Gaps in Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulBeaver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
haaa, oh you are too much Thorwald, mass extinction events are quite common, the rule rather than the exception. heres one of my favorite links:

newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/mg20227131400V1/mg2022713100V1.html

newscientist.com

Gaia’s evil twin: is life its own worst enemy?

methane crisis
great oxidation event
first snowball earth
second snowball earth
ordovician mass extinction
devonian mass extinction
carboniferous glaciation
permian mass extinction
triassic/jurassic mass extinction
toarcian extinction
end jurassic extinction
cenomanian/turonian extinction
etc etc etc

so please, research these questions:
how hot was it when the dinosaurs were around?
at what temperature does your brain start to die?
how did mass extinction events remove carbon from the environment?
will digging up all the carbon that was buried in those mass extinction events cause the temperature to revert back to where it was before it was buried? (hint, yes.)

if you want to look at it as if the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs was gods work, so we could have a planet that is habitable to what we currently are, then please by all means do so, just dont unbury all the fossil fuels, doing so will cause us to go extinct.

also, we DO see fish gaining limbs through the fossil record, even coming up out of the water today. we see whales’ and snakes’ limbs receding in the fossil record (but theyre still there today, even if theyre only nubs or bones under the surface, some snakes even have a set of limbs too), there’s your tailbone, babies being born with tails, chicken being born with teeth.
 
curioosbadger said:
haaa, oh you are too much Thorwald, mass extinction events are quite common, the rule rather than the exception. heres one of my favorite links:

newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/mg20227131400V1/mg2022713100V1.html

newscientist.com

Gaia’s evil twin: is life its own worst enemy?

methane crisis
great oxidation event
first snowball earth
second snowball earth
ordovician mass extinction
devonian mass extinction
carboniferous glaciation
permian mass extinction
triassic/jurassic mass extinction
toarcian extinction
end jurassic extinction
cenomanian/turonian extinction
etc etc etc

so please, research these questions:
how hot was it when the dinosaurs were around?
at what temperature does your brain start to die?
how did mass extinction events remove carbon from the environment?
will digging up all the carbon that was buried in those mass extinction events cause the temperature to revert back to where it was before it was buried? (hint, yes.)

if you want to look at it as if the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs was gods work, so we could have a planet that is habitable to what we currently are, then please by all means do so, just dont unbury all the fossil fuels, doing so will cause us to go extinct.

also, we DO see fish gaining limbs through the fossil record, even coming up out of the water today. we see whales’ and snakes’ limbs receding in the fossil record (but theyre still there today, even if theyre only nubs or bones under the surface, some snakes even have a set of limbs too), there’s your tailbone, babies being born with tails, chicken being born with teeth.
Click to expand...
Has it ever occurred to you, that animals were created, in order to become extinct, with first, the dinosaurs (man and these huge ‘beasts’ could not survive together), and as the population of man increased on the earth, it becomes necessary for animal extinction, especially if man and animals are in competition for food/land? If certain animals are not necessary for the survival of man, and are in conflict with man’s survival, why would it not be proper for these animals to become extinct? Man is created ‘above’ the animals.

We assume that the ‘interpretation’ by scientists of ‘evolving’ species, is correct. What if each of the different species, were created ‘differently’ to begin with? How many species have disappeared, where no fossil exists? Connecting fossils in an ‘evolution’ manner, may not even be correct. It could be that we are playing with ‘less than a full deck’. 🙂
🙂
 
planten said:
In order to discuss evolution, we should define it first. It is understood that evolution has a tripod (three legged system, namely:
  1. Origin of Species,
  2. Natural Selection,
  3. Survival of the fittest.
If the above is true then evolution cannot be proved because the middle leg is missing. The natural selection is impossible. I am not an expert on this subject but I had seen a book (which I mentioned in my post #3 in this thread). It is titled " Revelation, Rationality, knowledge and Truth" by Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

That person has debunked the natural selection considering it as impossible. He has also discussed the atheistic views and the subject of “God created man or man created God.” There are many quotations in that book with references.
Click to expand...
not quite, take two minutes to watch this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho

or go to youtube and type in “2 minute evolution” its the top result, made by DonExodus2.

3 parts of evolution are:

mutation
natural selection
genetic drift

origin of species is short for “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” a 150 year old book. despite the word origin in the title, evolution isnt about how life started, it explains the diversity of life.
 
