Darwin's theory

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Here's an article that refutes that view, for J C's benefit: note the last section, titled 'The pitfalls of exclusion' http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/creationism-creeps-mainstream-geology

Yes, there was an interesting geological field trip to the Giants Causeway recently ... good to see such respect for pluralism of ideas and theories within Geology.

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

Just fully Human races within the Human Race.

You do realise how very different to modern humans Homo Erectus was? And how their behavior was?

Neandertals, though close to us, were most definitely not us. Forget that BS that you could give them a haircut and shave and stick them in a pair of jeans and a shirt and they would pass unnoticed among us(a notion held by many current scientists BTW). You would know you were dealing with something "other", something not quite us.

They were a clever people that survived and often thrived in very harsh landscapes for longer than we have been around, but they didn't come close to us in what is modern human thought(actually neither did we for most of our history). The entirety of examples of pre modern human abstract thought would comfortably fit in the glovebox of a car. One square metre of a layer of modern human habitation in a French cave would bring forth artifacts that would exceed the abstract expression of all the evidence of the previous million years of archaic humans all over the world. Put it another way, daft though it may be to the modern mind, no Neandertal would have come up with Zeus, or Shiva, or Moses.

TL;DR? Nope, nil pointe, try another answer, cos that one's crap and without any debate behind it.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

So two conventionally qualified geologists differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand and you go with the guy who isn't using instruments?

They're both conventional geologists ... so they both use the same instruments ... its how they interpret the results that differs.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Since you accept that such inclusiveness occurs, surely you'll now have no issue sharing your qualifications with us? :pac:

One Swallow doesn't make a summer.:)

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise how very different to modern humans Homo Erectus was? And how their behavior was?

Some women have complained to me that Homo Erectus is very much alive and prowling in various night-clubs throughout the land!!:):D

Capt'n Midnight

A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript.

So, the new monk goes to the head abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up. In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.

The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years.

Hours go by and nobody sees the old abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing and he is crying uncontrollably.

The young monk asks the old abbot, "What's wrong, father?" With a choking voice, the old abbot replies, "The word was CELEBRATE!"


Lots of stuff will have been lost in translations of the Bible. For example http://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-5.htm The meanings and nuances of words and phrases change in English , and Greek and Aramaic. New linguistic , cultural and archaeological discoveries give new insights into what was written down too so even the Muslim approach of keeping the Koran in the original language doesn't guarantee you will retain all the original insights.

And even then you have to wonder did they pick the right Gospels at the Council of Nice.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Creation Geologists are conventionally qualified geologists ... and they believe the Earth is very young indeed ... based on the geological evidence.

Like Kurt Wise?

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"

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

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

Some women have complained to me that Homo Erectus is very much alive and prowling in various night-clubs throughout the land!!:):D

Ha ha and all that, but doesn't begin to answer the question. If you can describe the morphological range of Erectus(or Neandertals) and how that fits within modern human morphology(it doesn't) then maybe you can come back with a workable debate point. I suspect you can't and will just add in more flim flam and self delusion to cover up the cracks in your very shaky house of cards.

catallus

The only "flim-flam" on display on this thread is the stubborn and inhuman totalitarianism and intolerance being spouted by those who cling to the coat-tails of genius.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

The only "flim-flam" on display on this thread is the stubborn and inhuman totalitarianism and intolerance being spouted by those who cling to the coat-tails of genius.

Empty retort that still doesn't answer the questions posed.

catallus

In fairness Wibbs, your question is one for specialists, let's face it. None of those things were even on the Ark. So it's nonsensical in the context of the thread.

Capt'n Midnight

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

"Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true..

WTF ???

All the bibles I've ever seen were printed on both sides of the page.

Also most of the bible has nothing that contradicts evolution once you get past Genesis except the bit about the Leviathan(s) so that description of the exercise was complete hogwash

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

Well done ... that must deserve an 'F' mark in Creation Science ... keep studying though ... and you could end up like me.:)
Now there is a thought, for every ambitious young Evolutionist out there!!!:D

you keep using the phrase "creation science" as if it that makes it a science

you might as well call it creation scientology

osarusan

This thread reminds me of a line from Coetzee's novel Disgrace: They circle around him like hunters who have cornered a strange beast and do not know how to finish it off.

obplayer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

WTF ???

