Sorry Creationists ... Evolutionary gap in early land animal fossil record filled

[youfiad]

Argggg.

Here's the problem that I have with the post. As a science student who has studied biology and chemistry for years, here is my take.

No matter how much evidence comes to support the evolutionary theory, it will never become anything but a theory. There is a fundamental difference between a theory and fact in that a theory can be factual but a fact is not a theory. That being said, I like to tell people that theory is an explanation of an observable phenomenon. Evolutionary theory goes into extreme details on how an organism changes and pass on genes from generation to generation and how those differencess in allel frequences can result in a change ofo species given enough time and isolation.

So, in a hypothetic world in which the fossil record is completed and every transition species is discovered and correctly identified, showing evolutionary relationships, the evolutionary theory will still exist as it still explainss why and how these changes happen. No amount of evidence will change that.

So when you say "It is no longer just a theory" you are undermining the scientific process. A theory is the strongest peice of knowledge that exists in science.......

 

[youfiad]

One of the best thing about being a Catholic...I am not required to believe in an actual 7 days creation, or the Evolution Theory. In God's eyes, 1 day is a thousand years, and vise versa. My guess is that ya'll can do the math.

You're not required to do anything, but refusing evidence is blatant ignorance.

I am not required to believe that the Jupiter, Pluto, Uranus, Saturn, etc etc exist, but the fact that they exist doesn't change because I refuse to believe them. The fact that species evolve can be denied, but it can be shown so easily that they do that denying it just shows that you don't care what is right, but you only care what you want to believe because it makes you feel good.

 

[bankside]

I'm sorry, kulindahr, but I'm not buying into the god myth. There has been other religions out there that believe in many gods... why are they wrong? It all seems to come back to the fact that religion and science shouldn't be mixed. I think creation is outlandish... no matter if it is young earth creationism or otherwise.

Science is about discovery, and in my opinion, religion is the opposite of that and stagnates mankind.

Kulindahr has in the past contended that Christianity makes objectively more sense than other religions - I don't question his intellectual coherence on that point, and it puts him in a different camp than most people who call themselves Christian.

I am not as certain that he has sufficiently studied other religions to accept his assertions about them making objectively less sense than Christianity. And I am skeptical that he's given the same generous treatment to other religions that he applies to his own... for instance allowing non-Christian religions to explain away their irrationality as the product of a misunderstood literary form as he does with the Bible.

But while I'm not convinced by his answers, I think it is fair to say he'd concede the legitimacy of the question and has answered it to his own satisfaction.

 

[bankside]

Argggg.

Here's the problem that I have with the post. As a science student who has studied biology and chemistry for years, here is my take.

No matter how much evidence comes to support the evolutionary theory, it will never become anything but a theory. There is a fundamental difference between a theory and fact in that a theory can be factual but a fact is not a theory. That being said, I like to tell people that theory is an explanation of an observable phenomenon. Evolutionary theory goes into extreme details on how an organism changes and pass on genes from generation to generation and how those differencess in allel frequences can result in a change ofo species given enough time and isolation.

So, in a hypothetic world in which the fossil record is completed and every transition species is discovered and correctly identified, showing evolutionary relationships, the evolutionary theory will still exist as it still explainss why and how these changes happen. No amount of evidence will change that.

So when you say "It is no longer just a theory" you are undermining the scientific process. A theory is the strongest peice of knowledge that exists in science.......

You put this very well and it's what I was trying to get at in my earlier posts. There is a danger in allowing creationists to define "theory" according to their own twisted definition. "Theory" does not mean what creationists think it means. Unfortunately some people who are more open to science also misunderstand the word.

 

[youfiad]

Um, evolution does have evidence to it, and is more then just a "theory". Evolution is a scientific theory and must meet the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. Other then that, it would merely be a hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It's easy to simply dismiss it as "just a theory". There is a difference between the layman's term of a theory, and a scientific theory (which must be testable and verifiable). When people criticize others for saying it is just a "theory", it's referring to evolution being put on a lower level then other scientific theories.

