btw, car is finally fixed and i will be able to go home tonight for the first time in 5 days (its been a crazy week). So my long promised researched post will be tonight, i apologize for the delays.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?
- Thread starter stumpjumper
- Start date
- Status
Here goes:
evolutionist Pierre Lecomte:
"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classses such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
an interview with Johnathan Wells PHD, PHD (yes, that's right, two phd's):
"But the archaeopteryx is half-bird, half-reptile, right?"
"No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways--their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear--not part bird and part reptile."
Here is another interesting tid bit about archaeopteryx. When first being considered as a transitional animal, they looked toward the fossil record to find fossils with similar traits that might link it to reptilian ancestors. To do this they found the reptiles with the closest structure to bird they could find. They were success ful in essence of finding them, however, the fossils that they found that were supposed to transition the reptiles into this archaeopteryx come millions of years after the appearance of the archaeopteryx. One more chink in the evolutionary armor.
So here we have this bird, and the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds coming tens of millions of years AFTER the appearance of archaeopteryx.
Okay, now lets talk about the cambrian explosion.
Here we have the billions of years prior to the cambrian period giving nothing more than jellyfish, sponges and worms. Then all of a sudden at the beginning of the Cambrian period, massive complex life seem to appear out of no where. Representatives of the anthropods, modern representatives of insects, crabs, modern starfish, sea urchins, and chordates. All of these life forms with absolutely no transitional fossils found.
One paleontologist in China said that this stand's Darwin's tree on its head because the major groups of animals, instead of coming last, at the top of the tree, come first, when animals make their first appearance.
As for what was said earlier about bodies being too soft to preserve, we have microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back more than three billion years. There have been soft-bodied organisms from before the cambrian that have been found in Australia. Soft bodied animals have even been found in the cambrian period itself.
In conclusion, the tree of life that evolution is supposed to abide by has far from been shown in the fossil record, in fact some refer to it now as a lawn, where species just seem to pop out of no where. Keep in mind here, I'm not debating micro evolution, im debating macro evolution. So far, you have yet to give any evidence for macroevolution and your archaeopteryx is far from proving it.
evolutionist Pierre Lecomte:
"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classses such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."
an interview with Johnathan Wells PHD, PHD (yes, that's right, two phd's):
"But the archaeopteryx is half-bird, half-reptile, right?"
"No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways--their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear--not part bird and part reptile."
Here is another interesting tid bit about archaeopteryx. When first being considered as a transitional animal, they looked toward the fossil record to find fossils with similar traits that might link it to reptilian ancestors. To do this they found the reptiles with the closest structure to bird they could find. They were success ful in essence of finding them, however, the fossils that they found that were supposed to transition the reptiles into this archaeopteryx come millions of years after the appearance of the archaeopteryx. One more chink in the evolutionary armor.
So here we have this bird, and the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds coming tens of millions of years AFTER the appearance of archaeopteryx.
Okay, now lets talk about the cambrian explosion.
Here we have the billions of years prior to the cambrian period giving nothing more than jellyfish, sponges and worms. Then all of a sudden at the beginning of the Cambrian period, massive complex life seem to appear out of no where. Representatives of the anthropods, modern representatives of insects, crabs, modern starfish, sea urchins, and chordates. All of these life forms with absolutely no transitional fossils found.
One paleontologist in China said that this stand's Darwin's tree on its head because the major groups of animals, instead of coming last, at the top of the tree, come first, when animals make their first appearance.
As for what was said earlier about bodies being too soft to preserve, we have microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back more than three billion years. There have been soft-bodied organisms from before the cambrian that have been found in Australia. Soft bodied animals have even been found in the cambrian period itself.
In conclusion, the tree of life that evolution is supposed to abide by has far from been shown in the fossil record, in fact some refer to it now as a lawn, where species just seem to pop out of no where. Keep in mind here, I'm not debating micro evolution, im debating macro evolution. So far, you have yet to give any evidence for macroevolution and your archaeopteryx is far from proving it.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
So listening to a "Moonie" who got his degrees by orders of his god to prove "Moonieism" right and Christianity and science both wrong is a good source in your opinion?
Or did you not realize this about Mr. Wells?
Or did you not realize this about Mr. Wells?