All the bibles I've ever seen were printed on both sides of the page.

Also most of the bible has nothing that contradicts evolution once you get past Genesis except the bit about the Leviathan(s) so that description of the exercise was complete hogwash

From their own website...

"Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that."

"For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.
The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse—nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.
With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."


Read it and weep.

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days

catallus

osarusan wrote: »

This thread reminds me of a line from Coetzee's novel Disgrace: They circle around him like hunters who have cornered a strange beast and do not know how to finish it off.

"Bearing him in his arms like a lamb, he re-enters the surgery. 'I thought you would save him for another week.' says Bev Shaw.

'Are you giving him up?'

'Yes, I am giving him up.' "

A sledgehammer.

Squeedily Spooch

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yet. As people keep saying here, science keeps adjusting its 'answers', and doesnt know the full answer yet.

Nor does it claim to.


Do..do you even know what science is?

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

They won't do that ... it would be against their (Atheist) religion!!:)

... see what I mean...

J C wrote: »

Just like most Atheists, they probably wouldn't do it ... because it's against their religion.

J C wrote: »

Sounds like how some Evolutionists behave when faced with the evidence for ID.:D

J C wrote: »

Science is the study of God's Creation ... Atheism is it's denial.:)

J C wrote: »

That is true ... and Evolutionists need to stop doing this.:)

J C wrote: »

I know ... it seems to be an occupational hazard for Atheists ... sweating the small stuff ... and ignoring the God who can Save them.:)
... anyway to answer your question, just like most Atheists, polytheists probably wouldn't believe in Direct Creation ... because it's against their religion.:)

J C wrote: »

... except when it's against their religion ... ID for example.:)

Ah here, you're always acting the crybaby when people are "namecalling" yet you keep throwing out the same horse**** generalising digs at people on here. Grow the **** up.

mickrock

The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.

The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.

The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031swKKakB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnousPXHi-4

iDave

This is a depressing thread.

AngryHippie

mickrock wrote: »

The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.

The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.

The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.

"

a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene in an event known as the Cambrian explosion. In perhaps as few as 10 million years"

That is a relatively stupid post (Not your fault poster)in consideration of a 10 million year period.
It was an explosion on an evolutionary scale. In reality it was not fast at all, even if generation spans at the time were as long as say 10 years, it is still one million generations.

draw a circle with a compass, perfect right ?
now copy it by hand, now make a copy of that copy by hand, now repeat that 999,998 times. If you still have a hand, there is a possibility that you might be right. I reckon your hand will have degenerated into some sort of claw around that pencil. now do that entire exercise 53 more times (yes 53 x 10 million) That's how long ago, and how quickly we are talking about.

Just because you can't comprehend the scale, or the speed of movement, does not mean that something is stationary (Nothing is btw) or that it is too large or small.

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

If you can't make logical evidence-based arguments in favour of Evolution or against Creation ... I guess this is the next best thing!!!:D

Logical evidence based arguments that include vegetarian tyrannosaurs, you mean? And special climate-equalizing clouds? And magical starlight created in transit to the earth?

No, you won't find any of that here...

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

They're both conventional geologists ... so they both use the same instruments ... its how they interpret the results that differs.:)

And their interpretations differ by a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand?

Right...

I guess if a cop stopped you for speeding there would be no point in him asking you what speed did you think you were doing.

"Sir, what speed do you think you were travelling at?"

"133mm per hour"

"Riiiight. My speed camera has you at 60km/hr"

"It's a matter of interpretation, officer."

The Corinthian

J C wrote: »

One Swallow doesn't make a summer.:)

No, but it would show that you love us.

Vivisectus

mickrock wrote: »

The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.

The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there. The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain is unjustifiably extrapolated to account for the emergence of new species.

