http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19102006/323/fossil-fish-fills-evolutionary-gap.html

Very interesting stuff. I wonder how much longer it will be before the anti-evolution camp realise they have no choice but to remove their heads from their rectums.

Also just as interesting:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19102006/80-91/complete-darwin-works-online.html

That'll take a while to read, but I consider it worth the time.

Enjoy.

Interesting stuff, it's a shame I won't have time to read all those thousands of pages!

Very interesting stuff. I wonder how much longer it will be before the anti-evolution camp realise they have no choice but to remove their heads from their rectums.

Didn't that happen at the court case in Dover? ID is dead. Creationists need to try a new tactic. People who claim that evolution is false because of the gaps, stand only to be humiliated as the gaps are progressively filled.

Ken Miller gave a good talk on the issue of Creationism vs Evolution and he showed a good slide that went something like this.

Evolution:

Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Consensus > Classroom & Textbook

ID/Creationism

ID theory > .... Classroom & Textbooks

The rest of his talk can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

It's 2 hours long, but half of it is question and answer which is at the end. Btw the url/hyperlink text thing no longer works since this forum changed its design...

Fire

Evolution:

Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Consensus > Classroom & Textbook



Its not clear how the research peer review and scientific consensus has established macro evolution beyond the sphere of scientific claim however

Species can not spontaneously appear fully formed. Stands to reason they metamorphasize over time and the fossil record and 'tree of life' on Earth backs this up.

I believe Ken Miller made reference to 'macro evolution' in his speech above in which the creationists lampooned the theory that dolphins & whales etc were decended from land animals, up until of course evidence backed up this theory. I won't bother explaining it since I'd rather you hear the details from experts.

Sounds like you just need to read a book on evolution or read the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Its(sic) not clear how the research peer review and scientific consensus has established macro evolution beyond the sphere of scientific claim howeverIt is not clear to you. If you are prejudiced against the conclusion then no amount of evidence is likley to persuade you of the truth.

I wonder how much longer it will be before the anti-evolution camp realise they have no choice but to remove their heads from their rectums.
They will extract the following quote and use it to demonstrate that evolution is a controversial subject on which the experts not only disagree, but which continually baffles them.

"I like to say it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's showing that evolution isn't as straightforward as we'd like to think."

They will go on to say, using quotes like this as justification: "You know, the more these atheistic scientists probe into what they call the fossil record, the more confused they become. Why? Because they are seeking confirmation of an answer that simply isn't there. This latest example is typical. They continually claim that their understanding of evolution is becoming clearer and more precise, yet here we have, in their very own words, the admission "evolution isn't as straightforward as we'd like to think."

Species can not spontaneously appear fully formed. Stands to reason they metamorphasize over time and the fossil record and 'tree of life' on Earth backs this up.

I believe Ken Miller made reference to 'macro evolution' in his speech above in which the creationists lampooned the theory that dolphins & whales etc were decended from land animals, up until of course evidence backed up this theory. I won't bother explaining it since I'd rather you hear the details from experts.

Sounds like you just need to read a book on evolution or read the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

There are many ways to explain the fossil record - for instance we see in this world motorcycles, tanks and european sports cars - all appear very similar but its not like motorcycles evolved from tanks or vice verse - they were all created with very seperate functions in mind and all have made their appearance seperately - so similarly all the variety of things dug up could just as easily be static organisms - just to say somethings are similar does not mean that one has lead to the other, just like tanks and sportscars are similar but it is not like sportscars evolved from tanks

Ophiolite

It is not clear to you. If you are prejudiced against the conclusion then no amount of evidence is likley to persuade you of the truth.

Evolution theory is not sufficient to distinguish itself as the only way to analyze the fossil record

There are many ways to explain the fossil record - for instance we see in this world motorcycles, tanks and european sports cars - all appear very similar but its not like motorcycles evolved from tanks or vice verse - they were all created with very seperate functions in mind and all have made their appearance seperately - so similarly all the variety of things dug up could just as easily be static organisms - just to say somethings are similar does not mean that one has lead to the other, just like tanks and sportscars are similar but it is not like sportscars evolved from tanksYou are once again talking rubbish!

Motorbikes, tanks, cars etc all derive from the same things - mainly the invention of the INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE and the invention of the WHEEL.

First came the WHEEL.
From the WHEEL came the carriage - a means of carrying more people / things than the animal (usually a horse) would carry on its back.

From the carriage came a personal form of transport - the BICYCLE.
Then came a motorised bicycle (steam-powered, I think).
And from there what we know as the MOTORBIKE

The carriage then became a "Horseless Carriage" - which we know as a CAR, due to the same use of the internal combustion engine and/or steam-power.

As you can see - evolution is more than biological!!

The tank was an evolutionary design process as well - as the military sought to carry troops into the midst of battle safely - and to be able to fire on the enemy from the safety of the vehicle.
Due to the terrain they needed to change the wheels - and came up with the track system that is still used.

All through the evolution of ideas from a common source.


So please stop speaking drivel and putting forward yet more flawed examples!

There are many ways to explain the fossil record -

Could you give more than one?

for instance we see in this world motorcycles, tanks and european sports cars - all appear very similar but its not like motorcycles evolved from tanks or vice verse - they were all created with very seperate functions in mind and all have made their appearance seperately - so similarly all the variety of things dug up could just as easily be static organisms - just to say somethings are similar does not mean that one has lead to the other, just like tanks and sportscars are similar but it is not like sportscars evolved from tanks

If motorcycles were biological organisms, they wouldn't have evolved FROM tanks, but they would be an ancestor... perhaps a closely related one, or a distant one on another branch of the TOL (Tree of Life). We didn't evolve directly from cats for example, but the further you go back in time, we had a common ancestor.

I'm not sure what you're on about in your method of looking at the fossil record. Are you saying that each species poofed into existence or that each species evolved into it's current position where became 'static' to the point we see it in the fossil record? If the latter is what you think, then it would involve speciation up until that particular fossil was discovered.