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Pierre Lecomte
Man, this guy died in 1947... Before it was known that the dinosaurs had feathers and some had the same lung system and everything else... Do you have anything from a guy that died less than 45 years ago or is not a rabid anti-Christian?
Man, this guy died in 1947... Before it was known that the dinosaurs had feathers and some had the same lung system and everything else... Do you have anything from a guy that died less than 45 years ago or is not a rabid anti-Christian?
Upvote
0
say what you will about Mr. Wells but he still has two phd's and is highly regarded in his area of study. I'd like to see you find someone to say the contradictory of what he said with higher credencials.
I also like how you dont present evidence to demean mine, but rather attack the people I quoted over what was said.
I also like how you dont present evidence to demean mine, but rather attack the people I quoted over what was said.
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Which fossils in particular? Names?
Concerning the Cambrian explosion I may have experienced a classic foot-in-mouth situation. It seems there were a lot of soft-bodied creatures leaving fossil traces. Nevertheless:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
In particular: (from the Wiki) :
In essence, the main complexity of three-layered body plans was already there 30 million years before Burgess. What we saw was a rapid reorganization of that three-layered body plan into different structural motifs.
And of course no refutation would be complete without a visit to our dear TalkOrigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Answer that.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
QuantumFlux said:
What? Do you feel that we should listen to just anyone with a few letters behind their name? Apparently not since you would have me ignore the thousands of degreed scientists that dissagree with the two you sited.
I was burned by people who had letters behind their names once too often to just accept any uttered word without tons of evidence to back it up. I'll stick with the side that has evidence thank you. Atleast with evidence I can look and see for myself, not blindly trust some ones remarks without looking into if they are true or the person is honest.
Upvote
0
scootrose
Active Member
- Sep 5, 2005
- 43
- 6
- 40
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
i'll be honest - i didn't read any of the responses because i have to get to bed, but if you're still interested in my views, i base them on science. here's why:
1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
Dating methods have massive problems. Carbon 14 dating can't be relied upon - anything older than 60,000 years should have no Carbon 14 left; it should all have decayed. Yet coal and fossils that evolutionists will tell you are millions of year old have been found with C 14 residue. Radio Isotope dating (potassium-argon, uranium-lead) and Carbon dating also rely on the flawed assumption that chemical ratios have never changed throughout all time. but the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is changing even now. and the obvious flaws of radio isotope dating are proven by numerous cases in which rocks of a known recent age (ie - lava flows from the 1800s) were dated to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. Here are some scientific arguments for a young earth.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
An active progression through billions of years should yield an overwhelming amount of transitional forms. in fact, everything should be a transitional form because everything should still be evolving. but the fossil record doesn't show that, it shows large amounts of single species with nothing connecting them. For example we have a lot of dinosaur fossils - there are 30 T. Rex specimens alone - but we have no fossils of any kind to imply that there is something between dinosaurs and whatever they may have become. it's ludacris to assume that we would find 30 specimens of T. Rex's that are physically identical but absolutely no specimens of anything derived from T. Rex in over 65 million years of evolution. the world should be brimming with transitional fossils, but it just isn't....
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
This relies on number four being true. However, i find great merit in the argument that animals are similar because they have the same Creator. God is going to make things according to the same methods and mechanisms because the world makes sense. A good example is how frogs and humans form toes - it used to be an evolutionist argument of "common descent" humans and frogs similarly bud toes and fingers out from a lump of a hand/foot. in actuality, frogs' fingers bud outwards, human fingers have the spaces between deleted from the original mass. complete opposite methods of growth doesn't prove anything, but it's easier to explain from the view of a having the same Creator, because nature (seeking the easist way) doesn't tend to reverse itself i would think.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
To a certain extent i agree - any two dogs contain the necessary genes to make every single breed of dog on earth. but that is selecting among different genetic information already in the system. evolution tells you that from nothing, new information is spontaneously created. Besides the fact that this is against the law of conservation of matter/energy it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible as an explanation for diversity of life. the claim of evolution is that random mutations result in new genetic information that happens to improve survival/breeding and is thus passed on. however about 1 in 10,000 mutations is actually helpful - the rest are either meaningless or actively harmful to the organism. thus, it is more likely that a species would die out from harmful mutations than evolve from good mutations. even examples of good mutations (like beetles on windy islands losing their wings and thus not blowing into the ocean) are not evolution. these beetles didn't gain new information - their DNA contained the information to have wings and not have wings; it was simply a different random choice among preexisting information - a loss of information actually.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.
The biggest argument for this was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, in which they zapped methane and ammonia with electricity and yielded amino acids. this is what i was taught in seventh grade science classe. it was hailed as proof of natural origination of life, but it also happened to produce a massive amount of tar (which would have smothered any fledgling life) and active poisons that would have killed it off immediately. beyond that, i simply believe life is just far too complex to attribute to random, natural processes. and considering i do believe in God and i don't believe in an old earth or macroevolution, it doesn't make sense to believe in natural origins of life.
if anyone is still interested, i hope this adds something to the discussion
1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
Dating methods have massive problems. Carbon 14 dating can't be relied upon - anything older than 60,000 years should have no Carbon 14 left; it should all have decayed. Yet coal and fossils that evolutionists will tell you are millions of year old have been found with C 14 residue. Radio Isotope dating (potassium-argon, uranium-lead) and Carbon dating also rely on the flawed assumption that chemical ratios have never changed throughout all time. but the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is changing even now. and the obvious flaws of radio isotope dating are proven by numerous cases in which rocks of a known recent age (ie - lava flows from the 1800s) were dated to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. Here are some scientific arguments for a young earth.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
An active progression through billions of years should yield an overwhelming amount of transitional forms. in fact, everything should be a transitional form because everything should still be evolving. but the fossil record doesn't show that, it shows large amounts of single species with nothing connecting them. For example we have a lot of dinosaur fossils - there are 30 T. Rex specimens alone - but we have no fossils of any kind to imply that there is something between dinosaurs and whatever they may have become. it's ludacris to assume that we would find 30 specimens of T. Rex's that are physically identical but absolutely no specimens of anything derived from T. Rex in over 65 million years of evolution. the world should be brimming with transitional fossils, but it just isn't....
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
This relies on number four being true. However, i find great merit in the argument that animals are similar because they have the same Creator. God is going to make things according to the same methods and mechanisms because the world makes sense. A good example is how frogs and humans form toes - it used to be an evolutionist argument of "common descent" humans and frogs similarly bud toes and fingers out from a lump of a hand/foot. in actuality, frogs' fingers bud outwards, human fingers have the spaces between deleted from the original mass. complete opposite methods of growth doesn't prove anything, but it's easier to explain from the view of a having the same Creator, because nature (seeking the easist way) doesn't tend to reverse itself i would think.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
To a certain extent i agree - any two dogs contain the necessary genes to make every single breed of dog on earth. but that is selecting among different genetic information already in the system. evolution tells you that from nothing, new information is spontaneously created. Besides the fact that this is against the law of conservation of matter/energy it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible as an explanation for diversity of life. the claim of evolution is that random mutations result in new genetic information that happens to improve survival/breeding and is thus passed on. however about 1 in 10,000 mutations is actually helpful - the rest are either meaningless or actively harmful to the organism. thus, it is more likely that a species would die out from harmful mutations than evolve from good mutations. even examples of good mutations (like beetles on windy islands losing their wings and thus not blowing into the ocean) are not evolution. these beetles didn't gain new information - their DNA contained the information to have wings and not have wings; it was simply a different random choice among preexisting information - a loss of information actually.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.
The biggest argument for this was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, in which they zapped methane and ammonia with electricity and yielded amino acids. this is what i was taught in seventh grade science classe. it was hailed as proof of natural origination of life, but it also happened to produce a massive amount of tar (which would have smothered any fledgling life) and active poisons that would have killed it off immediately. beyond that, i simply believe life is just far too complex to attribute to random, natural processes. and considering i do believe in God and i don't believe in an old earth or macroevolution, it doesn't make sense to believe in natural origins of life.
if anyone is still interested, i hope this adds something to the discussion
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Creationist "science" isn't science. Here's why:
Coal and fossils are found contaminated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
Which ratio specifically? If you're talking about decay rates, well they haven't changed because the universe is still around today. Adjusting the decay rates would cause the universe to self-destruct as the finely-balanced ratios between the fundamental forces change. Also, if the decay rates really changed, this would mean that the dating of a sample by many different methods should give many different dates. However normally when samples are dated by different radiodating methods the dates agree within reasonable error (are concordant), and this is unlikely unless all the decay rates changed by exactly the same amount.
