Evolution or not?

[gboisjo]

gboisjo said:
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.

An atheist?

The evolution of fins to limbs in the land invasion race

Why did animals with limbs win the race to invade land over those with fins? A new study comparing the forces acting on fins of mudskipper fish and on the forelimbs of tiger salamanders can now be used to analyze early fossils that spanned the water-to-land transition in tetrapod evolution, and...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[gboisjo]

Sherlock Holmes said:

How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

What I do know is this, what your saying can't be taught in our public schools. Anything that suggest a faith based origin to life is forbidden.
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore when religion trumped politics and learning. We separate faith from government today as it corrupts
the body politic. The founding fathers were well aware of Europe's history in regard to religions negative impact on governments and sought to fix
with our Constitution.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes said:

How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

What I do know is this, what your saying can't be taught in our public schools. Anything that suggest a faith based origin to life is forbidden.
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore when religion trumped politics and learning. We separate faith from government today as it corrupts
the body politic. The founding fathers were well aware of Europe's history in regard to religions negative impact on governments and sought to fix
with our Constitution.

This is a completely different subject, what the law does or does not say has no bearing on the facts, on observation.

We're speaking about how one can claim something existed in the past when there's no evidence it did exist.

 

[watsup]

This is a completely different subject, what the law does or does not say has no bearing on the facts, on observation.

We're speaking about how one can claim something existed in the past when there's no evidence it did exist.

Or in the present! We’re talking about “God”, right?

 

[Daisy]

Which would be part of the overall picture I'm talking about. As Christians, we believe that all of this, everything around us and in us, is part of God's design, correct? That includes everything from the placement of the smallest pebble to our part in the plan. I guess this becomes a question of how much do you believe in that plan - legit question, not some aggressive challenge, or something you can answer to be deemed less than, in case that sounded leading... I just don't know where JW's land on this. If you do believe that everything serves God's purpose, then we have a responsibility to understand as much of "everything" as we can - don't forget, our original role, before Eve screwed it all up, was to be caretakers over God's creation. This is an interesting read:

Genesis 1:26-28 and Environmental Rights - Right Now

By Liz Jakimow. This article is part of our February 2013 focus on Religion and Human Rights. Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the...

rightnow.org.au

I'm not sure we were relieved of that charge. If that is our role, then it is our responsibility to understand as much as possible about his creation, in order to do our jobs. Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, they are symbiotic. If one stops at just what's encapsulated in the Bible, aren't they the first guy in the talents story?

I don't believe in any such plan, as in every life is planned by God...that would conflict with man's free will...I do believe He has a purpose for those who love Him...it is man's choice, whether to act in harmony with that purpose or not...God stated that purpose in Genesis, when He told Adam and Eve to be plentiful and subdue the earth...that purpose has not changed for those who love and obey God...that purpose will be realized...Psalm 37:9-11, 29; Matthew 5:5; Matthew 6:9,10...

We know that the world in general does not act in harmony with God's purpose...1 John 5:19, so no, not everyone will comply to that purpose...a Christian's main goal is to preach about that kingdom coming to the earth, so that that all those who wish to comply with God's purpose, may hear about that purpose, just as Jesus and his disciples did...Matthew 3:2; Matthew 24:14; Luke 4:43; 2 Timothy 4:5...

 

[OlNate]

I don't believe in any such plan, as in every life is planned by God...that would conflict with man's free will...I do believe He has a purpose for those who love Him...it is man's choice, whether to act in harmony with that purpose or not...God stated that purpose in Genesis, when He told Adam and Eve to be plentiful and subdue the earth...that purpose has not changed for those who love and obey God...that purpose will be realized...Psalm 37:9-11, 29; Matthew 5:5; Matthew 6:9,10...

We know that the world in general does not act in harmony with God's purpose...1 John 5:19, so no, not everyone will comply to that purpose...a Christian's main goal is to preach about that kingdom coming to the earth, so that that all those who wish to comply with God's purpose, may hear about that purpose, just as Jesus and his disciples did...Matthew 3:2; Matthew 24:14; Luke 4:43; 2 Timothy 4:5...

Ok, and I respect all of that as being your chosen place to land on all of this...but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the rest of what I said. What about our role of stewards of God's creation? Is that something that JW's acknowledge? And if so, would the study of God's creation not be an important part of fulfilling that role?

I understand that while we believe basically the same thing, our approach varies. If we have reached the point in our discussion where our incompatibilities makes it impossible to discuss this further without hard feelings, I withdraw my question...but I'd really love to be educated on what JW's think about this, and you're the only one I've got on this forum... But I don't want to wreck your day, future responses are up to you, my friend.

