to the Theists..Follow

[quote}

I've never seen any documented species changes in fossil records.

[/quote]

What about this little bugger:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

If that isn't a "fossil link between the birds and dinosaurs," I want to know why.

Now, there is an argument that the fossil record doesn't show "enough" change - or is that the changes happen "too suddenly" (i.e. tens of millions of years go by with no change, then BAM - Emeril Lagasse throws his spice dust, and suddenly a lot of species change - which seems at odds w/ some of Darwin)? This is a point of contention that can be discussed, but I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it, yet.

If you want to hammer evolution, why not try the "but the moths don't spend much time on the tree trunk!" argument - to chip away at the famous moths change colors and adapting to soot and pollution on the tree trunks. I'm not sure I buy the argument that the moths don't spend that much time on the trunks (but if it is true, it needs more investigation).

I personally think Lamarque was nailed in a coffin and buried too early - well, not the man - his ideas. And not nec. *his* take, but more the undead zombie fresh-out-of-the-grave "new and improved" Lamarquianism that is now lurking and prowling about - but is not to be casually dismissed. Yeah, it may not pan out, but there is a subtle appeal to the idea that giraffes grew long necks not because of natural selection - but rather because the giraffes "wanted" long necks - that something a little more quirky and weird is going on in the heart of biology. Now that's not the best way to describe it, and yeah, it's goofy - but - like I said, not everyone is casually dismissing it any more. This is but one of many possible examples of how classical evolution (via Darwinian natural seletion) might be, if not overturned, tweaked.

Lamarquianism that is now lurking and prowling about - but is not to be casually dismissed. Yeah, it may not pan out, but there is a subtle appeal to the idea that giraffes grew long necks not because of natural selection - but rather because the giraffes "wanted" long necks - that something a little more quirky and weird is going on in the heart of biology.

That's not actually what he said. What he said was that *aquired* traits were passed on to offspring. Like if I wore blackface and married a woman who wore blackface, we'd have a black child.

I think the issue is lack of other plausible options.

And, no, "A wizard musta done it" is not a plausible option without actual evidence of said wizard.

Perhaps this will answer some of your burning questions. Cause obviously you're yearning to study this topic in depth. Though I think my first appraisal of your stance is merely being reinforced by your follow up posts. "I don't get it, so I say it's not true" And I'm going to ignore the volumes and volumes of information freely available to me so I can hold onto my position..

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. I'm too lazy to study that hard on the topic. That the world scientific community is pretty much on the same page is good enough for me.

If it makes you feel any better, I haven't touched your karma.

It's just that there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. If someone believes that God created the world and everything in it, then it is up to them to prove it with evidence and no the Bible isnt proof. I may not believe in God but if Theists had evidence that was greater than scientific evidence then that would be different.

But there is absolutely no way to prove the Creationism theory. Unless God himself were to come down from heaven. Also there are so many different versions on how the world was created in many different religions, so that creates another issue. I'm not trying to bash your beliefs, but if we are talking about evidence or lack of it, Evolution can or will be proven with actual evidence.

The only evidence supporting Creationsm is people saying that it is true, because certain things seem to have had an intelligence behind its conception. I'm sorry but to provide answers for the creation of the world just by saying someone did is not proof. Also just because science hasn't explained 100% of things that happen doesn't justify saying well God must have did it since science can't figure it out.

Like that guy that said gravity doesn't exist it is God holding us down, and how fossils were put there by God because carbon dating isn't true. :/ I say do some research on Evolution and ask questions. Don't be afraid to do research, it can only help. I really dont see why people are so afraid to ask questions and do research. It's like some people are afraid of finding out something they didn't want to know.


Edited, Jun 12th 2006 at 11:08pm EST by kalaria

>.<

Edited, Jun 12th 2006 at 9:31pm EST by kalaria

I didn't say evolution was wrong and ANY religion was right. There is some (even on the verge of "a lot) evidence for evolution, and I never said there wasn't ANY; just that there isn't every single documented change. I totally comprehend what you are saying, I just think that you shouldn't just shun out the idea that any kind of divine being exists/existed. There is quite a bit of evidence for evolution, even if a lot of it does seem really speculative or situational, in my opinion, reading the sites posted here. Although, you have to think, did JUST evolution account for every single thing that exists today? All animals AND plants? That's a lot. Believe what you want. I'm just not going to rule anything out until I know everything about it. And I mean everything. Objectivity is a great thing. :)

I have also spent over a year studying quantum mechanics, and I am curious as to how/if people tie that into evolution. Quantum mechanics, if I were to describe it in a few words, seems like secular humanism meets cosmic humanism... haha. I know, that's not the best way to put it, it just sounds so sci-fi, but there's proof for that, too...

I don't really care, believe what you want to believe. Some angry people on a message board calling me "uneducated" isn't going to hurt my feelings, since most of you haven't been experts yourselves.

I just think people just say "oh the birds and tree's and a baby being born is so beautiful, God must exist." But when something bad happens, no one has anything to say or "it's the Devil".

I personally have completely crossed out any possibilty of a God(s) existing. I work at a childrens hospital and every time I get a case of molestation or a rape of a child my non-belief in a God stands firm. No one to me says "I love you" then allow a child to be raped or killed. To have to do a rape kit on a 4yr old just kills my heart, and to see such evil like that hurts me so much. So I'm sorry if I can't have God as a possibilty, what I see happen to children is proof enough for me.

Edited, Jun 13th 2006 at 12:06am EST by kalaria

Edited, Jun 13th 2006 at 12:21am EST by kalaria

Well that sure took a long time!

If bones were immortal, we'd have a clear fossil record. We'd have nowhere to walk or sit, but we'd have a clear record.

Evolution is a theory; who has stated otherwise?

"I think there's probably at least bacterial life on other planets. I think the chance of us finding sentient life is so low that I don't spend much time worrying about the theological impact." --Jophiel


"hmm, i find a large fallacy in this. For one, the "chance of sentient life is so low" is extremely ofbase with current antronomical data. There was a quote from "Contact" (book and movie) that i liked alot: Basically, due to the number of stars out there, if only 1 in a million of them had planets in their disks (which current studies show a hell of alot more than that do), and only 1 in a million of those planets had life, and even 1 in a million of those planets that had life had life that evolved to a sentient form, then the universe would be OVERFLOWING with sentient life. And if you go along the basic premis that life will happen where and when the means are made available(the correct chemicals are in order and all that jazz), and conceed that life does evolve, then thats to say that sentient life is more than probable, its down right certain." --EvilPhysicist

For what it's worth, at present most cosmologists are of the belief that Carl Sagan was wrong. The idea that the universe is so vast and so varied that sentient life is more than just likely, but rather a virtual certainty is blunted by the very premise of evolution itself, that our world is truly unique.

Totem

/nods at Totem

At the age of 8 I threw away Von Daniken's "Chariot of the Gods" in despair at such ludicrous assumptions.

There is no intelligent life anywhere in the universe.

I was trying out my ameh'cun accent, home-boi