You asked "I take it you are not a Christian then?"
BIG difference! You inferred your doubt that I was a Christian (apparently because I thought it possible that the Bible was not 100% accurate).
Not that it's really any big deal... I was raised in church and baptized and all, but haven't attended besides the occasional holiday in many years.
I am very sorry. I just don't come in contact with "Christians" who make it a point to lampoon Noah and if he had dinasaurs.
I mean are you trying to be double minded.
Either you are confused and you do not know what you believe and that is no crime or you are trying to inject rude comments onto this thread.
I am not telling you what you shuld believe as it is none of my business but could you at least understand why I was trying to discern if you were indeed a Christian or not.
I am very sorry. I just don't come in contact with "Christians" who make it a point to lampoon Noah and if he had dinasaurs.
I mean are you trying to be double minded.
Either you are confused and you do not know what you believe and that is no crime or you are trying to inject rude comments onto this thread.
I am not telling you what you shuld believe as it is none of my business but could you at least understand why I was trying to discern if you were indeed a Christian or not.
Fellowship
Well, how did he fit the dinosaurs on the ark, eh?
While I strongly disagree with iBook in this discussion I don´t see the meaning with the Noahs ark argument. Wasn´t he supposed to be sailing the unified seas about 4000-5000 years ago? We can discuss the time frame but the giant lizards didn´t die away after Noah thats for sure.
Not to fuel the discussion further but isn´t it a bit strange to find fossiles so deep underground when the world is about 6000-7000 years old?
Where I have a problem is the vacancy of evidence to demonstrate what evolution is trying to say with its concept. Namely that all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is not one piece of evidence to show this.
It's the model.
Feel free to come up with an alternative as successful as evolution.
What you have stated is your personal opinion.
The evidence speaks for evolution, and the model, and against your personal opinion, and against creationism.
Quote:
There is speculation and assumptions and people assume evolution happened for the wildest reasons such as how similar many life forms are.
Nope, people believe evolution because the evidence supports it.
I though you said you understood the scientific method. Obviously you don't.
Quote:
That is not evidence however. Never in a million years is that evidence. Just because it is logical to estimate all life evolved from a common ancestor because the building blocks are so similar it is NOT evidence for supporting the theory of evolution what it is is speculation and assumption. I simply ask where is the evidence to support the assumption that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is what I am asking.
No one has ever seen a quark. Doesn't stop people coming up with models of hadrons based on quarks. If the observations fit the model, this bodes well for any underlying assumptions.
When they stop fitting, just like what happen with classical physics, you look for an explaination, and pehaps a new theory. Just like with classical physics. This is why we now have quantum theory, despite your insulting belief that scientists don't question their theories.
The model assumes a "common ancestor". This assumption is based on observation. The model is quite successful.
The evidence has been pointed out to you more than once.
Feel free to come up with an alternative model.
Quote:
Many here simply look over my question and such as xenu attack me with personal attacks such as the notion that I know very little of science.
Well boo hoo. Did you take a criticism personally?
You hypocrite. How many scientists have you insulted with your generalisations?
How many years of research have you trivialised because you don't understand science?
Quote:
I would say to them they need to evaluate how mature they are acting and tell me if assumptions and speculation is sufficient to justify a theory? It is not. Sure it is part of the process but more is needed namely "evidence"...
Lucky that evolution is based on observational evidence then, isn't it? Ever heard of Darwin, and a certain voyage?
But then, he was just a god killing materialist who no doubt smoked dope all day.
Quote:
Until somebody here can show me a piece of evidence I am done wasting my time with those who support a theory with no evidence to support it.
Read a book on evolution not written by a creationist.
Oh, that's right. You don't want to know about the evidence.
It's not part of your religious agenda.
So far evolution has withstood over 150 years of further research and observations.
I thought you understood science. I guess you don't.
Quote:
In addition I have read 12 books on evolution and I am more than aware of what the theory is and the different beliefs within the field. It is not all uniform in regard to what evolution is. Just as there are varying concepts of creationism.
To close I need evidence not a leap of faith which is what the theory of evolution is.
