toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Alate_One]

Fossil's are/were sorted via a process called liquefaction which explains why most fossils are sorted yet there are anomalies as well.

Liquefaction doesn't explain the pattern of fossils. If it did, flood geology would still be the centerpiece of mainstream geology as it was in the 18th century.

Walt Brown (the person you are referencing for liquefaction) cites the unpublished "study" done at Loma Linda university which states that the creatures sorted by their buoyancy after death which was, "amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird."

Which is great except that isn't the order we find the creatures of the fossil record in. There are plenty of amphibians and reptiles above mammals and even more birds before mammals. The ordering of creatures is based upon radiation of certain groups followed by mass extinctions and radiation of different groups. Creatures appear and disappear in the fossil record regardless of their buoyancy.

 

[Alate_One]

I've seen that done. :wave:

By an evolutionist. :noid:

In the 1950s which was determined to be wrong later on . . .but Stripe is still stuck in the 50s. Still listening to Elvis too?

 

[Lighthouse]

Why wouldnt a person accept evolution as being real as rain?

Because I've seen rain.

Why would they? :idunno:

Good question.

Find us a few bones from tuna, a whale, a rabbit or a human alongside these critters:

Find us a mammoth or a big cat alongside these critters.

I can say it will never happen because evolution happened. But if it did happen, you'd have to throw out evolution because creatures would be appearing before they could have possibly evolved.

Why does it never occur to you that these are drawings, not photographs of what actually existed?

In the 1950s which was determined to be wrong later on . . .but Stripe is still stuck in the 50s. Still listening to Elvis too?

Buddy Holly was better than Elvis.

 

[The Graphite]

Even when I was a morally bankrupt neopagan (a real-life, practicing witch), even then I didn't believe in evolution or think that human beings had evolved from animals. (And many other pagans I knew also rejected evolution. But I can't speak for the larger neo-pagan community.)

 

[taikoo]

Gee, what happened with the formatting there? That was kinda weird.

Thanks for going through all of that for me. I agree that a mammal in the Cambrian layer would tend to falsify deep time and therefore evolution. I agree that we'd have to go back to the drawing board for lots of different things if this happened. However, I don't think you are right about the radiometric dating. Let me do a bit of research on my own and get back to you with a few more questions.
:e4e:

Welcome. I wonder what I said about radiometric dating that you dont agree.... I didnt say much.

 

[Cruciform]

The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

Yes, I affirm the natural process of organic evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diverse forms of life on earth. :up:


Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[taikoo]

Even when I was a morally bankrupt neopagan (a real-life, practicing witch), even then I didn't believe in evolution or think that human beings had evolved from animals. (And many other pagans I knew also rejected evolution. But I can't speak for the larger neo-pagan community.)

Sorry you went thru a period of morally bankruptcy. Seems as if a lot of people go to religion on the other end of the pendulum swing, and its a good thing they do! Id never say thats not a good thing.

Im glad that I had a strong cultural background and good steering that kept me out of some foolish excesses that I might have otherwise
have fallen for.

Just fyi regarding being a Christian and accepting that evolution is a solid explanation for life as we know it-my prof who teaches the comparative vertebrate anatomy class is a Christian. Evolution is very much a part of that course and he anyway finds no reason that the reality of evolution need interfere with the reality of his faith in god.

Morality or lack of same is of course a topic unrelated to science or theories.

As for "evolving from animals", people are of course animals too.

 

[Alate_One]

Why does it never occur to you that these are drawings, not photographs of what actually existed?

Ever considered that they are representations of REAL fossils?

The drawings just make it easier to see them. Go to a museum sometime. :loser:

 

[Eggasai]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 14th, 2011 10:17 AM

toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

It depends on what Theory of Evolution we are talking about. Creationism is actually a pretty radical theory of evolution since we are talking about a few thousand creatures emerging from the Ark on Ararat to become the millions of species that cover the globe.

That's an evolutionary scenario that would have scared Darwin to death.

Yea I believe in the Theory of Evolution, it would be impossible for me to be a Creationist if I didn't. If you mean do I believe that we evolved from apes that's another matter. There was neither the time nor the means for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes.

I have my reasons why:

LS4C.net a Creationist Blog on the subject of Origins

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Sealeaf]

The ToE is sound science. Since I don't believe the entire bible is literally true, science is not a prblem for me. I worship God, not a book about God.

In general ToE is only a problem for those who idolize the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

Liquefaction doesn't explain the pattern of fossils. If it did, flood geology would still be the centerpiece of mainstream geology as it was in the 18th century.

:rotfl:

Typical. Forget the evidence and make an appeal to popularity.

Walt Brown (the person you are referencing for liquefaction) cites the unpublished "study" done at Loma Linda university which states that the creatures sorted by their buoyancy after death which was, "amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird."

And of course you ignore the fact that there is more to the explanation than just this set of observations.

In the 1950s which was determined to be wrong later on . . .but Stripe is still stuck in the 50s. Still listening to Elvis too?

Don't be a moron, Alate. I follow an evolutionist who is struggling to get published because he has an explanation for what he sees that overthrows a couple of traditional ideas.

You're part of the problem, Alate. You're entirely sold out to the idea that evolution must have happened and single-mindedly determined that no creationist be allowed to appear in any way correct. You're no scientist. :nono:

It depends on what Theory of Evolution we are talking about.

Much simpler if you just reject evolution, mate. I know you might be semantically correct, but it only plays into the atheists' hands using their terms.

 

[Delmar]

I believe some things change over time.

