|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2002 : 16:17:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have over a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much…. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
What the fossil record does show is that rocks dating back as much as 575 million years show an interesting fact. There is a sudden appearance of life of nearly all-animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, without a trace of evolutionary ancestry. This points more towards the case for and infinite creator rather than theory.
Oh dear! Where to start? I guess Talk Origins is as good a place as any.
----------------------------------------
“I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:
A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.
A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.
References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.
Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
-----------------------------------
“The earliest tetrapods are represented by skeletal remains of two genera in eastern Greenland: Ichthyostega and Acanthostega. Tetrapod trackways have also been reported in the Early Devonian of Australia and the Middle to Late Devonian of Brazil. The third unquestionable Devonian tetrapod represented by skeletal remains is Tulerpeton from Russia “
http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio356/lectures/temno.html
------------------------------------
“Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1). “
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
---------------------------------------------
“Until the 1980s, the fossil record of early tetrapods was essentially limited to Ichthyostega, a Late Devonian tetrapod from eastern Greenland. (Another Greenland form and an Australian form were known only from fragmentary remains.) But the early tetrapod record has expanded dramatically since 1987. Moreover, the fossil record of their fish ancestors has also been greatly enlarged in recent years. These enhanced records, together with findings from other scientific disciplines has engendered a new understanding of how tetrapods evolved. Instead of fish escaping drought, the first tetrapods are now seen as fishes with legs.”
http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/new-order.html
--------------------------------------
I especally reccomment the Talk Origins site. There's enough there to keep all of us busy and off the streets for a while.
f |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 16:24:38 [Permalink]
|
See, the problem is that their after-church pamplet says all that science stuff, that anyone could research and confirm, ain't right. They say there aren't any transitional fossils(as if they even knew what that means!!) so there can't be any. They never go to these links because they would challenge their faith with facts. Far easier to read a pamplet that says that something doesn't exist. Hell, you'd have to drive across town to see it. Now if it was a concern about questionable behavior at a local strip club...that's where the "I gotta see this myself before I pass judgement" comes in...
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 18:24:35 [Permalink]
|
Filthy I thank you for your in-depth response, but it will take me some time to read it. I don't really know if I feel up to par with responding to all the BS some people put up. Lets face @tomic you are pretty much in blunt terms...."a straight up bitch". Thought provoking responses are welcomed, but your BS is just mind numbing. The statement that I just read pamphlets and retort is pretty much BS. That would require me to attend such an institution. On a further note, this may be your board, but that doesn't give you the right to judge people. Far be from me to condemn you for your views. I really don't think I have done any such thing, but you have basically labeled me a moron because I believe in, or have a relationship with something you cannot touch.
I talked to Terryt88, a very good friend of mine and tried to explain my stance. I am up for a good debate, but I really don't feel the need to reply or drag out the thought process behind my faith. To me I have faith, if I can share it that's great. I am not exactly a conventional Christian. Some of you bring up very good points and that is awesome. I just want to learn, to expand my thought process. Does that mean I am going to dump what I have found for a theory or that I should? There are very few people on this board that take the time to show some sort interest. For the most part you guys bond and destroy. Which I guess is fine. In my line of study that is groupthink. No one has the balls to challenge the others, or if they do they are left by the wayside.
If you guys would like some sort of view that is outside of your view let me know. I will be glad to read and reply to statements much like the one Filthy wrote. But if you would much rather not have a different voice then by all means tell me. I will gladly stop posting on anything religious. Like I said I am trying to obtain a greater understanding of the world, I don't have time for half-assed nuances and the common atheist retorts.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 19:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps it wasn't a pamphlet but it is propaganda. I can tell by the terms you use. These are not objective terms and they are not the terms used in science or in education. I know where the terms come from and you can't deny that. Either that or you just don't know the difference. It's like when Fox news labels a bomber a "homocide bomber" rather than reporting what they know. They go a step further and make it a value statement as you have done.
The groupthink thing is just utter rubbish. You have obviously not spent much time reading other subjects on this board and seen just how much skeptics can disagree with each other. Sometimes we do agree and you can label that groupthink or whatever derisive pop-culture term you care to but it doesn't change facts. Your assesment of me being judgemental is particularly amusing after the judgements you passed. All I can say to that is...takes one to know one 
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 19:41:25 [Permalink]
|
If you guys would like some sort of view that is outside of your view let me know.
Okay, but here is the way it works. You are bashing very elementary science and saying instead "God did it." If you want to present god as a scientific theory that's fine. But the rules of science demand that you present proofs to your theories. That means you are going to have to prove there is a god, and that he can do what you claim he can or abandon the theory.
Saying that evolution isn't correct proves nothing. The answer isn't "god" by default.
If you don't want to hold your god up for debate then you have to stop playing at science. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 19:52:57 [Permalink]
|
(Ol' Filthy kicks back and lights his pipe. Both cats cry pitiously to be let out.)
a65, I'll now give you the most valuable piece of advice you will ever recieve. Neither your parents, your teachers, nor your clergyman will ever better it:
NEVER GET IN A HURRY!!