Evolution theory is not sufficient to distinguish itself as the only way to analyze the fossil record

Um, I don't think your pet theory will go far in scientific circles.

There are many ways to explain the fossil record - for instance we see in this world motorcycles, tanks and european sports cars - all appear very similar but its not like motorcycles evolved from tanks or vice verse - they were all created with very seperate functions in mind and all have made their appearance seperately - so similarly all the variety of things dug up could just as easily be static organisms - just to say somethings are similar does not mean that one has lead to the other, just like tanks and sportscars are similar but it is not like sportscars evolved from tanks

You could say that, if you had no knowledge of the relative dates of fossils found in different layers.

Evolution theory is not sufficient to distinguish itself as the only way to analyze the fossil record

A valid theory is not the only explanation of a phenomenon but simply one that works.

Fire and Sarkus

The point is that you don't find things that were half motorcycles/half tanks because they were created to fulfill certain functions that are distinct - they were clear and different applications on the drawing board

Another critical point is that tanks and motorcycles do not reproduce, and do not perform the kind of self maintenance that living creatures do, in terms of growth and re-growth. Hence the simile is unworkable.

Fire and Sarkus

The point is that you don't find things that were half motorcycles/half tanks because they were created to fulfill certain functions that are distinct - they were clear and different applications on the drawing board

Guthrie stated above why this is no comparison to evolution. However, you seem unwilling to answer wether or not you think species just poofed into existence. It sounds to me that your 'many ways to explain the fossil record' is just creationism.

To put it in clearer terms: If we have a million fossils charting the apparent evolution between hunched over hominid to upright human, then you are stating that all 1 million of those fossils are of unique species which were poofed into existence rather one genus simply evolving?

You could say that, if you had no knowledge of the relative dates of fossils found in different layers.

How many anomolies in the fossil record are required to suggest that evolution theories are merelytheories?

Just offshore of Guadeloupe, in the West Indies, lies a kilometer-long formation of extremely hard limestone dated as Miocene, or about 25 million years old.

Nothing surprising so far! However, history records that in the late 1700's many human skeletons---all indistinguishable from modern humans---were excavated from this limestone. One of the quarried specimens, ensconced in a 2-ton slab, was shipped to the British Museum.

It arrived in 1812 and was placed on public display. With the ascendance of Darwinism, the fossil skeleton was quietly spirited away to the basement. The discovery of these human remains has been well-documented in the scientific literature.

Here is another pertinent geological fact: the limestone formation in question is situated 2-3 meters below a "1-million-year-old" coral reef. If the limestone is truly 25 million years old, the human evolutionary timetable is grossly in error.

Even if this is not the case, and the bones are merely 1 million years old or so, as required by the coral reef; then, fully modern humans lived in the New World long before the Bering Land Bridge went into service.

The only way a serious geological or archeological anomaly can be avoided is to predicate that the limestone formation was really laid down in the last 10,000-20,000 years (in geo-materalist years)---something like that doesn't seem too likely.

-Bill cooper

http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm

http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm

Fire and Sarkus

The point is that you don't find things that were half motorcycles/half tanks because they were created to fulfill certain functions that are distinct - they were clear and different applications on the drawing board

Look at dogs, the human appendix, ANYTHING

Guthrie stated above why this is no comparison to evolution. However, you seem unwilling to answer wether or not you think species just poofed into existence. It sounds to me that your 'many ways to explain the fossil record' is just creationism.

To put it in clearer terms: If we have a million fossils charting the apparent evolution between hunched over hominid to upright human, then you are stating that all 1 million of those fossils are of unique species which were poofed into existence rather one genus simply evolving?

I wasn't aware there were one million genuses of humanoids

Another critical point is that tanks and motorcycles do not reproduce, and do not perform the kind of self maintenance that living creatures do, in terms of growth and re-growth. Hence the simile is unworkable.

It was offered as an example of how several things with apparently similar components can be composed of independant and seperate existences

A valid theory is not the only explanation of a phenomenon but simply one that works.

So how does one determine the workable application of macro evolution?

So how does one determine the workable application of macro evolution?

Does it make falsifiable predictions about what we should find in the fossil record? Congratulations. It's a theory, and it's workably applicable. Go out into the field and apply it, like these scientists have done.

Does it make falsifiable predictions about what we should find in the fossil record? Congratulations. It's a theory, and it's workably applicable. Go out into the field and apply it, like these scientists have done.

If I say i have a theory about how I can make gold from lead you expect that I can make gold from lead - I mean workable in the sense that it actually works

If I say i have a theory about how I can make gold from lead you expect that I can make gold from lead - I mean workable in the sense that it actually works

Go test it. So far our observations have corroborated the theory. That means it works. Same reason why Newton's Law of Gravitation works despite a more accurate model being available. Capisce?

Go test it. So far our observations have corroborated the theory. That means it works. Same reason why Newton's Law of Gravitation works despite a more accurate model being available. Capisce?

It works by the model of extrapolation - some changes are observed on the platform of micro evolution and it is supposed that such such changes also happen on a larger level - it presupposes that th egenus of the living entity is irreducable - there is also evidence that archeologists tend to shape their findings

“ Just offshore of Guadeloupe, in the West Indies, lies a kilometer-long formation of extremely hard limestone dated as Miocene, or about 25 million years old.

Nothing surprising so far! However, history records that in the late 1700's many human skeletons---all indistinguishable from modern humans---were excavated from this limestone. One of the quarried specimens, ensconced in a 2-ton slab, was shipped to the British Museum.

It arrived in 1812 and was placed on public display. With the ascendance of Darwinism, the fossil skeleton was quietly spirited away to the basement. The discovery of these human remains has been well-documented in the scientific literature.

Here is another pertinent geological fact: the limestone formation in question is situated 2-3 meters below a "1-million-year-old" coral reef. If the limestone is truly 25 million years old, the human evolutionary timetable is grossly in error.