Thorwald said:
Has it ever occurred to you, that animals were created, in order to become extinct, with first, the dinosaurs (man and these huge ‘beasts’ could not survive together), and as the population of man increased on the earth, it becomes necessary for animal extinction, especially if man and animals are in competition for food/land? If certain animals are not necessary for the survival of man, and are in conflict with man’s survival, why would it not be proper for these animals to become extinct? Man is created ‘above’ the animals.

We assume that the ‘interpretation’ by scientists of ‘evolving’ species, is correct. What if each of the different species, were created ‘differently’ to begin with? How many species have disappeared, where no fossil exists? Connecting fossils in an ‘evolution’ manner, may not even be correct. It could be that we are playing with ‘less than a full deck’. 🙂
🙂
Click to expand...
its pretty obvious we rule the world, but making other animals extinct is irrelevent here- we are going to kill ourselves off. not all life on earth, plenty of things will get quite a boon out of it being hotter, but not humans.

we dont need to see the full deck to know what card we have in our hand. even if we didnt have a single fossil we can still prove evolution thanks to dna:

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

already posted this link a few times, but that may have been upwards of 15 pages ago.

youtube “Ken Miller on Human Evolution”
 
curioosbadger said:
its pretty obvious we rule the world, but making other animals extinct is irrelevent here- we are going to kill ourselves off. not all life on earth, plenty of things will get quite a boon out of it being hotter, but not humans.

we dont need to see the full deck to know what card we have in our hand. even if we didnt have a single fossil we can still prove evolution thanks to dna:

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

already posted this link a few times, but that may have been upwards of 15 pages ago.

youtube “Ken Miller on Human Evolution”
Click to expand...
Which monkey’s DNA has been traced to modern man? Which fish’s DNA has been traced to which lizzard, etc.? 🙂
 
Thorwald said:
Believers in evolution ‘equate’ Neanderthals to ‘man created in the image of God’. Who is to say, that though Neanderthals look very much like man, that they were not in fact, animals (albeit, the highest order)? Although life is ‘evolving’ even now, these changes are simply due to food, weather, marriage, polution,etc. There are no ‘dramatic’ changes (fish gaining limbs, monkeys losing their tails and becoming humans, etc.). This tells me, that creation is the proper explanation to the existence of life on this planet. It appears, that no matter what we have done to, or are doing to, this planet, we are still able to exist. This is quite a phenomena in itself. God will not let us totally destroy the planet. 🙂
Click to expand...
You hvae a weird impression of evolution. You should reserach it and fine out what the theory really says before you dismiss it. The above is like me dismissing maths because i can’t get sums to add up, all of the time believing 3+3=3*3.
 
planten said:
** In order to discuss evolution, we should define it first. It is understood that evolution has a tripod (three legged system, namely:
  1. Origin of Species,
  2. Natural Selection,
  3. Survival of the fittest.
If the above is true then evolution cannot be proved because the middle leg is missing. The natural selection is impossible. I am not an expert on this subject but I had seen a book (which I mentioned in my post #3 in this thread). It is titled " Revelation, Rationality, knowledge and Truth" by Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

That person has debunked the natural selection considering it as impossible. He has also discussed the atheistic views and the subject of “God created man or man created God.” There are many quotations in that book with references.

The atheists are perhaps materialistic. They may not believe in any soul. Man consists of body and soul. Body is visible, soul is not visible. So if the soul is denied just because it cannot be seen, that would not be right. there are many things that we cannot see. But they are there.

Then there are such things as feelings.i.e. Love, hatred, sympathy, envy, jealousy, pain, happiness. If they do not exist or they are not real, then what to do about them? Should they be discarded from the vocabulary and dictionaries? If God is a fiction, i.e. some supposed idea, so let it be. No need to get rid of Him.

I have come down to the idea of God and left the realm of evolution for the time being. We believe that the world and the Universe is the WORK of God. God made Himself known to us by His words. The sacred scriptures are the WORDS of God. There is no difference between the Work of God (That is Science) and the words of God.

The work of God is being explained by the Science to some limited extent. Daily new discoveries are made. Some new theories come up and the older theories become obsolete. The unknown (Ghaib) is being made known, the unseen is being brought to light and is seen now. We did not know about the atom until recently. It always existed but was not well known. The scientists (Cosmologists) believed the Sun to be stationary.