Ya see, when you get in a hurry, you are in a beginning state of panic. And when you are panicked, a change takes place in your body and your brain will sink into your ass. From there, every decision you make will turn to shit. 
Do take your time studying the links I've posted. These are written by people who have dedicated their lives to the scientific study of the fossil record and have no ulterior motive. Also, they ain't paid all that well for it.
Things have changed radically since Darwin. Although he started the Theory of Evolution off, great deal has been laerned since. Call it neo-Darwinism, if you will (although I myself don't care for the term).
Patience in all things. Study well and write carefully.
One, last thing: neither I nor any of the others here are the atheist equivelent of missionaries. We have no urge to convert you. But we will quickly refute any sort of Jerry Falwell / Kent Hovind-type nonsense that comes along. And we get a lot of it! You would be amazed at some of the blather that stumbles in here, now and again.
I think that this is why some of us appear to be a little short, sometimes. We've seen it all before. Me, I have been described as having the patience of a cadaver  . I take that as a complement.
If you find yourself wanting more links dealing with the ToE, we can come up with them.
f |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 20:39:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by a65phalcon
Thought provoking responses are welcomed, but your BS is just mind numbing.
You wrote: "Darwin himself often stated that he had no empircal data but was going a whim." Please substantiate the claim.
Just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with Darwin and everything to do with your honesty and integrity, i.e., with your mind numbing BS. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:01:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What the fossil record does show is that rocks dating back as much as 575 million years show an interesting fact. There is a sudden appearance of life of nearly all-animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, without a trace of evolutionary ancestry. This points more towards the case for and infinite creator rather than theory.
This is what is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion." Phyla doesn't mean that all animals appeared. For example, we belong to the phylum Chordata. That means animals with backbones. Fish are chordates, for example. Really, what happened was the appearance of animals with shells and bones. They fossilize much better than animals with only soft tissue. What seems like an explosion is really the result animals evolving anatomical parts that fossilize better and, therefore, leave a better fossil record. So, fish appear. (Early chordates were closer to sharks, with bones of cartilage, than modern fish with true bones.) Clams also appeared. Animals like that.
And by the way, there is plenty of fossil evidence of Precambrian animals and plants. They are just harder to find for the reason stated above.
Now I will have to ask you to think about this. Just how did those early animals with a backbone become all the animals with a backbone that live today?
For your model to be taken seriously, all the animals that are here now, or at least all the families of animals that are here now, would have to have appeared at the same time. You would have to show me a primate dating back to the Cambrian period.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 08:58:06 [Permalink]
|
I just looked at a65phalcon's profile and see that he is a 13 year old student who is also married. This causes me to think that the cause of his spelling and grammar errors is either dyslexia or sheer stupidity. Perhaps he means 31. Anyhoos....
I agree entirely with ReasonableDoubt. You made a claim about Darwinism that you have yet to substantiate by any means.
I also must point out that it makes no sense to me how someone could claim to be well read and researched in the areas of Darwinism and some of Hawking's theories and yet still come to the conclusion that they are BS. If you truly understood Hawking's theories then you would see how based in logic and reason they are, and how astonishingly easy it is to see how they hold true. All his answers are based on science, not a magical creator. I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way god or Jesus existed, but the vast majority of the proof points the other direction, and you have yet to present any substantial evidence for your case.
As for the original topic of this string: I do believe that there is some fundamental corruption within the churches. Churches did start, for the most part, as corrupt organizations during Roman times after all. To me a church is just a place where someone preaches how people should live their lives and a place that tries to govern the way people should have faith. Everyone has faith in their own way, not necessarily in god, some have an outstanding faith in the explanations of science. And the church, nor any other organization for that matter, should have the right to govern such beliefs.
|
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 09:10:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
#2 My feelings and misgivings inview of the church are deeprooted. The fact is the church as a whole, weither it is Moron, Catholic, Baptist, is in the whole sense of the word an organization. Theyre parts are interchangeable and the function based on a common doctorine. They are more often than not driven by money and pwoer rather than the true nature of the teachings of Christ.
Hi a65,
You haven't heard (read) from me yet, but I'd like to get back to your church aversion for a post or two.
You will soon find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. Right now, you are a Church of One, despising the GREAT CHURCH as an institution of graft, corruption, greed, etc etc. You, of course, know better, and will avoid all those pitfalls.
Now, here's where the fun begins. You will seek out those who think and believe like yourself. You will join in "fellowship" with those people and join in a mutual admiration society of Christ and the select band of His followers of which you are a part. In order that you stay focused as a group, you will build an informal structure of beliefs. A common belief structure, if you will, that all will adhere to. Of course, your group will be open to all comers, but they will have to have some common ground with your established beliefs.
