|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The point is, if scientists within have doubts, but a person outside evolution has the same doubts, what is the difference?
Yes - a lack of evolution doesn't prove a creator, the facts alone show design all by themselves. But the point is, that you seem to think that a scientist has to say something. If it's a creation scientist, then you conclude he isn't a real scientist. If it's an evolutionary scientist, it's out of context, therefore there what - are in-betweens, even though that scientist said there aren't? That's some fuzzy reasoning right there, folks! Let's just hear the darn truth - are there a massive amount of transitionals that exist or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
For purposes of debate, can transitionals be shown. Birds for example - are there real-life examples of dinosaurs to birds? I can't beleive you have been here for 6 years, or so and you are still unaware that every single creature is or was a transitional species. Good grief!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I'm sorry if you think that the fact that it's rare to get a fossil is "weak" - it really is pretty rare. I only say it's weak in that it doesn't convince mer personally, but I concede that you have to submitt something that would therefore qualify as a transitional. Therefore I will concede that you can class these as transitionals, for the purpose of honesty. The real question for me, is this; are there, honestly, a large amount of "missing" in-between progressional forms where you might expect to see them. I concede that given a large amount of time, they might not be expected to be there, but please, I really do only want to KNOW whether they are there or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I do however, know the logic that is problematic to the issue. If you are going to show me 10,000 species of frog, then, yes - I understand that you have shown me 10,000 transitionals(well, millions really I know I know). My problem is that if we only have evidence of frogs, and nothing going from something progressively to a frog, then the statement that things produce the same things, is factual.
Fair enough - I know the hypothetics that don't make it that simple, BUT - is there a large amount of species of progression. Logically, the problem is that the CLAIM is that they are transitionals, WHEN what we actually see is things producing the same things. So logically, it's much more powerful to show a species that lead to a frog, for those logical reasons. i reiterate, I accept that you assume all and everything are transitional, but that does not satisfy me intellectually. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage. That's because most things function as fit for the environment. What are you looking for; something born with half a head or something? You seem to be going down the "if evolution is true we should see (insert hopeful monster here) route.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Peg writes:
Of course they are fully developed animals. There is no "development stage" as evolution is not a ladder that has a certain point when development stops. Life is always evolving. im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage. And stop using those quotemines! I'll leave Archaeopteryx, since I don't know enough about it. About your botanist quote. I think he's talking about plant fossils here, which, as far as I know, are indeed quite rare.
i dont have a problem with this example, its not in contention.
So, you accept evolution? You're confusing me.
The salamanders are still salamanders, perhaps a different type of salamander, but a salamander nonetheless.
Of course they are. As you wrote yourself:
Peg writes:
Yet now you say this? Are you aware of it or not?
Melindoor writes:
im aware of that... Of course animals and plants reproduce according to their species!! Otherwise they wouldn't be species! Evolution doesn't say that a dog will give birth to a cat, or any other creature but a dog. Mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time
And acted upon by natural selection.
im not sure these fish qualify, if they do, i dont see how.
Fish? Salamanders aren't fish, Peg. The finches I'll leave again to someone else.
thats not entirely true
Really? God could not have guided evolution? So, he's not omnipotent? We could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I can't beleive you have been here for 6 years, or so and you are still unaware that every single creature is or was a transitional species I took the liberty of browsing through some of his older posts and it appears he's had a change of heart over time. While it seems he's always described himself as a Christian, he seems to have gotten progressively more conservative and evangelistic with time. Moreover he used to be an evolutionist and denounced creationism. Interesting. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It's true that over time I have evolved. This is because I have struggled to understand what the truth is on a personal level of struggling with doubts etc...