I completely agree. But the evolutionary theory, in terms of scientific theory, is not more than a theory, because there is nothing more powerful than a theory. A theory in science must have evidence to support it. Evolution is one of the most supported theories in the scientific world. Even the atomic theory is still a theory, yet, we all believe in atoms......................... We can test for atoms, but they have never been directly visualized. Every test that has ever been conducted for evolution has just supported it more, just like the atomic theory.

 

[youfiad]

Scientific law is more powerful then a theory. I'm not a scientist though (maybe just a political one). Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A law and a theory are two separate peices of knowledge, but they go hand in hand.

The law of gravity tell you what happens (things fall) but it does absoutely nothing to tell you as to why they fall. This is the job of a theory. Many scientists have created ideas of why things happen with variable degrees of evidence, but none have gone as far as Einstein in explaining how it works with his theory of general relativity. It completely blew everything that Isaac Newton had ever thought about universal gravity out the door. It is also a perfect example of how science works. Nothing in science is a fact, but there are certain degrees of certainty. Isaac Newton's theories held very well for a long time and served as the basis of the scientific revolution. But in the end, many things have been shown to not work exactly how he would predict them, so it is coming to be found that he was not 100% accurate, and his theories of his explanations must be revised. The most current that I can think of is "dark matter" which I don't really think exists.

Another example of a theory/law relationship is in thermodynamics

There are 4 laws of thermodynamics in which the two most popular are
1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed
2. Things tend to become more unorganized

These two laws don't exlainn why energy is conserved, or why the universe it becoming less and less organized. That is the job of the theory to explain. People observed these phenomenon and didn't have explanations as to why.

So I hope you can see that a law is to explain what, and a theory is to explain why. The theory of evolution will never become a law. There is, however, a law of evolution that would state that, "Species change".

I hope this makes sense. I am kind of all over the place today and not really in the best state of mind to explain the science. But I would love to clarify if need be.

 

[bronxroundbooty]

Blah... This still doesn't explain the laws that govern our universe and why is it that they are never broken ever in time. SomeTHING or someONE is governing these laws, and it will probably will never be discovered in our lifetime.

 

[bankside]

If it is a copout, then tell me why Science just cannot wrap their intellectual heads around the Big Bang Theory? They know that there was a Big Bang, but why can't they go beyond that?

What I have understood is that the physical processes of our universe, including things like matter and time and space, all originated in an original singularity. Our universe could be the product of an earlier universe, one that might have been recycled into our own or it might have carried on. It might have had different states of matter or a different number of dimensions or they might have had leprechauns and dolphins just as we do. But the event of passing through that moment of oblivion (or was it an eternity?) means that we cannot know anything of what passed before. Anything we could say about it is just a guess. In this view the big bang could be a reset-button or it could be the spark ex nihilo. There was either nothing before the concept of "before" even existed, or it didn't matter.

There could have been a god to set that process in motion, but then we'd be just as right to ask the exact same questions about that kind of entity. Where'd he come from? Where'd his universe start? What was before his big bang?

And if we'd be satisfied with the answers of "Everywhere, never and always, and nothing," then we should be just as satisfied to receive those answers about our very own little big bang.

If we do not accept those answers for our universe, they are just as empty for any kind of god. In other words, having a god would remove none of the mystery. Neither would having a camel with a monkey and a pinyata.

 

[bronxroundbooty]

What do you mean science can't wrap their heads around the big bang theory? There is evidence for the big bang theory. I guess the god explanation always works for some lol.



why is it necessary to add in a deity?

And why do people say "there must be something or someone governing the universe"... seems a bit outlandish to me... and quite silly.

Just as silly as the world's most renowned scientist saying that all of this happened by accident. I fail to see a whole Solar System happening by accident, but to each his or her own.

 

[bronxroundbooty]

Who said anything about it happening on accident? Again, you're adding in things that you just made up to help support the god myth.

Stephen Hawking. Google him.

