The Fossil Record

[aharvey]

Some are ignorant of the truth. Evolution is what they've been indoctrinated to death with from kindergarten on up. And some, yes, deliberately ignore evidence that may be contrary to their precious theory. Evolution is a theory, not proven fact yet it's taught as fact in our schools. Why shouldn't the creation "theory" or other theories be taught along with it? And evolution is a lie, I can't help it that they keep propogating it to avoid being responsible to God. They simply just don't want anyone telling them what to do so they have to stick with evolution.

This tells me that you, too, have no idea why scientists would want to "believe" evolution in the same way that you "believe" the Bible. But for some reason you feel compelled to dream up a fanciful, even nonsensical "reason" rather than even consider the obvious alternative -- that perhaps, just perhaps, we don't treat evolution with any kind of religious fervor, that we don't have any other ulterior motive, that we really do consider it the best available explanation of the evidence. Why is that so hard for you to even consider?

 

[Jukia]

Show me evidence that evolution is a fact and not a theory. God makes it real easy. The earth was created in 6 days. He created it and everything in it and on it including man. Its hard to comprehend if your are thinking like someone who came from a monkey, but when you clear away all the lies you have been told by the "scientists" then it will become more clear to you.

You need to learn some science. You need to learn how science works.
Then perhaps you will not fall into the camp of those who beleive there is a great atheistic science conspiracy.

But I suspect asking you to learn some science first is wasted effort.

 

[aharvey]

Show me evidence that evolution is a fact and not a theory. God makes it real easy. The earth was created in 6 days. He created it and everything in it and on it including man. Its hard to comprehend if your are thinking like someone who came from a monkey, but when you clear away all the lies you have been told by the "scientists" then it will become more clear to you.

Shalom,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Of course, what you call a "theory" is not what scientists mean by "theory"! Just do a google search using the phrase "just a theory" and you'll see what I mean, if you don't already know.

It is a fact that the genetic makeup of populations change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution. It is also a fact that the longer the time interval, the greater the potential changes can occur.

Evolutionary theory proposes mechanisms by which this occurs (primarily natural selection), and, in the absence of any obvious limitation on the process, proposes that all life shares a common ancestor. And makes testable predictions about life that have been very well supported.

In contrast, your literal Genesis account is, to date, rather slim on the ability to explain or predict anything about the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

Sorry about that.

 

[Shalom]

Really?

How does the bible instruct you to use a computer keyboard?

Duh!!! The keyboard part is all right there in Luke chapter 2 Koban.

:chuckle:

 

[Shalom]

Shalom,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Of course, what you call a "theory" is not what scientists mean by "theory"! Just do a google search using the phrase "just a theory" and you'll see what I mean, if you don't already know.

It is a fact that the genetic makeup of populations change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution. It is also a fact that the longer the time interval, the greater the potential changes can occur.

Evolutionary theory proposes mechanisms by which this occurs (primarily natural selection), and, in the absence of any obvious limitation on the process, proposes that all life shares a common ancestor. And makes testable predictions about life that have been very well supported.

I'm discussing macro evolution here. Like monkeys becoming man....fish who grow legs.....ya know all the other fairy tales.

In contrast, your literal Genesis account is, to date, rather slim on the ability to explain or predict anything about the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

Sorry about that.

It explains it for me.

 

[Jukia]

I'm discussing macro evolution here. Like monkeys becoming man....fish who grow legs.....ya know all the other fairy tales.



It explains it for me.

You just indicated that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory, macro, micro, mini or whatever.

 

[Shalom]

You just indicated that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory, macro, micro, mini or whatever.

I feel for ya Jukia. Its really hard to back up the macro evolutionary fairy tale. And when people dont agree with me, I just tell them that they dont understand.

 

[Lynn73]

This tells me that you, too, have no idea why scientists would want to "believe" evolution in the same way that you "believe" the Bible. But for some reason you feel compelled to dream up a fanciful, even nonsensical "reason" rather than even consider the obvious alternative -- that perhaps, just perhaps, we don't treat evolution with any kind of religious fervor, that we don't have any other ulterior motive, that we really do consider it the best available explanation of the evidence. Why is that so hard for you to even consider?

