|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| So Stephen Hawking, in his recent declarations denying the necessity of a Creator to start the universe �because we have a law like gravity,� simply begs the question of how that law came to be established in the first place. It seems silly to deny to theologians a modus operandi which is granted to physicists. |
Until we find a creator any belief in one simply because we can't explain something falls into the god of gaps argument. |
There's a presupposition in your statement that people believe in a creator "because" they can't explain some phenomena. I don't think that's generally the case, and regardless it definitely wasn't what I was doing. Actually I was not even trying to argue that a Creator exists. I was simply arguing that "Who created the Creator?" is not a forceful objection AGAINST the existence of such a Creator. I happen to think some atheist objections are challenging, but this just isn't one of them. |
My presupposition is linked to this discussion where some people strengthen their beliefs by appealing to the god of gaps. 'Who created the creator?' simply draws attention to inconsistencies in the 'complexity needs a creator' arguments.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| Hawking is right, a creator is not necessary to understand the laws of the universe, |
That's not what Hawking said, though. He said a Creator is not necessary to understand why the universe exists, why we exist. |
These are part of the same thing.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| and worse still saying 'god' did it throws away any attempts to understand those laws. |
No, it doesn't. Science and religion need not be in conflict, as long as they don't repudiate each other. |
Right!
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| A creator does not answer the question how laws come to be established. |
Really? I think it would explain that, at least on a basic conceptual level. |
My view is that it dissuades discovery. How does a creator explain anything? It's has constantly been used as a cop out. We still need to understand those laws.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| The more nature reveals itself to us, the less places this creator has to hide. |
Science explains mechanics, including the mechanics any Creator would have issued for the world. Understanding how it works doesn't explain away how it came to be or prove that it didn't come from a divine intelligence. |
You can never prove it didn't come from a divine intelligence nor advanced alien intelligence, time travelling self-causal beings, pasta monsters... That's what makes a creator so irrelevant to our understanding of the science of the universe. How the laws came to be, I do not feel this is outside the realm of science and mathematics.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| It could still be there, but this brings my next problem with 'God did it', how did he do it? |
Not sure why this is a problem. |
Those who offer the creator argument have no evidence or theory that backs their claims.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| It all seems like wishful and magical thinking. |
Okay, cool. Don't believe in it, then. It would probably fall apart for you anyway without at least some degree of inner knowledge or sense that there is a divine spark in the universe. |
Inner knowledge? Divine spark? It wouldn't fall apart if the evidence was undeniable.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| Further, complexity is subjective and complex things don't require complex causes. |
Some say the second law of thermodynamics suggests otherwise, but I won't argue the point, as I'm not an expert on such subjects. On a more general level, we can probably agree that certain objects, like a 747 aircraft, do denote intelligence and a complex cause. |
The second law of thermodynamics is sound. Hint: The Earth is not a closed system.
I would agree that a 747 is an artefact quite different to phenomena like biological life. It cannot reproduce or evolve. Not that this is beyond human technology. But a least we know how the processes involved in its construction, and this is my problem with the creator argument. The 747 is also capable of doing things it creator can't. It has a functional purpose beyond its creator's ability. It's creator is not all powerful. And they didn't wish the 747 into existence.
The complexity of snowflakes and termite-hills can be explained through mathematics. I'm repeating myself but biology and the universe rely on similar laws. The point is the 747 analogy made by some people is a poor watchmaker analogy.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| If there is a first cause then there is no evidence to suggest they are intelligent or conscious. Introducing a creator is unnecessary and distracts from our understanding. |
I agree there is no hard proof of such a thing. I disagree that believing in a Creator distracts from our understanding of the world. |
I'm not talking about believing in a creator. Many great scientists today do. They just don't introduce a creator into their equations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Brento1138 wrote: |
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo floresiensis |
None of those fabrications stand up to close scrutiny...nor is there any proof that they are human ancestors. Many are imaginary artists impressions drawn by evolutionists pushing their fantasy. Many are improbable plaster assemblies of whole creatures based on a single tiny bone fragment. Some are reconstructed from several bones found separately at different geographical locations and at different depths. |
They don't stand up to close scrutiny by religious people, or the uneducated, simply because those people do not have the skills, education, practice, or knowledge to properly scrutinize the pieces. ie. Would you get a priest or an engineer to put together fragments from a crashed aircraft?
You need to understand that in order to get complete fossils, sometimes you do have to find them in different depths because different levels of sedimentary deposits will be deposited differently and at differing levels in different locations. An understanding of basic geology would assist you before going further in that direction:
Look at this illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cross-cutting_relations.svg
Now you can see that it is possible to find fragments of bones from the same periods in different layers of sediment.
I am sure some readers can see a pattern happening here. Creationist uses his ignorance to argue his point correct.
