Evolution question of the day (doctrine, Neanderthal, teaching, scrutiny)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting, I've just finished watching that documentary on a National Geographic channel as we speak.
They were even discussing pyroclastic flows walking over seas making their way to other islands along with sumani waves. Kool stuff, tho tragic for any who lived in the area.
Last edited by bluepacific; 03-12-2009 at 02:46 AM..
Interesting, I've just finished watching that documentary on a National Geographic channel as we speak.
They were even discussing pyroclastic flows walking over seas making their way to other islands along with sumani waves. Kool stuff, tho tragic for any who lived in the area.
I've always been interested in ancient history, though by no means an expert. I was always interested in the idea that Thera was the basis for the Atlantis myth. The disaster, which occurred in the mid second millennium BCE, is also attributed with the downfall of the Minoan civilization who were the sea faring power in the Mediterranean at the time which is why the comment about ships and volcanoes bought it to my mind.
Why, Tom? (re: the underlined part directly above)
Really, Tom, you should go back to school for a bit. By your persistent statements, it's obvious you don't understand ANY of this stuff, yet you refute it vehemently every day.
Hmmmmmmmm
Trying to take on Onkel Tommy is an impossible undertaking. It would seem there are other books in his biblical canon that the rest of us don't have. Fortunately, I do not have an answer or explanation for him. I'll give you a quote however from a suspect inspired book of 1 Campbell 1:1 see p.m.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
All of the prior transitional forms of many many current species are still around. African bush cats? Still here. Their subsequent African offspring: ocelots, cheetahs, African veldte lions? All here now. S. American Jaguars? Still here, even though their progeny, the American cougar, is also here.
It should be noted that the biblical account in no way tells any of the how our natural world was done, only the what & why. The creator is said to have allowed mankind themselves to take all eternity to reveal the how it was done. Study , research, discussion, speculation, whatever. This would actually include such people as yourself. The simple Genisis account only reveals in a sort of condensed fast forward motion of an observer the epochs or stages of things in order of appearance and nothing more. Here let me show you what is said about the How.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes 3:11 - Amplified Bible
"He has made everything beautiful in it's time. He has also planted eternity in men's hearts and minds [a divinely implanted sense of purpose working through the ages which noting under the sun but God alone can satisfy], yet so that men cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
With that in mind, we welcome your imput.
It should also be noted in your cat family example, that the bible, never references the term Species, only the term, Kinds, for which many different species may come out of a particular kind. Again, it is not a book of the explanation of the mechanics[like HOW], only what & why. You and others may help reveal some of the how.
The only other pressing problem now however is that there are more complex problems than debating the how. There are becoming almost ZERO places on our planet where pristine environments can be found to research, observe and study. If the so-called experts don't turn these trends of destruction around quickly, this debates/discussion won't mean a thing. It's not a matter of making more ECO - inventions - ideas - laws to be enforced at gunpoint etc, it's a matter of getting every single human on earth to get on board in doing the right thing. Given our world's history, it's seems at this point that will ever come about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Of course, I've also heard that inane comment from dedicated fundies, to the effect of "Hah! Can you imagine a black-capped chickadee evolving from a T-Rex? Idiotic!"
Well, actually, no. No-one ever said that Evolution also requires the progeny get bigger and bigger and bigger. That "understanding" just shows more, well, lack of understanding. Hence the real need for University-level education in many things. Brain surgery, architecture, automotive engineering, military science, nuclear physics, Evolutionary biology. To rant on without the requisite detailed technical background and resulting understandings? The results of that are..... well, obvious, and corresponsingly silly. And, frankly, a little embarrassing to the poster.
Fascinating stuff, but such outrageous claims have been made in order to explain things. Much of this has been forced on the laymen public as fact and of course many and most of them make no attempt to think and research for themselves. Like parishioners of any particular church who blindly believe anything and everything the Pastor, Reverend, Priest says, the apethetic secular public simply take it on faith that the scientific experts know what they are talking about. Let me give you a recent example of radical science fiction. Closest Whale Cousin—A Fox-Size Deer?: Scientific American
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Let's just get a few terms correct, especially if you're just going to keep arguing solely for the sake of arguing. After all, your current technical understanding is obviously flawed, incorrect and mis-leading.
