RawThinkTank, Why waste energy discussing about people of era in which concept of atheism Where is the "concept" in atheism? You either believe in God or not, everything else is merely detail and of no real consequence in real terms. Why do you doubt God's existence? Strictly speaking from evolutionary point of view this thread is more about Jan Ardena than Scientists who believed in God What? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lil ole me? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nah! It's about Mr. Albert Einsten, arguably the greatest and charismatic scientist of all time. Who believed in God. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan Ardena.
Jan: A brief web search will show you numerous "intermediate" fossils of human-like species dating from around 7 million years ago to the present. You clearly don't have a good understanding of how humans evolved. You will not find a human fossil without evolved eye sockets, because then it would not be human. The human evolutionary branch split off from the branch which led to our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees, only quite recently in evolutionary terms. I think you will agree that chimpanzees have eye sockets, yet they are not human. The point is reasonably obvious. It wouldn't, and it didn't.
Wow. I thought this thread was dead. I reviewed this debate and decided it is not worth continuing for one simple reason: Congratulations. That might be the single greatest oversimplification ever uttered by mankind. That statement alone, which completely ignores anthropology, comparative religion, philosophy, history, linguistics, cultural difference, and science altogether, is so mindbogglingly reductive that I can scarcely imagine why someone with such a belief would even come to a forum of debate in the first place. Clearly, to continue this discussion would be pointless, as Jan has already reduced the entire history of world religion to a basic Either/Or proposition, founded entirely upon his/her definition of God. Astounding. Truly astounding. Jan, I wish you the best of luck in all endeavors. I must say I envy you. I and my small-minded freethinking brethren must concern ourselves with history and context, questions that raise only more questions, and the tedious but intellectually stimulating practice of learning. Perhaps one day we too will reach that high summit, where we can look down upon the silly thinkers of the world and laugh, secure in the knowledge that everything is far, far simpler than it appears. Ciao. Josh
What makes some so sure that god did not created each one of them, individuals are result of genetic mutations, evolution is a result of random mutations, how are they sure that god cannot control random events in universe which can have no law to define them; When we create a virtual world we program history in it too, so why cant god create evolution for creating us. That makes biblical sense. God can use random events to respond to prayers for example. It’s the limitations of human mind that makes them think this theory preposterous. Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, specially after watching Matrix movie in context with god in command of Matix called Universe.
JustARidem, Why on earth would you think that? I wouldn't call it a debate, it's just you trying to put Mr. Einsteins "waffle" (your terminology), into a context that suits you, and completely denying the essence. What exactly do you think "belief" is? And why do you categorise it as simple or complex? It is belief that make people what they are. Mr. Einstein believed in God from an early age, that is why he studied religion. He may have become disillusioned with much of the institutional interpretation of the Bible (especially), and seeked knowledge from other sources. But all the while he had a belief which was the engine behind his drive. Belief is entirely natural, you cannot quantify it, it is behind our thoughts and actions. The atheist point of view is that they believe God does not exist, as apposed to the theists who believe God does exist. The fact that neither belief cannot be proven scientifically means that they can only remain as beliefs. You are pityfully weak. Remember, religion isn't Judeo-Christianism, that (JC) is a denomination of "religion". Try and come up to speed with what "religion" is in future, then maybe we can move on. I don't believe you. As far as you are concerned, that still seems to be a work in progress situation. A good tip is to see things as they are, instead of how you want them to be, and i'm sure you'll brush up just fine. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [/QUOTE]Perhaps one day we too will reach that high summit, where we can look down upon the silly thinkers of the world and laugh, secure in the knowledge that everything is far, far simpler than it appears.[/QUOTE] Look down? Laugh? Lets hope you never get there. Jan Ardena.
James R, Thank you very much James, but i am aware of the "human like species." However, i am interested in the "before human-like species" side of evolution. I am interested in fossil records which show the development of the human type species. Hopefully you can enlighten me. Maybe my question was not clear, so please accept my appologies and i will attempt it again. Hopefully atheroy will read this. Please show the various stages of evolution up to the point of the human being? Within these photos, i expect to see the gradual development of eyes and joints. Then please show me photos of the intermediate fossils before the split. Jan Ardena.
Jan: To address one half of your post, the evolution of eyes is particularly well documented, if you care to look. There is good evidence that eyes have evolved independently approximately 40 times over the history of life on Earth. Even today, there are living animals which display virtually all stages of the evolution of eyes. These stages range from mere light-sensitive spots through to complex eyes such as the ones possessed by octopuses and birds (which, incidentally, are significantly better than human eyes). If you insist on seeing fossils, there are plenty of them which show different types of eyes, from the simple to the complex, too.