Anyways, moving on to your point about collecting bone fragments in different locations. Actually, it makes good sense that one would reconstruct a species based on several bones found separately at different locations because it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to find complete skeletons due to the difficulties involved with fossilization. Predators may have carried parts of the animal or human off into the woods where it was not able to fossilize.
Scientists make detailed records about where they found the fossil fragments, rather than throw them in a big bucket and crossing their fingers, hoping they'll come up with something. For example, let me explain how it is done.
Let's say there are 10 fossils found, each of them, claimed to be that of Neanderthals.
Fossil A has the upper torso, but nothing else.
Fossil B has only a skull.
Fossil C only has the skull and top half of the upper torso.
Guess what? Fossil C and A have the exact same pieces! They are a match! Moving on...
Fossil D has only one leg, a foot, and a bit of a hip bone.
Fossil E has only a hip bone and a complete torso.
Fossil F has the lower portion of the torso, along with the hip bone and the same leg and foot!
Guess what? Another match!
Then we find more fossils, more and more, until we get a bigger picture of the animal (or human) we are looking at. Maybe we'll eventually get the whole skeleton.
In time, after we collect several fossils, we will have more information about different species of humans. Just because we are at a point in time where we don't have all the missing pieces of the puzzle, it would indeed be a 'cop out' to simply give up and say "it's too complicated" and just say "God did it."
It is logical that we should take the hard route, the tough route, get the job done. Work hard, use our brains, and learn from the physical evidence right below our feet. It's better to do that then just throw up your hands and say "God did it."
ie. If we were to follow creationists, we could just say science is wrong and that "God did it." It's too complicated. Airplanes fly because God wants them to, not because we have engineered them to. The computer works because I pray for it to work, not because over several years we've amassed the collective knowledge to build one. The same is true with evolution.
You can just say life was created by God, or we could do further research than just accept your idea that it was created by God. Just imagine if we continued thinking the sky (the blue part) was another ocean as described in the Old Testament? If we accepted someone saying "God created that ocean up there" and just nodded our heads, accepting it without a shred of evidence, I wonder what we would have missed out on in our collective knowledge?
While scientists are doing the grunt-work, and the thinking, the creationists are coming up with logically problematic arguments. Here are some of the "arguments"
I've found they will use, most of them concern their personal biased religious belief in a god. My personal favorite is the last one, which I am afraid Junior is very captured by.
| Quote: |
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
WAYSON'S ARGUMENT
(1) Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution.
(2) I don't.
(3) Therefore, they are lying or fabricating their data.
(4) Therefore, God Exists.
ARGUMENT FROM JUST MAYBE
(1) A big-name scientist, somewhere, once admitted that it just might be possible, perhaps, that one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution could, maybe, if P < 0.05, be false.
(2) Therefore, evolution is definitely false.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM UNTIDY THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(1) In attempting to unravel such a simple, straightforward matter as the evolution of life over the course of the last 2.7+ billion years, scientists have encountered certain difficulties and differences of opinion.
(2) Therefore the Theory of Evolution is a house of cards and creationism is self-evident.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
|
Junior believes that if there is a small change in the science of evolution, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. If there is a small bolt in the incredibly complex machinery that is evolutionary theory that needs to be replaced, the entire theory is outright rejected by Junior rather than further studied and refined.
Science is a process which constantly learns from evidence and refines itself. Religion with creationism is simply wanting something to be true, and steadfastly denying any hard evidence that comes available. The evidence is out there, you just have to open your eyes to see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| So Stephen Hawking, in his recent declarations denying the necessity of a Creator to start the universe �because we have a law like gravity,� simply begs the question of how that law came to be established in the first place. It seems silly to deny to theologians a modus operandi which is granted to physicists. |
Until we find a creator any belief in one simply because we can't explain something falls into the god of gaps argument. |
There's a presupposition in your statement that people believe in a creator "because" they can't explain some phenomena. I don't think that's generally the case, and regardless it definitely wasn't what I was doing. Actually I was not even trying to argue that a Creator exists. I was simply arguing that "Who created the Creator?" is not a forceful objection AGAINST the existence of such a Creator. I happen to think some atheist objections are challenging, but this just isn't one of them. |
My presupposition is linked to this discussion where some people strengthen their beliefs by appealing to the god of gaps. 'Who created the creator?' simply draws attention to inconsistencies in the 'complexity needs a creator' arguments. |
As long as we're clear that you're arguing against "some people" and not me, then fine, go to town. Beat down their arguments. In fact, good luck.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| Hawking is right, a creator is not necessary to understand the laws of the universe, |
That's not what Hawking said, though. He said a Creator is not necessary to understand why the universe exists, why we exist. |
These are part of the same thing. |
Actually, there's an important difference. Physical laws of the universe govern our reality, but they only have the power to do so once they have been established.