Fellowship
LOL. This from someone who believes there were dinasours on a mythical Noah's ark?
I did read that right, didn't I ? The tears from laughter were getting in the way, so I could have misinterpreted what I read.
So, what can we gather from all of this?
We have observations. A model is developed to understand these observations. To understand some of the observations, the model requires a "common ancestor".
Good science so far. Observations have been made. A model has been suggested. Predictions are made.
Then he claims evolution is believed because of this prediction. Completely ignoring the evidence that led to that prediction, to that model.
Let's see. Observations find a 3 degree kelvin background. A model to explain this is the big bang. Other research is performed, more observations are made. The model is tweaked, we now have inflation, and some evidence for it.
No doubt fellowship believes scientists only believe in the big bang because the model predicts there was a big bang, and not because of the evidence that led to that prediction. Or because of the success of the model.
In fellowships scientific world, it would seem the middle bit is ignored. Lucky for us all that real science doesn't work that way. But it is nice to get a glimpse into the world of "creation science".
Oh: there's the paleo-anthropological evidence too.
If we count out evolution as a solution to the question of our origins and replace it with a sacred text, we could be discussing Brahma, Siva, Obatala, /Kaggen of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa or the Swan of the Inuit since all are equally as valid and all supply the same quality of evidence. But the only people here who object to evolutionary theory are Christians (apart from trumptman, who is apparently the only non-religious fundamentalist in America who thinks that evolution is a bad theory.)
So let's take Genesis, because that's what Fangorn, ena and Fellowship (but not trumptman) believe is more accurate than evolutionary science and relativity and quantam theory and whatnot.
We are approximately 130,000 years old as a species. Archeology and genetics corroborate each other here. We have been farming as a species for only 10,000 years or so. Our main evidence is archeological, suggesting it all kicked off in the Middle East, but there's lots of fascinating linguistic and genetic evidence that appears to be cross-corroborative. But the archeological evidence alone tells us that before 10,000 years ago we lived as hunters and gatherers.
Genesis, however, is the sacred text of an agriculturalist people: that is, it does not take into account the nine tenths of human history lived before the agricultural revolution and all the cultural values and the terms used to describe the world are those of agriculturalists.
Chapter and verse: in the second Chapter of Genesis, God proclaims all the creatures of the land. Among them, marked for special attention, is cattle. Cattle are domesticated animals. And here they are, created on the same day as the first man.
In the third Chapter of Genesis, enter Abel and Cain, who are the children of the very first people. Cain is a farmer; Abel is a herder. Cain kills Abel, goes to Nod and builds the first city. And hunting and gathering people, as we know, do not build cities. Cain then uses iron tools and founds a patrilinear system of descent within a couple of pages, I see.
So, is Genesis metaphor or not? If it isn't strictly literal in one sense it can't be in another. If the anthropological history of the Old Testament is wrong should we be looking for a religious text that accounts for those tens of thousands of years we lived as hunters and gatherers instead?
Oh: there's the paleo-anthropological evidence too.
If we count out evolution as a solution to the question of our origins and replace it with a sacred text, we could be discussing Brahma, Siva, Obatala, /Kaggen of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa or the Swan of the Inuit since all are equally as valid and all supply the same quality of evidence. But the only people here who object to evolutionary theory are Christians (apart from trumptman, who is apparently the only non-religious fundamentalist in America who thinks that evolution is a bad theory.)
So let's take Genesis, because that's what Fangorn, ena and Fellowship (but not trumptman) believe is more accurate than evolutionary science and relativity and quantam theory and whatnot.
We are approximately 130,000 years old as a species. Archeology and genetics corroborate each other here. We have been farming as a species for only 10,000 years or so. Our main evidence is archeological, suggesting it all kicked off in the Middle East, but there's lots of fascinating linguistic and genetic evidence that appears to be cross-corroborative. But the archeological evidence alone tells us that before 10,000 years ago we lived as hunters and gatherers.
Genesis, however, is the sacred text of an agriculturalist people: that is, it does not take into account the nine tenths of human history lived before the agricultural revolution and all the cultural values and the terms used to describe the world are those of agriculturalists.