Oh, and more generally on the subject of "intermediate" fossils, it is a common ploy of Creationists to ask for such fossils. Because whenever such a fossil is shown, they demand a finer gradation. To take one example, suppose a biologist asserts that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. The Creationists ask to see a fossil intermediate between dinosaurs and birds, so the biologist points to the feathered intermediate non-flying dinosaur-like/bird-like fossil Archaeopteryx. Does that satisfy the Creationists? No. Now they demand to see a fossil which is "intermediate" between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. And so the process goes on. Ultimately, Creationists will not accept anything less than a complete fossil record of all life. They will not accept that I am descended from my grandfather, unless I can produce an intermediate fossil of my father. And (I suspect), ultimately even that kind of evidence will not change their faith-based prejudices. Another thing is that Creationists often ask the wrong question. For example, they demand that biologists produce fossils which are "intermediate" between, say, chimpanzees and humans. But, of course, humans are not descended from chimpanzees, so no such fossils exist.
James R, When such an incredible theory is proclaimed fact, and is taught throughout the media and throughout the education system as fact, it should be okay for a lay person to make such a request. It shouldn't be that hard to produce such evidence if it is fact. We should be inundated with undeveloped (by todays standard) fossils. In fact there should be more of those than developed fossils. Because we are showed developed remains and there is no way of really knowing if it is an independant species, albeit extinct. And why do they always talk of Archaeopteryx or the lung-fish, what about all the other species. As i said, we should be inundated with undeveloped (transitory) fossils, if this theory is to be regarded as fact. Now you're being silly. Most people can understand that we didn't evolve from chimps, as chimps are still around and are not looking extinction in the face, nor are they evolving. I say this but i read somewhere that scientists want to categorise chimpanzees as homo something or other. Coming back to the point. You have not even attempted to answer my questions, either we have the evidence or we do not. If we do not then what is it the makes the theory of evolution FACT? And why would some people, like 'atheroy', or maybe even yourself, see it as 'OBVIOUS'? Jan Ardena.
Jan: There is abundant evidence. However, as I said, Creationists refuse to accept it for what it is. What would convince you that a fossil repesented an "intermediate" between two species? (Please read below before answering). No. That is a misconception. An animal will not survive to reproduce if it is "undeveloped". Animals survive and propagate only if they are well-adapted to their environments. You are making the common mistake of thinking of a "ladder" of life, with humans at the top and bacteria at the bottom. That is not the true picture. If you try to link species from past to present, what you find is not a ladder, but a tree with multiple branches. The tree is constantly being "pruned", with species on the ends of particular branches becoming extinct. However, at the same time, other branches are growing, and sprouting new branches, such as happened when the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans split into the two populations which eventually led to the separate species we see today. That common ancestor was not "undeveloped". It was a perfectly viable occupant of its ecological niche. If it had not been, we would not be here today. Look at another "intermediate": Ambulocetus. It was a mammal which looked vaguely like a crocodile but which lived most of its life in shallow rivers and streams, only venturing onto land rarely. Its back legs were not well-suited for living on land, but then, it didn't need legs for living on land. Ambulocetus evolved from a land mammal, but gradually (over many generations) its back legs became less prominent as features of the animal, while at the same time it was changing in other ways (for example, its forelimbs were becoming larger and better for paddling). Modern whales evolved from creatures such as Ambulocetus. The back limbs completely disappeared (almost), and the front limbs became flippers. But, if you look carefully at modern whales, you will see that they still possess all the same rear-limb bones as are found in Ambulocetus, even though those bones are completely contained within the whales' bodies, and are not useful for anything. If God designed the whales "as is", you might like to consider why he gave them useless back-leg bones. The theory of evolution easily explains this observation. The Creationist theory only has God's capricious whim to offer as an "explanation". People like stories of large animals which are semi-familiar. If I showed you intermediate fossils of various types of worms, would you be convinced? Would you even recognise them as intermediates? The fossil record is, alas, very patchy. Fossilisation is an extremely rare process. Think about the conditions which are required for fossilisation to occur. Also, think about how unlikely it is that a fossil, once formed, will be preserved. Consider the chances of finding fossils, and the relatively small numbers of people working on such things, trying to cover an entire planet. There's that incorrect ladder picture again. It is not necessary for an ancestor species to become extinct when it splits into two separate species. To take one example, there are about 14 species of a particular type of bird in Europe which are all virtually identical in all visual and behavioural respects, but which nevertheless cannot interbreed