Here are some reasons why some desperately want to believe in evolution and it sounds like ulterior motives to me. Not every scientist, and it appears even some evolutionists, don't really believe evolution is the best explanation of the evidence. They just plain don't want there to be a God

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith)


“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day)


"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)


Now this says it all, the man simply does not want to beleive in God.


“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)



“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
(Nagel T., "The Last Word," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1997, p.130).



“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. . . There is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.”
(Richard Leakey, PBS Interview)



“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
(Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216)


from: http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

 

[death2impiety]

In my opinion, the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke. They do not prove evolution. It does, however (in my opinion), give evidence of a worldwide flood. Evolutionists, though won't accept anything that upsets their theory.


http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13


http://www.exchangedlife.com/skeptic/missing.htm


This verse describes evolutionists very well:

Ro 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Great stuff, except for the word "opinion".

Either, "..the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke." ..or it isn't. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, it matters if it's truth.

.."the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke". This is very true. Stand your ground. :thumb:

God bless!

 

[aharvey]

I'm discussing macro evolution here. Like monkeys becoming man....fish who grow legs.....ya know all the other fairy tales.

Re-read my post. Evolutionary theory does not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, it is the same process, different time scales. It makes no sense to say you believe the process works fine to produce small differences over short time intervals but doesn't work to produce large differences over long intervals without some justification (it would also be helpful to indicate at roughly what point the process stops working).

It explains it for me.

No, it describes it, it doesn't explain it. Big difference.

 

[aharvey]

Here are some reasons why some desperately want to believe in evolution and it sounds like ulterior motives to me. Not every scientist, and it appears even some evolutionists, don't really believe evolution is the best explanation of the evidence. They just plain don't want there to be a God

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day)

Funny, these quotes are saying not "I don't want there to be a God!" but rather "Special creation has no scientific support whatsoever." And let's keep straight the distinction between the science of evolution and what some here call the evolutionary worldview. Worldviews are not scientific by definition and therefore I have no interest in trying to defend their scientific basis!

More specifically, if someone decides that the Biblical story of creation is not consistent with the scientific evidence, and from there decides there is no God, that conclusion is a personal decision, not a scientific conclusion, and it doesn't falsify or otherwise invalidate the science that caused the person to start thinking such things.

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)

Um, this has nothing to do with evolution (you know, descent with modification, shared common ancestry, and all that!).

Now this says it all, the man simply does not want to beleive in God.


“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

Just out of idle curiosity: if you were to learn that this quote was a complete fabrication that exists only on anti-evolution creationist web sites, what would your reaction be? I'm not yet saying it is, but so far I have been unable to verify the existence of either this quote or even the book it is supposedly from.

 

[`Love.]

Your avatar makes me want to :vomit: .

I'd find a trash can quick then.

(Lucky for you, I was changing it anyways. )

 

[Lynn73]

Great stuff, except for the word "opinion".

Either, "..the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke." ..or it isn't. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion, it matters if it's truth.

.."the so called fossil record proving things are gazillions of years old is a joke". This is very true. Stand your ground. :thumb:

God bless!

Thanks! I'm more used to saying "in my opinion" from being on Christian Forums in order to try and keep people from getting all uptight and accusing me of thinking I'm right about everything.

 

[Lynn73]

Just out of idle curiosity: if you were to learn that this quote was a complete fabrication that exists only on anti-evolution creationist web sites, what would your reaction be? I'm not yet saying it is, but so far I have been unable to verify the existence of either this quote or even the book it is supposedly from.

Even if that particular quote was a fabrication, and as you say you're not saying it is, that wouldn't mean all the quotes are fabrications. Why would a website post quotes and sources that they know can be checked out and proven wrong? Just because you''ve been unable to verify it so far doesn't invalidate it. And, yes a few of them are saying they don't want there to be a God. Someone saying they want atheism to be true is saying they don't want there to be a God. "I hope there is no God" is saying they don't want there to be a God. Maybe you missed that. And if the quotes are real, it doesn't matter if they're on anti-evolution sites or not.