 

[Daisy]

Ok, and I respect all of that as being your chosen place to land on all of this...but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the rest of what I said. What about our role of stewards of God's creation? Is that something that JW's acknowledge? And if so, would the study of God's creation not be an important part of fulfilling that role?

I understand that while we believe basically the same thing, our approach varies. If we have reached the point in our discussion where our incompatibilities makes it impossible to discuss this further without hard feelings, I withdraw my question...but I'd really love to be educated on what JW's think about this, and you're the only one I've got on this forum... But I don't want to wreck your day, future responses are up to you, my friend.

Sure, knowledge is good, understanding creation helps us to understand our Creator better...if you've never read an AWAKE, there are many articles in them over the years about creation, birds, animals, the sea, the mountains, etc...but as Solomon said, there's a time and place for everything...the most valuable work a Christian can participate in is the life saving work Jesus and his disciples did...preaching about God's kingdom...that is the only thing that will save the earth from man's destruction of it because it is obvious, there's only so much man can do on his own, regardless of how pure his intentions may be...Revelation 11:18...

 

[OlNate]

Sure, knowledge is good, understanding creation helps us to understand our Creator better...if you've never read an AWAKE, there are many articles in them over the years about creation, birds, animals, the sea, the mountains, etc...but as Solomon said, there's a time and place for everything...the most valuable work a Christian can participate in is the life saving work Jesus and his disciples did...preaching about God's kingdom...that is the only thing that will save the earth from man's destruction of it because it is obvious, there's only so much man can do on his own, regardless of how pure his intentions may be...Revelation 11:18...

Ok, and I can agree with all of this.

I think the symbiotic nature of science and religion shouldn't be overlooked in achieving your primary goals. In this day and age, you'll probably get more traction if you acknowledge that relationship.

Thanks for the chat, Elvira...this feels like we've reached the end of it, but happy to discuss further if there is anything left to discuss.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

gboisjo said:
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.

The evolution of fins to limbs in the land invasion race

Why did animals with limbs win the race to invade land over those with fins? A new study comparing the forces acting on fins of mudskipper fish and on the forelimbs of tiger salamanders can now be used to analyze early fossils that spanned the water-to-land transition in tetrapod evolution, and...

www.sciencedaily.com

You clearly dont want to talk about the absence of evidence that the Cambrian fauna evolved so you talk about something else.

This is so predictable with atheists, so blinkered that they can't see the huge problems, always striving to reassure themselves whenever the "theory" is questioned, very sad.

 

[watsup]

You clearly dont want to talk about the absence of evidence that the Cambrian fauna evolved so you talk about something else.

This is so predictable with atheists, so blinkered that they can't see the huge problems, always striving to reassure themselves whenever the "theory" is questioned, very sad.

Ad hom.

 

[Daisy]

Ad hom.

Equivocation...

 

[watsup]

Equivocation...

Yes, that’s what Sherlock was doing again.

 

[Daisy]

Yes, that’s what Sherlock was doing again.

I know you were...

 

[Variant]

How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Well two reasons, one, we know fossilization is rare because we know how it happens and what kinds of specific geological events cause it, and more importantly, what kinds of events disrupt it. We also know fossilization is rare because we never get that many examples of any given species. 50,000 is cited by you as "common" but that would still be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the individuals that existed in such a species. It would be a rather small number of the modern humans that existed throughout history and we don't breed like insects.

So, statistically it's simply a low number and more likely to be the more likely forms the species existed in rather than catching an entire sequence of fossils of a species during a change of some sort.

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Because we DO have examples of transitional fossils, they are just, even more rare. Your expectation of having a complete fossil record is just silly, as I said we have some species where we have only ONE example, so it would be hard to have all the fossils that demonstrated any intermediate steps.

Your logic is a bit like saying that if you had pictures of me as a child and as an adult it is equally valid to say that I never went through my teenage years even though we do have pictures of other people going through it...

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

It's only really obvious to you and some other people who don't understand the evidence.

Evolution/common ancestry has both the fossil record and the even more convincing DNA evidence, so the only way to get to your position is through supreme or willful ignorance.

 

[gboisjo]

Sherlock Holmes said:
How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

gboisjo said:
What I do know is this, what your saying can't be taught in our public schools. Anything that suggest a faith based origin to life is forbidden.
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore when religion trumped politics and learning. We separate faith from government today as it corrupts
the body politic. The founding fathers were well aware of Europe's history in regard to religions negative impact on governments and sought to fix
with our Constitution.