having read about all of the issues, and there are seriously many, let me tell you, because I am genuinely in want of KNOWING the answers, then yes - my position changed. I was theistic evolutionist for about a year, but then I learnt new things that gradually changed my mind. but those things don't really define mike. You don't have to pigeon hole me. I'm just mike. mike who struggles to understand life like many people do. that's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Hi Peg,
Sorry to break in, but your understanding of what evolution is and how it works is lacking, as is your knowledge of the transitional forms. The fact you say this:
...im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage. * there are no "crocoducks" - I can't say this enough. Doesn't happen. No teenage mutant ninja turtles, no pokemon. * no direct dinosaur --> egg --> bird jumps over a single generation - it doesn't happen like that either. * so broadly, no non-functioning mutants. All "transitional" fossils are examples of complete organisms - if you think that's an oxymoron, then it's probably a good point for further elaboration by people far more schooled in the literature than I. * What it IS is a slow progression from one form to another, via what you would happily call "microevolution" until what we call "speciation" occurs (and yes, people with greater knowledge than me may well disagree on some points and the definition, but I think for this level, it's broadly true) * what we HAVE is a remarkably complete set of fossils displaying changes over time from one "species" to another - horse, human and more - I'm sorry if you don't agree with them, it's probably a good point for further elaboration on. * I'm not sure what to say about your skepticism with regard to eohippus and archaeopteryx - they really are quite exemplary and well understood, and it is only dogmatic creationist literature which does not admit this. I hesitate to say "does to" but there's a huge thread on Archy alone somewhere around here... * I'm also not sure that you'd like to talk more about heribert nilsson - The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles Setting * darwin's finches "oscillating back and forth" - uh, so? Not a problem, really it isn't.
We could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other. No, sorry, I disagree - there is no reason god couldn't create everything way back when...and then have it all evolve. from then on. Of course, it does negate the bible as a literal account, but we all know you don't think it's a literal account either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Lots of people can't understand a God who would use evolution and death/suffering, and call it "very good".
In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism, which is why it is dogmatically defended. You only "allow" a God, if there is an acceptance of evolution, because evolution makes Him look weak and atheism look strong. I mean come on, it's entirely obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No.1 Doubt the fossil record. Darwin’s theory has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils yet do they show the gradual changes that he predicted ? If there were no fossils, the evidence in favour of evolution would still be overwhelming. The only reason the two are linked is because fossils are an obvious phenomenon that needs an explanation. Even by the 18th and 19th Centuries it was clear that there were certain 'ages' and a certain pattern in the fossil record that needed a better explanation than was offered. Evolution provided such an explanation. Even more compelling is that as new fossils are discovered, we find them consistent with evolution and the natural history so far described. There are times when a few ideas need to be shifted around but the big picture remains the same. Darwin did not predict phyletic gradualism (slow, steady change at an even rate), he predicted something akin to punctuated equilibrium:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: The real question for me, is this; are there, honestly, a large amount of "missing" in-between progressional forms where you might expect to see them. well, if we all agree that getting a fossil is rare, then great - I can point out that it's practically impossible to have every single transitional of every single lineage because every single generation is a new example of transitional creatures... so what you'd be happy with is *enough* transitionals? Well, I'm worried that if you saw two forms (say "dinosaur" and "bird") you'd say "oh, where's the fossil between them?" Given three - dinosaur, archaeoptery, bird (for example) - you'd say "oh, look, THREE forms, where's the TWO fossils between them?" If you're not going to do that, we can get somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Lots of people can't understand a God who would use evolution and death/suffering, and call it "very good". And I quote: "god moves in mysterious ways" I wasn't aware you understood the fullness of the plan of The Almighty one?
In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism, which is why it is dogmatically defended. You only "allow" a God, if there is an acceptance of evolution, because evolution makes Him look weak and atheism look strong. well - it's harding proving a negative. What I can say is that there is no conflict between a god and evolution. there is a conflict between biblical literalists and evolution, but that's a different argument.
I mean come on, it's entirely obvious. That's my line!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
Nonsense. I was an atheist long before I even understood evolution (whis was when I got some of it in highschool when I was 14 or so). In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism, which is why it is dogmatically defended. I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Rubbish.
I stopped beleiving a gods and such when I was about 12 or so. I felt deep down that a god was not necessary for the universe to work.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024