AbioGenesis: How original life arose. Nothing more.
Evolution: How different species arose AFTER simple early life forms arose. Only AFTER! Not related to Abiogenesis.
Extinction: How various species became, well, extinct. As in: the consequences of volcanoes, meteorites, world-wide floods (unprovable, unlikely, but just for argument's sake here), bacteriological plague (such as may very well get us arrogant and overpopulated humans), etc. etc.
Not related to Abiogenesis Or Evolution.
I don't care about your extinction debate you are currently having with Mr C., but I find the other two "Abiogenisis & Evolution"to be fascinating.
I've heard over and over in this forum where no one really wants to deal with or discuss Abiogenisis and I certainly understand why. It's much too complicated and for the most part can't be explained as far as spontaneous generation. In the old days they did try and deal with it, but modern day books on the subject of evolution choose not to discuss it and simply say that spontaneous generation of life just happened and you have to take it on faith that the experts are telling the truth. From this point, after fast forwarding way past their Abiogenisistheories, they then proceed to get straight into how they think evolution actually worked/works.
Here's the problem: If I were to try and teach someone how to build a house [and yes I do know how to build structure from experience] from the ground up and started by avoiding all together any mention of a foundation, how would anyone really learn how to build a properly built structure able to withstand storms and other forces of nature ??? A foundation, just as a single living cell, has many components. The most obvious would be a solid concrete foundation for the framing to be solid and stout. If I built on any old surface, ignoring completely any obstacles like rocks, slope gradient, etc, then immediately from the start with the framing of the structure, all measurement would be out of plumb, and every next component [insulation, plasterboard, roofing, etc] which came as the next step would most certainly fail. Going back to that original foundation, besides the rock solidness of concrete necessary for the foundation, there are also other foundational components such as the plumbing, electrical, telecommunication, all components necessary for the eventual internal infrastructure to be completed well built home. So while avoiding the foundation discussion of life's beginnings is convenient, it does'nt help the "Evolutionary Theory" to weather any storms of controversy any more than an out of plumb house with no foundational infrastructure would be for a complete House. We are simply told that the experts have it correct and you have to take this on faith.
I have to go back to the "Great Debates" thread where I mentioned the illustration of that "Evolution on Trial Court Case". I'm forced over here in Sweden to watch programs from the states for english viewers and we get alot of old re-runs. One of these shows is "Perry Mason". I mean this dude never loses a case. You know the show, right ??? It's this kind of Lawyer dude the evolutionists claim to have arguing for their case and cause for them. If you remember, I asked people to imagine themselves as a jurist sitting in the jury box looking at the evidence presented and listening to all the expert witness testimony and come to a rational judgement beyond all reasonable doubt for the acquittal of the accused [evolution].
As Perry himself always used Paul Drake of Drake Investigations to help him gather evidence and eyewitness testimony, so the modern day defense team claims to have a rock solid case through their expert testimonials. The problem, as I stated before, is that these defense witnesses testimonies don't necessarily all agree with each other. They all have their versions or slants of what happened. Later down the road, when cross examined, they have been known for completely changing their stories. That does'nt exactly instill confidence to the jury. Another issue for the jurist is that some have even perjured themselves on the stand, by falsifying and lying about their discoveries and research, and that does'nt exactly help the defense's case. The Paul Drake Investigation [especially the Athropological wing of the soft sciences] company claims to have found billions of eyewitness testimonies, but the problem is, they are all dead and cannot give the testimonies. So what is a jurist to do ??? We are told to take it on faith that the experts are able to do a sort of scientific channeling of the dead to give us the full explanation and answers that the dead witnesses can't give.
