Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 12 13
Pastor Rick
Administrator
Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
|
 
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
Those stand out of course but his initial idea of a slow, gradual change in the species is totally destroyed by the fossil record as well.
|
|
9/22/2009, 9:59 pm
|
|
Morwen Oronor
Resident Scholar
Registered: 01-2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1743
Karma: 15 (+28/-13)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
No it's not. The process continues until the animal, or plant, reaches the epitome of its evolution and then it stops evolving. Like the cockroach, it won't evolve and hasn't evolved over millions of years because it is totally efficient.
Every time something undergoes an evolutionary change, it's because the change makes it more efficient, like Darwin's theory. He proposed the initial hypothesis and other scientists have developed it further over 100 years and it is still undergoing further development.
Unfortunately science is not a cockroach, it won't reach the ultimate answer until the answers run out and that's what makes it so interesting.
Imagine if we went along with the science of the 6th century BC the way some people do with the philosophy, we would still be doing the most horrific things to people from a medical point of view!!!
|
|
9/23/2009, 3:37 am
|
|
Pastor Rick
Administrator
Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
Sorry Mo but it is true, even Charles Darwin recognized the problem of the Cambrian explosion and tried to deal with it but none of his ideas on how so many different life forms could suddenly appear have been verified. Then of course you have the Ordovician explosion of plant life (in many ways very similar to the Cambrian explosion of animal life). The evidence just doesn't support the gradual evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin. Whatever evolution is it just isn't gradual on what I would call the macro-evolutionary scale and it never crosses the "kine" grouping of animals and plants defined by the Bible...
|
|
9/23/2009, 9:23 am
|
|
Morwen Oronor
Resident Scholar
Registered: 01-2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1743
Karma: 15 (+28/-13)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
Rick I don't pretend to be an expert on science and evolution especially. I understand what they're talking about when I watch the tv shows but I don't understand it. However, it still makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that in a very short space of time some deity created everything that there is in our universe in its present form.
Maybe if you watched some of those, because you are a lot cleverer than I am, you'd make more sense of what they're talking about. One excellent series is the Universe that's in its 4th season, I think, on the History Channel.
I don't have to be convinced about evolution, I've always known that the stories written by the people at the Middle East were just their own take on how things came about, in the same way that people in other areas devised their own ideas about it.
|
|
9/23/2009, 10:32 am
|
|
Lesigner Girl
Administrator
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
Rick, my question about the peppered moths and finches was a trick question, which I asked because I know about the creationist claims concerning them.
quote:
Pastor Rick wrote:
Those stand out of course...
They stand out because Creation "scientists" cling to them, distorting and outright lying about the facts, unless they really are that ignorant about the subject. Jonathan Wells is one of those people who outright lies about it.
quote:
Chapter 7: Peppered Moths
So many things are wrong with Wells's treatment of peppered moths (Biston betularia) that it is hard to list them all; but I will try.
...
First, several of Wells's worst distortions must be dealt with directly.
• The natural resting locations of peppered moths -- Majerus' data. On page 148, Wells discusses the natural resting places of peppered moths, under the heading "Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks." But they do, at least sometimes. Here are the relevant datasets, which Wells does not quote or cite for his readers:
The page shows pie charts here, showing that a large percentage of them do, in fact, rest on trunks and branches.
Wells also claims that photos of peppered moths were fakes, when they were actually posed. There's a huge difference, and this is all explained at the "Chapter 7" link above.
Here's a link concerning Wells' claims about the finches: Jonathan Wells and Darwin's Finches
Anyway, enough of that. Let's move on to your comment about the Cambrian "explosion."
quote:
Pastor Rick wrote:
...even Charles Darwin recognized the problem of the Cambrian explosion and tried to deal with it but none of his ideas on how so many different life forms could suddenly appear have been verified.
Please define "suddenly." As in, how many years did this Cambrian explosion last?
Here, maybe this will help: Cambrian explosion timeline
quote:
Claim CC301:
In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.
Response
The above is an easy read. The following is a bit more extensive:
quote:
Claim CC300:
Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.
Response
There are many more articles where those came from, written by people who are well informed about these topics.
|
|
9/23/2009, 7:04 pm
|
|
Lesigner Girl
Administrator
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
quote:
Pastor Rick wrote:
Sorry Mo but it is true, even Charles Darwin recognized the problem of the Cambrian explosion and tried to deal with it but none of his ideas on how so many different life forms could suddenly appear have been verified. Then of course you have the Ordovician explosion of plant life (in many ways very similar to the Cambrian explosion of animal life). The evidence just doesn't support the gradual evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin. Whatever evolution is it just isn't gradual on what I would call the macro-evolutionary scale and it never crosses the "kine" grouping of animals and plants defined by the Bible...
Interestingly enough, I ran across a post just now that talks about Kent Hovind's "theory" of quick evolution after Noah's flood, and it immediately made me think of your post, based on the parts I bolded in the above quote. Do you believe Kent Hovind's "theory" concerning this? If so, I would like your thoughts on this.
I don't like to clutter a thread with too many points of discussion at one time, but I wasn't aware that some creationists actually do believe in an evolutionary explosion of sorts, and this seemed to describe what you were alluding to. Further, with the math abilities you seem to possess (I base this impression on the formula you devised for RDS tie breakers), I have no doubt you will understand the logic in that post. I don't recall them mentioning that 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct, but you probably already know this (unless you don't believe it).
I also want to note that Kent Hovind has claimed that dinosaurs were on the ark, so anyone who believes his "theory" about evolution being so quick and only branching from original "kinds", should also ask themselves how so many different species of dinosaurs evolved after the flood, and why they are all extinct now.
