Jump to content

Canadians divided over creation and evolution


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

The time of the creation of man is derived from accounting back through the genealogies described in the Bible.
Yes.

If scientists would care more about their relatives than about capitalists, inhabiting the Earth today would not require literal reading of religious texts. Never forget that the word "religion" comes from religare which means "read again" and/or "what is linking people together".

Ooops. I didn't mean "accounting" Benny. I meant counting. Sorry. My bad.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 857
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Bible says in Genesis 1 that, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't specify how long ago that beginning was.

Ahh, that is good, because the bible is not science.

In Geneses 1:2 the Bible states, "the earth became without form and void." There's no indication of the time period between the creation described in verse 1 and the earth becoming chaotic in verse 2.

There's no specific time given in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible about the age of the earth or the universe.

That seems convenient to leave out when creationists talk about the earth being only 6000 years old, and they say they got this information from the bible. With that in mind, science can clearly show that dinosaurs and humans did not roam the earth at the same time. Another point those creationists like to trot out.

Of course science has determined roughly the age of the universe, and earth.

Right so, leave the rest to science then, things are still to be determined, things will chance, expect the science model to reflect that. Experiments leads to dead ends, and many theories end up at a dead end as well.

That's an interesting theory Molly. Only trouble is you seem to forget that these incremental species, required by Darwinian evolutionists theory don't actually exists. So why would a creationist explain the non-existent?

Creationists explain the non-existant god all the time. So I guess they can make up other stories for other things to fit their view.

The many creations - as you put it - are not incremental changes of the same species, but unique and independent creations. We don't know the time between creations...we don't even know whether there was any time between creations.....we're relying on science to determine the timing.

Essentially poo pooing the science in which you are relying on to determine certain results. ?? Is that what I am getting here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

betsy, you clearly have little to no understanding of evolution, nor are you interested in learning about it, so this conversation is pretty pointless.

I'd given some arguments - from highly educated people along the calibre of your

now- tunnel-minded Dawkins! His theory is being refuted! By various sources.

They clearly explained why! Some of these scientists who refute him have their own theories as well...

Dawkins is "hawking" a theory more so because of his own agenda - pushing his own personal belief (his Atheistic belief) - instead of true science. He behaves just like any other religious fundamentalist he mocks.

I thought this was a debate. I've been backing up my arguments with credible sources. You offer nothing. You're still the same Cybercoma I've tangled with long time ago.

I'm not interested to hear your own ramblings or personal opinion....you say a lot but don't really say anything!

And your comment above just show that you don't even read the arguments!

Who wants to "converse" with someone like that?

Anyway I thought we already stopped "conversing" quite a while ago? I haven't been posting here on this thread just because of you, you know. Let's just be clear on that. :rolleyes:

So bye-bye already. <waving> :lol:

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Monstrosity of Christ

MIT Press, 2009

Slavoj Žižek and John Milbank

In this corner, philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who represents the critical-materialist stance against religion's illusions; in the other corner, "radical orthodox" theologian John Milbank, an influential and provocative thinker who argues that theology is the only foundation upon which knowledge, politics, and ethics can stand. In The Monstrosity of Christ, Žižek and Milbank go head to head for three rounds, employing an impressive arsenal of moves to advance their positions and press their respective advantages. By the closing bell, they have proven themselves worthy adversaries--and have also shown that faith and reason are not simply and intractably opposed.

Žižek has long been interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology. And Milbank, seeing global capitalism as the new century's greatest ethical challenge, has pushed his own ontology in more political and materialist directions. Their debate in The Monstrosity of Christ concerns nothing less than the future of religion, secularity, and political hope in light of a monsterful event—God becoming human. For the first time since Žižek's turn toward theology, we have a true debate between an atheist and a theologian about the very meaning of theology, Christ, the Church, the Holy Ghost, universality, and the foundations of logic. The result goes far beyond the popularized atheist/theist point/counterpoint of recent books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others.

What matters is not so much that Žižek is endorsing a demythologized, disenchanted Christianity without transcendence, as that he is offering in the end (despite what he sometimes claims) a heterodox version of Christian belief.

—John Milbank

To put it even more bluntly, my claim is that it is Milbank who is effectively guilty of heterodoxy, ultimately of a regression to paganism: in my atheism, I am more Christian than Milbank.

—Slavoj Žižek

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/defau...2&tid=11672

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Hold your horses....

Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted .

Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677, "Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary Hypotheses", reported this in 1986, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tend to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds."

The grandiose title of the page you are quoting from is "DARWIN WAS WRONG! ". Well, first of all, to be accurate, Charles Darwin wasn't aware of Archeopteryx or Australopithecines to begin with. The group of young earth creationists who created this fantasy site misquote Stephen J. Gould to make him appear to have been an opponent of evolutionary theory -- not that this is a first; just about every creationist site quotemines Gould because he was proposing a radical theory of rapid evolutionary change he call Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould's theory has been pretty much scrapped because fossil evidence of the last 20 years, along with evidence from genetics, has strengthened the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection (The Modern Synthesis), as opposed to Gould's theory.

These two transitional fossils are old news; do they have anything to say about transitional fossils discovered in the last 30 years?

As for Archeaopteryx not being a direct line descendent of modern birds -- that does not prove their claim that it is not a transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx had feathers and according to detailed examination of its wing structure and other body features, it was still capable of flight -- so that makes it a bird, even if its descendents died out and didn't lead to the line that modern birds are from.

Australopithecus or "Lucy", another big star to the evolutionists' stage show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey's never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. With good reason, they considered it simply and extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, "Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-darwin-was-wrong.htm

Another pointless claim from a sham creationist site! They don't seem to be interested in challenging the conclusion that Lucy was an upright walking hominid, like the creationists used to do with earlier Australopithecine fossils, since Lucy was one of the few fossil finds that provided a complete skeleton with no missing bones.

Again, what difference does it make whether or not Lucy was an ancestor of modern humans? There is no denying that her group had left the jungles and evolved into a bipedal ape -- long regarded as the first step towards the evolution of tool-making, larger brained apes, one of which was our ancestor. This page at Talkorigins has a list of hominids -- they don't all have to be our ancestors, and there are likely many more that became extinct and haven't been discovered yet. They all serve as evidence for evolution by mutation and natural selection, and that makes the people writing for this site a bunch of total asses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grandiose title of the page you are quoting from is "DARWIN WAS WRONG! ". Well, first of all, to be accurate, Charles Darwin wasn't aware of Archeopteryx or Australopithecines to begin with. The group of young earth creationists who created this fantasy site misquote Stephen J. Gould to make him appear to have been an opponent of evolutionary theory -- not that this is a first; just about every creationist site quotemines Gould because he was proposing a radical theory of rapid evolutionary change he call Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould's theory has been pretty much scrapped because fossil evidence of the last 20 years, along with evidence from genetics, has strengthened the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection (The Modern Synthesis), as opposed to Gould's theory.

These two transitional fossils are old news; do they have anything to say about transitional fossils discovered in the last 30 years?

As for Archeaopteryx not being a direct line descendent of modern birds -- that does not prove their claim that it is not a transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx had feathers and according to detailed examination of its wing structure and other body features, it was still capable of flight -- so that makes it a bird, even if its descendents died out and didn't lead to the line that modern birds are from.

Another pointless claim from a sham creationist site! They don't seem to be interested in challenging the conclusion that Lucy was an upright walking hominid, like the creationists used to do with earlier Australopithecine fossils, since Lucy was one of the few fossil finds that provided a complete skeleton with no missing bones.

Again, what difference does it make whether or not Lucy was an ancestor of modern humans? There is no denying that her group had left the jungles and evolved into a bipedal ape -- long regarded as the first step towards the evolution of tool-making, larger brained apes, one of which was our ancestor. This page at Talkorigins has a list of hominids -- they don't all have to be our ancestors, and there are likely many more that became extinct and haven't been discovered yet. They all serve as evidence for evolution by mutation and natural selection, and that makes the people writing for this site a bunch of total asses!

Most of my arguments on this topic are not my personal opinion...they came from scientists.

Can you give me any sources that directly answers the arguments of the two scientists I cited above?

I'm interested in what the Darwinian scientists have to say in answer to those criticisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two transitional fossils are old news; do they have anything to say about transitional fossils discovered in the last 30 years?

"The transitional fossils problem

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

Is it any different today?

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2"

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/topic.asp?index=0

Astounding! The tenacity to cling to just one hole-riddled theory! Definitely not very science-like, right?

I am not against science. I am against so-called scientists who peddle their own ego instead of true science!

Let me emphasize: TRUE Science.