If you say we have a universe "because" we have a physical law like gravity, then whether that's true or not, you're committing the logical error of "begging the question." You're still left with the question of how that physical law came to be established. You simply push the question back further.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| and worse still saying 'god' did it throws away any attempts to understand those laws. |
No, it doesn't. Science and religion need not be in conflict, as long as they don't repudiate each other. |
Right!
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| A creator does not answer the question how laws come to be established. |
Really? I think it would explain that, at least on a basic conceptual level. |
My view is that it dissuades discovery. How does a creator explain anything? It's has constantly been used as a cop out. We still need to understand those laws. |
A creator doesn't need to "explain" the mechanics of the physical world, and believing in one doesn't render the study of those mechanics a moot point. Religion is not trying to compete with science in the arena of explanatory power about the physical world. Insights of religion are in a different area.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| The more nature reveals itself to us, the less places this creator has to hide. |
Science explains mechanics, including the mechanics any Creator would have issued for the world. Understanding how it works doesn't explain away how it came to be or prove that it didn't come from a divine intelligence. |
You can never prove it didn't come from a divine intelligence nor advanced alien intelligence, time travelling self-causal beings, pasta monsters... That's what makes a creator so irrelevant to our understanding of the science of the universe. How the laws came to be, I do not feel this is outside the realm of science and mathematics. |
Yes! The famous pasta monster makes his appearance! Finally. I was waiting for that bastard...
So anyway, if you are arguing that a person can do good science without believing in a creator, we agree. Of course that's right.
If, however, you are framing this as a situation where I say a creator exists in some area where there's a lack of scientific knowledge, and then, once scientists understand the phenomenon, my creator must "hide somewhere else", then I call Strawman Argument.
But then again, maybe you're arguing against "some people" again.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| It could still be there, but this brings my next problem with 'God did it', how did he do it? |
Not sure why this is a problem. |
Those who offer the creator argument have no evidence or theory that backs their claims. |
I think this is false on its face. Of course there are theories backing up claims of a Creator. You may disagree with the theories and the arguments, but they are out there.
Personally I would not be comfortable saying there is "evidence" or "proof" of a Creator. But I would say there are indications for belief. As there are also indications for doubt. Where you fall on the question of a Creator comes down (in part) to which you find more convincing.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| It all seems like wishful and magical thinking. |
Okay, cool. Don't believe in it, then. It would probably fall apart for you anyway without at least some degree of inner knowledge or sense that there is a divine spark in the universe. |
Inner knowledge? Divine spark? It wouldn't fall apart if the evidence was undeniable. |
You thought it was supposed to be undeniable? There's a gap of faith always. That's axiomatic.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| Further, complexity is subjective and complex things don't require complex causes. |
Some say the second law of thermodynamics suggests otherwise, but I won't argue the point, as I'm not an expert on such subjects. On a more general level, we can probably agree that certain objects, like a 747 aircraft, do denote intelligence and a complex cause. |
The second law of thermodynamics is sound. Hint: The Earth is not a closed system.
I would agree that a 747 is an artefact quite different to phenomena like biological life. It cannot reproduce or evolve. Not that this is beyond human technology. But a least we know how the processes involved in its construction, and this is my problem with the creator argument. The 747 is also capable of doing things it creator can't. It has a functional purpose beyond its creator's ability. It's creator is not all powerful. And they didn't wish the 747 into existence.
The complexity of snowflakes and termite-hills can be explained through mathematics. I'm repeating myself but biology and the universe rely on similar laws. The point is the 747 analogy made by some people is a poor watchmaker analogy. |
That's fine. I'm not completely won over by the Argument from Design myself. The fact that intelligence and design can come out of apparent randomness is remarkable, but again I wouldn't be comfortable calling it a proof of design, merely an indication that would lead one to suspect as much.
The point I was making was a rather limited point, that some things in this world do indeed require design.
| ED209 wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| If there is a first cause then there is no evidence to suggest they are intelligent or conscious. Introducing a creator is unnecessary and distracts from our understanding. |
I agree there is no hard proof of such a thing. I disagree that believing in a Creator distracts from our understanding of the world. |
I'm not talking about believing in a creator. Many great scientists today do. They just don't introduce a creator into their equations. |
Right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is more of a debate between Deism and Science as opposed to religion. The three Abrahamic faiths alone make a whole host of scientific and historical claims that cannot be proved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Junior, do you get the impression that all Evolutionary scientists go around evangelizing their message?
That's a misconception that a lot of people get because the Evolutionary scientists that they see are the ones who DO go around evangelizing their message!
They see the names of Richard Dawkins, Massimo Pigliucci, and Stephen Jay Gould in print and assume that all the other Evolutionary scientists are comparably zealous.
I imagine, however, that the vast majority of Evolutionary scientists don't give a hoot in hades what you or I or anyone else believes. They're too busy working in the laboratory to go out and preach the gospel.