Chapter and verse: in the second Chapter of Genesis, God proclaims all the creatures of the land. Among them, marked for special attention, is cattle. Cattle are domesticated animals. And here they are, created on the same day as the first man.
In the third Chapter of Genesis, enter Abel and Cain, who are the children of the very first people. Cain is a farmer; Abel is a herder. Cain kills Abel, goes to Nod and builds the first city. And hunting and gathering people, as we know, do not build cities. Cain then uses iron tools and founds a patrilinear system of descent within a couple of pages, I see.
So, is Genesis metaphor or not? If it isn't strictly literal in one sense it can't be in another. If the anthropological history of the Old Testament is wrong should we be looking for a religious text that accounts for those tens of thousands of years we lived as hunters and gatherers instead?
<Fellowship>There were no hunters and gatherers. The world is only 6000 years old. Any evidence that contradicts this is either a trick of scientists that wish to discredit christianity or are tests of faith from god himself. </Fellowship>
Still waiting for a response on a few things (please go back in the thread for the full text):
What there is are assumptions based on the original concept of evolution.
Is the the big sticking point? That scientists dare operate on... gasp! Assumptions!?
Can you set aside for the moment demands for "proof"? Can you set aside trying to give alternate explanations? Can you set aside notions like "until they can show how inanimate matter turns into DNA, it's all a crock!" If you can...
Take evolutionary theory as a working assumption. Then evaluate the following:
The geographic distributions and particular variations of species that were the foundation for Darwin's original work.
The progression of fossil evidence, and how numerous dating techniques tend to sequence the fossils into sequences that looks like very much like a gradual progression of inheritance from one form to another. (Think like a grand jury here for a moment -- not a defense attorney looking for every bit of doubt he can try to shed on the prosecution's case.)
DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, is later discovered and has just the right kinds of characteristics Darwin's theory would need it to have -- a fairly stable mechanism for passing on traits, but with an element of chance mutation that can produce new variations.
"Microevolution" -- sure, it can't be used to PROVE "macroevolution", but small changes driven by natural selection, already seen on the small time scales we've had for studying the subject, certainly don't clash with the assumptions of evolution, do they?
Strong correlation between genomes in different species and likely lines of descent and common ancestry.
Numerous computational experiments that can demonstrate self organizing systems that arise from random variation coupled with selective forces.
Chemical experiments demonstrating that the building blocks of life can be produced with ease, starting from non-living matter. (Again, if your mind is screaming that this isn't the same thing as "proving" that DNA and cells can arise from inanimate matter, you aren't answering the right question. The question is: Do these experiments fit in without contradiction, and do they at least lend a little support, to the theory of evolution and its assumptions?)
Are you so ungenerous in your evaluation of evolution and the skills of evolutionary scientist's that you'd deny every one of these points even the faintest nod that, yes, you can see how this evidence might reasonably be viewed as fitting the assumptions of evolutionary theory?
Oh: there's the paleo-anthropological evidence too.
We are approximately 130,000 years old as a species. Archeology and genetics corroborate each other here.
---there are studies that suggest "Eve" is much yonger than that.
Also, evolution's complete inability to account for the construction of DNA-based lifeforms is at issue here. You still can't posit these things scientifically.
Can you set aside for the moment demands for "proof"? Can you set aside trying to give alternate explanations? Can you set aside notions like "until they can show how inanimate matter turns into DNA, it's all a crock!" If you can...
How can you just skip over this point? We don't even know if it's possible. It hasn't been demonstrated scientifically, so how can you build assumptions on top of iffy hypothesis?
I don't understand how you can blindly say that order is inherent to the universe (which we DO NOT see---we see the opposite) except from the standpoint of an atheistic desire for full participation in the chain of being.
I guess I don't understand this blind faith of yours (that is essentially theological in nature) being fiercely paraded as something that you have tested and discover empirically.
Not to fuel the discussion further but isn´t it a bit strange to find fossiles so deep underground when the world is about 6000-7000 years old?
As a test of man's Faith, GOD caused them to be buried that deeply when he created the earth, sun, and entire cosmos (and all those fossels) 6000 years ago.