Even if this is not the case, and the bones are merely 1 million years old or so, as required by the coral reef; then, fully modern humans lived in the New World long before the Bering Land Bridge went into service.

The only way a serious geological or archeological anomaly can be avoided is to predicate that the limestone formation was really laid down in the last 10,000-20,000 years (in geo-materalist years)---something like that doesn't seem too likely.

-Bill cooper ”
http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm

http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm

I wasn't aware there were one million genuses of humanoids

Where did I say there was? I offered you the chance to say that each variety of hominid and humans were created as individual species as though they were poofed into existence, or that humans evolved from hominids.

The way you are not even making comment on most of what I am saying is very telling indeed.

Just offshore of Guadeloupe, in the West Indies, lies a kilometer-long formation of extremely hard limestone dated as Miocene, or about 25 million years old.

Nothing surprising so far! However, history records that in the late 1700's many human skeletons---all indistinguishable from modern humans---were excavated from this limestone. One of the quarried specimens, ensconced in a 2-ton slab, was shipped to the British Museum.

It arrived in 1812 and was placed on public display. With the ascendance of Darwinism, the fossil skeleton was quietly spirited away to the basement. The discovery of these human remains has been well-documented in the scientific literature.

Here is another pertinent geological fact: the limestone formation in question is situated 2-3 meters below a "1-million-year-old" coral reef. If the limestone is truly 25 million years old, the human evolutionary timetable is grossly in error.

Even if this is not the case, and the bones are merely 1 million years old or so, as required by the coral reef; then, fully modern humans lived in the New World long before the Bering Land Bridge went into service.

The only way a serious geological or archeological anomaly can be avoided is to predicate that the limestone formation was really laid down in the last 10,000-20,000 years (in geo-materalist years)---something like that doesn't seem too likely.

-Bill cooper
Guadeloupe Man: W. Cooper claimed in 1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in 1812 had been dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The excellent condition of the skeleton, and the fact that it had originally been found with other skeletons (all pointing in the same direction) along with a dog and some implements, indicate that it was a recent burial. In addition, it has never been claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except Cooper. (Howgate and Lewis 1984)
From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#guadeloupe



As far as layers go, there is no rule that says layers will get deposited uniformly. The grand canyon has many anomolous layers, due to deposition, later erosion, and then more deposition. Sometimes geological processes mix layers up, so that younger is on top of older! An understanding of geology is important to scientists when dating layers. They take all this into account when dating fossils.



http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm
They never say why they think this shoal is man-made.


http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
Both the video Mysterious Origins of Man and the book Forbidden Archaeology, claim that artifacts found in the gold-bearing gravels of California provide convincing evidence of the existence of modern man in California around 55 million years ago. In the 1880's, they claim that gold miners found pestles, mortars, ladles, and spear points within Tertiary gravel deposits underlying volcanic rocks that cap Table Mountain within Tuolumne County, California. These finds were reported by both D. J. Whitney (1880) and Becker (1891).

The findings of Dr. Whitney and Dr. Becker, including the artifacts found in the Montezuma Tunnels, were studied by Sinclair (1908) and found to lack any convincing evidence for being of Tertiary age. He found serious problems of provenance and other incongruities that argue against a Tertiary age for them as have other investigators, i.e. Holmes (1899). These finds were also widely discussed in other papers and in the popular press as indicated by the references at the end of this article.

From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mortar.html

------------

In general, I'm disappointed that you would mention all this pseudoscience. If you appreciate the scientific method, which these "discoveries" are supposedly based on, you would notice that evolution is well supported by evidence.

Where did I say there was? I offered you the chance to say that each variety of hominid and humans were created as individual species as though they were poofed into existence, or that humans evolved from hominids.

The way you are not even making comment on most of what I am saying is very telling indeed.


you said there were a million fossils that show how a hunch back developed a straight spine

To put it in clearer terms: If we have a million fossils charting the apparent evolution between hunched over hominid to upright human, then you are stating that all 1 million of those fossils are of unique species which were poofed into existence rather one genus simply evolving?

you said there were a million fossils that show how a hunch back developed a straight spine

To put it in clearer terms: If we have a million fossils charting the apparent evolution between hunched over hominid to upright human, then you are stating that all 1 million of those fossils are of unique species which were poofed into existence rather one genus simply evolving?

I was giving you a hypothetical case, hence the 'IF'. I don't know the details of the fossil record, but it is relevant to the way we understand the fossil record. So, if I was to lay out hominid fossils, a million of them in such a way that corresponded to the most hunched over monkey-like specimen, to the most upright human:

Would your conclusion be that each different fossil was a species which poofed into existence or that they simply evolved?

I put that last bit in bold in an attempt to get you to answer it for the 100th time of asking.

In general, I'm disappointed that you would mention all this pseudoscience. If you appreciate the scientific method, which these "discoveries" are supposedly based on, you would notice that evolution is well supported by evidence.

What he doesn't realize is that if they were supported by any weight of evidence they would either be incorporated into science or used in court at the Dover case by the intelligent design activists. The fact that creationists don't use these discredited cases when wanting to push forward their agenda means that the creationists themselves have discredited the pseudoscience as well as respected evolutionary scientists.

Lightgigantic:

www.rense.com is a pseudo-scientific, conspiracy-theory laden, website. It isn't a valid source.

It claims that George W. Bush is a shapeshifting alien reptile, for instance.

Please, don't quote it.

It claims that George W. Bush is a shapeshifting alien reptile, for instance.
Is this not generally known?

I was giving you a hypothetical case, hence the 'IF'. I don't know the details of the fossil record, but it is relevant to the way we understand the fossil record. So, if I was to lay out hominid fossils, a million of them in such a way that corresponded to the most hunched over monkey-like specimen, to the most upright human:

Would your conclusion be that each different fossil was a species which poofed into existence or that they simply evolved?