The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031swKKakB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnousPXHi-4

If you limit yourself to a very simplistic form of archaic Darwinian evolution, and expect all speciation to be gradual as a result, then yeah: that is not backed up by what we can see in the fossil record. At least not all the time. So the version you get taught in primary school is indeed incorrect, or rather it is of limited use to explain what we can see.

We do have some examples of gradual evolution, however. The development of the whale is relatively well documented, for instance. The problem is that once you produce it, detractors simply move the goalpost and demand ever more granular examples.

That said, we do see rapid speciation in the fossil records as well, and for the past seventy years some interesting research has been going on regarding it.

Gould has proposed Punctuated Equilibrium: very simply put, species stay more or less the same until a change in selective pressure occurs, which forces them to change rapidly (from a geological perspective... still millions of years).

Others have pointed out that we actually carry genetic material very similar to that of completely different species... it is just that we regulate them differently. A change in the genetic information that regulates the information in the protein-specifying information would have rather radical results... most of them catastrophic, of course, but some of them could not be and could lead to very swift evolutionary changes. Experiments have shown that by removing the genetic material that suppresses the formation of limbs in the abdomen of fruitflies will lead them to take on a radically different body plan right away.

There is also the fact that while your genetic material is fixed, the way in which this is expressed is not always rigidly determined. Another theory, therefor, is that it is sometimes possible for the phenotype to change first, and for genetic selection to follow.

So perhaps the problem is that we tend to think of genes as single-purpose information carriers, in stead of as replicators of building blocks that can be used in widely different ways, and that we have a predisposition to prefer simple, broad explanations over complex ones.

Deriding a dumbed-down version of evolution is a strawman argument, however, and competing theories until now do not avoid good old Occam's razor to my knowledge: they seem to rely either on unsupported wild speculation, or on special cases where the laws of nature are temporarily suspended.

You yourself seem to favor a sort of Gaia hypothesis, from your earlier comments. The only support I have ever seen for it seems to be arrived at by starting with the idea of a global organizing agency, and then working backwards, emphasizing whatever is compatible with this idea and considering a sufficient amount of this as a compelling reason to assume it is correct.

But perhaps you have some compelling evidence that is not of this nature that you can share?

Akrasia

AngryHippie wrote: »

"

That is a relatively stupid post (Not your fault poster)in consideration of a 10 million year period.
It was an explosion on an evolutionary scale. In reality it was not fast at all, even if generation spans at the time were as long as say 10 years, it is still one million generations.

draw a circle with a compass, perfect right ?
now copy it by hand, now make a copy of that copy by hand, now repeat that 999,998 times. If you still have a hand, there is a possibility that you might be right. I reckon your hand will have degenerated into some sort of claw around that pencil. now do that entire exercise 53 more times (yes 53 x 10 million) That's how long ago, and how quickly we are talking about.

Just because you can't comprehend the scale, or the speed of movement, does not mean that something is stationary (Nothing is btw) or that it is too large or small.

Also, the mutations are random, but the selection pressure is not. Genetic replication errors that do not improve survival are evenly (randomly) spread throughout the population. Errors that reduce survivability are less likely to spread through the population, and Errors that do improve survival and reproduction are concentrated in future generations.

If the survival advantage is great enough, eventually, all future generations will carry this gene except for members of the species which are isolated from that gene mutation and are not inter-breeding, in which case, we might see the first stages of speciation where the genome of this population starts to diverge from the general population of that species. When the genome becomes so different that members of the two seperated populations are no longer able to breed fertile offspring, then we have completed speciation. At any point before this, it is possible for divergent population groups to re-merge with one another and share any beneficial genetic mutations that one population may have developed that the other has not.

nozzferrahhtoo

mickrock wrote: »

The fundamental idea of Darwinism is laughable.

Why? Because you say so? Because you are merely easily amused? Or beucase you can falsify the theory in some rational way other than simple blanket dismissal and mirth? I am all ears here.

mickrock wrote: »

The notion that natural selection acting on random variations can cause a very simple organism to morph into complex ones, slowly and gradually, is not only illogical but the evidence for it isn't there.

