Evolution? How?

neologist, My consistent ignoring of your posts translates into "this guy doesn't understand anything about "religion vs science." That you fail to answer the simple questions posed to you by many on this board just goes to show how your religious belief prevents you from seeing all the evidence for evolution. If belief in your religion means to shut off your brain concerning evolution, you are the one suffering from ignorance. What I have observed in people like you are your absolute refusal to even consider evolution irregardless of all the evidence provided by science.

0 Replies

The trouble Cicerone, is that the"evidence" is never unambiguous. It all depends on the the interpretation based on a preconcieved theory.

0 Replies

thunder, Most things in life are "unambigious." It's up to the individual to determine through all the information available whether it has value or not. Science is one of those fields of knowledge that questions its theories and postulates over and over. There's nothing more scrutinized than scientific theory. I still don't trust all scientists, but I trust most findings ralated to evolution.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

The trouble Cicerone, is that the"evidence" is never unambiguous. It all depends on the the interpretation based on a preconcieved theory.

Our ability as humans to interpret anything within our perception is based on preconceived theory. This is the collective knowledge we gain as we grow from infants to adults. A tree wouldn't even be a tree to us if we didn't have some foundation of knowledge from which to build.

The challenge is to make sure your interpretations continue to make sense within the scheme of things, and so it is with fossils.

When we find a fossil we can't identify, we ask questions about it, like how old is this, what form of life is it, what things are around it in the same layer of rock. Then we try to understand how it came to be in such a place. Granted that we will be tryin to understand the new fossil in relation to our existing knowledge of fossils, but that's how humans make progress. If you require us to re-learn and re-prove every aspect of our existing knowledge, then we will never make progress. The system corrects itself when evidence conflicts with existing theory, or when better theories can be offered to explain the evidence.

To date, there are no better theories to explain the evidence, and in those cases where the evidence doesn't match the existing theory, the theory is modified slightly (or greatly) to make it conform to the evidence. In this way, we always have a theory which best explains the evidence we find, and not the other way around.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neologist, My consistent ignoring of your posts translates into "this guy doesn't understand anything about "religion vs science." That you fail to answer the simple questions posed to you by many on this board just goes to show how your religious belief prevents you from seeing all the evidence for evolution. If belief in your religion means to shut off your brain concerning evolution, you are the one suffering from ignorance. What I have observed in people like you are your absolute refusal to even consider evolution irregardless of all the evidence provided by science.

Well, here we go again.

First of all; about God (religion): You claim that if God is all knowing, He must have anticipated Adam and Eve's sin and therefore had greater culpability. The bible makes it clear that Adam and Eve had free will and that God, while having the power to know things in advance, is no more obligated to see the end result than you or I must read the last chapter of the whodunit.

Second; about evolution: I recognize the fact of adaptation and the formation of varieties, even species, by means of adaptation. I also have no truck with creationists who insist on a totaly literal interpretation of the bible.

Do you think it would be fair for the bible to have been written in such technical language only folks like Set and farmer and timber could understand it? Even in its simplicity, its message has been hijacked by those seeking power over those who would allow themselves to be misled.

I am willing to accept all the discoveries of science as facts. The conclusions based on these discoveries may be a different matter.

0 Replies

Quote:

In this way, we always have a theory which best explains the evidence we find, and not the other way around.

The point I'm trying to make is that the evidence can point different ways, depending on the theory, that is why evolution is only a theory, because other theories exist that can follow the same exact evidence.

Quote:

I am willing to accept all the discoveries of science as facts. The conclusions based on these discoveries may be a different matter.

Exactly what I mean.

0 Replies

Ive tried to communicate in a manner that is approachable and although I havent succeeded, Ive tried to keep the jargon as low as possible. When we educate kids so that they can move on and replace todays scientists and move the puck even further down the ice, we have to start with some points of common reference and understanding. The Creationists try to reinvent wheels that are decades old and they try to spin them incorrectly. The points that have been made by people like Elsie-T and real life and the past medved, have all taken snippets of scientific facts or snapshots of events that , without understanding anymore, can look like they know of what they speak. They dont. They engage in the out of context quotation game and they know it. Many of us know it also and dont wish them to get away with what constitutes intellectual fraud.
To saythat you have no arguments with creationists and biblical lietralists. I too take that attitude, unless they wish to interpose those beliefs into my school district or my states education system .
You can understand the laws of motion and simple equations of time and distance. The same things apply to life on this planet. The basic foundations of my science are in firm support of evolutionary theory (the FACTS are what support it). We then want to teach our kids and students what the correct answers are. We have enough problems in the areas of mathematics and other sciences. To confound our kids with some untrue , myth based "science curriculum" will put us at a national disadvantage. Most of the worlds students come to the US for training in the sciences. However with recent troubles in the biological sciences, the epicenter of biology is shifting elswhere. We just dont demand excellence anymore, were too busy accomodating Creation mythgology and Intelligent Design being proposed by otherwise well schooled biochemists who wish to garner some fame in the loophole left by Edwards v Aguillard.