If what Catman says is true, "approximately 99.9% of scientists believe evolution to be factually correct." That many scientists certainly don't write popular books on the subject! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| They don't stand up to close scrutiny by religious people, or the uneducated, simply because those people do not have the skills, education, practice, or knowledge to properly scrutinize the pieces. ie. Would you get a priest or an engineer to put together fragments from a crashed aircraft? |
Ah..so now you label the worlds multibillions of religious people as uneducated superstitious fools. Lovely!
| Quote: |
| Science is a process which constantly learns from evidence and refines itself. |
Evolutionism does not really deserve to come under the noble umbrella of science I'm afraid, the two are not the same. Chemists and physicists for example are real scientists, they work with what is materially demonstrable and testable on a daily basis, and are not driven by any agenda which makes them twist evidence to fulfill a theory.
Evolutionists are more in the category of creative writers or imaginative storytellers.
| Quote: |
| Religion with creationism is simply wanting something to be true, and steadfastly denying any hard evidence that comes available. |
| Quote: |
| The evidence is out there, you just have to open your eyes to see it |
These statements of yours apply perfectly to evolutionists IMO.
Before you go any further you really should define evolution.
Are you arguing that all living things today descended from an original single cell?
But first lets examine your list of claimed apemen.
| Quote: |
| Sahelanthropus tchadensis |
This is just an ape, probably a chimp.
| Quote: |
The seven-million-year-old fragments of bone on which this taxon is based were found in 2001. They were initially described as belonging to the oldest known hominid (Brunet et al. 2002), but are now deemed to represent the mortal remains of a Miocene ape.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is based on a single cranium, the dramatically named Touma� skull (Touma� means "hope of life" in Tebou, a Chadian tongue), which was found in Chad's Djurab desert � see maps below right.
The brainsize of this erstwhile hominid was only about 350 cc, similar to that of a modern chimpanzee (human mean cranial capacity is 1350 cc). Moreover, the skull has the same general appearance as that of a chimpanzee. No one knows how long chimpanzees have existed � perhaps this actually is the skull of a chimpanzee?
No postcranial remains are known and it is unknown whether Sahelanthropus tchadensis was bipedal. The canine wear is similar to that of an ape (Brunet et al. 2002). So one would expect the diet of this creature to have been similar to that of modern chimpanzees. There is, of course, no evidence of the use of fire by this presumptive simian .. |
http://www.macroevolution.net/sahelanthropus-tchadensis.html
The above is from a secular source.
Need we continue through the list?
Or do you concede your mistake already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomorrow 2 Christians are coming over to convert me but I doubt our conversation will be as interesting as what has transpired here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| Junior, do you get the impression that all Evolutionary scientists go around evangelizing their message? |
They don't really have to, they have National Geographic and the lapdog mass media to do that for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Ah..so now you label the worlds multibillions of religious people as uneducated superstitious fools. Isn't that typical.
|
Actually I was just pointing out that people who reject evolutionary theory and believe in creationism are ignorant of the complexities of evolutionary theory due to their lack of education on the subject. This is not necessarily because they are stupid, per se, but rather because they choose to be ignorant of it. Their choices are usually due to the problem of evolutionary theory conflicting with their religious world-view.
I'm sorry if I offended you by pointing out the lack of education (in the extremely complex and specific field of evolution and related sciences) of religious folks but I stand by my earlier statements, which I don't think were too harsh. I should also point out, once again, that not all religious people are in denial over evolution. I noted earlier how the Catholic Church (part of those multibillions you mention) has accepted evolution.
| Junior wrote: |
Evolutionism does not really deserve to come under the noble umbrella of science I'm afraid, the two are not the same. Chemists and physicists for example are real scientists, they work with what is materially demonstrable... |
Actually, the theory of evolution has consistently been performing for biological science, making several correct predictions. Here's a short list of some of the accomplishments:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html
And another note: although I am guilty of using the term "evolutionism" rather than "evolution" in earlier threads to accommodate you, the very fact that you are using the term "evolutionism" demonstrates your personal bias towards the scientific value of the theory and the evidence which you deny. I know it's just a word, and we may actually mean the exact same thing, but the "ism" at the end is a well-known attempt to put evolutionary theory onto the same level as creationism. This simply is not the case, as I am sure you must be aware.
| Junior wrote: |
Evolutionists are more in the category of creative writers or imaginative storytellers.
|
Again, replace the word "evolutionists" with "creationists." The Old Testament is a great example!
| Junior wrote: |
Before you go any further, please define evolution. Are you arguing that all living things today descended from an original single cell?
|
My definition of evolution is what you would find in every modern science manual, dictionary, wiki definition of evolution. I didn't come up with my own theory of evolution, of course. And I don't recall arguing anything about life coming from an original single cell. But we can dive into that complex territory if you'd like.
| Junior wrote: |
But first lets examine your list of claimed apemen.