What is not illogical about it? Or are you merely content to continue with an approach of "Truth by assertion" on the matter?

mickrock wrote: »

The limited adaptations that Darwinism can explain

What are the limitations of which you speak?

mickrock wrote: »

The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change.

Great, please directly reference the fossils, their names, their dates, and show us how it is "at odds" with the theory exactly. Show us your workings, numbers and evidence for this. Again: All ears here. You have made a direct reference to the fossil record and a direct qualitative point based on it, so I am sure you will have NO ISSUE at all laying out the details evidencing your claim here.

PopePalpatine

AngryHippie wrote: »

"

That is a relatively stupid post (Not your fault poster)in consideration of a 10 million year period.
It was an explosion on an evolutionary scale. In reality it was not fast at all, even if generation spans at the time were as long as say 10 years, it is still one million generations.

draw a circle with a compass, perfect right ?
now copy it by hand, now make a copy of that copy by hand, now repeat that 999,998 times. If you still have a hand, there is a possibility that you might be right. I reckon your hand will have degenerated into some sort of claw around that pencil. now do that entire exercise 53 more times (yes 53 x 10 million) That's how long ago, and how quickly we are talking about.

Just because you can't comprehend the scale, or the speed of movement, does not mean that something is stationary (Nothing is btw) or that it is too large or small.

You know a post is bad when it's relatively stupid in this thread.

PopePalpatine

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ah here, you're always acting the crybaby when people are "namecalling" yet you keep throwing out the same horse**** generalising digs at people on here. Grow the **** up.

If J C and catallus's posts aren't enough for a swing of the banhammer, I don't know what are.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

In fairness Wibbs, your question is one for specialists, let's face it. None of those things were even on the Ark. So it's nonsensical in the context of the thread.

The ark. Bloody hell. OK let's imagine the story is true - and bypass the black morality of a supposed loving deity that destroys 99% of its creation - before the ark you would have had these other humans, proto humans. Where did they come in? How did they come about if it was Adam and Eve and their kids and grandkids practising wholesale incest?

And it doesn't need a specialist to see the fundamental differences in skull shape and size between a human walking around today and a Homo Erectus skull. They are very different. And they're just the really obvious, a child could see it differences, there are more and more differences the closer in you get. Behaviourally the differences are large too. No matter what dating scale you care to mention, Homo Erectus were around for a very long time. About four times longer than we have been. Neandertals were around for about twice as long. And for a good while there was an overlap. Modern people today are in the unique position of being the only humans or human like people around. We're alone. For many periods we weren't.

mickrock wrote: »

The fossil record is completely at odds with the Darwinian dogma of slow, gradual, step-by-step change. Most phyla made sudden appearances in a relatively short period of time, known as the Cambrian explosion.

Actually more and more research is showing that the so called Cambrian explosion wasn't a "sudden" thing, even in geological time. It had deep roots in the precambrian. The human mind tends to like simple answers and fixed points of patterns and easy labels to feel happy and this can be the case in science as well as religion. Certainly in the case of how science is brought to the wider public. The Cambrian explosion a good example of this. The fantastic discovery of the fauna in the Burgess shales of the Cambrian made it look like a "sudden" thing. However what is so easy to forget is that the vast vast majority of life on this planet never left any traces in the fossil record. It's quite a rare event to happen in the first place and rarer still that it be found. The record is overwhelmingly biased towards aquatic animals and plants as that environment provides the best chance of preservation. Whole ecosystems are missing, or vanishingly rare to find(upland animals and plants for example). The vast amount of fossils out there just perfectly illustrates how much life was about for so much time.

Taking the Cambrian explosion as an example. Precambrian fossil bearing rocks are thin on the ground. Very. And fossils within them rare again. Much of the rocks represent very deep deposition in deep seas where life, even today is rarer and more spread out. Even so there was life in these stygian precambrian depths. The Burgess shales were a freak bit of luck where a volcano dumped squillions of tons of ash onto a warm shallow sea so we get a better idea of an environment where more life was to be found. Those ecosystems didn't appear overnight, the preservation conditions did. Big difference.