---there are studies that suggest "Eve" is much yonger than that.
Also, evolution's complete inability to account for the construction of DNA-based lifeforms is at issue here. You still can't posit these things scientifically.
Wow!
A huge post about one thing you rebut by talking about another thing altogether!
Cool!
And incidentaly, Eve was not the first human, merely a common ancestor (mitrochondrial DNA). So:
1) She may well be younger then 13000 years.
2) You post not only ignored the points HbS raised but was bollocks too!
I hesitate to even add more fuel to a deliberate fire, but indications are very good that "ena" is only here to troll. I hesitate because even commenting that someone is trolling has a way of spinning out of control into dozens of message on that subject -- just what trolls love.
So all I'll say, and I hope any response at all is short and sweet: please don't feed the trolls. Thank you.
---there are studies that suggest "Eve" is much yonger than that.
You's iggn'nt. 'Mitochondrial Eve' isn't the first woman of all women, she's only the woman from whom all SURVIVING mitochondrial DNA claims its descent.
We date our species on archeology and dozens of different kinds of genetic markers. Do a Google for 'haplotypes'.
Aaaaaaaand in the meantime, Genesis still has domesticated cattle before the end of the first week and ironwork, patrilinear descent, cities and agriculture within a generation.
COME ON. Let's at least find a better sacred text.
You guys really surprise me. Somehow the key to the abject failure of the miracle of evolution is found in Genesis? Evolution simply doesn't have legs, bringing in Christianity's or Islam's sacred texts isn't a very good distraction.
You guys just need to give up and admit you have the theological issues that need reassessing. If you could do that you might actually be fit to study your origins scientifically.
Or at the very least, go hog wild and accept punctuated equilibrium---with the whole alien-seeded DNA thingy.
You's iggn'nt. 'Mitochondrial Eve' isn't the first woman of all women, she's only the woman from whom all SURVIVING mitochondrial DNA claims its descent.
We date our species on archeology and dozens of different kinds of genetic markers. Do a Google for 'haplotypes'.
Aaaaaaaand in the meantime, Genesis still has domesticated cattle before the end of the first week and ironwork, patrilinear descent, cities and agriculture within a generation.
COME ON. Let's at least find a better sacred text.
....nice try, you are loath to admit that evolutionists didn't expect one mitochondrial ?surname?.
You guys really surprise me. Somehow the key to the abject failure of the miracle of evolution is found in Genesis? Evolution simply doesn't have legs, bringing in Christianity's or Islam's sacred texts isn't a very good distraction.
You guys just need to give up and admit you have the theological issues that need reassessing. If you could do that you might actually be fit to study your origins scientifically.
Or at the very least, go hog wild and accept punctuated equilibrium---with the whole alien-seeded DNA thingy.
The key to understand the (often decidedly non-scientific) criticisms of evolution can be found in genesis. The requirements for evolution to replace, as a working theory, creation does not make sense. Yet that is what some here have argued for. What needs to be understood is that in no way shape or form does evolution describe our origins any more than saying newtonian physics can describe where that rubber ball you just threw was made. Its a theory about transitions and since the origins of life can never be proven, as of now, no scientific theory discusses this. The models for the origin of the universe can however be analyzed and questioned experimentally because there are still tell-tale signs of that origin or whatever. But life, at least on this planet, exists and has, by all evidence, existed for at least 3.5 billion years here. What evolution is trying to describe is how those fossils that date to that era get to be the fossils left by large herbaceous dinosaurs and indeed humans. And as has been argued countless times, it is the best one out there where almost all of the evidence supports its suppositions. From evolution you can predict an origin of life, what ever one you wish for, but that prediction is just a prediction and with our current techniques it is a decidedly untestable prediction. Claims that the properties of physics and chemistry cannot lead to evolution and biodiversity and even cellular life from simple components are frankly bullshit. But this does not mean that all cells or even any cells came from simple chemicals.
I believe that all life on earth came from simple chemicals some large number of eons ago. But I accept the theory of evolution for what it is.
Comments
Originally posted by FormerLurker
You didn't ask "Are you a Christian?"