...
Or do you concede your mistake already. |
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out that along our very difficult to classify tree of hominids, we have found a number of fossils even though they are extremely rare due to the difficult circumstances involved in fossilization. The list was to make you aware of the number we've already come up with.
The only thing I will concede is that science has not established yet whether the creature is indeed a member of the hominid tree due to the incompleteness of the skeleton. Whether it can be regarded as part of the Hominina tree is unclear; there are arguments both supporting and rejecting it. I fail to see how, in any way, this would undermine evolution, or prove me "wrong" in some way. Perhaps one day, we will find the missing pieces of the puzzle and complete that puzzle. Or... we could just throw our hands up in the air, shake our heads, give up, and just say "God created man and that's that!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| the Catholic Church (part of those multibillions you mention) has accepted evolution. |
They would though. Considering they also accepted all kinds of teachings and practises that are not actually biblical..as well as hundreds of wolves in sheeps clothing among their priests. Lets just say I (and protestants generally) don't consider catholicism as the true church at all.
But in any case I accept a certain amount of change has ocurred since creation. A loving God endowed his creation with all that they would need to adapt to a world he knew would change. I'm loathe to use the word evolution, because that implies an upward process of improvement and increased complexity.
What has demonstrably happened is a limited amount of shuffling and selecting out of originally created genetic information. natural selection has selected out a lot of previously held dna whilst hanging onto what it needed. That process entails a loss of complexity and is consistent with the fall and subsequent degenration of creation. Certainly its nothing that could create a whale from an amoeba as you claim.
Your list is hardly impressive. The fact that darwin predicted fossils would be found in the precambrian" really doesn't prove much, does it? Its like predicting that there would also be trees in south america.
Actually the positioning of fossils in strata conforms to what you would expect from a global flood.
| Quote: |
According to the most straight forward reading of the Bible, a person would assume that virtually all of the animals in the fossil record were victims of the great catastrophic flood of Noah. Many critics of this view seem to envision that the animals killed during the the flood should be buried all mixed together, but this is not what is found. An analysis of the strata has revealed that the fossils are sorted. Organisms are typically found within a limited span of layers, and frequently above or below other specific fossils. This sequence of distinct layers, known as the geological column, has been interpreted to represent the history of life on earth of millions of years, and the time when the organism evolved and then went extinct.
If the Bible is correct, then the geological column has been misinterpreted. The rocks that cover the earth may indeed have captured a recording of history, but instead of a history of life on earth, they simply illustrate the rate at which organisms died during the Biblical deluge. The flood was an extended event lasting an entire year, and the waters did not reach their peak elevation until 5 months following the beginning of the event. This allowed organisms time to avoid the event depending on their own abilities and tolerances.
There are many geological, behavioral, and physiological factors expected to affect an organism's time of death during a flood as described in the Bible. For example, habit elevation, mobility, environmental tolerance, and intelligence were probably the most significant influences upon relative times of death, and therefore, when or if the organism was found in the geological column. The fossils in the geological column demonstrate this expected trend. The first organisms to be buried were the bottom dwelling creatures, followed by free-swimming marine life forms, cold blooded, then warm-blooded, and then humans. It is obvious that organisms possess varying abilities to survive environmental stress (i.e. cold blooded animals such as reptiles are extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations, and amphibian will die upon contact with salt water).
Although sorting is expected to occur during the Biblical global deluge, exceptions to their normal position in the flood strata are also a given. According to the global-flood model, out of place fossils should be somewhat common, forcing regular revisions of the proposed evolutionary history. Indeed a close investigation reveals a tremendous number of anomalously occurring fossils, and living fossils, which defy conventional explanation. Based on the global flood interpretation of the geological column, "earlier than previously thought" will be heard repeatedly from the scientific community because their explanation is totally incorrect, and instead all organisms buried in the sedimentary rock were all alive on earth just a few months before. |
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossilsorting.html
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
Evolutionists are more in the category of creative writers or imaginative storytellers.
|
Again, replace the word "evolutionists" with "creationists." The Old Testament is a great example! |
Actually the bible is probably the most archaeologically-verified historical document on earth. Those "stories" are corroborated by what has been found in the ground, and by numerous other sources and documents from the same period. So clearly it is not fiction. Unlike the various evo-fantasies which are contradicted and debunked every few years.
| Quote: |
| And I don't recall arguing anything about life coming from an original single cell. |
Ok, then a simple yes or no will suffice. Do you believe that all life developed and descended from an original cell in some primeval soup?
or not? Where is the start point for evolution theory?
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out that along our very difficult to classify tree of hominids, we have found a number of fossils even though they are extremely rare due to the difficult circumstances involved in fossilization. The list was to make you aware of the number we've already come up with. |
So then you're not claiming that humans came from apes after all?