The irony...Dawkins and company is to true science what Inquisitors and child-molesting preachers are to Christianity!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grandiose title of the page you are quoting from is "DARWIN WAS WRONG! ". Well, first of all, to be accurate, Charles Darwin wasn't aware of Archeopteryx or Australopithecines to begin with. The group of young earth creationists who created this fantasy site misquote Stephen J. Gould to make him appear to have been an opponent of evolutionary theory -- not that this is a first; just about every creationist site quotemines Gould because he was proposing a radical theory of rapid evolutionary change he call Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould's theory has been pretty much scrapped because fossil evidence of the last 20 years, along with evidence from genetics, has strengthened the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection (The Modern Synthesis), as opposed to Gould's theory.

Give me the credible source so I can read it. Simply claiming it is so isn't good enough in this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of my arguments on this topic are not my personal opinion...they came from scientists.

Can you give me any sources that directly answers the arguments of the two scientists I cited above?

I'm interested in what the Darwinian scientists have to say in answer to those criticisms.

I already gave you sources in my last response!

There is nobody in that group who even claims to be a scientist: http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm

They use selective misquotes likely taken from other creationist groups to mislead their young-earth creationist audience, and mislead them about the original message of the writers of those science articles. I recall that there was debate about whether archaeopteryx was the transitional form between reptiles and birds; but there was no debate over whether archaeopteryx was capable of flight and had feathers -- therefore, it was a transitional fossil even if it didn't lead to the birds we have today. And likewise, it doesn't matter whether Lucy is our ancestor or not because there are many other hominids who are candidates for being ancestors of ours. You are accepting their claims that they would disprove evolution by natural selection, even though there is no dispute regarding whether Lucy was a bipedal ape. All of the other hominids discovered died out millions of years ago; the only branch that survived was the one that led to modern humans Look at the dates on the articles they list as sources (but do not provide links for) 1981, 1983 -- a little stale don't you think?

And I've seen the one about Stephen J. Gould many times before; these groups portray him as someone who is on their side. Gould argued that there were not enough transitional fossils to make a case for Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution by rapid adaptation, that would change too quickly to leave transitional forms. But, Gould's theory was weakened by the discovery of more and more transitional fossils in the years since then. That wikipedia link I provided has the most up to date list if you want to check it out. Anyone who's really interested in finding where the evidence leads should check out Tiktaalik -- a transitional form between fish and amphibians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Not only is Tiktaalik a clear example of a transitional species with fish and amphibian characteristics, it also has the distinction of being a fossil that wasn't discovered by accident, as most fossils are. Instead, it was found by paleontologists searching the strata of rock (375 million years) that they expected the first amphibians to appear in the fossil record. They were using the evolutionary theory to find this needle in a haystack, and it was right about where it would be expected to appear in the fossil record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"According to Darwin, new species arise by gradual accumulation of incremental changes over long periods of time. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Actually, no, its not. Your little 'definition' lacks some key points, such as selective pressure caused by an individual organism's potential for reproductive success.

Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety. That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved. Bacteria vote no to evolution.

Except the bacteria that you see in the ancient rocks are likely quite different (in terms of genetic makeup, chemistry, internal strctures etc.) than modern bacteria.

Peripatopsis: The South African "walking worm" genus of the Onychophora family. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. That is over 500 million years of stability. Consequently the peripatopsis votes no to evolution.

Except that, once again, fossils do not give any indication about changes that have happened to the interna structures, chemistry, etc. over time. Those "worms" of the past may look like modern worms, but there would have been differences (e.g. in the types of diseases they'd have to deal with, etc.)

I could also point out the fact that if there is no requirement for a species to change if there is no change to the environement and no selective pressure.

The same argument can be applied to every one of those "examples" that you have cut and pasted in this thread.

The Bible says in Genesis 1 that, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't specify how long ago that beginning was.

The bible also says that:

- Bats are a type of bird (they're not...) Leveticus 11:19

- Rabbits chew their cud (they don't... only ruminants do) Leveticus 11:5-6.

- God created light, but didn't actually create the sun until later. Maybe god used incandescent lights. Wonder what his power bill is like. Genesis 1:1-16

So, tell me, why exactly would anyone want to use the bible as any sort of description of how the world works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- God created light, but didn't actually create the sun until later. Maybe god used incandescent lights. Wonder what his power bill is like. Genesis 1:1-16

So, tell me, why exactly would anyone want to use the bible as any sort of description of how the world works?