 

[voltaire]

What possible natural
evidence would tend to
falsify evolution rather
than cause a major shift in
the interpretation of the
data so as to create a new
model for evolution?
Find us a few bones from
tuna, a whale, a rabbit or a
human alongside these
critters:
Find us a mammoth or a big
cat alongside these critters.
I can say it will never
happen because evolution
happened. But if it did
happen, you'd have to throw
out evolution because
creatures would be
appearing before they could
have possibly evolved.--------Alateones response to nicholsmom.........You wont find that in the fossil record and it isn't because evolution is correct. A mammoth could not survive in a permian ecology. The vegetation it thrived on did not exist in large quantities and the climate was not right as there was one huge supercontinent on the equator and what vegetation was available was being consumed by the critters pictured by alateone. You wont find bunnies alongside the cambrian fossils because the world was mostly underwater and there was no grass for the bunny to eat. He was eating grain on the ark while the cambrian fossils were getting buried.

 

[No Sheep Here]

Life can't just pop in out of nowhere. Science has proven it can't. No life, no evolution.

So you are scientifically illiterate ? Because we don't know how everything started, we can't study what has happened to life? That's really, really silly to say! This is the equivalent of telling me that I can't study what has happened to a ball in my yard just because I don't know how it got in my yard. Life is here, and we can study it's changes. How everything got started, we do not yet know this, but it is being investigated. Just because you have a ancient comic book, does not mean it is true, it's still fiction.

 

[No Sheep Here]

The ToE is sound science. Since I don't believe the entire bible is literally true, science is not a prblem for me. I worship God, not a book about God.

In general ToE is only a problem for those who idolize the Bible.

You are miles ahead of the a lot of people here with that mindset. This is the first time I have heard a sensible non-bible-idolizer comment about the bible.

Glad you can separate science and religion and be just fine.:thumb:

 

[chrysostom]

You are miles ahead of the a lot of people here with that mindset. This is the first time I have heard a sensible non-bible-idolizer comment about the bible.

Glad you can separate science and religion and be just fine.:thumb:

the anti-evolution bunch make a lot of noise
but
they are few in number

 

[No Sheep Here]

I didn't believe in evolution or think that human beings had evolved from animals. (And many other pagans I knew also rejected evolution. But I can't speak for the larger neo-pagan community.)

So you were just as misinformed then as you are now? We are animals get over it. You are a great ape. You reminded me of this video.

 

[voltaire]

We are not great apes and there is nothing to get over. Forcing someone to believe something and telling them to get over it is fascism. We have things in common with apes, its true. We have things in common with parakeets but i am not one of those either. I may have keratin in my fingernails and the mollusk may have genes that are similar to those that produce keratin but im not a mollusk and i will not get over it.

 

[csuguy]

Do you have a feel for how unreasonable you are here? The things you say about evolution certainly demonstrate that you have only the sketchiest idea about it, and what you do "know" clearly comes from creationist sites.

1) Never claimed to be an expert on the topic of evolution - quite to the contrary.

2) I do not study creationist websites or material. I don't support a literal 6000 year old earth or anything like that.

3) I am not being unreasonable. To the contrary - everything I have said is purely rational.

You are very clearly rejecting it, despite your near total unfamiliarity with the ToE or about science in general.

I only reject it in the sense that I haven't studied it enough to form a strong opinion on the matter of it being right or wrong. This is an honest position - nothing wrong with it :idunno:

But I do know science "in general." What exactly is it that you assert I am missing?

Regarding whether it is a "proper" theory, or falsifiable, it is considered by the world scientific community as one of the great unifying theories in science, and is accepted by virtually the entire educated population of the world as such.

Majority opinion does not equate to truth :dunce: It is not a proper scientific theory for the reasons I have provided. Really, it is quite simple. Natural science's proper realm is in the present - it relies upon experiments, demonstrations, and observations that can be done universally in the present that results in the same objective results. The ToE lacks these. There is no experiment to confirm it or falsify it, there are no demonstrations that can be provided to show how life truly evolved (only many conflicting hypothesis), and the ToE most certainly cannot be observed (nor can any other historical event be objectively observed).

How would you explain that you know so much more than people who dedicate their lives to science?

How about you think for yourself? You sound like little more than a lay scientist who has no true understanding him/herself. Something tells me you would be critical of lay Christians or other lay religious persons of just accepting what their priest tells them ('because they are the experts') but you don't apply this same standard to your own beliefs and what you accept. Or at least that is what you want me to do.

 

[Yorzhik]

Selpahiel and I presented methods for falsification also.

I looked at the list. Nearly all of them were references to creationist journals.

And those creationist journals were correct.

Several were references to news articles and the only ones that were references to peer reviewed journals were from 1920 and 1950. Forgive me if I don't call that "evidence".

You're not forgiven. If, as you are about to say, scientists are looking to upend the apple cart, those articles would have been proven out one way or the other.

Scientists love to "upend the apple cart". Falsifying evolution would be a huge scientific discovery, people would fight each other to discover such a finding. If the creationist friends really had something, someone would be winning a nobel prize over it or at least publishing in a reputable journal. Many journals even like to publish controversial work, such as Nature.

So why is it all of these amazing discoveries are languishing on an obscure creationist website? Let me guess, there's a worldwide multigenerational atheistic conspiracy?

If you had solid evidence for "those kind of things" rather than wishful thinking squinting at patterns in fossilized seashore and calling them human or horse footprints. Show us an incontrovertible mammalian skull or identifiable bone in the Cambrian or Ediacaran or before.

According to the YEC model of genesis, these things should be EVERYWHERE. All creatures lived at the same time so we should find everything all mixed together. Why do we have a progression?

If it were true that scientists love to upend the apple cart, then they would have continued to look for human footprints in Paluxy. But no one wants to look. Why? Because scientists don't really like upending the apple cart, they like being rich/powerful/famous like everyone else. And proving evolution wrong would only get one fired.