We know. We account for that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD012.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
which of these exactly are you talking about? source? quote?
Referring to that:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html
2. Too few supernova remnants.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261_1.html
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220_1.html
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html
8. Biological material decays too fast.
[Now, the DNA one I have to look into. As for the soft T-Rex tissue?]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html
10. Too much helium in minerals.
I have looked at the technical material from both sides of the dispute and for this particular squabble the only thing I understand is a headache.
But still:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
(Besides, this says little-or-nothing about the many other validated radiodating methods.)
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC381.html
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
[I admit I can't find those on the Index of Creationist Claims. Will have to look into it.]
Whew! Next.
Ahh, but there is a logical flaw in your argument. If everything is a transitional form, how do you know that the fossils we see are not transitional forms?
Living organisms die both as fully-capable organisms and members of ever-evolving populations.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
Well, nothing evolved from dinosaurs because they died out. This deserves a lot more insult than would be Christian to give.
Well, humans weren't directly descended from frogs, so moot argument. A better example is how reptiles, birds and mammals have analogous hand/arm bone structures.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB732.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB810.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html
According to your theology, the Fall was a decrease in information, right? Well a decrease in information changed a major part of animals on the world from herbivores to carnivores. So decrease in information actually increases biological complexity! Creation science simply can't handle details like this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF005.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
I agree! I believe God originated life: theory of "theobiogenesis", not abiogenesis.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it was abiogenesis after all.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB026.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
Done!
Upvote
0
Hah! This is why I dont argue semantics about creationism, but you sound just like me when you argue against creations. And please stop quoting from web sites, I honestly dont give them a look because anyone can make a web site, but it takes a reputation and facts to get a publisher.
Someone obviously didnt read my last post. The only way the Archeopteryx could have evolved from dinosaurs is if its ancestors lived tens of millions of years after its appearance. All the reptilian fossils that show possible links to the Archeopteryx are from tens of millions of years AFTER the appearance of this bird.
Someone obviously didnt read my last post. The only way the Archeopteryx could have evolved from dinosaurs is if its ancestors lived tens of millions of years after its appearance. All the reptilian fossils that show possible links to the Archeopteryx are from tens of millions of years AFTER the appearance of this bird.
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 57
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
QuantumFlux said:
Shouldn't be too difficult. Wells' PhDs are in theology and biochemistry, neither of which fields involves a detailed study of evolution and therefore neither of which therefore mean diddly-squat. Someone with a Masters in Evolutionary Biology or Palaeontology has higher credentials that are relevant.
Let's look at Well's testimony about Archy shall we? Where is his refutation of the presence of teeth, gastralia and tib and fib both connected at both ends? The absence of a horny bill? These are the issues. These are reptilian features. Archy has them. Modern birds do not. Therefore Archy is not like a modern bird - the animal clearly had lots of reptilian features.
Then comes the time issue. No, evolutionary biologists are not so stupid as to think that Archy evolved from animals that lived after Archy did. Ascribing great stupidity to mainstream scientists is as offensive as it is old and tired, but it's standard Creationist fare.
What the fossils do show is that feathers evolved on dinosaurs. Not all feathered dinosaurs evolved into birds. Archy's line did, although it's thought unlikely that Archy itself is a direct ancestor. It follows there must have been Jurassic feathered dinosaurs, that evolved both into Archy and into the Cretaceous feathered dinosaurs. What creationists need to address is why there are feathered dinosaurs of lots of types filling up the gaps - although not in a directly ancestral way - between featherless dinosaurs and dino-birds like Archy, and between Archy and modern type birds.
Upvote
0
Obviously you missed the point of what Wells said. It's not the few similarities that matter, its the massive differences that show it is quite a bird. There are many birds today that show similarities to reptiles but they are not considered transitional because of the overwelming dissimilarities to them.
And last I checked, anyone with a phd in biochemistry has a substatial knowledge of evolutionary biology.