You asked "I take it you are not a Christian then?"
BIG difference! You inferred your doubt that I was a Christian (apparently because I thought it possible that the Bible was not 100% accurate).
Not that it's really any big deal... I was raised in church and baptized and all, but haven't attended besides the occasional holiday in many years.
I am very sorry. I just don't come in contact with "Christians" who make it a point to lampoon Noah and if he had dinasaurs.
I mean are you trying to be double minded.
Either you are confused and you do not know what you believe and that is no crime or you are trying to inject rude comments onto this thread.
I am not telling you what you shuld believe as it is none of my business but could you at least understand why I was trying to discern if you were indeed a Christian or not.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I am very sorry. I just don't come in contact with "Christians" who make it a point to lampoon Noah and if he had dinasaurs.
I mean are you trying to be double minded.
Either you are confused and you do not know what you believe and that is no crime or you are trying to inject rude comments onto this thread.
I am not telling you what you shuld believe as it is none of my business but could you at least understand why I was trying to discern if you were indeed a Christian or not.
Fellowship
Well, how did he fit the dinosaurs on the ark, eh?
Originally posted by BR
Well, how did he fit the dinosaurs on the ark, eh?
That is a good question and I do not have the answer to it.
I don't know how God does many things but I don't doubt that God can do all things. hence Supernatural.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
That is a good question and I do not have the answer to it.
I don't know how God does many things but I don't doubt that God can do all things. hence Supernatural.
Fellowship
Umm, god didn't build the ark. christ man...you don't even know the story of noah?
Not to fuel the discussion further but isn´t it a bit strange to find fossiles so deep underground when the world is about 6000-7000 years old?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
...
Where I have a problem is the vacancy of evidence to demonstrate what evolution is trying to say with its concept. Namely that all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is not one piece of evidence to show this.
It's the model.
Feel free to come up with an alternative as successful as evolution.
What you have stated is your personal opinion.
The evidence speaks for evolution, and the model, and against your personal opinion, and against creationism.
There is speculation and assumptions and people assume evolution happened for the wildest reasons such as how similar many life forms are.
Nope, people believe evolution because the evidence supports it.
I though you said you understood the scientific method. Obviously you don't.
That is not evidence however. Never in a million years is that evidence. Just because it is logical to estimate all life evolved from a common ancestor because the building blocks are so similar it is NOT evidence for supporting the theory of evolution what it is is speculation and assumption. I simply ask where is the evidence to support the assumption that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is what I am asking.
No one has ever seen a quark. Doesn't stop people coming up with models of hadrons based on quarks. If the observations fit the model, this bodes well for any underlying assumptions.
When they stop fitting, just like what happen with classical physics, you look for an explaination, and pehaps a new theory. Just like with classical physics. This is why we now have quantum theory, despite your insulting belief that scientists don't question their theories.
The model assumes a "common ancestor". This assumption is based on observation. The model is quite successful.
The evidence has been pointed out to you more than once.
Feel free to come up with an alternative model.
Many here simply look over my question and such as xenu attack me with personal attacks such as the notion that I know very little of science.
Well boo hoo. Did you take a criticism personally?
You hypocrite. How many scientists have you insulted with your generalisations?
How many years of research have you trivialised because you don't understand science?
I would say to them they need to evaluate how mature they are acting and tell me if assumptions and speculation is sufficient to justify a theory? It is not. Sure it is part of the process but more is needed namely "evidence"...
Lucky that evolution is based on observational evidence then, isn't it? Ever heard of Darwin, and a certain voyage?
But then, he was just a god killing materialist who no doubt smoked dope all day.
Until somebody here can show me a piece of evidence I am done wasting my time with those who support a theory with no evidence to support it.
Read a book on evolution not written by a creationist.
Oh, that's right. You don't want to know about the evidence.
It's not part of your religious agenda.
So far evolution has withstood over 150 years of further research and observations.
I thought you understood science. I guess you don't.
In addition I have read 12 books on evolution and I am more than aware of what the theory is and the different beliefs within the field. It is not all uniform in regard to what evolution is. Just as there are varying concepts of creationism.
