D.s in biology.

Maybe there is some way to make a 6,000 earth and the entire universe possible and yet have all the evidence that, in several fields of science, shows a far older universe. I don't see it; before I can even consider a young Earth, I first ask a creationist to explain to me how I can see stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away, and yet have the universe be only 6,000 years old.

---

The reason why I am bring up the issue with the stars at night instead of, say, why it is Dolphins don't look like transitory fossils is because I plain simply do not have the knowledge of paleontology to address this issue.

 

[samiam]

scientists conjure up and imagine evidence like this to give their itching ears what they want to hear

Other posters have posted scientific evidence. I, on the other hand, am going to look at this from a psychological angle:

Why is it that scientists [1] conjure up and imagine evidence? What is their motivation for doing so?

Please explain.

[1] The only people who use phrases like "evolutionary scientists" are hard-line creationists. The word you are looking for is "biologist"