I put that last bit in bold in an attempt to get you to answer it for the 100th time of asking.

Each species is proofed

I don't know if you meant to type 'poofed' rather than 'proofed', as in each species that has ever lived suddenly appeared from nowhere without the need of an ancestor.

I don't know if you meant to type 'poofed' rather than 'proofed', as in each species that has ever lived suddenly appeared from nowhere without the need of an ancestor.

Even abiogenesis suffers from th same mystery .. same with the origins of the chemicals or physical matter before abiogenesis ... same for why inert matter could exhibit independence in the first place

Each significantly different humanoid fossil may indeed represent a separate species. Without DNA, it is difficult to determine the relationship between these species. For instance, they may have all evolved independently from a common ancestor. They may have evolved along a separate branch. They may have evolved to be separate, then again merged, and then separated again as a result of migration. It is a complex story.

Even abiogenesis suffers from th same mystery .. same with the origins of the chemicals or physical matter before abiogenesis ... same for why inert matter could exhibit independence in the first place

This makes no attempt to answer my question. Don't be embarrassed to admit you are a creationist and that each species poofed into existence without the need to evolve from an ancestor.

So I would rather you answer this question (without deliberate typos this time) before I will then take you up on discussing the (god of the) gaps.

LG.

Why do human embryos go through stages that include a tail and gill slits?

Why do we even have a tailbone?

Why do our feet resemble hands?

Why, why, why...

And since cris, in his infinite wisdom saw fit to close my thread on toes rather than move it, I'll bring it up here.

Why do humans involuntarily grasp with their feet during orgasm?

Also just as interesting:This one (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215606,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution), illustrates a point I like to make regarding evidence for a world with some intelligent direction, and atheists refusal/inability to see the evidence.

Everybody's human after all. :)

I don't understand your point. The fact that the archaeoperyx had four wings instead of two is interesting, but irrelevent to the larger idea of refusal/inability to see evidence. Yes, there are sicentists who would have wished for it to be a perfect transition between dinosaurs and birds, but the very fact that they are willing to accept emerging facts is proof that their concern is for the truth, not for an ideology.

There are so many other fossils that show gradual evolution of features, evolutionary theory does not depend on just one.

This one (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215606,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution), illustrates a point I like to make regarding evidence for a world with some intelligent direction, and atheists refusal/inability to see the evidence.

Everybody's human after all. :)
All the article says is that scientists (who are human) may have missed the subtle fossil imprints of a second set of wings. So what? Scientists in the past have missed things like the roundness of the earth.

If you look closely you can see the (c) God.

If you look closely you can see the (c) God.
Damn it! How could I have missed that for all these years of looking at that image? Just goes to show - we're all human and we make mistakes. I'm off to church now to save my sorry ass from hellfire and brimstone...

Superluminal:

"Why do human embryos go through stages that include a tail and gill slits?"

They don't. The "gills" which you speak of share no functional "gill" process, nor is the "tail" an actual tail, but the growth of the torso.

Fire

This makes no attempt to answer my question. Don't be embarrassed to admit you are a creationist and that each species poofed into existence without the need to evolve from an ancestor.

I thought it was obvious what my stance was

So I would rather you answer this question (without deliberate typos this time) before I will then take you up on discussing the (god of the) gaps.

Whats to answer?

Seems like you have an issue relating to poofing, but its not clear how you distance yourself from it to begin with.

After all you cannot explain how how the chemicals before abiogenesis poofed. Nor how such inert materials were initialized to form complex structures.

Superluminal:

"Why do human embryos go through stages that include a tail and gill slits?"

They don't.
Yes they do. I never said they were functional. They are manifestations of structure that reflect, to some degree, the phylogenic history of our evolution.

The "gills" which you speak of share no functional "gill" process,See above.

nor is the "tail" an actual tail.
It is a prototail that is incorporated as body structure as the fetus develops. A vestige is left as the human tailbone.

After all you cannot explain how how the chemicals before abiogenesis poofed. Nor how such inert materials were initialized to form complex structures.
And you cannot explain how Cooper Pairs facilitate superconductivity.

Fire



I thought it was obvious what my stance was

Well it's just that you seem reluctant to say. I was just wondering why you are apparently embarrassed to say so and why you won't even attempt to explain in any detail that you think species suddenly appeared from nowhere.

Seems like you have an issue relating to poofing, but its not clear how you distance yourself from it to begin with.

Because every area of science that has any relevance to life, confirms evolution. Calling all scientists wrong is totally ignorant, especially when there is no evidence that species appeared fully formed Adam and Eve style, and every evidence to suggest they evolved from humble beginnings.

After all you cannot explain how how the chemicals before abiogenesis poofed. Nor how such inert materials were initialized to form complex structures.

Your ignorance of the natural world is absolutely astounding. We actually know a hell of a lot about chemistry and how the elements were formed. After Darwins groundbreaking theory of natural selection, subsequent studies in science have vindicated his idea, especially with the discovery of DNA, genes and advances in genetic studies. We also have strong theories about the chemical basis in which abiogenesis happened. But it did happen, and thats where evolution stems from. The very fact you cling to our lack of understanding of abiogenesis simply illustrates the way you worship your 'god of the gaps'.

You just need to read a couple of science books in the areas in which your head is stuck up your ass.