with each other. The theory of evolution explains why groups of species such as this exist - because they all evolved from the same common ancestor. I wonder how the Creationists explain why God created 14 separate species of identical-looking birds. Also, chimps are still evolving. So is every other living thing on the planet. If you look at the anatomical, or genetic, or behavioural features of chimpanzees compared to human beings and gorillas, what do you think you'll find? What you find is that the closest living relatives to chimpanzees are human beings. That is, chimpanzees are more like humans than they are like gorillas, or, indeed, any other ape or monkey. It therefore makes no sense to classify chimpanzees and gorillas into a class of which excludes human beings. On the other hand, it is quite possible to classify chimps and human beings into a class which excludes gorillas. When we get into the nitty gritty of taxonomy, a good argument can be made that humans and chimps ought to occupy the same genus. We have an abundance of evidence. You should recognise that, in fact, every fossil is an intermediate fossil. Are you different from your father? Is he different from your grandfather? If the answer is "yes", then your father shows features intermediate between you and your grandfather. If your father was fossilised, he would be an "intermediate" fossil. I know you didn't take this point seriously last time. Perhaps you should think about it more carefully. Evolution is a beautifully simple and coherent explanation of life. However, to understand it, it is necessary to throw away some preconceptions about the world. In particular, it is necessary to throw away the idea that the animal kingdom (or plants, or fungi) is neatly split up into "kinds" of creatures. Instead, you must look at every living thing as an individual, different from every other living thing. People have no problem with recognising that every individual human is different from every other individual human in subtle ways. Yet many cannot grasp that every individual lion is different from every other lion, too. It is this diversity which provides the raw material for natural selection. If two living things are even subtly different from one another, that difference can have a serious impact on their chances of survival and reproduction. That is all that is needed for evolution to be true, and is an obvious and indisputable fact. People who do not accept evolution invariably do so either out of simple ignorance and/or wilful blindness. Young-earth Creationists are the prime exemplars of both features.
LOL!!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I posted a whole reply to your last post. Upon checking it i realised that i had put ".....when there is empirical evidence to support it?" in a sentence. So i posted the above thinking i had used the reply on my post, and just amended that one line and deleted everything else. But now i know i used the edit button. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I will compose another reply. Soz. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan Ardena.
Recent studies on genetics show that a small change in a single gene can have an instant and rapid effect on the shape of the animal. Changes don't necessarily have to happen gradually, but can occur in great leaps because it's actually only a very small portion of DNA that's changing. So lack of in-between stages in evolution does not disprove the theory - it is entirely possible that there were no in-between stages. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3625235.stm
James R There is abundant evidence. However, as I said, Creationists refuse to accept it for what it is. On the contrary, i accept it for what it is. What would convince you that a fossil repesented an "intermediate" between two species? (Please read below before answering). A pattern of some sort. No. That is a misconception. An animal will not survive to reproduce if it is "undeveloped". One would think that at some stage of its evolution, there would be some disadvantage to the form. Unless you are suggesting that at every point of the transition, the environmental condition/nature evolves along with the different forms and in doing so, accomodates the transition at every point. Maybe you can put me in the picture. However, at the same time, other branches are growing, and sprouting new branches, such as happened when the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans split into the two populations which eventually led to the separate species we see today. What did this "common ancestor" evolve from? That common ancestor was not "undeveloped". It was a perfectly viable occupant of its ecological niche. If it had not been, we would not be here today. So you're saying the "common ancestor" rapidly evolved and was at no time during the transitional process, lacking in any bodily parts? Its back legs were not well-suited for living on land, but then, it didn't need legs for living on land. I read somewhere that the fossil record was seriously incomplete due to.....lack of fossils. There was no actual pelvic girdle. Ambulocetus evolved from a land mammal, but gradually (over many generations) its back legs became less prominent as features of the animal, while at the same time it was changing in other ways (for example, its forelimbs were becoming larger and better for paddling). This is not a fact, it is speculation. Nothing was found to indicate the Ambulocetus had active hind-legs. Please correct me if i'm wrong. If God designed the whales "as is", you might like to consider why he gave them useless back-leg bones. The theory of evolution easily explains this observation. The Creationist theory only has God's capricious whim to offer as an "explanation". Some evolutionists indicate that those "back-leg bones" serve a