The science is often difficult to understand and it has many facets of evidence. My area , geology, is merely a supportive underpinning to evolution because Paleo is where the evidence first started to be accumulted. Its been interesting that , since the mid 1700's when Johann Scheuchzer first discovered and described "homo diluvii testiis", weve been amassing evidence of fossils and intermediate fossils and terminal species fossils and "eofossils, many in contexts of their living modes that we have had to try to weave all these data into a tapestry of a story about how life arose. There is no better "tale" that is presently testable than evolution by natural selection and evolution as predominantly a means of adaptation to rapidly changing paleo environments.
Now when somebody can come up with some alternative story that is equally evidentiary based and is testable and observable, then we can talk. At present ID and its former form of Creationism is without any substance and has no evidence at all. Why do the Creationists keep ignoring that fact?
Oh well, in anothe week, we shall see where this takes us.BTW the ncse is compiling all the amicus briefs by as many of the scientific societies and academies that have posted position statements on the ID (Dover v Kitzmiller) case. I dont know whether theyve pub'd it yet or whether theyre just waiting for October ( Halloween and all)

0 Replies

I'm not sure if you had heard of this or not Farmerman, I only know the vague details...a dinosaur bone was found somewhere and inside was found blood vessels, have you seen anything like that?

0 Replies

yes Ive heard. The fossil was of a Cretaceous carnivore that had evidence of actual flexible soft tissue. The fossilization , instead of takintg the form of petrification by replacement with silica, had been transformed into a waxy like substance very similar to complex organic acids and waxes found in Pennsylvanian coal measures. This is the first fossil dinosaur found that way. The environment of fossilization was, as I understand, anoxic and full of organic acids, like a bog or a swamp. The animals lower area had been so fossilized while the remainder had bee taken up as a silica based fossil.
Its not uncommon in deep oil shales to have fossilized chunks of chitin or fish bodies get preserved in an "adiposere" type remains. Adiposere is a "natural soap-like substance" that forms by the reaction of body fats in a high pH , or humic environmnet. The "bog mummies" of Britain and the low countries are adiposere .

I havent read any of the issues of PAleontology Journal to see whos doing the work, but I understand its out West US and its being gone over for any other soft tissue features

0 Replies

Does this bring up any questions as to how old the bone could actually be?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that the evidence can point different ways, depending on the theory, that is why evolution is only a theory, because other theories exist that can follow the same exact evidence.

You say that like you think there is another scientific theory which explains the evidence as well as evolution does, and that simply isn't true.

Creationism is a theory, but it's not a scientific theory because it doesn't adhere to the requirements of science.

Intelligent Design is a theory, but it's not a scientific theory because it also doesn't adhere to the requirements of science.

I can think of countless different metaphysical theories to explain the evidence, but there is only one scientific theory which matches the evidence with such splendid detail and across so many scientific disciplines.

0 Replies

T. R.-The bone segments were most all turned to a silicified fossil in the Hells Creek. The scientist in charge , I belive her name was Schweitzer, had soaked the internal segments of some pieces in a mild acid solution to remove the calcium silicate (I assume they used HF) what was left was the flexible stuff. This is all I know and until its actually tested and verified as not being a hoax, I have no opinions . This kind of stuff happens a lot and there were at least 5 papers in SCience that were published during the 90's about soft tissue. A few were treated with acid to leave organics, and 2 were actual hoaxes.

As far as the ages. No, the HElls creek Formation is quite well verified by startigraphic placement (order wrt other formations) Its had ample geochron work based upon in situ stable and rad isotopes from volcanic ash zircons and Strontium. Its had remnant magnetism studies and its environment of deposition matches the regional tectonics. Id be more inclined to view the chemistry to see whether there isnt any osteocalcin material or even fossil blood.
Science finds often take a couple of years to verify and study in detail. So, we often just have to either call the scientist or wait for the publications.

I know whats on your mind. If you were right, that the fossil was only a few thousand years old. Then the remnant magnetism would suggest that continental drift would have to proceed at a rate of about a half mile per day and we know , just from the mid ocean ridges and the East AFrican rift that its not moving at a rate faster than about 2 cm per year.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ive tried to communicate in a manner that is approachable and although I havent succeeded, Ive tried to keep the jargon as low as possible.

Considering the complexity of your field, I can't imagine how you might have done a better job.

rosborne979 wrote:

Creationism is a theory, but it's not a scientific theory because it doesn't adhere to the requirements of science.

I don't consider myself a creationist in the strictest sense, but I'll accept the label for the sake of argument.

I'll try to make the point as simply as possible: The bible does not purport to be a scientific treatise. It was inspired and given to us as an explanation and a guide. Consider just one of the sanitary regulations God gave the Hebrews: the burying of excrement:

Perhaps the learned men of the Jews had observed a correlation between uncovered excrement > flies > food contamination > disease. (Though such a connection was apparently not made by other nations at that time.) Can you imagine the confusion which could have been caused if a lesson in bacteriology were deemed a necessary part of the law? Really, what part of the word 'unclean' does an ordinary person not understand?

