Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 180 (20303)
10-20-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phantom Mullet
10-20-2002 2:46 AM


I mainly agree with what you are trying to say, except that I disagree with you saying that evolution is a religion. I think that the topic's name is wrong. It should say that evolution is a belief, and creation is a belief. Because if you say that evolution is a religion, what are they worshipping? The mechanism of natural selection? What is creation worshipping? The process of creation? Thus I think that evolution is not a religion, but a belief, just like creation.
Like edge said, I think you've confused belief and religion.
Anyway, evolution is a theory for how organisms evolve and change. So I think that if you are talking about creation, you shouldn't compare it to evolution, but abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a belief that organisms came about through natural processes. Creation is a belief that organisms came about through the process of creation by God.
Sorry for the nitpicking, just my $0.02
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phantom Mullet, posted 10-20-2002 2:46 AM Phantom Mullet has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 180 (20542)
10-23-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by nos482
10-21-2002 6:18 PM


Do you understand probability theory either? In that case, most evolutionists don't understand the concept of probability theory either. ('Most' in this case used to indicate the general populace).
quote:
Of course.
Just like the heliocentric model?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by nos482, posted 10-21-2002 6:18 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 7:59 AM blitz77 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 180 (20673)
10-24-2002 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by nos482
10-23-2002 7:59 AM


quote:
Do you have any proof that the Sun isn't at the "center" of our solar system? The old Earth centered model was Church imposed.
You're thinking about the wrong thing. The sun being at the center of the solar system has been observed. You can make very accurate predictions with it. Evolution is totally different. It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church.
-His book that was condemned in the trial, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", had received the official imprimatur of the church, and had been approved by the official Roman censor, Father Niccolo Riccardi.
-Galileo was a personal friend of both major popes that ruled during his lifetime.
-The trial represented a brief portion near the end of Galileo’s long and productive life, during which he gained wide fame for his discoveries and his books across Europe, and within the Catholic church. Contrary to popular perceptions, most churchmen, including Pope Urban VIII, were delighted with Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope.
Of course, you might then ask why had Galileo been put on trial.
-Pope Urban VIII was in a bad mood at the time of the trial. The papacy had gone to his head, and he had spent fortunes on self-aggrandizement. In addition, he was accused of being soft on heretics by not acting stronger against the Reformers. The Thirty Years War was giving him great stress. Galileo’s Dialogue came at a very inopportune time. The pope trusted what others said about it, without reading it himself. He was led to believe, contrary to the facts, that Galileo had double-crossed him by going against explicit orders. These factors tended to make him inflexible against his former friend.
--Using information from world's greatest creation scientists from y1k to y2k
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 7:59 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 8:34 AM blitz77 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 180 (20676)
10-24-2002 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by nos482
10-23-2002 8:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Prove it.
Take a science course.
How can science prove something outside the realm of science? To prove something means that you have control/mastery of it. To be able to prove God exists we must have power over God. Anyway, science deals with physical rules. You can't use the physical to prove something that is spiritual. Its like trying to make complex numbers from only real numbers.
quote:
Can you prove that that "nonsense" (which I do not believe in) really is nonsense?
Yes, it is nonsense, the same as your so-called "spirit witness" is.
He asked can you prove that what you call "nonsense" is nonsense and you respond by saying again that it is nonsense?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:51 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 8:38 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 180 (20681)
10-24-2002 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Karl
10-24-2002 6:09 AM