Because people who wrote the Bible were not as hesitant as scientists are before the fuzziness of reality. The scientific method requires manipulating light rays and other forces. These manipulations make it impossible to know anything objectively (i.e. independently of these manipulations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no, its not. Your little 'definition' lacks some key points, such as selective pressure caused by an individual organism's potential for reproductive success.

Source?

Except the bacteria that you see in the ancient rocks are likely quite different (in terms of genetic makeup, chemistry, internal strctures etc.) than modern bacteria.

Likely? This sounds like mere speculation. Your source?

Except that, once again, fossils do not give any indication about changes that have happened to the interna structures, chemistry, etc. over time. Those "worms" of the past may look like modern worms, but there would have been differences (e.g. in the types of diseases they'd have to deal with, etc.)

I could also point out the fact that if there is no requirement for a species to change if there is no change to the environement and no selective pressure.

Source?

The same argument can be applied to every one of those "examples" that you have cut and pasted in this thread.

Then cut and paste the source for that same argument that, you say, can be applied to what I posted!

The bible also says that:

- Bats are a type of bird (they're not...) Leveticus 11:19

- Rabbits chew their cud (they don't... only ruminants do) Leveticus 11:5-6.

- God created light, but didn't actually create the sun until later. Maybe god used incandescent lights. Wonder what his power bill is like. Genesis 1:1-16

Why are you quoting the Bible? If you go back and read...and understand what you read....you'll see the reason why I quoted the Bible was because somebody pointedly asked me about the Bible.

For this one time only I'll do a re-cap for you.

Goshack asked me:

Betsy

One question. When creationists talk about Darwin and evolution, why do they show things to be millions of years old? I thought the creationists think the world was made about 6000 years ago .... So even trying to disprove Darwin by showing a species has not changed in over two hundred million years, kind of goes against the believe that God made the earth about 6000 years ago.

To which I answered:

The Bible says in Genesis 1 that, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't specify how long ago that beginning was.

In Geneses 1:2 the Bible states, "the earth became without form and void." There's no indication of the time period between the creation described in verse 1 and the earth becoming chaotic in verse 2.

There's no specific time given in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible about the age of the earth or the universe.

The time of the creation of man is derived from accounting back through the genealogies described in the Bible.

Of course science has determined roughly the age of the universe, and earth.

So, tell me, why exactly would anyone want to use the bible as any sort of description of how the world works?

I know my own reason why I would. And scientists (who do), have their own reasons and theories why they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As you get older, you become more accepting of possibilities," says John Wright, senior vice-president of Toronto-based pollster Ipsos Reid. "There are now people who are prepared to accept both sides and don’t see them as necessarily being mutually exclusive."

Most Christian Churches are seeing science has exposing God's glory and a majority of Canadians has no difficulty accepting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no, its not. Your little 'definition' lacks some key points, such as selective pressure caused by an individual organism's potential for reproductive success.

Source?

You know, I really don't know what you're asking for here.

After all, the concept of 'selective pressure' is such a fundamental concept of evolution that trying to point out a source like trying to find a source that shows an automobile needs wheels. Its like trying to find a source that says the sky is blue.

A more flippant answer might be to say "Go read a biology book". However, if you want a few references:

You could start with Wikipedia...

Natural selection can act on any phenotypic trait, and selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment... However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

If you don't like Wikipedia, here's a basic text-book type discussion...

Some variant offspring may, by chance, be better suited for survival and replication under the prevailing conditions than are their parent molecules. The prevailing conditions exert a selective pressure that gives an advantage to one of the variants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?...yer.section.194

Once of the best scientific resources for understanding evolution (and debunking creationist nonsense) is the talk origins archive. (One of the nice things about that site is that they provide plenty of references.)

From Talk Origins:

Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Except the bacteria that you see in the ancient rocks are likely quite different (in terms of genetic makeup, chemistry, internal strctures etc.) than modern bacteria.

Likely? This sounds like mere speculation. Your source?

Ummm... do you actually know anything about bacteria?

Even today, there are thousands of species of bacteria. Did you somehow think there was one species of bacteria billions of years ago, and still only one species?

Except that, once again, fossils do not give any indication about changes that have happened to the interna structures, chemistry, etc. over time. Those "worms" of the past may look like modern worms, but there would have been differences (e.g. in the types of diseases they'd have to deal with, etc.)