Well it's just that you seem reluctant to say. I was just wondering why you are apparently embarrassed to say so and why you won't even attempt to explain in any detail that you think species suddenly appeared from nowhere.
Isn't it obvious? God did it, that's as complex as it gets. Actually some people on anotherforum say that the Roman Catholic church believes in evolution. Though lightningigantic does know quite a bit on most religions.
Because every area of science that has any relevance to life, confirms evolution. Calling all scientists wrong is totally ignorant, especially when there is no evidence that species appeared fully formed Adam and Eve style, and every evidence to suggest they evolved from humble beginnings.
It's writtten in a book, it must be true. EVERYTHING you read is real.
Your ignorance of the natural world is absolutely astounding. We actually know a hell of a lot about chemistry and how the elements were formed. After Darwins groundbreaking theory of natural selection, subsequent studies in science have vindicated his idea, especially with the discovery of DNA, genes and advances in genetic studies. We also have strong theories about the chemical basis in which abiogenesis happened. But it did happen, and thats where evolution stems from. The very fact you cling to our lack of understanding of abiogenesis simply illustrates the way you worship your 'god of the gaps'.
Your lack of understanding God only shows just how ignorant you are. Most of America believes in God, are you calling most of America stupid?
You just need to read a couple of science books in the areas in which your head is stuck up your ass.
Perhaps you need to read the Bible on these subjects, and properly understand the eternal will of the Almighty.

After all you cannot explain how how the chemicals before abiogenesis poofed. Nor how such inert materials were initialized to form complex structures.
And you cannot explain how Cooper Pairs facilitate superconductivity.
I can do both.:cool:

Most of America believes in God, are you calling most of America stupid?Are you seriously suggesting they are not?

Are you seriously suggesting they are not?

That was me, not superluminal, and no.

Apologies. I don't know how I screwed up the attribution. I have corrected it now.

I can do both.:cool:
Awesome!

Fire



I thought it was obvious what my stance was ”

Well it's just that you seem reluctant to say. I was just wondering why you are apparently embarrassed to say so and why you won't even attempt to explain in any detail that you think species suddenly appeared from nowhere.
Actually it is your theory that species come from nowhere, interms of the origin of the chemicals and theorigin of the means that these chemicals formed life, afte all we do not see examples of life forming out of matter, but rather owing their existence to some conscious source


“ Seems like you have an issue relating to poofing, but its not clear how you distance yourself from it to begin with. ”

Because every area of science that has any relevance to life, confirms evolution.
confirms? eg?

Calling all scientists wrong is totally ignorant, especially when there is no evidence that species appeared fully formed Adam and Eve style, and every evidence to suggest they evolved from humble beginnings.
there is no evidence of the formation of species microbiology style - ther is evidence of formation of species owing their existence ot a conscious source though ...


“ After all you cannot explain how how the chemicals before abiogenesis poofed. Nor how such inert materials were initialized to form complex structures. ”

Your ignorance of the natural world is absolutely astounding.
I was going to suggest the same about your level of faith in reductionist paradigms


We actually know a hell of a lot about chemistry and how the elements were formed.
perhaps, but we don't know how the said chemicals formed into life


After Darwins groundbreaking theory of natural selection, subsequent studies in science have vindicated his idea, especially with the discovery of DNA, genes and advances in genetic studies.
erm .... these things are not life, they are the information systems (real and imagined) that life utilizes


We also have strong theories about the chemical basis in which abiogenesis happened.
head strong theories - 150 years since darwin first started, thinking cells were mere globs of matter - now after a little bit of investigation nobody knows where to start with such endeavours of replicating life


But it did happen, and thats where evolution stems from.
this is a head strong theory - previously it was just a theory (last paragraph) ... and now it just did happen - looks like the theory just evolved (and we are still mystified how ...)


The very fact you cling to our lack of understanding of abiogenesis simply illustrates the way you worship your 'god of the gaps'.
lol - you also seem quite gappy - see above

You just need to read a couple of science books in the areas in which your head is stuck up your ass.
I could suggest a few science books for yourself too

Fire

Actually it is your theory that species come from nowhere, interms of the origin of the chemicals and theorigin of the means that these chemicals formed life, afte all we do not see examples of life forming out of matter, but rather owing their existence to some conscious source

Species don't come from nowhere, they come from evolution under natural selection. And in fact we do have examples of life forming out of matter as we have a whole planet full of millions of species demonstrating this fact. We simply don't yet fully understand it in so far as we can spark a second 'genesis' in a petri dish.

It would certainly be odd if an award winning David Attenborough nature documentary stated that life owes it's existence to some ‘conscious’ source.

confirms? eg?

Ever wondered why there is no controversy at all regarding evolution in scientific circles? Because no aspect of geology, paleontology, chemistry, genetics, zoology, biology, Earth science & history, anthropology, climatology, you name it – nothing contradicts evolution. It is the only workable conclusion we can make based on the facts.

there is no evidence of the formation of species microbiology style - ther is evidence of formation of species owing their existence ot a conscious source though ...

Consciousness being the root of evolution is (at best) a mere philosophical notion. Since there is no physical evidence for it, it explains nothing.

I was going to suggest the same about your level of faith in reductionist paradigms

I have no faith. I see the universe the same way science does – the way it simply is.

perhaps, but we don't know how the said chemicals formed into life

You are forming this assertion based on how much reading of biological evolution? I admit I don’t know either, because I have not read up on it to any degree of detail. My general understanding is that it started very simply of course, and the lengthy line between chemical complexity and life, is a very blurred line indeed. So as far as I’m aware, life didn’t just suddenly appear. It’s sort of like asking when a puppy becomes a dog – there is no particular day the change occurs... or if there is, we can't pinpoint it.

erm .... these things are not life, they are the information systems (real and imagined) that life utilizes

The organized complexity of these molecules is what creates life. Saying they are something life makes use of is just a play on words.

head strong theories - 150 years since darwin first started, thinking cells were mere globs of matter - now after a little bit of investigation nobody knows where to start with such endeavours of replicating life

Darwin was misguided in several of his theories. There were indeed gaps. But he died without knowing about important parts of his theory, such as DNA and genetic heredity. Going by the daily advances of molecular and genetic studies, I wouldn’t be so sure that science will never create a second ‘genesis’ in a Petri dish ;)

this is a head strong theory - previously it was just a theory (last paragraph) ... and now it just did happen - looks like the theory just evolved (and we are still mystified how ...)

Abiogenesis is a fact It happened. At some point molecules had to replicate into DNA. There were certainly no DNA molecules on Earth when it was just a ball of fire. Understanding how it happened is when the theory comes into play.

I could suggest a few science books for yourself too

Please do. I think you will find it difficult to find books within scientific consensus that somehow discredits evolution.

The difference between me and you of course, is that I see the importance of scientific consensus and you don’t. People (like you) who refute evolution despite the scientific consensus, also seem unable to come forward with a workable theory. I think it’s better to be ignorant of science whilst taking it for its word, rather than reject it but fail to present good reason why.

"Actually it is your theory that species come from nowhere, interms of the origin of the chemicals and theorigin of the means that these chemicals formed life, afte all we do not see examples of life forming out of matter, but rather owing their existence to some conscious source"


- Define exactly what "life" is, and what it is just before that stage?

Mycoplasma genitalium is probably the simplest modern life form with a genome of only 400 units. What is it at 350?

It's like asking at what exact moment does a puppy become a dog.

How about self replicators? They're not "life" are they, and yet they self replicate, (hence the name).

There's a lot more to it than the theists 'life and matter'.

Fire

Species don't come from nowhere, they come from evolution under natural selection. And in fact we do have examples of life forming out of matter as we have a whole planet full of millions of species demonstrating this fact. We simply don't yet fully understand it in so far as we can spark a second 'genesis' in a petri dish.

It would certainly be odd if an award winning David Attenborough nature documentary stated that life owes it's existence to some ‘conscious’ source.

does david attenborough have direct empirical evidence of evolution?



Ever wondered why there is no controversy at all regarding evolution in scientific circles? Because no aspect of geology, paleontology, chemistry, genetics, zoology, biology, Earth science & history, anthropology, climatology, you name it – nothing contradicts evolution. It is the only workable conclusion we can make based on the facts.

no controversy with evolution?
:confused:
Then why arethere so many "evolving" understandings how evolution took place?



Consciousness being the root of evolution is (at best) a mere philosophical notion. Since there is no physical evidence for it, it explains nothing.
you weren't born from a mother?



I have no faith. I see the universe the same way science does – the way it simply is.
Then why if its just such a straight forward observation is there a lack of empiriical evidence (which provides the slackness for the understandings of evolution to be updated)



You are forming this assertion based on how much reading of biological evolution? I admit I don’t know either, because I have not read up on it to any degree of detail. My general understanding is that it started very simply of course, and the lengthy line between chemical complexity and life, is a very blurred line indeed. So as far as I’m aware, life didn’t just suddenly appear. It’s sort of like asking when a puppy becomes a dog – there is no particular day the change occurs... or if there is, we can't pinpoint it.
what evolution is lacking is an understanding of these blurred examples that are advocated to be the junctions of life and matter - its very easy to point out the interim periods between doghood and puppyhood



The organized complexity of these molecules is what creates life. Saying they are something life makes use of is just a play on words.
you are missing the point - enzymes are meaningless without dna - dna is meaningless without enzymes - and both these systems find their application in living matter, which operates as a third entity outside of mere dna and enzymes



Darwin was misguided in several of his theories. There were indeed gaps. But he died without knowing about important parts of his theory, such as DNA and genetic heredity. Going by the daily advances of molecular and genetic studies, I wouldn’t be so sure that science will never create a second ‘genesis’ in a Petri dish ;)
given tha you admitted that you ar enot familiar with the complexities of abiogenisis its difficult to understand on what basis you make your statements of confidence



Abiogenesis is a fact It happened.
if you cannot explain how it is not a fact


At some point molecules had to replicate into DNA.
once again - how?


There were certainly no DNA molecules on Earth when it was just a ball of fire.

now it seems you are leading into the problems of establishing how rna developed


Understanding how it happened is when the theory comes into play.

if you cannot establish how something happened you cannot establish if something happened



The difference between me and you of course, is that I see the importance of scientific consensus and you don’t. People (like you) who refute evolution despite the scientific consensus, also seem unable to come forward with a workable theory.
workable to your consensus? As for refuting teh claims of evolution it doesn't require an external source - evolution can be refuted simply by examination of what we have as evidence of evolution - lots of anamolies in the fossil record


I think it’s better to be ignorant of science whilst taking it for its word, rather than reject it but fail to present good reason why.

then why did you make this earlier statement ......

:I have no faith. I see the universe the same way science does – the way it simply is.

Still beating that dead horse, lightgigantic?

does david attenborough have direct empirical evidence of evolution?
.

Do you Light, have direct empirical evidence of the Creation?

Do you Light, have direct empirical evidence of the Creation?

unlike molecular reductionists, I don't advocate that direct empirical evidence is the means for evidencing eveything - for instance there is no direct empiricial evidence for our minds, but I think we would be hard pressed to determine that our minds don't exist

They don't. Our brains exist, and the mind is an illusion created by it.

They don't. Our brains exist, and the mind is an illusion created by it.

sounds like something your mind made up - at the very least there is an absence of direct empirical knowlewdge for your claims

We do indeed have empirical observation of evolution, this is where the fossil record comes in as well as observation of the 'Tree of Life'. But of course, we don't base all our knowledge of evolution on the fossil record alone, which is where things get technical and you'll have to read books (but you won't) on the details of evolutionary science.

I think you said something in your last post about anomalies in the fossil record, which I look forward to hearing about. I hope you don't mean the pseudoscience you spouted before... or are you simply referring to the gaps?

unlike molecular reductionists, I don't advocate that direct empirical evidence is the means for evidencing eveything - for instance there is no direct empiricial evidence for our minds, but I think we would be hard pressed to determine that our minds don't existFor Pete's sake, LG - your thinking is utterly garbled.

By not having direct empirical evidence you are merely stating a hypothesis - that the mind "exists" (presumably to you as a separate entity).