 

[Lynn73]

Here is the quote again with references. There may be slight differences but it's saying the exact same thing.

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

http://www.biggerpicture.org/quotes_by_evolu.htm

As I said, if the man really said this, it doesn't matter what site quotes it.

 

[aharvey]

Even if that particular quote was a fabrication, and as you say you're not saying it is, that wouldn't mean all the quotes are fabrications.

Please answer the question. Or are you saying that it doesn't matter as long as they all aren't fabrications? Would it matter if they were taken out of context? Would it matter if they are quotes from non-biologists? Or is the important thing that they seem to fit your preconceptions about what we must really be thinking?

Why would a website post quotes and sources that they know can be checked out and proven wrong?

You've got to be kidding. Does this mean you assume everything you read on web sites is true?

Just because you''ve been unable to verify it so far doesn't invalidate it.

Well, duh. That's why I said so. Unlike your favored sources, I am up front about the limits of my claims. So here's an update on my investigations (and I should mention that tracking down obscure references is part of what I'm professionally trained to do). Here's the citation given by all those creationist web sites:

George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), page 187.

After being unable to find any indication that George Wald ever published such a book, I turned to the Library of Congress (I'm sure you've heard of that!). This is the closest I could come up with. Wrong year, rather misleading title: "Frontiers of modern biology; twenty lectures originally broadcast over the Voice of America. Coordinated by Gairdner B. Moment." Perhaps George Wald's is one of the twenty lectures, and perhaps his is titled "Theories of Origin of Life." But I have to say the scholarship has been pretty sloppy so far! What's more, I've read some of Wald's writings on the subject and this "quote" seems quite a distorted version of what he's written elsewhere.

And, yes a few of them are saying they don't want there to be a God. Someone saying they want atheism to be true is saying they don't want there to be a God. "I hope there is no God" is saying they don't want there to be a God. Maybe you missed that.

Do you know anything about the people and books you are quoting? For example, Thomas Nagel and "The Last Word," to whom you are referring here? You might want to dig a little deeper before using Nagel and the quote you mined as an example of someone who clings to evolution because he hopes there is no God!

And if the quotes are real, it doesn't matter if they're on anti-evolution sites or not.

But the question of the moment is whether it matters to you if they're real or not as long as they're on anti-evolution sites.

 

[ThankYouJesus]

Here is the quote again with references. There may be slight differences but it's saying the exact same thing.

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

http://www.biggerpicture.org/quotes_by_evolu.htm

As I said, if the man really said this, it doesn't matter what site quotes it.

:up: just read your posts.. good answers

 

[Lynn73]

Yes it matters if they're real and can you prove they all aren't real? But we aren't going to get anywhere. You won't accept as valid anything coming from a anti-evolution site and I definitely would be suspicious of anything coming from an anti-creation site. As usual, these kind of things just go around in circles. We obviously aren't going to change each others' minds. Personally, I do happen to believe that many evolutionist do not want there to be a God (just as a few of them have stated) because they don't want anyone telling them how to live and if they acknowledge the Creator they know He has the right to do so. The evidence does not support evolution and even Charles Darwin wondered if he was believing in fantasy. Don't worry, I won't quote him, since you wouldn't accept it anyway. You have your head in the sand if you don't think that at least some evolutionist don't have a biased agenda because of desperation to prove God doesn't exist. They've proved nothing. But believe as you like.

 

[Lynn73]

:up: just read your posts.. good answers

Well, thanks! I'm not really what you'd call a skilled debator or anything but I believe the Bible and I think it's so sad that so many are deceived by the lie of evolution when the evidence doesn't really support it. Not to mention all the other lies the devil propogates. :WA:

 

[ThankYouJesus]

Well, thanks! I'm not really what you'd call a skilled debator or anything but I believe the Bible and I think it's so sad that so many are deceived by the lie of evolution when the evidence doesn't really support it. Not to mention all the other lies the devil propogates. :WA:

yup.. with ya 100% :cheers: