One more step for evolution...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
Fire

Evolution:

Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Consensus > Classroom & Textbook
Click to expand...



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
 
lightgigantic said:
Its(sic) not clear how the research peer review and scientific consensus has established macro evolution beyond the sphere of scientific claim however
Click to expand...
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.

SnakeLord said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Fire said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Evolution theory is not sufficient to distinguish itself as the only way to analyze the fossil record
 
lightgigantic said:
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
Click to expand...
You 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!
 
lightgigantic said:
There are many ways to explain the fossil record -
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Um, I don't think your pet theory will go far in scientific circles.
 
lightgigantic said:
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
Click to expand...

You could say that, if you had no knowledge of the relative dates of fossils found in different layers.
 
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.
 
lightgigantic said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
spidergoat said:
You could say that, if you had no knowledge of the relative dates of fossils found in different layers.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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

http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
 
lightgigantic said:
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
Click to expand...

Look at dogs, the human appendix, ANYTHING
 
Fire said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware there were one million genuses of humanoids
 
guthrie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was offered as an example of how several things with apparently similar components can be composed of independant and seperate existences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top