purpose to the Whales. So you cannot be sure that they are useless. If I showed you intermediate fossils of various types of worms, would you be convinced? Would you even recognise them as intermediates? You have to show why they are intermediates, there has to be a pattern. It is dishonest to infer or speculate and then go on to say this is a fact, and all else must be excluded. Personally i have no problem with Darwins theory of evolution. Even though i believe the universe was intelligently designed, there is still alot of fascinating things to learn from the alternative theories. But it should not (IMO) be put forward as fact. The fossil record is, alas, very patchy. Fossilisation is an extremely rare process. Think about the conditions which are required for fossilisation to occur. Also, think about how unlikely it is that a fossil, once formed, will be preserved. Consider the chances of finding fossils, and the relatively small numbers of people working on such things, trying to cover an entire planet. Then we should wait until we have proof beyond doubt. There's that incorrect ladder picture again. It is not necessary for an ancestor species to become extinct when it splits into two separate species. This idea is just a devised mechanism for the theory of evolution, to accommodate the admission that the intermediates are missing. There is no current, observable data to prove this idea is factual. To take one example, there are about 14 species of a particular type of bird in Europe which are all virtually identical in all visual and behavioural respects, but which nevertheless cannot interbreed with each other. Which birds are these? Also, chimps are still evolving. So is every other living thing on the planet. 1) How do you know this? 2) What are we (humans) evolving into? 3) And what part of this transition is purely naturalistic? If you look at the anatomical, or genetic, or behavioural features of chimpanzees compared to human beings and gorillas, what do you think you'll find? There are similarities, i agree. But that is no reason to think we have some common evolutionary ancestor from which we sprang forth, on account of natural selection. It is quite possible that they were, are, and always be, what they are, and we what we are. Our forms could have been created that way. What would it take to convince you that everything is designed by a superior intelligence? That is, chimpanzees are more like humans than they are like gorillas, or, indeed, any other ape or monkey. So what? Why couldn't they have been purposely designed like that? How do you know they weren’t? It therefore makes no sense to classify chimpanzees and gorillas into a class of which excludes human beings. They aren't human are they? They may be similar. But human they aint. When we get into the nitty gritty of taxonomy, a good argument can be made that humans and chimps ought to occupy the same genus. A good argument is not necessarily true, even if convincing. Are you different from your father? Is he different from your grandfather? If the answer is "yes", then your father shows features intermediate between you and your grandfather. But the process of the creation is due to persons (intelligent life-forms) not random events. There is a cause and effect. If your father was fossilised, he would be an "intermediate" fossil 1) Between what? 2) His fossil would not be my father. I would not recognise it as my father. I know you didn't take this point seriously last time. Perhaps you should think about it more carefully. I am aware of this type of logic, but I think it is fundamentally wrong. I believe in evolution, but not exactly in the sense Darwin or modern evolutionists propose(d). …it is necessary to throw away the idea that the animal kingdom (or plants, or fungi) is neatly split up into "kinds" of creatures. Why? They are different kinds of creatures with different bodies and mentalities. Instead, you must look at every living thing as an individual, different from every other living thing. I agree that we/they are all individuals, but the part of them that is individual is not fossilized. Read the reply I gave regarding the fossilization of my father. It is this diversity which provides the raw material for natural selection. I’m sure I have a good understanding of what you are saying, and in some way I agree with you, but I don’t see it in the same way as you. If two living things are even subtly different from one another, that difference can have a serious impact on their chances of survival and reproduction. That is all that is needed for evolution to be true, and is an obvious and indisputable fact. Read above. [/b]People who do not accept evolution invariably do so either out of simple ignorance and/or wilful blindness. Young-earth Creationists are the prime exemplars of both features.[/b] I accept evolution, but stop short of biological evolution. I believe the soul transmigrates from one species to another in much the same order as Darwin proposed. And when it attains a human form it has the ability to stop the process of transmigration by remembering its original, eternal form. Jan Ardena.
leda, Recent studies on genetics show that a small change in a single gene can have an instant and rapid effect on the shape of the animal. Changes don't necessarily have to happen gradually, but can occur in great leaps because it's actually only a very small portion of DNA that's changing. So lack of in-between stages in evolution does not disprove the theory - it is entirely possible that there were no in-between stages. That could well be a good argument, but it is not an observable, testable or proven fact, and should not be taught as such. Jan Ardena.
Is Jan Ardena a Female ? Is it possible that these changes occur due to gods interventions, Is it possible that this is the actual method of god to create things ?