I would not deny evolution. Yet i would not like to go along with the atheists for the reason that they are quite new on the scene taking support from Science. Religion has been here for a long time. Religion was the first source of knowledge. Science is quite recent. Not all scientists were atheists. Also, the science has not given any useful reply to the name of the Prime Mover. They know that everything is mde by some one. There is nothing that is not made by itself. If there is a wall, it has to be made by some one. These may be very basic time old (out dated) arguments. But that is what we have. We believe that there is a Creator of the Universe. We call Him God.

If a matter about existence of God is discussed with atheists,they finally recline (or decline) to the status of being Agnostics i.e. half way between a Theist and Atheist.**
Click to expand...
Evolution is not a “tripod legged system”.

As i have already pointed out to you the author of your book doesn’t even understand the basics evolution.

And if your an agnostic that says nothing about whether you are an atheist. Most agnoistics are atheists. I am an agnoistic atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism deals with belief.
 
josie_L said:
Oh yes, the shackles of mercy, love, and hope are sure weighting me down. Get over your caricature of faith and then you’ll see why people love God. And as I have explained to you countless times I have nothing against science and I appreciate the truth that it reveals but it cannot nor ever reveal to us the real reasons we are here (and how to live our lives) or if for that matter there is a God and an afterlife.
Click to expand...
Of course you love science, look what is has done for you life. Lets be honest though if you lived 1000 years ago you’d be believing all the silly bible stories about origins, it just so happen science has proved the bible wrong. Sorry science has demoted the bible to symbolism.

As i has been pointed out to you, we have no reason to think there is any reason we are here.
 
Thorwald said:
Which monkey’s DNA has been traced to modern man? Which fish’s DNA has been traced to which lizzard, etc.? 🙂
Click to expand...
Do you believe we can use DNA for paternity testing? For it’s a PROVEN fact we can, and its the EXACT same tests that uncover the relationships of animals, which includes us.

I’m amazed by folk like you, you try to pick holes with something you don’t even have the most basic understadning of. I don’t know anything about fixing cars, not a thing. I wouldn’t dream of walking into a garage and telling the mechanic how to fix my car.

Do you think you know more about maths than Newton? Do you know more about physics than Einstein? What on earth makes you think (who by looking at your post’s couldn’t even being to grasp undergraduate biology) that you know more about biology than Dawkins? Makes you think you know more than all the greatest biologists on earth combined??
 
Thorwald said:
Which monkey’s DNA has been traced to modern man? Which fish’s DNA has been traced to which lizzard, etc.? 🙂
Click to expand...
all of them. why do you think people are always quoting how genetically similar we are to chimps, mice, even banana’s(which we arnt very similar to at all obviously :P).

now on to the links 😃

Aron ra’s “Ida know”
youtube.com/watch?v=Ri20shBEsls

goes through all nuances of what evolved from what in terms of monkies, apes and so on.
 
josie_L said:
Science can only explain the how not the why.
Click to expand...
JosieL, you might find this book useful: Matt Young and Paul Strode, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails), Rutgers University Press, 2009.

Description:

Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) is an impassioned argument in favor of science—primarily the theory of evolution—and against creationism. Why impassioned? Should not scientists be dispassionate in their work? “Perhaps,” write the authors, “but it is impossible to remain neutral when our most successful scientific theories are under attack, for religious and other reasons, by laypeople and even some scientists who willfully distort scientific findings and use them for their own purposes.”

Focusing on what other books omit, how science works and how pseudoscience works, Matt Young and Paul K. Strode demonstrate the futility of “scientific” creationism. They debunk the notion of intelligent design and other arguments that show evolution could not have produced life in its present form.

Concluding with a frank discussion of science and religion, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails) argues that science by no means excludes religion, though it ought tocast doubt on certain religious claims that are contrary to known scientific fact.
About the Authors:

Matt Young is a senior lecturer in the department of physics at the Colorado School of Mines. A prolific writer, he is the coauthor of Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (Rutgers University Press).

Paul K. Strode is a biology teacher in Boulder, Colorado, and an instructor in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, with a doctoral degree in ecology and environmental science.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
As pointed out to you by curioosbadger, before you even try to explain “why” you must first prove there is a why.
Click to expand...
Why must I?
As i have explained to you countless times.
Click to expand...
You haven’t explained. You have asserted dogmatically.
When is comes to understanding our universe sceince destroys religion. Forget the silly why questions
Click to expand...
Why?