To close I need evidence not a leap of faith which is what the theory of evolution is.
Fellowship
LOL. This from someone who believes there were dinasours on a mythical Noah's ark?
I did read that right, didn't I ? The tears from laughter were getting in the way, so I could have misinterpreted what I read.
So, what can we gather from all of this?
We have observations. A model is developed to understand these observations. To understand some of the observations, the model requires a "common ancestor".
Good science so far. Observations have been made. A model has been suggested. Predictions are made.
Then he claims evolution is believed because of this prediction. Completely ignoring the evidence that led to that prediction, to that model.
Let's see. Observations find a 3 degree kelvin background. A model to explain this is the big bang. Other research is performed, more observations are made. The model is tweaked, we now have inflation, and some evidence for it.
No doubt fellowship believes scientists only believe in the big bang because the model predicts there was a big bang, and not because of the evidence that led to that prediction. Or because of the success of the model.
In fellowships scientific world, it would seem the middle bit is ignored. Lucky for us all that real science doesn't work that way. But it is nice to get a glimpse into the world of "creation science".
If we count out evolution as a solution to the question of our origins and replace it with a sacred text, we could be discussing Brahma, Siva, Obatala, /Kaggen of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa or the Swan of the Inuit since all are equally as valid and all supply the same quality of evidence. But the only people here who object to evolutionary theory are Christians (apart from trumptman, who is apparently the only non-religious fundamentalist in America who thinks that evolution is a bad theory.)
So let's take Genesis, because that's what Fangorn, ena and Fellowship (but not trumptman) believe is more accurate than evolutionary science and relativity and quantam theory and whatnot.
We are approximately 130,000 years old as a species. Archeology and genetics corroborate each other here. We have been farming as a species for only 10,000 years or so. Our main evidence is archeological, suggesting it all kicked off in the Middle East, but there's lots of fascinating linguistic and genetic evidence that appears to be cross-corroborative. But the archeological evidence alone tells us that before 10,000 years ago we lived as hunters and gatherers.
Genesis, however, is the sacred text of an agriculturalist people: that is, it does not take into account the nine tenths of human history lived before the agricultural revolution and all the cultural values and the terms used to describe the world are those of agriculturalists.
Chapter and verse: in the second Chapter of Genesis, God proclaims all the creatures of the land. Among them, marked for special attention, is cattle. Cattle are domesticated animals. And here they are, created on the same day as the first man.
In the third Chapter of Genesis, enter Abel and Cain, who are the children of the very first people. Cain is a farmer; Abel is a herder. Cain kills Abel, goes to Nod and builds the first city. And hunting and gathering people, as we know, do not build cities. Cain then uses iron tools and founds a patrilinear system of descent within a couple of pages, I see.
So, is Genesis metaphor or not? If it isn't strictly literal in one sense it can't be in another. If the anthropological history of the Old Testament is wrong should we be looking for a religious text that accounts for those tens of thousands of years we lived as hunters and gatherers instead?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh: there's the paleo-anthropological evidence too.
If we count out evolution as a solution to the question of our origins and replace it with a sacred text, we could be discussing Brahma, Siva, Obatala, /Kaggen of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa or the Swan of the Inuit since all are equally as valid and all supply the same quality of evidence. But the only people here who object to evolutionary theory are Christians (apart from trumptman, who is apparently the only non-religious fundamentalist in America who thinks that evolution is a bad theory.)
So let's take Genesis, because that's what Fangorn, ena and Fellowship (but not trumptman) believe is more accurate than evolutionary science and relativity and quantam theory and whatnot.
We are approximately 130,000 years old as a species. Archeology and genetics corroborate each other here. We have been farming as a species for only 10,000 years or so. Our main evidence is archeological, suggesting it all kicked off in the Middle East, but there's lots of fascinating linguistic and genetic evidence that appears to be cross-corroborative. But the archeological evidence alone tells us that before 10,000 years ago we lived as hunters and gatherers.
Genesis, however, is the sacred text of an agriculturalist people: that is, it does not take into account the nine tenths of human history lived before the agricultural revolution and all the cultural values and the terms used to describe the world are those of agriculturalists.