The more valid theory is that "mind" is an emergent property of the brain - the vast array of interconnectedness and feedback etc within the lump of grey matter inside our heads. As such it does not "exist" in its own right. I.e. no brain - no mind.
This hypothesis / theory is more valid as it requires no unknown entities to exist and is merely extrapolation of known things.

So - are you really putting forward a mere hypothesis as proof of existence of things?

For Pete's sake, LG - your thinking is utterly garbled.

By not having direct empirical evidence you are merely stating a hypothesis - that the mind "exists" (presumably to you as a separate entity).

The more valid theory is that "mind" is an emergent property of the brain - the vast array of interconnectedness and feedback etc within the lump of grey matter inside our heads. As such it does not "exist" in its own right. I.e. no brain - no mind.
This hypothesis / theory is more valid as it requires no unknown entities to exist and is merely extrapolation of known things.

So - are you really putting forward a mere hypothesis as proof of existence of things?

for the average theist perception of god happens on the same platform of evidence you advocate - but the standard response to this is "you have no evidence" - raising the issue about the mind is establishing how the same general principles of extrapolation are applied

We do indeed have empirical observation of evolution, this is where the fossil record comes in as well as observation of the 'Tree of Life'. But of course, we don't base all our knowledge of evolution on the fossil record alone, which is where things get technical and you'll have to read books (but you won't) on the details of evolutionary science.

I think you said something in your last post about anomalies in the fossil record, which I look forward to hearing about. I hope you don't mean the pseudoscience you spouted before... or are you simply referring to the gaps?

I have alot of stuff (anamolies in the fossil record) on this but it is not on the net so I can't link it - if things slow down in the next week I may be able to post a selection of it

for the average theist perception of god happens on the same platform of evidence you advocate...No it doesn't. Where is the equivalent starting evidence for God? Provide this platform of evidence, please!

- but the standard response to this is "you have no evidence"Perhaps because there isn't any as yet discovered that can not be explained by a more rational explanation. Any supposed "evidence" of God fails Occam's Razor in preference to a scientific hypothesis, and is thus rejected.

...raising the issue about the mind is establishing how the same general principles of extrapolation are appliedYou can not extrapolate from a base of nothing.
Please rethink and start again.:rolleyes:

Sarkus

No it doesn't. Where is the equivalent starting evidence for God? Provide this platform of evidence, please!

where is the evidence of your mind?

I have alot of stuff (anamolies in the fossil record) on this but it is not on the net so I can't link it - if things slow down in the next week I may be able to post a selection of itThis would be welcome. May I suggest, if the material is substantial and significant, that you open a new thread to allow focused discussion of it.

Sarkus
where is the evidence of your mind?Eh?
We have a brain - yes?
We have a mind - yes?

Remove brain - remove mind.
Damage certain parts of brain - damage mind.
We can even identify which parts of our brain and which chemicals drive certain elements of our mind (e.g. hunger, thirst, smell, emotions etc).

Quite easy to extrapolate from that and theorise that mind = sum of certain parts of the interconnectivity within the brain.


Now - where's your evidence that the mind is a separate "thing"?
And don't merely use analogies as evidence - as they aren't.

Sarkus

where is the evidence of your mind?

Lightee:
1. The mind is self evident. Each individual has a perception of his own mind. It is therefore reasonable to assume that other individuals displaying external signs of sentience also possess a mind.

Sarkus and Lightee:
2. What does the lack of proof of the mind have to do with anything of the lack of proof of theist claims inclusive of the existence of god. The intangibility of the mind has NOTHING to do with Lightee proving that god exists. Lightee challenging Sarkus with "prove the mind" is a useless red herring.

sounds like something your mind made up - at the very least there is an absence of direct empirical knowlewdge for your claims

Indeed, it is absense of evidence that makes me think the separate existence of mind is unlikely. I could be persuaded otherwise by evidence.

Eh?
We have a brain - yes?
We have a mind - yes?

Remove brain - remove mind.
Damage certain parts of brain - damage mind.
We can even identify which parts of our brain and which chemicals drive certain elements of our mind (e.g. hunger, thirst, smell, emotions etc).

Quite easy to extrapolate from that and theorise that mind = sum of certain parts of the interconnectivity within the brain.


Now - where's your evidence that the mind is a separate "thing"?
And don't merely use analogies as evidence - as they aren't.

It may be easy to extrapolilate the mind from the brain, but such extrapolilation does not rely on direct empirical evidence, hence you have no evidence

Enterprise d


1. The mind is self evident. Each individual has a perception of his own mind. It is therefore reasonable to assume that other individuals displaying external signs of sentience also possess a mind.
this is not direct empirical evidence, hence you have no evidence

Sarkus and Lightee:
2. What does the lack of proof of the mind have to do with anything of the lack of proof of theist claims inclusive of the existence of god. The intangibility of the mind has NOTHING to do with Lightee proving that god exists. Lightee challenging Sarkus with "prove the mind" is a useless red herring.

Its establishing the first premise of the general principles required to understand god - it is dealing with the issue of direct empirical evidence, and how it is not even properly equipped to determine the nature of our own mind so and hence also inappropriate to rely on for determining the nature of god

Indeed, it is absense of evidence that makes me think the separate existence of mind is unlikely. I could be persuaded otherwise by evidence.

the minds contingency is a seperate issue - for the moment we are just looking for direct empirical evidence, which you cannot provide, of theminds existence outside of arguments of its contingency - first establish that the mind exists before offering theories of its contingency

the minds contingency is a seperate issue - for the moment we are just looking for direct empirical evidence, which you cannot provide, of theminds existence outside of arguments of its contingency - first establish that the mind exists before offering theories of its contingency

Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum

unfortunately the logic of this statement does not qualify for reductionist models of determining evidence - remember I am not trying to establish that themind does not exist - I am trying to establish how th e reductionist model of evidence is not sufficient to determine the nature of many things inthis world - the mind is one ...... and god is another

...
th e reductionist model of evidence is not sufficient to determine the nature of many things inthis world - the mind is one ...... and god is another

lightgigantic's statement here is correct.