At some point, you will reach critical mass. There will be drop outs and drop ins, but in order for the group to survive, it will have to become more exclusive. Your belief system will be codified. It may even be repeated in oral or written form. If families are present, the code will be passed on to the younger generation.
BEWARE a65! You have already formed part of the "exclusive" code. You will seek out other Christians who are also Darwin Bashers. Continuous debate within a group can be very destructive. So Christian Darwinists will have to be ridiculed and exiled.
And if you try hard enough, you will then become what you despise.
I sincerely hope you can prove me wrong. But having tangled with group dynamics for lo these many decades, tiz a hard thing to do.
(:raig
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 12:34:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let us seriously analyze Darwin's Origin of Life
What in the hell is Darwin's Origin of Life??? I can not recall such a writing by Darwin nor much even proposed by Darwin on the subject. A quick look at Darwin's bibliography shows no such title.
http://www.udallas.edu/biology/Brown/darwinbibliography.html
A quick look at the chapters of On The Origin of Species shows no such title and I am having a hard time finding any relative quotes related to the origin of life. Maybe you can help me out by showing me where this is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
quote:
One of Darwin's key flaws is his lack of fossil data
I just got back from my Physical Anthropology class where we looked at quite a few transitional forms between ape ancestor and human. Even at Darwin's time certain transitional forms were noted and most importantly it was noted that species slowly appeared over time and most were extinct.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter10.html
quote:
New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters. Lyell has shown that it is hardly possible to resist the evidence on this head in the case of the several tertiary stages; and every year tends to fill up the blanks between them, and to make the percentage system of lost and new forms more gradual.
quote:
We now have over a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
This pure old creationist quote is pure garbage and taken out of context, at least you could quote your source. Such blatant plagiarism is a mode of dishonesty.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_raup.html
Dr. Raup of the Chicago Museum of Natural History who is the originator of this quote had this part to finish the sentence which you graciously left off,
"what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic." If you are going to use unsubstantiated creationists propaganda be prepared to have your claims ridiculed.
quote:
There is a sudden appearance of life of nearly all-animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, without a trace of evolutionary ancestry.
More creationists garbage. I hope you know that not one land animal appeared for over another 200 million years and that fish didn't appear for well over 100 my later. Also it totally ignores the previous life forms known as Precambrian or more specifically as the Ediacaran fauna some of which have direct affinities with later Cambrian life.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetrafr.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/silurian/silurian.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html
quote:
Many parts of his theory are based on 18th century knowledge.
|
| Edited by - jmcginn on 12/03/2002 12:37:41 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 12:36:02 [Permalink]
|
Now to your question:
quote:
My point in posting was to get a feel of people as to what extent the church plays in their faith or lack their of.
I have very little experience with any churches although I have attended a few for periods of time. Basically it comes down to when I hear them preach or I read the Bible I know its bullshit. Its a collection of man-made myths from ancient Hebrews that was added to by an assortment of Pagans for part II. I do have a strong dislike for politically motivated religious people such as Robertson, but for the most part, I could care less what others believe in other than finding it fascinating in a morbid kind of way.
So I could care less what a church says or does as long as it keeps its fingers out of politics and trying to force people to accept its myth as fact or claim this is a Nation under God crap. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in such silliness and it has nothing to do with evolution or churches, but it has allot to do with evidence or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 03:13:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am up for a good debate, but I really don't feel the need to reply or drag out the thought process behind my faith. To me I have faith, if I can share it that's great.
Then why come on here and blither about it endlessly? And thanks for sharing, but what makes you think your faith is remotely interesting to anyone else but yourself?
|
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 03:52:06 [Permalink]
|
So this thread was started with a question. I think a65phalcon was asking about churches, and why they pervert the teachings of their gods.
I will return with a question, "how do we know what exactly the teachings of the christ were?" You admitted the bible has been altered so many times that it is not 100% accurate. What criteria are we to use to decide which teachings to adopt, and which teachings are misapplied by "the church?" |
|
|
|
a65phalcon
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2002 : 10:37:48 [Permalink]
|
| Here is my take on it. Christ is understood (By most Christians) to have stated a few things. We believe Christ to be a prophet and to have said a few different things. In his teachings or what is believed to be his teachings, he promoted acceptance and humility. However, the modern church or configuration of church is politically motivated. The church has become the most un-accepting org in recent and past history. Even to the extent that we or me, as a Christian are not to except the view points of others (such as yourselves). We are to discard and discredit anything and everything that is not Christian. For example I just saw a post on here yesterday where Jesusfreak paralleled the thoughts of the board with the messages of Satan. I mean come on. Am I to believe everything that is outside of faith as Satanic? Science is advancing everyday, it is my hope that one day we will know everything, but to equate everything outside of faith as demonic is purely absurd. I am not a creationist nor am I an evolutionist, frankly I find some of there concepts silly, just like you find my concepts to be silly. This is a board for debate and so that is what I am trying to do. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