Chapter and verse: in the second Chapter of Genesis, God proclaims all the creatures of the land. Among them, marked for special attention, is cattle. Cattle are domesticated animals. And here they are, created on the same day as the first man.
In the third Chapter of Genesis, enter Abel and Cain, who are the children of the very first people. Cain is a farmer; Abel is a herder. Cain kills Abel, goes to Nod and builds the first city. And hunting and gathering people, as we know, do not build cities. Cain then uses iron tools and founds a patrilinear system of descent within a couple of pages, I see.
So, is Genesis metaphor or not? If it isn't strictly literal in one sense it can't be in another. If the anthropological history of the Old Testament is wrong should we be looking for a religious text that accounts for those tens of thousands of years we lived as hunters and gatherers instead?
<Fellowship>There were no hunters and gatherers. The world is only 6000 years old. Any evidence that contradicts this is either a trick of scientists that wish to discredit christianity or are tests of faith from god himself. </Fellowship>
What there is are assumptions based on the original concept of evolution.
Is the the big sticking point? That scientists dare operate on... gasp! Assumptions!?
Can you set aside for the moment demands for "proof"? Can you set aside trying to give alternate explanations? Can you set aside notions like "until they can show how inanimate matter turns into DNA, it's all a crock!" If you can...
Take evolutionary theory as a working assumption. Then evaluate the following:
- The geographic distributions and particular variations of species that were the foundation for Darwin's original work.
- The progression of fossil evidence, and how numerous dating techniques tend to sequence the fossils into sequences that looks like very much like a gradual progression of inheritance from one form to another. (Think like a grand jury here for a moment -- not a defense attorney looking for every bit of doubt he can try to shed on the prosecution's case.)
- DNA, which Darwin knew nothing about, is later discovered and has just the right kinds of characteristics Darwin's theory would need it to have -- a fairly stable mechanism for passing on traits, but with an element of chance mutation that can produce new variations.
- "Microevolution" -- sure, it can't be used to PROVE "macroevolution", but small changes driven by natural selection, already seen on the small time scales we've had for studying the subject, certainly don't clash with the assumptions of evolution, do they?
- Strong correlation between genomes in different species and likely lines of descent and common ancestry.
- Numerous computational experiments that can demonstrate self organizing systems that arise from random variation coupled with selective forces.
- Chemical experiments demonstrating that the building blocks of life can be produced with ease, starting from non-living matter. (Again, if your mind is screaming that this isn't the same thing as "proving" that DNA and cells can arise from inanimate matter, you aren't answering the right question. The question is: Do these experiments fit in without contradiction, and do they at least lend a little support, to the theory of evolution and its assumptions?)
Are you so ungenerous in your evaluation of evolution and the skills of evolutionary scientist's that you'd deny every one of these points even the faintest nod that, yes, you can see how this evidence might reasonably be viewed as fitting the assumptions of evolutionary theory?I was serious. Are dinosaurs a test of faith to you Fellows?
this thread is a test of faith to me.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh: there's the paleo-anthropological evidence too.
We are approximately 130,000 years old as a species. Archeology and genetics corroborate each other here.
---there are studies that suggest "Eve" is much yonger than that.
Also, evolution's complete inability to account for the construction of DNA-based lifeforms is at issue here. You still can't posit these things scientifically.
Originally posted by shetline
Can you set aside for the moment demands for "proof"? Can you set aside trying to give alternate explanations? Can you set aside notions like "until they can show how inanimate matter turns into DNA, it's all a crock!" If you can...
How can you just skip over this point? We don't even know if it's possible. It hasn't been demonstrated scientifically, so how can you build assumptions on top of iffy hypothesis?
I don't understand how you can blindly say that order is inherent to the universe (which we DO NOT see---we see the opposite) except from the standpoint of an atheistic desire for full participation in the chain of being.
I guess I don't understand this blind faith of yours (that is essentially theological in nature) being fiercely paraded as something that you have tested and discover empirically.
It's just silly.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Not to fuel the discussion further but isn´t it a bit strange to find fossiles so deep underground when the world is about 6000-7000 years old?