Again we are told to take it on faith. Yet that is the very criticsim the scientific evolutionists say is wrong with religion. Religious people are made fun of [and I'm on record with agreeing to some of the criticism] for believing in something they don't see. We are told that we believe the Bible is true only because it says so. We are told that it is only a book written by imperfect men. True, but so are all science books, yet we must have faith that they know what they are talking about. There are many things we believe in that we do not see, like gravity, electricity, wind, radio and television waves, etc yet we know them to be real. Why ??? Because we see evidence of their effect on things we do see.
I have also stated that evolution is not superior to religion on the matter of faith. Science likewise requires faith and again has no advantage over religion in any eyewitness testimony because no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated these theories. Examples I gave before were the lack of eyewitnesses to observe mutations - even any benficial ones which result in new lifeforms, yet they insist to us that this is exactly what has taken place and how new species arrived. As I mentioned a few paragraphs up, none of them have witnessed the spontaneous generation of life, yet they insist and we are told that that is how life began. We have no choice but to take it on faith.
So I suppose nothing here in these discussions/debates is slam dunk for anyone, even on the religious side who refuse to see the value in areas of scientific explanation that does support their view. For what it's worth rifle, in regard to Mr C., take that as an advantage.
You are wrong when you state that anything in science is taken on faith. That is simply untrue and goes against the whole principal of science, what is not known is simply unknown or unproven. When any experimentation is performed it is controlled and repeated and most importantly documented in a very precise and uniform manner. Believe me, I know, I am trying to write scientific essays at the moment and learning how to format, present and reference every piece of information is very intricate and involved. A scientist's experiments and hypotheses are documented in such a way that it is clear how far they have been proved or disproved and how much further there is to go before it becomes an accepted theory. There is nothing to be taken on faith and yes he can be long dead but his process and conclusions are all there to be seen. That includes theories on abiogenesis, but rifleman is the expert there.
I've heard over and over in this forum where no one really wants to deal with or discuss Abiogenisis and I certainly understand why. It's much too complicated and for the most part can't be explained as far as spontaneous generation. In the old days they did try and deal with it, but modern day books on the subject of evolution choose not to discuss it and simply say that spontaneous generation of life just happened and you have to take it on faith that the experts are telling the truth. From this point, after fast forwarding way past their Abiogenisistheories, they then proceed to get straight into how they think evolution actually worked/works.
Please post quotes from textbooks on evolutionary biology that say that abiogenesis must be taken on faith. I wasn't able to find any sort of academic treatment of the subject which says this. For example Origin of life has a good overview of present ideas on the subject, and nowhere does it say that faith is involved. In fact, it discusses the evidence which researchers have discovered on the topic. That's pretty much the opposite of "just have faith we know what we're doing".
But in any case, it makes sense for a book on evolution to talk about evolution. Even if species were poofed into existence by magic as creationists insist, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution has and continues to happen on those beings. So one of the foundations of evolutionary biology is the extremely uncontroversial claim that populations of plants and animals have been alive in the past and are alive now. You don't need to know exactly where the first cell came from to learn the evidence for and mechanisms of things like imperfect reproduction, selection, genetic drift, common descent, speciation, extinction, and so on.
Quote:
Here's the problem: If I were to try and teach someone how to build a house [and yes I do know how to build structure from experience] from the ground up and started by avoiding all together any mention of a foundation, how would anyone really learn how to build a properly built structure able to withstand storms and other forces of nature ???
Please show me were a textbook on residential construction has laid out the tensor algebra necessary to model the effects of gravity on a typical residential structure. After all, gravity is the most constant force these structures are subjected to, and it would be irresponsible to just take gravity on faith, right? Or do these books, like textbooks dealing with evolution, simplify the problem down to an appropriate level for the material being discussed? Does this lack of a discussion of the most basic force a building will experience mean that construction is impossible and houses don't get built?
No, because we see that houses do in fact get built. Just like we see that evolution happens, both in the past and now, even without knowing where the first life came from.