Sounds like a retraction to me. 
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Perhaps one day, we will find the missing pieces of the puzzle and complete that puzzle. |
so... you're basing your theory (and resulting worldview) on the hope that you'll eventually find some evidence to back it up?
Somehow that doesn't really sound like true science.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Or... we could just throw our hands up in the air, shake our heads, give up, and just say "God created man and that's that!" |
Science assumed a creator for many centuries, and prospered very well by it .There is no "giving up" associated with such a premise: science would continue to proceed and advance. Remember many of your universities, schools and hospitals were founded by christian creationists, and their motivation for their scientific research (finding cures for diseases or whatever) stems from christian faith.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| The only thing I will concede is that science has not established yet whether the creature is indeed a member of the hominid tree due to the incompleteness of the skeleton. |
Actually if you accept "Sahelanthropus" as an ape-man, then the problems to your theory suddenly multiply.
| Quote: |
| According to Bernard Wood, a hominid of Toumai's supposed age �should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age�.7 Hence, if evolutionists accept Sahelanthropus as the earliest stem hominid, then this casts legitimate doubt on the human ancestry status of all other hominids with more �primitive� faces,7 and, as such, would invalidate most of the geologically younger australopithecines. |
http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-2-non-homo-hominids
-a point not lost on your wiki source:
| Quote: |
| The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Touma� is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring the status of Australopithecus into doubt because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
But to anyone looking at the skull impartially (ie not believing in, nor trying to make a case for evolution)- it is obviously just an ape and in all probability a chimpanzee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Junior, you keep making the same flawed argument which I'll illustrate again for you. It's called the "Argument from Untidy Theory of Evolution." Just because we do not know all of the answers 100% correctly in a gigantic flash of insight, doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is a house of cards that will collapse with the slightest change in evidence.
What you don't seem to understand is that it does not matter whether the fossil in question is an ape-man or a chimpanzee. Science will adjust accordingly, rather than steadfastly deny what new evidence comes in. If it turns out the fossil is a chimpanzee, so be it. It won't affect the validity of the theory of evolution whatsoever, but it will simply improve our understanding of where humans actually did come from along the line of ape-men.
The list I gave you is just the list of the fossils we have found to date. It could be a complete list, or the actual list could grow to four times that, one hundred times that, we just don't know. We have to wait for the hard evidence to come in.
Just because there are differences of opinion in the scientific community on Sahelanthropus tchadensis (or several others), or because we are awaiting hard evidence to confirm either opinions, does not invalidate the entire theory of evolution.
| Junior wrote: |
Lets just say I (and protestants generally) don't consider catholicism as the true church at all.
|
The majority of the world's religious do not view your church as the true church either.
| Junior wrote: |
A loving God endowed his creation with all that they would need to adapt to a world he knew would change....
|
A loving Spaghetti Monster endowed the pasta of the world with all his flavor to be a tasty treat in a world he know would have hamburgers and pizza...
You do realize you can just make up absolutely anything when it comes to faith, right? I'm trying to demonstrate that with the above Spaghetti Monster example. Not trying to mock you here, just trying to prove a point.
| Junior wrote: |
Certainly its nothing that could create a whale from an amoeba as you claim.
|
Now you are falling into the trap of basically saying "I do not have the capacity to understand this to be the case, so therefore it is not the case." Just because a whale is complex and a single celled organism is not as complex (yet still very quite complex!), doesn't mean it is entirely impossible that a whale came from several millions of ancestors which eventually go back to that one single celled organism. Your argument is breaking down like this:
| Quote: |
ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY
(1) Check out the whale. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only a creator could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, creationism is true.
|
| Junior wrote: |
Your list is hardly impressive. The fact that darwin predicted fossils would be found in the precambrian" really doesn't prove much, does it? Its like predicting that there would also be trees in south america.
|
It's a false comparison. The theory of evolution is consistently making predictions and finding the predictions to be true. These are soley based on direct observations, not fantasy. For example, the prediction that man came from apes is still accepted by the majority of learned scientists in the field.
Still I still don't think you quite understand evolutionary theory, and before debating with me further (please educate yourself about something you are attempting to argue against), please read the following:
Please look here at an article on Wikipedia: "Evolution as theory and fact."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Also, you should read the Evolution FAQ on Wikipedia. It might answer some of the questions you have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Has_evolution_ever_been_observed.3F
Here are the five major common misconceptions about Evolution (one being that it hasn't been observed)
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
| Junior wrote: |
Actually the positioning of fossils in strata conforms to what you would expect from a global flood.
|
I am well aware of creationist geology and it doesn't interest me in the slightest, in the same way I would never trust a priest to build an airplane I was going to fly in. I would also not trust a Lawyer to explain to me nuclear physics, or a farmer about asteroids. No, I will fly in airplanes built by engineers!