Am I saying accept anything that someone with a degree says? Obviously not, I'm not saying you should listen to wells over someone else with a degree. All I'm proving is that there is reasonable room for doubt when it comes to evolution. It's definately not an open and shut case, in fact with the cambrian era, its got a substatial case against it. However we see very little evidence for macroevolution and what we do doesnt pan out with the dates are put to them.
I cant name the fossils used to link Archy to the reptiles, so maybe you can help me out? Don't forget to put the dates next to them, including Archy's date.
Even with the evidence against, I'm still not trying to prove it wrong. The point of the thread is why I dismiss it, I've certainly given my reasons for dismissing it and I've certainly given room for reasonable doubt. Once reasonable doubt is given, the theory turns into faith.
Let me elaborate. The only "solid" evidence that the earth is old is the layers of the earth. All forms of dating can be compromised and we will never know the full extent of what affects them, including radio-isotope dating. The layers of the earth seem to have taken billions of years to form, however, there are other theories on how the layers could have formed over a period of months rather than years.
Now let me explain what I believe and you can criticise it but you will never disprove it. I'm somewhat of a programmer and know how programming works, it's interesting how differently I see video games that other people. When someone plays Halo, in the maps most people see it taking place on a planet or Halo, and they are walking around corridors and in fields of an environment. However, I see it completely different. Where some see the sky of the created world, I see a bitmap for a polygon that represents the ceiling that was programmed not to move when the coordinates of your characters position can see it. Where people see grass and ground, I see transparent gif textures programmed to warp the image back and forth. In essence, where most see a planet, I see something that was created in a month by programmers.
We do the same, we look at this earth and estimate how long it took for something to create itself. However, if there was a creator, I see no reason why he would not have done it like game developers. They dont start the ball rolling and billions of years later they have a working Halo map. They created it to look as if it existed before your character spawned in it. God created Adam and Eve mature, he created the trees mature so they could bere fruit. No reason to believe He would not have created a mature earth and universe to give us something to live in.
You may say you go on what is fact not on what you believe, but i just showed reasonable doubt in evolution and evidence against, so now your fact has turned into faith. Go ahead and put your faith in man's mind if you wish, but personally I'll stick with what God says.
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 57
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
QuantumFlux said:
The point is that Archy has fewer differences than modern birds. Indeed, it's been shown that some of the differences - the pulmonary system for example, may not have been differences at all - the dinosaurs from which birds evolved may have had a similar system.
Not necessarily. And not compared with someone who's specifically studied evolutionary biology or palaeontology. Thing is that PhDs are extremely specific and narrow. One could quite easily do a PhD in biochemistry without touching many other areas of biology, including evolution.
And yet the only scientists who doubt it are those who have a compelling religious reason to do so. Those who are free to follow the evidence for some reason plump 100% for evolution. That tells me something about how "reasonable" the doubt is.
Except it hasn't. You've done a lot of talking on this, but others have shown how nothing in the Cambrian period actually contradicts evolutionary theory.
The most compelling evidence for what you call macroevolution is not fossil, it is genetic and it is biochemical. But you have not even touched on the issue of ERVs, which as far as I'm concerned are pretty much clinching - a non common ancestor explanation for the ERV evidence seems tortured, unnecessary and perverse to me. You briefly touched on pseudogenes, but ERVs are something much more specific and inexplicable - apart from common descent - than that.
I listed them several pages ago - possibly my first post on the thread. You talk about the dates again, but I addressed that in my previous post and you have not addressed my explanation.
Reasonable doubt? No. Possible doubt, yes, but every scientific theory is in some doubt. Does that make the whole thing faith? Is it such a terrible thing that I cannot be sure that my eyes are correct and that grass is green, but I "have faith" that they are telling me the truth and it is?
But none of those hypotheses explain all the facts the way mainstream geology does. If the dating methods are simply wrong, why is it that in general, different dating methods applied to the same sample give the same dates? Even if in 50% of cases they did not, the fact that in thousands of other cases they do tells us they work some of the time. And if they work some of the time, and say that some rocks are millions of years old, then they are.
Omphalos. I'd google it. It means that God has created a deceptive universe and we cannot trust anything we learn from the study of nature. Science of any kind is therefore completely useless.
I knew there'd be some spiritual blackmail at the end of this.