I too, fail to see how all of this can happen just by accident. The Wonders of the Universe all for us to explore. Just to think how can all that hangs in the Heavens came to be, and how they are suspended in Space and time. Personally...I see God behind all that is, and I don't need science to try to "Logically" explain it all away for me. I like the idea of the MYSTERIES of beyond...no end to materials for meditation and contemplation.

I mean, they can't even explain near-death experiences, but yet they could explain the universe. As if...

 

[youfiad]

If it is a copout, then tell me why Science just cannot wrap their intellectual heads around the Big Bang Theory? They know that there was a Big Bang, but why can't they go beyond that?

I don't want to sound like a condescending prick. But if you don't know what they are able to explain, than you should pretend that you do. It is a logical fallacy to believe in something just because others are unable disprove your claim. That opens the doors to believing in anything... Science will never be able to say exactly what happened beyond what we are able to observe with our own senses. Science will never be able to prove what happens in a black hole. But they can have variably supported ideas about what does happen.

But you give me the alful impression of being religiously indoctrinated to believe in weird things about science. Just because religion has capitalized on the most simplistic explanation of the Universe from the beginning of time, doesn't make it even a semi-intelligent explanation.

One could argue that nothing existed before the big bang since space and time were infinitely dense. One could argue that before the big bang, there was a preexisting universe like our own that met it's invitable fate by imploding on itself. The best we can do is be hunble and always look for a better explanation of tomorrow than what we had yesterday. If we all believed in the imaginary friend in the clouds, science would not have advanced and we'd all be living with the impression that the earth is flat and everything revolves around the earth.

 

[bronxroundbooty]

This just goes to show you don't quite understand what he said.

But I won't even try to explain it as you don't seem willing to look at alternate viewpoints.

Actually, I did. It's even on YouTube for those who want to look for this quote themselves.

 

[youfiad]

I guess what I don't understand is why religious folks seem to want to believe in something that has absolutely no scientific validity while denying the fundamental ways of sceince, that have shown us over and over again that things can be explained.

Why believe in Jesus Christ? Why not believe in Thor, or ancience roman gods, or any of the hindu gods, or african gods? Why that one specific God from that one specific book that has already been written in other religious Dogmas? Why submit yourself to this specific one? You know that you wouldn't believe in him if you were living in Saudi Arabia. It's all circumstantial about where you were born...... If that's enough evidence to make you b elieve in an imaginary friend, then I feel sorry for you. Seeing the world for what it truly is is the greatest gift I have ever been granted.

 

[rareboy]

Abraham was a Pagan who believed in a one and only single deity out of all of those that supposedly existed along with other deities Why did that one deity choose Abraham out of all of the existing Mankind of that time and place? How did Abraham come to know that there is only one God, and all of the others were just idols that does nothing?

What you mean is how did the writers of the OT manage to form an argument for monotheism as a means of creating a collective affinity in order to advance civilization and to clean up all the messy edges that polytheism creates in the social fabric.

God chose Abraham?

Not likely.

History is written by the victor. And that is what happened in the chronicling of the transition from tribal bronze age theism to an age of 'enlightenment' among the sheep herding tribes of the middle east as it were.

Th God of Abraham didn't blog or tweet about the events that shook the foundations of the world. Human story tellers and religious 'scholars' took on that role.

But the whole thing as quaint as it is, was essential to the development of modern man. So all is forgiven. To a point.

It is now time for God to fess up. To admit that He is the incredible creation of the human imagination....that He is imbued with powers beyond reckoning because Someone needed to be. So if there are some who wish to believe that the earth is less than 7000 years old...fine....just don't assume you are right and others are wrong. If there are those who want to believe in 'Intelligent' design...fine...just bear in mind that millions think you are batshit crazy or just possessed of an infantile need for a good parent and do not think you are automatically right. And if you think that aliens fucked chimpanzees and produced humans...great...just don't think you are right.

But do not argue with evolution.

Oh.

And all the Abrahamic religions.

Accept that while you are responsible for the advancement of human civilization...you are annoying and destructive to the extreme. You are backward and retrogressive in the 21st century and now need to relinquish the grasp you've had on the world for only the last 2000 years. Many of you are just goat fuckers sitting on the oil squeezed from the prehistoric world you deny...others are grudge driven tent dwellers involved in a 3500 year old conflict and a whole hell of a lot of you are crimson and embroidered silk wearing descendants of pagan Romans.