Creationist geology is nothing new, and your source is severely out-dated. Please look here at the known problems with Noah's flood and your quoted material:
Problems with a global flood: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Rather than looking at the actual evidence and then coming to conclusions from hard evidence, creationist geology starts with a belief of a world-wide flood, then hand-picks whatever it feels is necessary to prove that pre-conceived belief. Creationist geology is not science, it is an extension of religion. It's a pseudo-science.
| Junior wrote: |
Actually the bible is probably the most archaeologically-verified historical document on earth....So clearly it is not fiction...Unlike the various evo-fantasies which are contradicted and debunked every few years.
|
So you actually believe there is more hard scientific evidence for the events taking place in the bible than the theory of evolution and the actual fossils which have been dug up in support of the theory? I think this is more based on your personal research than the actual research. Refer to Noah's Flood. Need I say more?
| Junior wrote: |
Do you believe that all life developed and descended from an original cell in some primeval soup?
|
It does not matter if I "believe" in it or not. I'll trust what the science shows. So far, it tells us that it is highly probable that all life on Earth has evolved from single celled organisms. So far, these are the hypotheses for the development of multicellular organisms coming from single-celled organisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Hypotheses_for_origin
| Junior wrote: |
So then you're not claiming that humans came from apes after all?
Sounds like a retraction to me.
|
I did not make that claim and there was no retraction. Again, refer to the flawed "Untidy Theory of Evolution" argument I noted above. Yes, humans likely did evolve from an earlier species of ape-like hominids. It's not my claim, it's the claim of science. And science isn't based on opinion, or four-thousand year old religious books written by a small tribe of pre-medieval peoples. Science, in contrast to creationism, is not a belief system. The principle of science is that the theories that explain our knowledge are independent from the beliefs and values of the proposer. It need not matter what a scientist believes or thinks -- the theory must rest on its explanatory power and the supporting evidence. The theory of evolution does not fail in this regard, and that is because of hard, observable data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Junior, what is your point?
That there has been disagreement among Evolutionists?
I won't argue that point.
In fact, I'll even help you by offering a few more examples:
■ According to Jean-Baptiste Larmarck, an organism can pass on traits which were acquired during its own lifetime. Although his theory is now rejected by most scientists, there is a small corps which is suggesting that he might have had something after all.
■ According to Alfred Russel Wallace, the human species has evolved more or less as mainstream Evolutionists say it has, but at one point along the line, God intervened by giving the species an extra shot of intelligence.
I don't know if this hypothesis has been refuted; perhaps "ignored" would be a better term.
■ According to Herbert Spencer, evolution has favored the aggressive and bloodthirsty, and therefore it is good for strong nations to invade and conquer weaker nations. According to Peter Kropotkin, evolution has favored the cooperative and benevolent, and therefore it is good to be cooperative and benevolent.
■ Speaking of Kropotkin, he wrote that songbirds cooperate by cheerfully singing together. According to Konrad Lorenz, songbirds sing in order to stake out their territory.
■ Along with Herbert Spencer's brainchild, Francis Galton was an Evolutionist who is unwelcome by most Evolutionists. Galton was the founder of eugenics, or the proposal that the weaker and less intelligent members of our species should be sterilized and the stronger and more intelligent members should be exhorted to propagate like mad.
■ There has been a fossil find in East Africa which was first dated at 2 million years old and later corrected too 1.75 million years old.
■ According to Schwabe & Warr, we are all evolved, but not necessarily from the same common ancestor.
■ According to Hoyle & Wickwramisinghe, we are all transplanted ET's whose evolution has been monitored by some extraterrestrial power.
■ Three closely related lifeforms have been suggested as the turning point between the fish and the amphibian: the crossopterygian, the lungfish, and the coelacanth.
You may say that "a house divided cannot stand,"
but I say that "a house undivided is a dictatorship in which members are not allowed to explore and discover."
Give me a house divided any day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Just because we do not know all of the answers 100% correctly |
Don't flatter yourself lol.
You're at more like 0.1% of the answers.
What answers do you know, exactly? Almost none.
Your theory is made up of speculation and wishful conjecture...nothing more.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Science will adjust accordingly, rather than steadfastly deny what new evidence comes in. If it turns out the fossil is a chimpanzee, so be it. |
Thats not what happens though, is it? All the evidence already clearly indicates that it is an ape. It is only your wishing that it was something else that makes you pretend that an alternative possibility still exists.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| It won't affect the validity of the theory of evolution whatsoever |
Of course. Nothing is ever allowed to threaten your beloved theory. If it does, it simply gets stifled, dicarded, discredited, reinterpreted, or whatever.
The self-serving network of evo-lutioniary fantasists are so committed to the idea of evolution that even when the evidence contradicts them ..they automatically assume the evidence must be wrong.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| The list I gave you is just the list of the fossils we have found to date. It could be a complete list, or the actual list could grow to four times that, one hundred times that, we just don't know. We have to wait for the hard evidence to come in. |
How long are you going to wait exactly? Its been about 150 years already. Still nothing.