I could also point out the fact that if there is no requirement for a species to change if there is no change to the environement and no selective pressure.

Source?

Well, how about:

The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html (Its from an article about the coelacanths , but it can be applied to all organisms)

And how about:

Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html

Why are you quoting the Bible? If you go back and read...and understand what you read....you'll see the reason why I quoted the Bible was because somebody pointedly asked me about the Bible.

I'm quoting the bible because your posts suggested that you thought it had some sort of scientific validity.

It doesn't matter whether you brought the subject up yourself, or another poster mentioned it first. The important point is that you seem to believe the (very flawed) concepts in the bible. (If you didn't believe the bible, you should have said so.)

I know my own reason why I would. And scientists (who do), have their own reasons and theories why they would.

Except the vast, vast, VAST majority of scientists (especially those that work in the biological field) reject any sort of biblical explanation for the origin of species, preferring evolutionary theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have been easier on yourself regarding definition, Segnosaur by simply referring to the name of the original treatise.

It is "On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

The utter inanity of demanding a cite to 'prove' the importance of 'natural selection' when describing 'evolution according to Darwin' is ... aaaaah...... not a thing that can be easily described in civil, respectful tones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segnasaur, WIP, etc..,

"Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. He did not believe this process to be "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species.

But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small.

However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record.

They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium." This means that species are generally morpholgically stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species. According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur from slow incremental change in the mainstream population of a species, but occur in those populations living in the periphery, or in small geographically isolated populations where their gene pools vary more widely due to the slightly different environmental conditions where they dwell"

http://www.uvm.edu/perkins/evolution/darwi...?Page=plas.html

You can argue and defend Darwin's evolution all you want....but it doesn't wash. So many holes.

Just this article I posted above shows how Gould and Eldredge seem to only try to patch up the holes by

"proposing another explanation" for the numerous gaps in the fossil record.

How many other variations of "explanations" float around in an effort to cover the flaw of this theory?

What I'm saying all along is that this theory should've been dropped a long time ago. Even Darwin himself knew something was wrong.

Other scientists are giving their own different theories....why shouldn't we give those alternatives a good look?

Dawkins and followers remain firm in their own theory and wouldn't even consider the very idea of Intelligent Design simply because of their fanatical belief that there is no God - therefore their minds are closed to anything that might suggest - or even hint - that yes, there is.

So therefore they are not looking at this in an objective, let alone scientific way.

With a closed mind, they're no longer credible men of science.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segnasaur, WIP, etc..,

"Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. He did not believe this process to be "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species.

But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small.

However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record.

They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium." This means that species are generally morpholgically stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species. According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur from slow incremental change in the mainstream population of a species, but occur in those populations living in the periphery, or in small geographically isolated populations where their gene pools vary more widely due to the slightly different environmental conditions where they dwell"

http://www.uvm.edu/perkins/evolution/darwi...?Page=plas.html

You can argue and defend Darwin's evolution all you want....but it doesn't wash. So many holes.

Just this article I posted above shows how Gould and Eldredge seem to only try to patch up the holes by

"proposing another explanation" for the numerous gaps in the fossil record.

How many other variations of "explanations" float around in an effort to cover the flaw of this theory?

What I'm saying all along is that this theory should've been dropped a long time ago. Even Darwin himself knew something was wrong.

Other scientists are giving their own different theories....why shouldn't we give those alternatives a good look?

Dawkins and followers remain firm in their own theory and wouldn't even consider the very idea of Intelligent Design simply because of their fanatical belief that there is no God - therefore their minds are closed to anything that might suggest - or even hint - that yes, there is.

So therefore they are not looking at this in an objective, let alone scientific way.

With a closed mind, they're no longer credible men of science.

First of all, I doubt very much you understand what Gould was proposing with PE. Second of all, a good many biologists do not even feel PE is necessary. Third of all, Intelligent Design is not, as even Michael Behe admitted during the Dover trial, a scientific theory. In fact, it's barely even a theory even in the most generous use of the word. Intelligent Design was designed mainly by the likes of Behe to try to get around the US 1st Amendment. It has thus failed completely, mainly, you see, because it's proponents are liars.

I challenge you right now to provide a single citation in peer-reviewed or primary literature for any physical science that says anything one way or the other on God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...