Upvote
0
God is deceptive? How so, I just showed you the rational and even biblical evidence that says he created the earth mature. If you are talking about the dating methods, again I state that we don't know what else has affected them, if you are referring to fossils in the layers, again a world wide flood would account for their being many fossils in the layers and oddly enough it goes along with how evolution theorizes life from water, to land. If they were created over months and was caused by the flood, just so happens that the sea life would be covered first and gradually move up the slops, follows the same pattern of evolution how we came from the waters.
Spiritual black mail? I said you can have faith in man's mind if you wish, but God specifically said he created the world in 7 days. Paul said the death entered the world through one man, not many animals over the course of billions of years till finally a man died too. What is Eden if death was all around them? God made it clear that there was no death until the fall.
So if you're "science" contradicts that, so be it, I'll keep my faith in what God said. I've never said the study of nature is irrelevant. It obviously can have good predictions on future and present events. What it will never do is shape the past, because no one saw it and like you said, its not absolute. You look at the earth and see an old earth, I look and see the same thing, however, I see an old earth that could have been created in the blink of an eye. It's far from deceptive if he told us...
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 57
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Please yourself. I personally find it more tenable to adjust my worldview to coincide with reality, than to adjust my perception of reality to coincide with my worldview.
Upvote
0
Scholar in training
sine ira et studio
- Feb 25, 2005
- 5,952
- 219
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
Fundamentalists are more like Hindus than Christians when it comes to evolution.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Upvote
0
the problem i have with that is, you act like we know what reality is. Science has to be altered constantly and continue to be altered throughout existance (and many times it is not updated, its actually something is proven wrong and a new theory is formed), which mean that what reality is will never be known tshrough man's studies alone. However, God tells us the reality. Maybe more effort should be spent accepting what God says and proving that, rather than accepting our incomplete assumptions over what God has told us.
I don't see how you can accept Jesus' forgiveness yet believe that death has always been in the world. If death did not enter the world through one man, the it was not conquored by one man. If death was already in the world then sin was always in the world and there was no fall. If there was no fall, then what is the point of Jesus' sacrifice?
Seems as though the ones that believe in evolution neglect their biblical studies.
Upvote
0
Oh, on the subject of ERV's. I dont know what they are and googling it doesnt seem to help. I can guess and if i'm completely wrong, just let me know. I'm guessing that ERV's are the similar genes we share with say apes.
DNA is the building blocks for our bodies and every other form of living animals. If we are built similar to apes, it only make sense that we would have common dna. It's the equivalent of saying a house built of all bricks was born from a house that was built mostly of bricks.
The fact that we have similar genes only proves that....we have similar genes, not that one was born of the other.
That is all if ERVs means that, if im wrong please elaborate on what ervs are. I only barely touched on pseudo-genes because there isnt much to say there. They dont prove anything other than we have genes that dont do anything. There is no more evidence to say that we evolved past their use than there is to say that they were superior genes that degraded until they didn't do anything anymore.
DNA is the building blocks for our bodies and every other form of living animals. If we are built similar to apes, it only make sense that we would have common dna. It's the equivalent of saying a house built of all bricks was born from a house that was built mostly of bricks.
The fact that we have similar genes only proves that....we have similar genes, not that one was born of the other.
That is all if ERVs means that, if im wrong please elaborate on what ervs are. I only barely touched on pseudo-genes because there isnt much to say there. They dont prove anything other than we have genes that dont do anything. There is no more evidence to say that we evolved past their use than there is to say that they were superior genes that degraded until they didn't do anything anymore.
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 57
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
QuantumFlux said:
They are much more than that. They are the remains of ancient viral infections. They show common descent because there is no other explanation as to why we have many such insertions in our genome that chimpanzees have, and in exactly the same places - even though the actual point of insertion of the viral DNA could be anywhere in the genome. This points very clearly to both us and the chimpanzees evolving from a common ancestor whose lineage had already been infected by the viruses.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Yes, but this is different. God might well use the same genes for proteins and the same DNA sequences for controlling gene expression, but why on earth put the same viral insertions into our genomes, in the same places? And why, as the second link shows, do so in a way that is exactly what evolutionary theory would predict based on existing phylogenies, based on morphology and biochemical similarities.
I hope I've expanded your knowledge and filled you in on what ERVs are.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
