Evolution or not?

[watsup]

You seem to have missed the point completely in the first sentence. As I said, fossils are exceedingly rare, trilobites on the other hand are probably one of the most ubiquitous animals that ever existed.

Expect more ad hom.

 

[iguanaman]

Your basic assumption seems to be that we should assume that the rate of fossilization is a constant, which we have no reason to believe it is.

What we know about it is that it is always very rare compared to the number of creatures we are talking about.

You are in a hopeless situation if you are trying to prove that there are fossils of every life form that ever existed. That is what he is asking you to do. 3 billion years is far too long for us to even comprehend no less document everything with fossil evidence. RNA and DNA tells the story much more clearly.

 

[watsup]

You are in a hopeless situation if you are trying to prove that there are fossils of every life form that ever existed. That is what he is asking you to do. 3 billion years is far too long for us to even comprehend no less document everything with fossil evidence. RNA and DNA tells the story much more clearly.

But that does not in any way diminish the obvious and overwhelming evidence of the fossil record.

 

[devildavid]

Perhaps I should expect such fantasies from you, you are after the man who wrote "it's true theres no such thing as true".



Cunning David yet so obvious (yes by definition a "valid" scientific theory is a valid theory - did you think I wouldn't notice?).



A theory is not "backed" by facts David it is either consistent or inconsistent with observation, evolution is inconsistent with a host of observations.



But are you telling the truth I have to ask myself?

Theories are backed by facts and testing of those facts. Observation is starting point, not the deciding point. Theories are tested by testing their facts, not by observations. An observation is not a fact.

 

[devildavid]

There are huge gaps, here's an evolution website speaking of this:



This is a pretty clear admission that there are discontinuities.

No, it is not.

 

[devildavid]

You must be in the wrong thread, we're discussing evolution and the lack of evidence for some of its claims (that is we're discussing science).

There is no lack of evidence for the basic facts of evolution.

 

[Variant]

You are in a hopeless situation if you are trying to prove that there are fossils of every life form that ever existed. That is what he is asking you to do. 3 billion years is far too long for us to even comprehend no less document everything with fossil evidence. RNA and DNA tells the story much more clearly.

I am not trying to prove anything of the sort. I've been pointing out how what he is asking for is nonsense.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You seem to have missed the point completely in the first sentence. As I said, fossils are exceedingly rare, trilobites on the other hand are probably one of the most ubiquitous animals that ever existed.

On the contrary your own post is almost a self contradiction, you say "fossils are exceedingly rare" then talk about trilobites, but these fossils are not rare, some 50,000 specimens have been found of at least one variant.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

DNA are the fingerprints of life. When those fingerprints show that humans are related to bacteria it is immaterial what came between. The relationship of all life on Earth to each other tells the story. All life on Earth started with bacteria and they still are the most dominant of life forms here. Humans are a complex multicellular form of bacteria and the result of over 3 billion years of evolution.

Well you've raised a relevant point here I admit that but it isn't what it might seem, or at least I don't think it is, I've looked at this before.

You assume that similarities prove relationship but they do not, they might and in some cases do but unless you can prove that there's no other away for some gene to exist in a human and a gorilla other than a common ancestor then it is just supposition.

I also admit that it is reasonable to do what you say, it is reasonable to infer common ancestry between different organisms that share some identical genes or gene sequences but it is not proven, that's the important epistemological point here - similarity does not prove common descent, it is consistent with it (as I've said numerous timers here evolution is reasonable, there are many observations that appear consistent with evolution, but it is the areas of inconsistency we must examine if we seek truth).

Finally speaking of bacteria, listen to this summary of the evolutionary clock based upon what the fossil evidence actually reveals, here the history or life is represented by a 24 hour clock.

Youtube

As he explains if 24 hours represents 4 billion years (approx. how long life had been present) then for the first 21 hours we had only bacteria and other very simple life, then in the space of the next 2 minutes almost known phyla arose, that is some 40+ phyla (basic body plans like mollusk, crustacea etc).

This is pretty much what the evidence indicates, this is why it is called an "explosion" this is what it is described as "sudden" - these are terms used by paleontologists incidentally, these are not laymen's terms.

 

[OlNate]

Quote Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes:
“Don't start trying to defend evolution now, Valery is absolutely justified in saying what he said, any honest person who's looked carefully into this will agree, its a sham, BS.

Most advocates for evolution that I've run into, know absolutely nothing about the many huge problems faced by the "theory" they always dwell on the stuff that reinforces their beliefs, they place a huge amount of trust too in authority.”



Yes, it is correct that we place a huge amount of trust in modern day science and its peer review methods because it allows any theory developed by any scientist to be examined by other scientists in a worldwide basis as to its accuracy. What else could you possibly ask for in terms of trying to find the facts of the natural world.
And you are welcome to delve into the “huge problems” that you claim in the well-developed SCIENTIFIC FACT of evolution as supported by in-depth theory based on a multitude of geologic and other evidence.
Come to think of it, this probably should be a thread of itself, and I will make it so.

Personally I never get why this is such a battle ground. As a Christian, I can see no reason why creation and evolution cannot coexist.

 

[Daisy]

Personally I never get why this is such a battle ground. As a Christian, I can see no reason why creation and evolution cannot coexist.

Evolution is not compatible with the creation account, as well as the need for a savior...