You are simply ruling out by fiat a whole set of questions with which human beings have traditionally concerned themselves. This is odd. The most reasonable explanation is that you are dogmatically committed to a very limited paradigm (modern science) as the only possible explanation of the universe, and thus you are compelled to rule out as irrelevant all the questions that science can’t answer.

And since you can’t make a reasoned case for your position, you result to an impassioned, evangelical-style appeal to us to be converted to your wonderful religion!

Edwin
 
Thorwald said:
Believers in evolution ‘equate’ Neanderthals to ‘man created in the image of God’. Who is to say, that though Neanderthals look very much like man, that they were not in fact, animals (albeit, the highest order)?
Click to expand...
Or that they were “Abel.”

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
And since you can’t make a reasoned case for your position, you result to an impassioned, evangelical-style appeal to us to be converted to your wonderful religion!Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin, I work with non theistic as well as theistic scientists, but they are for the most part gentle folk, who agree to disagree. Charles Darwin on this forum strikes me as an evangelical atheist of the sort that is Richard Dawkins.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
I don’t really attack it, i just think it’s kind of silly.
Click to expand...
And saying something’s silly isn’t attacking it? You are on a Catholic forum, expressing your contempt for religion. It would be worth your while to try to understand what we mean by the language we use.
Let’s be honest you don’t have one shread of REAL evidence that there is a superbeing that created the universe.
Click to expand...
First of all, God is not a superbeing. Second, I probably don’t have what you consider real evidence. Why should I care about what you consider real evidence? You have already said that you think the “why” question should be tabled. So it seems odd for you to ask for “real evidence” for a proposition in which you have no interest.

For me the existence of anything at all is evidence that there is an ultimate cause, containing within itself all the perfections existing in the created world. I don’t claim that this is evidence in the scientific sense. I’m not talking scientifically at all.

Furthermore, I am part of a tradition that holds to the existence of a creator God. This tradition makes sense of the world (and has furthermore given rise both to modern science and to most of the ethical assumptions that distinguish modern Western society). I would need very good reasons (and an excellent alternative, offering superior “why” explanations and not just ruling them out) to abandon this tradition.

If you want to understand how I think about evidence and the reasons for faith, I would recommend the following books:

William James, The Will to Believe
Alistair MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry
William Abraham, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has also deeply shaped how I think about these matters, although of course he is not explicitly talking about faith. (Rather, Kuhn’s view of scientific paradigms matches up quite nicely with what MacIntyre means by a “tradition.”)

Edwin
 
Charles_Darwin said:
I’m not a big fan of philosophy, when it comes to understanding the universe science it where its at. Philosophy and religion don’t even come close.
Click to expand...
Because we are asking different questions, in which you are not interested. Well, that’s your loss. But don’t you think it’s a waste of time (and might give people a poor idea of your wisdom and intelligence) to come onto this forum and accuse us of lacking “evidence” when you don’t even recognize the validity of the intellectual disciplines we are using?

It’s like the physicists who tell biologists that they aren’t doing “real science” because they can’t wrap up everything in mathematical equations.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Because we are asking different questions, in which you are not interested. Well, that’s your loss. But don’t you think it’s a waste of time (and might give people a poor idea of your wisdom and intelligence) to come onto this forum and accuse us of lacking “evidence” when you don’t even recognize the validity of the intellectual disciplines we are using?

It’s like the physicists who tell biologists that they aren’t doing “real science” because they can’t wrap up everything in mathematical equations.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Actually to start with they asked the same question. Religion is now reduced to asking the “why” questions because is has been thoroughly routed from the “how” questions.

The reasons we should not concern ourselfs with why questions is because all answers are purly unfounded speculation, and time wasted on that unfounded speculation could be time spent uncovering how questions.

Also if there was a god, then god would be part of nature, so science would NOT exclude god. The reason god is “excluded” is because saying god did it, is the EXACT same as saying we dont know, its a non answer. To quote Tyson deGrasse “It’s a philosophy of ignorance”.

Look its not hard to understand we have full explanations for alomst every event since the big bang and none of them include, need, nor warrant the involvement of a “god”. Now you can claim god is hiding behind the big bang, but thats all you have, an unfounded claim without a single shread of evidence to back it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top