If you don't believe the "theory" discussed in that post, then please disregard this one and go back to my last one. Otherwise, if you do believe that "theory" of Hovind's, I would rather have your thoughts on this one.
Footnote: The reason I put quotes around "theory" here is because Mr. Hovind's hypothesis does not fit the scientific definition of a theory. In order to do so, it would have to fit the evidence and withstand some type of testing. Since it contradicts all the available evidence, there's no way it could withstand any type of testing.
|
|
9/23/2009, 8:43 pm
|
|
Pastor Rick
Administrator
Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
quote:
Lesigner Girl wrote:
Rick, my question about the peppered moths and finches was a trick question, which I asked because I know about the creationist claims concerning them.
quote:
Pastor Rick wrote:
Those stand out of course...
They stand out because Creation "scientists" cling to them, distorting and outright lying about the facts, unless they really are that ignorant about the subject. Jonathan Wells is one of those people who outright lies about it.
I thought your question was the "tongue in cheek" type of question which is why I also responded the way I did 
I don't use sources based on which camp they are in but try to follow the logical presentation of the evidence in the argument. Sometimes a creationist* will appear to make sense when presenting the evidence and sometimes not but my mind remains open unless the presentation is provably false. Jonathan Wells and Kent Hovind are examples of authors I ignore most of the time as they do make some very wild and unsupported claims. The nicest thing I can say about them is that they do bring up some interesting questions sometimes.
*creationists for the purposes of this post refer to the camp most commonly described as a Literal Young Earth Proponent. Many that claim this view distort evidence to fit what they believe are truth text markers in the Bible.
|
|
9/23/2009, 9:43 pm
|
|
Pastor Rick
Administrator
Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
quote:
Lesigner Girl wrote:
quote:
Pastor Rick wrote:
Sorry Mo but it is true, even Charles Darwin recognized the problem of the Cambrian explosion and tried to deal with it but none of his ideas on how so many different life forms could suddenly appear have been verified. Then of course you have the Ordovician explosion of plant life (in many ways very similar to the Cambrian explosion of animal life). The evidence just doesn't support the gradual evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin. Whatever evolution is it just isn't gradual on what I would call the macro-evolutionary scale and it never crosses the "kine" grouping of animals and plants defined by the Bible...
Interestingly enough, I ran across a post just now that talks about Kent Hovind's "theory" of quick evolution after Noah's flood, and it immediately made me think of your post, based on the parts I bolded in the above quote. Do you believe Kent Hovind's "theory" concerning this? If so, I would like your thoughts on this.
I don't like to clutter a thread with too many points of discussion at one time, but I wasn't aware that some creationists actually do believe in an evolutionary explosion of sorts, and this seemed to describe what you were alluding to.
Thank the good Lord for that because the time it takes to respond is a huge chunk of my free time hehehe... But from my pov Kent Hovind is a dishonest speaker picking and choosing what he wants to make a case for what he believes and I really don't wish to be associated with his group. He has some interesting questions but no valid proofs logically or scientifically or even Biblically.
The troubles Charles Darwin had with the Cambrian Explosion are at least mentioned (with a nicer timeline imho here). I never have found a similar timeline chart for the Ordovician Explosion but a very nice article describing it can be found here .
Charles Darwin's gradual evolution theory just doesn't survive the evidence anymore than Bishop Ushers timeline of Biblical events does and that's just simple truth.
|
|
9/23/2009, 10:30 pm
|
|
Lesigner Girl
Administrator
Head of Runboard staff
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
|
|
|
|
Re: Only 39% believe in Evolution!
quote:
Jonathan Wells and Kent Hovind are examples of authors I ignore most of the time as they do make some very wild and unsupported claims.
That pretty much covers both of my posts.
All except the Cambrian "explosion", that is, which you covered in your 2nd post. Since you linked to the wiki page (good reference, by the way), does that mean you don't doubt the 70-80 million time frame they give for the Cambrian period?
Another reason for the "sudden" appearance of so many fossils during this time is because this is when vertebrates first came on the scene.
Add to that, the environment during these 70 to 80 million years was more conducive to fossilization, whereas creatures that existed before then were less likely to fossilize.
We do have fossils from before the Cambrian period as well as from after, but thanks to confirmation bias, many people who want to argue against evolution will omit all these facts, focusing only on details that further their argument.
I'm not familiar with the Ordovician Radiation. Thank you for that link. It's late and I'm too tired to read and absorb the whole article right now, but was interested in knowing how long this period lasted, so I googled it. According to this article, it lasted about 25 million years, and I look forward to reading about the changes that took place during that time.
Forget for a moment what either side has told you, and just think about these questions. You don't have to post answers to them, but I'd like you to really think about each one.
Why do some whales have hip bones?
Why do whales share more DNA with hippos than with anything else that lives in the water?
For that matter, why are whales considered mammals instead of fish?
Why do ostriches have wings if they can't fly?
Why do moles and some cave-dwelling fish have eyes when they can't see?
Why do some creatures that require air to survive, live in the water?
Why do all human embryos have tails before most of those tails disappear?
Why are some people born with tails?
The last two tie in with: Why do we all have tail bones?
Why do all human fetuses have female genitals before males develop penises?
Why do we get goose bumps when we're cold?
How did we end up with chihuahuas and poodles by breeding wolves?
How did we get house cats out of wild cats?
Why did the Bible classify bats as birds?
I threw that last one in for fun, but the rest are based on observation and documentation.
|
|
9/23/2009, 11:29 pm
|
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 12 13
You are not logged in ( login)
|