Similarly, what explanation does an ordinary person need to have about the origin of species in order to make wholesome decisions for himself, his family and his community?

0 Replies

An ordinary person should be curious enough about our origins to understand evolution. It explains to us the changes in our environment and how living things survive. It also explains the origin of homo sapiens, and how humans migrated to the different lands of the world. It has everything to do with decisions about self, family, and community (local, country, and the planet earth). Some people may prefer to remain ignorant; that's their choice.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Its interesting how, when confronted with a simple question, with all the qualifiers understood by most everyone, Creationists will always duck and try to slide and evade.

There are no discoveries that were made within the realities of "Creation science" All the "proofs" of a young earth or a "waterplate beneath the Himalayas," are cartoons for science magazines.

Its no wonder , since the standard positions of Creationism involve (officially) no individual research lest they actually find something , which , as everyone with half a brain will recognize, stands their precious myths in uncomfortablepositions.

I daresay that everything Im aware of , that has started as a "position statement" or "data" from creationists or ID proponents has been successfully discounted.This includes everything from "flood geology", young earthism" to Intelligent Design's "irredcible complexity" The only problems have been that a large portion of the population only hears the Creationist side because they spend all their money on communication and "outreach"while the scientists are not willing to engage at their levels.

It is interesting how when confronted with a simple answer to your simple question, you suddenly try to throw in qualifiers ('modern era scientists only please').

You asked about Creationists as valid contributors to the accumulated scientific knowledge of the world.

Creationists are scientists who believe God created the world, correct?

You may not like to consider men such as Newton to be Creationists, but what else would you call him? He was a scientist who believed God created the world.

The fact that he was a huge contributor to scientific advancement embarrasses you when you see the conclusion you have brought yourself to.

Sorry about that. Maybe you should choose your simple questions more carefully next time. Or maybe just accept the answer to the one you asked.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

I'm not sure if you had heard of this or not Farmerman, I only know the vague details...a dinosaur bone was found somewhere and inside was found blood vessels, have you seen anything like that?

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm
P

0 Replies

Creationists keep making fools of themselves. I wonder why they continue?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Its interesting how, when confronted with a simple question, with all the qualifiers understood by most everyone, Creationists will always duck and try to slide and evade.

There are no discoveries that were made within the realities of "Creation science" All the "proofs" of a young earth or a "waterplate beneath the Himalayas," are cartoons for science magazines.

Its no wonder , since the standard positions of Creationism involve (officially) no individual research lest they actually find something , which , as everyone with half a brain will recognize, stands their precious myths in uncomfortablepositions.

I daresay that everything Im aware of , that has started as a "position statement" or "data" from creationists or ID proponents has been successfully discounted.This includes everything from "flood geology", young earthism" to Intelligent Design's "irredcible complexity" The only problems have been that a large portion of the population only hears the Creationist side because they spend all their money on communication and "outreach"while the scientists are not willing to engage at their levels.

It is interesting how when confronted with a simple answer to your simple question, you suddenly try to throw in qualifiers ('modern era scientists only please').

You asked about Creationists as valid contributors to the accumulated scientific knowledge of the world.

Creationists are scientists who believe God created the world, correct?

You may not like to consider men such as Newton to be Creationists, but what else would you call him? He was a scientist who believed God created the world.

The fact that he was a huge contributor to scientific advancement embarrasses you when you see the conclusion you have brought yourself to.

Sorry about that. Maybe you should choose your simple questions more carefully next time. Or maybe just accept the answer to the one you asked.

farmerman asked "This may be a bit unfair but Id like to hear about 1 advance that has come about directly related to Creationist views."

Not about advances that come from scientists that are religious.

Can you see the difference?
P

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Creationists keep making fools of themselves. I wonder why they continue?

so that they can drive home the need, of some more evolution taking place and soon.

btw, have you read the Enuma Elish ?

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Creationists are scientists who believe God created the world, correct?

. REF; what Pauligirl said.Actually, I didnt have to add a qualifier about modern times since The term "Creationist" had no meaning in normal discourse until the early 1900's when there was a philosophical basis upon which to make the distinction. Until that time, most anyone could be called a'Beleiver in the biblical account", even Darwin.There were very few who questioned the biblicl account as reality until well after Darwin.
Ill almost bet that Ill never hear an answer to areally simple question.
For a historical perspective the concept of "scientific Creationism" owes its being to a chap named George McCready Price. He was a Seventh Day ADventist minister of Fundamentalist persusasion. He published a volume entitled
The NEw Geology, in 1923. In this book Price mounted a scientific argument for the literal occurence of the Noachian flood. He invented the "geologic Column" that was defined by flood deposits, and all the fossils were merely the dead remains of drowned organisms.
The book was an instant hit and , in essence began the connection of "science" to the Bibical account.
The first real scientific association (in the US of course) that embodied Prices beliefs was the "religion and Science Association" founded in the 1930's.
SO one really cant have specifically Creationist views until there is a defined sub discipline in Creationist SCience. Trying to claim credit for work of the early (pre DArwin) sciences , is the rooster taking credit for the DAwn.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know