This is a completely different subject, what the law does or does not say has no bearing on the facts, on observation.

We're speaking about how one can claim something existed in the past when there's no evidence it did exist.

No it isn't, it embodies the entire question of evolution and its status as the truth. If you would like Creation and religion taught in schools move to the Middle East.
The evidence for evolution is rich and as a result its what we teach our young. Superstitious brainwashing is better left to Islam ..in countries like Iran.

 

[Deuce]

You clearly dont want to talk about the absence of evidence that the Cambrian fauna evolved so you talk about something else.

This is so predictable with atheists, so blinkered that they can't see the huge problems, always striving to reassure themselves whenever the "theory" is questioned, very sad.

What are you talking about? An enormous diversity of life appears in the Cambrian period.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well two reasons, one, we know fossilization is rare because we know how it happens and what kinds of specific geological events cause it, and more importantly, what kinds of events disrupt it. We also know fossilization is rare because we never get that many examples of any given species. 50,000 is cited by you as "common" but that would still be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the individuals that existed in such a species. It would be a rather small number of the modern humans that existed throughout history and we don't breed like insects.

So, statistically it's simply a low number and more likely to be the more likely forms the species existed in rather than catching an entire sequence of fossils of a species during a change of some sort.

Because we DO have examples of transitional fossils, they are just, even more rare. Your expectation of having a complete fossil record is just silly, as I said we have some species where we have only ONE example, so it would be hard to have all the fossils that demonstrated any intermediate steps.

Your logic is a bit like saying that if you had pictures of me as a child and as an adult it is equally valid to say that I never went through my teenage years even though we do have pictures of other people going through it...



It's only really obvious to you and some other people who don't understand the evidence.

Evolution/common ancestry has both the fossil record and the even more convincing DNA evidence, so the only way to get to your position is through supreme or willful ignorance.
[/QUOTE]

Well two reasons, one, we know fossilization is rare because we know how it happens and what kinds of specific geological events cause it, and more importantly, what kinds of events disrupt it. We also know fossilization is rare because we never get that many examples of any given species. 50,000 is cited by you as "common" but that would still be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the individuals that existed in such a species. It would be a rather small number of the modern humans that existed throughout history and we don't breed like insects.

So, statistically it's simply a low number and more likely to be the more likely forms the species existed in rather than catching an entire sequence of fossils of a species during a change of some sort.



Because we DO have examples of transitional fossils, they are just, even more rare. Your expectation of having a complete fossil record is just silly, as I said we have some species where we have only ONE example, so it would be hard to have all the fossils that demonstrated any intermediate steps.

Your logic is a bit like saying that if you had pictures of me as a child and as an adult it is equally valid to say that I never went through my teenage years even though we do have pictures of other people going through it...



It's only really obvious to you and some other people who don't understand the evidence.

Evolution/common ancestry has both the fossil record and the even more convincing DNA evidence, so the only way to get to your position is through supreme or willful ignorance.

I'd like to respond to this when I get the time, your reply is well structured and warrants a well structured evidence based response and I'd like to do that when I'm less pressed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes said:
How do we distinguish then between fossilization being rare and the animals which could have been fossilized never existing?

Declaring the fossil record is evidence that things existed yet at the same time dismissing the absence of fossils as only apparent is illogical, the fossils are not found because the purported animals did not exist - tell me why is this not an equally valid interpretation of the evidence?

Evolution implies continuity, so how can a discontinuous record support the claim of continuity?

It cannot, this is the the obvious conclusion.

gboisjo said:
What I do know is this, what your saying can't be taught in our public schools. Anything that suggest a faith based origin to life is forbidden.
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore when religion trumped politics and learning. We separate faith from government today as it corrupts
the body politic. The founding fathers were well aware of Europe's history in regard to religions negative impact on governments and sought to fix
with our Constitution.



No it isn't, it embodies the entire question of evolution and its status as the truth. If you would like Creation and religion taught in schools move to the Middle East.
The evidence for evolution is rich and as a result its what we teach our young. Superstitious brainwashing is better left to Islam ..in countries like Iran.

I have mentioned here before that I used to be an atheist, I have a rather solid understanding of evolution (having said that, it isn't particularly complicated) and I did not abandon my belief over night, it took years.

I think schools should encourage students to be open minded, to search and probe for themselves, it is for each of us to decide what we regard as true or false not for the state or church to dictate this to our children.