quote:
Such rocks were sought and found. Intermediate fossils - Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Panderichthys et al. were found.
Which of these were close to being a complete fossil? Only Acanthostega has been found to be anything close to a complete fossil. However, this animal appears to be an amphibian, even if it has gills (many current amphibians have gills).
quote:
Evolutionary theory predicts that whales had terrestrial ancestors. These should sbow a sequence from terrestrial to fully obligate aquatic animals. Digging in the right place in the last few years has produced Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus et al. Morphologically, these animals appear to be ungulates. Biochemical and genetic analysis confirms whales are most closely related to ungulates. Prediction, hypothesis, experiment, observation. Which part of this do you have a problem with.
As for whale evolution, what about the skeletal evolution required from terrestrial to aquatic? (how convenient that for Ambulocetus the critical parts are missing, and for Pakicetus they have only have some cheek teeth fragments of the skull and lower jaw). Many of the fossils you named have been dated later than undisputed whales, so the whales existed before these transitional forms.
Fossil evidence is historical and so is based on interpretation. How about predictions about the future, not about history (whose transitional evidence is very thin)?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Karl, posted 10-24-2002 6:09 AM Karl has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 180 (20684)
10-24-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Karl
10-24-2002 7:04 AM


Taking a look at that site, the picture looks quite different from this one Search (adapted from http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v28.html except the link is now dead). Taking a look at the pictures, they look remarkably similar. ("They" in this case being amphibians and the fossil)
quote:
Given that Acanthostega had true limbs, it seems that the missing links...are still missing. Despite this alleged transitional fossil which bears a striking resemblance to many living forms, the origin of the defining characteristics of tetrapods, the limbs, is still an unsolved mystery to evolutionists. --Search
As for a tail fin, I'm sure as you can see that you could then say that those other amphibians had tail fins. Since the fossil has true limbs, it really shouldnt be classified a transitional. How about some incomplete limbs developing or something?
As for your correction on Ambulocetus' missing bones, thanks for the correction. However, researching further on this, i found here in an update,
quote:
There is no deceit (faking), or contradiction, in the article. As stated at the beginning of the article, the article on the web was originally published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now simply TJ) in 1994, the year Thewissen et al. published their original article. The material referred to is that published by Thewissen in 1994. It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence (evolutionists are quick to demand this of creationists). However, even if it is so published in the future, I don’t have much confidence in the peer review process when it comes to paleontologythere seems to be a different standard applied to these papers, compared to experimental (operational) science. So many false claims have been given credit in prestigious peer-reviewed journals that I have become rather sceptical of all the claims. For example, Gingerich’s Pakicetus story, published in the prestigious journal Science in 1983, was based on some skull fragments. Science even published, on the front cover, an artist’s reconstruction of the whole creature, with legs becoming flippers, swimming in the sea chasing fish for its lunch. It is illustrative to compare this with a more recent reconstruction based on a much more complete skeletonit is now clearly a terrestrial creature.
As for your other question,
quote:
In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian. If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.
As for Ambulocetus natans, it has been found in middle Eocene strata in Pakistan by Hans Thewissen,(~40mya)
The first true whales found the Archeoceti - the earliest of which are called Pakicetids; found in Pakistan (~50-51 mya, early Eocene).
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Karl, posted 10-24-2002 7:04 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2002 8:51 AM blitz77 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 180 (20691)
10-24-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nos482
10-24-2002 8:34 AM


Sure, you don't have to believe them. Just watch some TV.
quote:
A PBS documentary admitted that the usual slant is quite incorrect. Astronomer and historian Owen Gingerich, often one to debunk historical inaccuracies, has researched the incident and challenges the science vs religion spin. And a recent (1999) new historical biography by Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter (an award-winning, captivating, original work we highly recommend) sheds refreshing new light on the life, times, and legacy of this giant of early science, Galileo Galilei.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 8:34 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 10:32 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 180 (20692)
10-24-2002 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Karl
10-24-2002 8:31 AM


How about the impact of these limbs on swimming capacity-surely via natural selection it would be selected against, as it would impair their swimming. As for more on the features, in the fish-to-tetrapod series (Ahlberg’s) Acanthostega (9th in the series) has two tetrapod features which are absent in the tenth.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Karl, posted 10-24-2002 8:31 AM Karl has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 180 (20694)
10-24-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Quetzal
10-24-2002 8:51 AM


Hi Quetzal, thanks for the info. (TJ didn't make that mistake, I did.) But what about the discoveries of the first true whales Archeoceti (~50-51mya)?
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2002 8:51 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2002 10:31 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024