Since Darwin multimillions of fossils have been unearthed, from all rock strata, all around the world. None of those numerous, abundant fossils show what you would expect if darwinism was true.
Overwhelmingly, the fossil record shows stasis. Nothing has changed. Nothing has evolved. There are no transitional forms. If evolution were true, most fossils would in fact be of transitional forms. Sorry but the real world evidence says that evolution didn't happen.
There is an old saying "No matter how far you have gone down the wrong road, turn back". A real scientist would not be afraid to admit his mistake: he would have discarded this theory many decades ago and tried something else.
But your ape-cult is not really science, is it now? More of an irrational atheist religious belief.... that you follow no matter what the evidence says.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| You do realize you can just make up absolutely anything when it comes to faith, right? |
You do realize you can just make up absolutely anything when it comes to evolution, right? For example look below at another of your imaginative artworks.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/dragonfly.JPG
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi029041.html
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Certainly its nothing that could create a whale from an amoeba as you claim. |
Now you are falling into the trap of basically saying "I do not have the capacity to understand this to be the case, so therefore it is not the case." |
Actually it is you who lacks adequate cranial capacity.
There is nothing demonstrated in any research to show that a single-celled organism could be capable of ultimately morphing into a whale. No such mechanism has ever been demonstrated. If you think one has, please do spell it out.
Sorry but e.g. natural selection does not create new genetic information, it simply selects for certain pre-existing information while discarding others. Nothing new is created. Rather, existing genetic information is thinned out over time.It is a process that goes from complex to simple, not the other way round.
Sorry but this forum is for debate. If you can't argue your own points.. then there is no point.
Simply spamming with a load of links is just laziness. I'm not about to read a PhD dissertation just for your sake.
I could go and tell you to read ten creationist websites if I wanted- thread closed.
If you have any specific point to make, make it. Don't simply point to some website to debate everything for you. If you must, then paste the relevant sentence or stanza that illustrates the point you are making.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| I am well aware of creationist geology and it doesn't interest me in the slightest |
You're afraid of adverse facts and so run away from them. Real science , however, advances by tackling difficult questions, not supressing or ignoring evidence that doesn't fit.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| creationist geology starts with a belief of a world-wide flood, then hand-picks whatever it feels is necessary to prove that pre-conceived belief. |
You earlier admitted the conditions needed for fossils to form. The best conditions are .... sudden flooding that kills living things and then rapidly buries them. The vast, overwhelming majority of the millions upon millions of fossils we find-globally appear to have been rapidly buried by catastrophic flood.
The evidence blatantly conforms to biblical record, and the only reason you obstinately try to interpret it otherwise is because you are already 110% commited to believing your theory at all costs.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| So you actually believe there is more hard scientific evidence for the events taking place in the bible than the theory of evolution and the actual fossils which have been dug up in support of the theory? |
Absolutely: this is an obvious fact. Do a simple googlesearch if you want to find out about how archaeology confirms the bible at every turn.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| than the theory of evolution and the actual fossils which have been dug up in support of the theory? |
What has been dug up exactly? Do tell. Please show me something that has evolved. It shouldn't really be that hard for you should it?
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| It does not matter if I "believe" in it or not. I'll trust what the science shows. So far, it tells us that it is highly probable that all life on Earth has evolved from single celled organisms. |
Don't you know what you believe? I asked for a yes/ no answer. How hard can it be? or are you backing out now.
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
So then you're not claiming that humans came from apes after all?
Sounds like a retraction to me. |
I did not make that claim and there was no retraction. |
So...umm...do you believe that humans came from apes? or not.
Yes or no?
| Brento1138 wrote: |
| The principle of science is that the theories that explain our knowledge are independent from the beliefs and values of the proposer. |
Exactly. So why do "evolutionists" approach new evidence with a whole set of pre-suppositions and preconceptions? They are assuming evolution (-an unproven hypothesis) at every step.
And then they are interpreting it in a certain way that precludes other possibilities. A way that endears them to the other evolutionists in the gang.... who they depend on for their paycheque. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jss1919
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior's August 31 7:10am post it gold! There should be so many "missing links"... You're right on. We don't find them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Soth
Joined: 06 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| It's also an oversimplification of both the religious and scientific perspectives. |
I really fail to understand how one can oversimplify religious perspective. All religions are nothing else than fairy tales and most of them are ancient history, remaining few still hang out, but those will fade away in next couple of hounder years too. Just have look at statistics, even in USA the trends are obvious.
Fighting science might slow down decrease in numbers among the faithful, but it will just decapitate countries where is popularised. So anti-science, anti-evolution movement is like one shooting his/hers foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