You think the evidence for evolution is rich and I agree it is, I've said this several times recently.

But scientific theories must also face up to observations that are contrary to empirical expectations, this is what decides the fate of a theory.

If we only look at observations that are in agreement with expectations and ignore the rest then that's not really being very scientific in my opinion.

This is one of my main criticisms of evolution and its supporters, the unwillingness to face up to some of the serious problems, the blanket denials, the metaphorical sticking their fingers in their ears whenever this issue is discussed.

Education should encourage students to think for themselves and not indoctrinate them as you seem to think, perhaps you are the one who should move - to Orwell's 1984.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What are you talking about? An enormous diversity of life appears in the Cambrian period.

As was recently emphasized, if we treat the evolution of life as being over the last 4 billion years and represent that as a 24 hour clock where midnight is "today", then for the first 21 hours of the 24 (the first 88% of evolutionary history) we had nothing but bacteria and other single celled life, then during a period of about 2 minutes (the next 0.12% of evolutionary history) all of the Cambrian phyla appeared, 40+ distinct diverse body plans, animals as large as pet dogs, with fins, hard shells, compound eyes, guts etc.

This is why paleontologists use terms like "explosion" and "sudden", I'd expect to see rather more fossil evidence of gradation than I do going from bacteria to trilobites personally, I do not see and never have seen why my position on this is perceived as being unreasonable, it is the evolutionists who are unreasonable dogmatically insisting that I overlook such huge problems with the data.

 

[watsup]

I have mentioned here before that I used to be an atheist, I have a rather solid understanding of evolution (having said that, it isn't particularly complicated) and I did not abandon my belief over night, it took years.

I think schools should encourage students to be open minded, to search and probe for themselves, it is for each of us to decide what we regard as true or false not for the state or church to dictate this to our children.

You think the evidence for evolution is rich and I agree it is, I've said this several times recently.

But scientific theories must also face up to observations that are contrary to empirical expectations, this is what decides the fate of a theory.

If we only look at observations that are in agreement with expectations and ignore the rest then that's not really being very scientific in my opinion.

This is one of my main criticisms of evolution and its supporters, the unwillingness to face up to some of the serious problems, the blanket denials, the metaphorical sticking their fingers in their ears whenever this issue is discussed.

Education should encourage students to think for themselves and not indoctrinate them as you seem to think, perhaps you are the one who should move - to Orwell's 1984.

Public institutions should teach science, not religious indoctrination. If parentsreally want their children to grow up uneducated about real science, they can always send them to a private school run by fundies or teach them junk science at home.
And you STILL have not provided us with your alternative to evolution as evidenced by science. It's hard to fight ghosts.

 

[watsup]

Because we DO have examples of transitional fossils, they are just, even more rare. Your expectation of having a complete fossil record is just silly, as I said we have some species where we have only ONE example, so it would be hard to have all the fossils that demonstrated any intermediate steps.

Your logic is a bit like saying that if you had pictures of me as a child and as an adult it is equally valid to say that I never went through my teenage years even though we do have pictures of other people going through it...



It's only really obvious to you and some other people who don't understand the evidence.

Evolution/common ancestry has both the fossil record and the even more convincing DNA evidence, so the only way to get to your position is through supreme or willful ignorance.

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

I have mentioned here before that I used to be an atheist, I have a rather solid understanding of evolution...

Phrase one: Yes, we know that. You have now said it 50 or 60 or 70 times. We get it. But you constant negative personifications of present atheists are simply not true.

Phrase two: Where can we read your papers on the subject?

 

[Variant]

I'd like to respond to this when I get the time, your reply is well structured and warrants a well structured evidence based response and I'd like to do that when I'm less pressed.

Well, you super messed up the quote structure there.

But, OK, feel free to take your time. I'll check back later.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, you super messed up the quote structure there.

But, OK, feel free to take your time. I'll check back later.

Does this updated site now support improve ways of quoting in lengthy conversations? If so I was unaware but think its a great idea.

 

[Variant]

Does this updated site now support improve ways of quoting in lengthy conversations? If so I was unaware but think its a great idea.

I don't know, but you can modify the quote tags manually by placing like this: {quote}what you are quoting{/quote} where the { need to be [

You can include the member and post by copying from the quote so the tag would look like this: {QUOTE="Sherlock Holmes, post: 1072697574, member: 30238"} or more simply {QUOTE="Sherlock Holmes"}

The multi quote feature allows you to save and add quotes to a post as is, you just have to be careful of the tags.