As a test of man's Faith, GOD caused them to be buried that deeply when he created the earth, sun, and entire cosmos (and all those fossels) 6000 years ago.
Originally posted by ena
---there are studies that suggest "Eve" is much yonger than that.
Also, evolution's complete inability to account for the construction of DNA-based lifeforms is at issue here. You still can't posit these things scientifically.
Wow!
A huge post about one thing you rebut by talking about another thing altogether!
Cool!
And incidentaly, Eve was not the first human, merely a common ancestor (mitrochondrial DNA). So:
1) She may well be younger then 13000 years.
2) You post not only ignored the points HbS raised but was bollocks too!
Good goin' fella!
So all I'll say, and I hope any response at all is short and sweet: please don't feed the trolls. Thank you.
Originally posted by ena
---there are studies that suggest "Eve" is much yonger than that.
You's iggn'nt. 'Mitochondrial Eve' isn't the first woman of all women, she's only the woman from whom all SURVIVING mitochondrial DNA claims its descent.
We date our species on archeology and dozens of different kinds of genetic markers. Do a Google for 'haplotypes'.
Aaaaaaaand in the meantime, Genesis still has domesticated cattle before the end of the first week and ironwork, patrilinear descent, cities and agriculture within a generation.
COME ON. Let's at least find a better sacred text.
You guys really surprise me. Somehow the key to the abject failure of the miracle of evolution is found in Genesis? Evolution simply doesn't have legs, bringing in Christianity's or Islam's sacred texts isn't a very good distraction.
You guys just need to give up and admit you have the theological issues that need reassessing. If you could do that you might actually be fit to study your origins scientifically.
Or at the very least, go hog wild and accept punctuated equilibrium---with the whole alien-seeded DNA thingy.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You's iggn'nt. 'Mitochondrial Eve' isn't the first woman of all women, she's only the woman from whom all SURVIVING mitochondrial DNA claims its descent.
We date our species on archeology and dozens of different kinds of genetic markers. Do a Google for 'haplotypes'.
Aaaaaaaand in the meantime, Genesis still has domesticated cattle before the end of the first week and ironwork, patrilinear descent, cities and agriculture within a generation.
COME ON. Let's at least find a better sacred text.
....nice try, you are loath to admit that evolutionists didn't expect one mitochondrial ?surname?.
keep moving those goalposts guys.....
Originally posted by ena
Oh boy.
You guys really surprise me. Somehow the key to the abject failure of the miracle of evolution is found in Genesis? Evolution simply doesn't have legs, bringing in Christianity's or Islam's sacred texts isn't a very good distraction.
You guys just need to give up and admit you have the theological issues that need reassessing. If you could do that you might actually be fit to study your origins scientifically.
Or at the very least, go hog wild and accept punctuated equilibrium---with the whole alien-seeded DNA thingy.
The key to understand the (often decidedly non-scientific) criticisms of evolution can be found in genesis. The requirements for evolution to replace, as a working theory, creation does not make sense. Yet that is what some here have argued for. What needs to be understood is that in no way shape or form does evolution describe our origins any more than saying newtonian physics can describe where that rubber ball you just threw was made. Its a theory about transitions and since the origins of life can never be proven, as of now, no scientific theory discusses this. The models for the origin of the universe can however be analyzed and questioned experimentally because there are still tell-tale signs of that origin or whatever. But life, at least on this planet, exists and has, by all evidence, existed for at least 3.5 billion years here. What evolution is trying to describe is how those fossils that date to that era get to be the fossils left by large herbaceous dinosaurs and indeed humans. And as has been argued countless times, it is the best one out there where almost all of the evidence supports its suppositions. From evolution you can predict an origin of life, what ever one you wish for, but that prediction is just a prediction and with our current techniques it is a decidedly untestable prediction. Claims that the properties of physics and chemistry cannot lead to evolution and biodiversity and even cellular life from simple components are frankly bullshit. But this does not mean that all cells or even any cells came from simple chemicals.
I believe that all life on earth came from simple chemicals some large number of eons ago. But I accept the theory of evolution for what it is.