So here's a thought. Open your minds. Accept that all you are and ever were and will be is the survival of the fittest.

 

[Telstra]

No. In scientific terms, a theory explains how different factual phenomena interrelate. Gravity is a theory that explains the fact of objects appearing to attract based on the property of having mass. Newton had one theory of gravity, which proved to be inexact. Einstein had a better one, yet that also does not explain all the facts that we observe about attraction between bodies having mass.

There is no evidence that the facts have changed since Newton's time; the theories have gotten better however.

I'm no scientist but there is no discrimination in a theory unlike religion.

 

[Asenath]

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Telstra]

What you mean is how did the writers of the OT manage to form an argument for monotheism as a means of creating a collective affinity in order to advance civilization and to clean up all the messy edges that polytheism creates in the social fabric.

God chose Abraham?

Not likely.

History is written by the victor. And that is what happened in the chronicling of the transition from tribal bronze age theism to an age of 'enlightenment' among the sheep herding tribes of the middle east as it were.

Th God of Abraham didn't blog or tweet about the events that shook the foundations of the world. Human story tellers and religious 'scholars' took on that role.

But the whole thing as quaint as it is, was essential to the development of modern man. So all is forgiven. To a point.

It is now time for God to fess up. To admit that He is the incredible creation of the human imagination....that He is imbued with powers beyond reckoning because Someone needed to be. So if there are some who wish to believe that the earth is less than 7000 years old...fine....just don't assume you are right and others are wrong. If there are those who want to believe in 'Intelligent' design...fine...just bear in mind that millions think you are batshit crazy or just possessed of an infantile need for a good parent and do not think you are automatically right. And if you think that aliens fucked chimpanzees and produced humans...great...just don't think you are right.

But do not argue with evolution.

Oh.

And all the Abrahamic religions.

Accept that while you are responsible for the advancement of human civilization...you are annoying and destructive to the extreme. You are backward and retrogressive in the 21st century and now need to relinquish the grasp you've had on the world for only the last 2000 years. Many of you are just goat fuckers sitting on the oil squeezed from the prehistoric world you deny...others are grudge driven tent dwellers involved in a 3500 year old conflict and a whole hell of a lot of you are crimson and embroidered silk wearing descendants of pagan Romans.

So here's a thought. Open your minds. Accept that all you are and ever were and will be is the survival of the fittest.

I love this post .....

 

[Ganoderma]

Why not believe in (...) any of the hindu gods, or (...). Why that one specific god from that one specific book that has already been written in other religious dogmas? (...) It's all circumstantial about where you were born.

Yap. I am just back from a nice round trip to the southern part of India. Well, and when you walk around in, eg, Tamil Nadu, all people are hindu. And there are alot of religious buildings, but all of them are hindu temples.

Indeed & ofcourse. A baby of 1 day old does not has a religion. Babies who are born in Tamil Nadu will become hindu, as their parents will tell this to them. And they will also speak Tamil, because they will learn the Tamil language from their parents (and other people in their environment). Considering yourself a christian (or a hindu) is just aquired behaviour. And nothing more.

But there is also something which is called 'brainwashing'. Almost all religious people are brainwashed (that's just part of the deal of this type of aquired behaviour), and that means one cannot argue anymore with them. So also not hold a debate with them. Brainwashed minds will just ignore all facts.

Its sad, but that's how the human brain is working.

Youfiad, thanks for your posting.

Best wishes & take care

 

[zoltanspawn]

People who read the biblical creation stories as (bad) scientific theories don't get them. This applies to both fundamentalists and anti-religionists.

 

[Kulindahr]

Science is about discovery, and in my opinion, religion is the opposite of that and stagnates mankind.

Take a history of science course -- there have been thousands of scientists who were inspired to seek and learn and become scientists precisely because of their faith in God.

But religion can be used as a great tool by those who want to freeze a society.