 

[gboisjo]

When you use the word “prove” in regard to science, you show that you do not really understand science. Proof relates to MATH. Science is based on EVIDENCE. And the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The only person that I have heard use the word proof as regards science are science deniers like the Intelligent Design types. Is that what you are getting at?

Of course it is.

 

[OlNate]

Evolution is not compatible with the creation account, as well as the need for a savior...

I could debate that, if we can keep it nice...

 

[gboisjo]

Personally I never get why this is such a battle ground. As a Christian, I can see no reason why creation and evolution cannot coexist.

How do they coexist?

 

[Daisy]

I could debate that, if we can keep it nice...

Well, considering Jesus and the apostles spoke about the creation account as actually happening, I don't think a debate is necessary...thanks anyway...

 

[gboisjo]

Mudskipper's are a type of fish that can walk on land for a time. They are also able to absorb oxygen from the lining of their mouth and throat allowing them to stay out of water for some periods of time. In fact, it has been discovered that they spend up to three quarters of their life on land.

What do you suppose this fish is transitioning into ..what would your common sense tell you.

 

[Triton]

Mudskipper's are a type of fish that can walk on land for a time. They are also able to absorb oxygen from the lining of their mouth and throat allowing them to stay out of water for some periods of time. In fact, it has been discovered that they spend up to three quarters of their life on land.

What do you suppose this fish is transitioning into ..what would your common sense tell you.

Common sense is not a good tool in science.

Source: quantum.

 

[OlNate]

Well, considering Jesus and the apostles spoke about the creation account as actually happening, I don't think a debate is necessary...thanks anyway...

Disagree... And since we're all hypothesizing here, that's ok. Why can't evolution be a mechanism of creation? How would God explain how he created all the universe in a few simple phrases?

Ultimately it's not important to faith, but certainly faith can make room for the possibility that our creation story is a simplified explanation, that doesn't touch on evolution, being given to what basically amount to cavemen. Given the "seeing through a glass darkly" themes throughout the Bible, unless you actually can pull in Leviathan with a fishhook, perhaps leaving the door open to a more complicated story isn't the worst idea.

 

[iguanaman]

Personally I never get why this is such a battle ground. As a Christian, I can see no reason why creation and evolution cannot coexist.

That's what I said many posts ago. Just stick to the Big Bang as God's creation of the universe and leave the rest to evolution and you can't go wrong. That is what the Catholic Church is pushing now. That the Biblical creation myth is an "allegory" and never meant to be taken literally.

 

[OlNate]

Viruses cannot exist without cellular life and have coexisted with it for billions of years so they should be happ

That's what I said many posts ago. Just stick to the Big Bang as God's creation of the universe and leave the rest to evolution and you can't go wrong. That is what the Catholic Church is pushing now.

I mean, it's as good a theory as any...

I hate the creation / evolution debate. To me it's like getting into fisticuffs over po-tay-to vs po-tah-to.

 

[Daisy]

Disagree... And since we're all hypothesizing here, that's ok. Why can't evolution be a mechanism of creation? How would God explain how he created all the universe in a few simple phrases?

Ultimately it's not important to faith, but certainly faith can make room for the possibility that our creation story is a simplified explanation, that doesn't touch on evolution, being given to what basically amount to cavemen. Given the "seeing through a glass darkly" themes throughout the Bible, unless you actually can pull in Leviathan with a fishhook, perhaps leaving the door open to a more complicated story isn't the worst idea.

To believe wholeheartedly that the Bible is the True Word of God is not only important, it is vital to a Christian's faith...

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus was quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter 2...if Jesus believed the 1st marriage to be a fictional story, he would not have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage...

Luke’s account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam....Luke 3:23-38...

Paul’s faith in Jesus was also linked to Paul’s trust in the Genesis account...Romans 5:12; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22...

 

[watsup]

That's what I said many posts ago. Just stick to the Big Bang as God's creation of the universe and leave the rest to evolution and you can't go wrong. That is what the Catholic Church is pushing now. That the Biblical creation myth is an "allegory" and never meant to be taken literally.

No God.

 

[watsup]

"You assume that similarities prove relationship but they do not, they might and in some cases do but unless you can prove that there's no other away for some gene to exist in a human and a gorilla other than a common ancestor then it is just supposition".

So much wrong with this short paragraph from Sherlock that it's hardly worth getting into it. What other possibility could there be? If you won't accept science as is, then it becomes impossible to find common ground.

 

[watsup]

And it all just becomes Alice in Wonderland.

 

[OlNate]

To believe wholeheartedly that the Bible is the True Word of God is not only important, it is vital to a Christian's faith...

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus was quoting from the creation account recorded in Genesis chapter 2...if Jesus believed the 1st marriage to be a fictional story, he would not have made reference to it to support his teaching on the sanctity of marriage...

Luke’s account traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam....Luke 3:23-38...

Paul’s faith in Jesus was also linked to Paul’s trust in the Genesis account...Romans 5:12; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22...

But, I'm not disputing that...not really. There was a first homo sapien. At some point it switched. You assume our days are the same as God's days... You assume that because God did not give you the operating manual to the universe, that it must be as simple as he told his creation, that he would never summarize or attempt to play to his audience. I submit that it is neither heresy nor blasphemy to suggest that we don't know everything, and that looking into his creation to understand it's workings and coming up with theories based on our findings is theologically ok.

Basically, this isn't a scriptural debate. I can believe every word, and still be humble enough to accept that the findings of science fit could into God's design, whether I understand it or not.