The mechanisms behind evolution are different from those which drove the appearance of the first life forms so it's no surprise that a book on evolution would stick to one topic (creationists should pay attention here). Sure, at some level they're all just chemistry or physics, but like the example with construction there are details you can ignore and still get a lot of useful work done in the mean time.
Or you could also ask if books on residential construction include a picture of the first house ever built by man? If not, are we just supposed to take the idea of shelter on faith? This makes a much sense as saying that books on evolution require faith since they don't have an autographed picture of the first living cell.
Quote:
I have also stated that evolution is not superior to religion on the matter of faith. Science likewise requires faith and again has no advantage over religion in any eyewitness testimony because no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated these theories.
The "faith" required by science is a subset of the faith required by religions. Namely, it's the faith that we can make reliable observations of an outside world. Religions require this faith as well, plus a bunch of other stuff about virgin births, talking snakes, invisible gods who are their own father, and so on. The two really can't be compared.
Quote:
Examples I gave before were the lack of eyewitnesses to observe mutations - even any benficial ones which result in new lifeforms
Look up nylonase for an example of exactly what you're asking for. This is a bacteria which evolved to eat nylon - this is a man-made chemical which didn't even exist a hundred years ago. I'd call a bacteria which feeds off of something that's only been around for a century a new lifeform. Of course, creationists disagree, which is easy because they don't ever tell us what exactly "new lifeform" means. It's a claim which sounds good but doesn't really have any meaning when you look at it ... it's slippery enough to change when evidence comes in show the claim is false.
It sounds like your the one with the imagination. What does lava from a volcano have to do with something like a firey mountain falling into the sea, and destroying one third of the ships in that sea?
Spoken like someone who has never watched footage of a volcano violently erupting. Dude, large chunks of flaming mountain fly up into the air and rain down -- wow, hey...a fiery mountain falling into the sea, gee, who would have thunk it? Not only that, but volcanic eruptions are quite commonly accompanied by earthquakes, which as we all know cause a lot of violent action in the ocean when that's where they occur.
Please, for the sake of your own sanity, at least do a little learning and research before you keep spouting off your nonsense.
Well one could try to suggest (Thera) as a possibility. Yet the text in question describes it as something (LIKE A BURNING MOUNTAIN,) another words. It was something other than a burning mountain. And the text shows us, the entire object strikes the sea. So it is not something that is already in the sea. Also, in the very next verse it states a star will fall from heaven, and it will pollute many of the waters here on earth, and many will die because of this. All of this is found in Revelation 8: verses 8,9, and 10. Also, this event will occur according to the Scriptures when the nations of the East will be able to raise up an army of 200 million men. This would rule out this event occuring in the past. And such a thing would only be possible in the time we now find ourselves in. For only in our time, is an army of 200 million men now possible. Also, this event would occur after the Jewish people had returned from a worldwide exile, and were back in the land of Israel, and had retaken Jerusalem back by force. Here again, this places this future fulfillment in our generation, and not in the past.
Last edited by Campbell34; 03-12-2009 at 09:03 AM..
Spoken like someone who has never watched footage of a volcano violently erupting. Dude, large chunks of flaming mountain fly up into the air and rain down -- wow, hey...a fiery mountain falling into the sea, gee, who would have thunk it? Not only that, but volcanic eruptions are quite commonly accompanied by earthquakes, which as we all know cause a lot of violent action in the ocean when that's where they occur.
Please, for the sake of your own sanity, at least do a little learning and research before you keep spouting off your nonsense.
I would suggest you need to do the research, because this event could only occur after the nations of the East had the abilitly to raise up an army of 200 million men. Only in our time have we had this ability. And the text in question tells us what was seen was something (LIKE A GREAT BURNING MOUNTAIN) another words, it was not a burning mountain. And this large object falls into the sea. This event is described in Revelation chapter 8,verses 8,9,10, and 11. The text does not describe large chunks of flaming mountain, it clearly states the intire falling object strikes the sea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