Take note however, that the reductionist does not seek to determine the nature of concepts like 'mind', or 'god'.

lightgigantic's statement here is correct.

Take note however, that the reductionist does not seek to determine the nature of concepts like 'mind', or 'god'.

The problem is that the common response to the notion of discussing god is that it is frequently brought up that there is no evidence of god (by the reductionist model of course).

The problem is that the common response to the notion of discussing god is that it is frequently brought up that there is no evidence of god (by the reductionist model of course).

Not at all.
The reductionist isn't concerned in the slightest with the concept of god.
Regardless, you're correct with respect to the common response. Generally speaking, when one is faced with a novel idea, one tends to seek out evidence. Assuming one is rational of course.

Not at all.
The reductionist isn't concerned in the slightest with the concept of god.
Regardless, you're correct with respect to the common response. Generally speaking, when one is faced with a novel idea, one tends to seek out evidence. Assuming one is rational of course.

Then obviously the reductionist model is not sufficient to determine such evidence

Then obviously the reductionist model is not sufficient to determine such evidence

lol

Ridiculous.

lol

Ridiculous.

The reductionist model can give evidence of the mind?

The reductionist model can give evidence of the mind?

As I've already said, the reductionist doesn't seek evidence of the mind.

As I've already said, the reductionist doesn't seek evidence of the mind.
are you saying that they simply don't desire to acquire evidence of the mind or that the paradigms that they work with to determine the nature of reality are not suffcient to make headway

are you saying that they simply don't desire to acquire evidence of the mind or that the paradigms that they work with to determine the nature of reality are not suffcient to make headwaymind
headway

Very whimsical.:)

When are we going to get the 'many anomalies in the fossil record'? I'm getting bored of the 'mind' strawman.

When are we going to get the 'many anomalies in the fossil record'? I'm getting bored of the 'mind' strawman.

Maybe monday morning

Of course we all know that turtles, sharks and crocodile are among the most advanced life forms on the planet (very well adapted to the general environmental conditions), since they've been around, relatively unchanged, for millions of years.

Who cares about mind?! Gimme that shell, some cold bloodedness and razor sharp double rowed teeth and I'm ready for the eons!

Of course I speak for all evolution advocates here. :D

Of course we all know that turtles, sharks and crocodile are among the most advanced life forms on the planet (very well adapted to the general environmental conditions), since they've been around, relatively unchanged, for millions of years.

Who cares about mind?! Gimme that shell, some cold bloodedness and razor sharp double rowed teeth and I'm ready for the eons!

Of course I speak for all evolution advocates here. :D

I don't see your point.

One more step for evolution?

One step forward, three steps back ....

this is an interesting link

"Survival of the fakest"

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Did you just paraphrase a country music song, Lightgigantic?

One more step for evolution?

One step forward, three steps back ....

this is an interesting link

"Survival of the fakest"

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Great source Light...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28creationist%29
Do you have any more hack scientists up your sleeve?

I don't see your point.

Gimme that shell, some cold bloodedness and razor sharp double rowed teeth...

He wants to EAT you!

six triple zero.

Great source Light...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28creationist%29
Do you have any more hack scientists up your sleeve?

Sure you are not relying on the logical fallacy of authority?
Certainly explains why you didn't respond to anything in the post ....

Sure you are not relying on the logical fallacy of authority?
Certainly explains why you didn't respond to anything in the post ....

You're reaching again Light. Who's next in your list, Kent Hovind?

You're reaching again Light. Who's next in your list, Kent Hovind?

You accuse creationists of being selective in their choice of evidence yet you feel adequate to judge a book by its cover.

You declare that theists are closed minded because they will not go out and read a 200+ page book on atheism yet you can't even respond to an 8 paged link.

What do you expect to gain form thread discussions?

Surely you must have realised in your first 20 minutes of posting on forums like this that NOBODY changes their stance.

As far as I can see the only benefit is to see how people respond to issues that refine our world views. (Since our world views are shaped by many more influential things then the premises that we dally in here (and the net is such a whimsical medium), it is highly improbable to change someone's world views, particularly if they are older than their early twenties or late teens). If you want to actually iniate some sort of change in consensus it would be more productive to get out of th e virtual world and into the real world of lecturing (something sites like these can help you assimilate data for)

Surely you must have realised in your first 20 minutes of posting on forums like this that NOBODY changes their stance.

As far as I can see the only benefit is to see how people respond to issues that refine our world views. (Since our world views are shaped by many more influential things then the premises that we dally in here (and the net is such a whimsical medium), it is highly improbable to change someone's world views, particularly if they are older than their early twenties or late teens). If you want to actually iniate some sort of change in consensus it would be more productive to get out of th e virtual world and into the real world of lecturing (something sites like these can help you assimilate data for)
Wow. Light. I... I... agr... ughhh... agre... agree with you. Arrrggggg!!!!

Light, your link is not reputable. It would be like me posting a link by Richard Hoagland giving us details on planetary geometry.

The PDF for a start, praises Behe, who was humiliated in court by both the scientists and the judge. His 'evidences' for intelligent design/evolution debunking was overturned point by point. You have to get it out of your head that biologists and scientists are biased, because they will always go where the evidence leads them. And put simply, there is no evidence for for creationism, and every evidence for evolution. It just happens that biology plays an emotional role in the mind of the theist who wants to think god made them, so they have to get involved in pseudoscience to try to increase gods role.

Actually, Lightgigantic's PDF file is quite right: The biology books -lie- about embryonic development when they show outdated pictures taken from the 19th century that do not reflect current embryology.

Maybe we should continue on a link specifically dedicated to the PDF "Survival of the Fakest"

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59177

I don't see your point.After participating in this thread for such a long time you'd think that after... I don't know how many posts, that one would have some significant point? :cool:

Is this thread worth that amount of brainergy? ;)