Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues
|
Question 1: The Fossil Record
Should we accept evolution in light of absence of fossils?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Simon
First Post |
 Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:25 pm Post subject: Question 1: The Fossil Record |
 |
|
According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?
|
|
 |
axeplayer Apprentice Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Total posts: 174 Location: Texas Age: 21 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
1229.13 tokens
|
Post 101:
Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USIncognito wrote: | | YEC wrote: | Nyrils comic above missed the point.
I've seen traffic accidents investigated. Using the comic as a guide one might say...look at the skidmarks on the highway (facts). What conclusion can we draw from it? The answer might be a car at the end of the skidmarks.
OR
We have a car that was involved in an accident (the conclusion). What facts can we find to support it? The answer might be skidmarks leading towards the car.
Both methods are scientifically acceptable Nyril. |
You must not be a fan of CSI. Lets try for a more accurate analogy.
The Creationist reads a news article about the accident then concludes that the driver was drunk, on his cellphone and swerved to avoid a deer thus producing the skid marks and the crash. The Creationist then looks for skid marks, and upon finding them declares his version of the story to be correct.
The Scientific way is to come upon the scene of the crash, look at the drivers BAC level, check for any distractions (like a burger or cellphone), see if there is a deer corpse or tracks, determine speed from the vehicle weight, skid mark length and post-accident location, etc. And then offers a hypothesis as to why the accident occurs. Either the evidence will bear that hypothesis out, or it will be falsified and he'll need to develop a new one.
The comic stands as salient and appropriate, and the claim that both methods are equally valid fail. |
You must not be a big fan of drawing accurate conclusions from data and information discovered. First of all, even if there wasn't burger in the car, that doesn't mean the driver was not eating one. Perhaps he finished it before the accident. And if there wasn't a deer corpse or tracks, that doesn't mean that there was no deer, maybe there was concrete on the sides of the road so the deer couldn't leave tracks. Also it's mathematically impossible to determine the speed of the car from its weight. You could have a dumptruck going 55 or a Kia Rio going 20 and you wouldn't be able to tell the speed just from the weight. Also it is impossible to tell the location of post-crash. Unless the driver is alive to tell you where he was when he first lost control, but even then you can't be sure. So it is actually the evolutionists who do exactly what you claim creationists do, the evos take anything they can find and draw and irrational conclusion from it, just so they can say that they've proven creationism to be inaccurate and false. We creationists have evidence for our hypothesis though: consider the young earth argument, the fact that the Mississippi River, the Yangtze River, and the Nile River all only show a sediment buildup of about 6,000-7,000 years. If the earth really was old, there would be much more sediment in these rivers. Also consider the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains. I wonder how they got there. Let me tell you, it was the Great Flood. And consider the wavy sediment in many of the earth's rock formations. Wavy sediment means that the sediment was laid when the whole mountain was under water: GASP!! The flood!!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Nyril Scholar
Joined: 19 Oct 2004 Total posts: 430 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups:
2707.05 tokens
|
|
Post 102:
Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Also it's mathematically impossible to determine the speed of the car from its weight. You could have a dumptruck going 55 or a Kia Rio going 20 and you wouldn't be able to tell the speed just from the weight. Also it is impossible to tell the location of post-crash. |
First off, it wasn't just weight, it was:
| Quote: | | vehicle weight, skid mark length and post-accident location |
Although it may shock and suprise you, my physics teacher last semester told me the cops would often hire him out as a consultant to look at accidents and determine how fast each car was going. I'd give you the website so you could read the physics lesson we had on that (it was an exercise during the lab) but you would need a school ID and password to get in, and I'm not giving you mine.
It's relatively simple, since you can easily gather the coefficient of friction, you can use the weight of the car to determine the Normal force from the ground on the car, and by using the length of the skid you can see how long it took the car to go from full velocity to nothing.
| Quote: | | Also it is impossible to tell the location of post-crash. Unless the driver is alive to tell you where he was when he first lost control, but even then you can't be sure. |
You can't tell where the car is after the crash? You know, after it's stopped moving and such? I would have imagined you could simply look at the darn thing to determine where it was after the crash, but that might just be me.
| Quote: | | We creationists have evidence for our hypothesis though: consider the young earth argument, the fact that the Mississippi River, the Yangtze River, and the Nile River all only show a sediment buildup of about 6,000-7,000 years. If the earth really was old, there would be much more sediment in these rivers. |
Without even consulting TO, I can tell you why your argument is wrong. First and foremost, the rivers have not been flowing since the start of time, nor have they even been running for the entire duration of the Earth. Simply because I diverted a river and made a new one over here, does not mean that the lack of anything present in the water should make the Earth young. Secondly, sediment is removed from rivers by water, any year of heavy rains is going to clean that river out.
| Quote: | | Also consider the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains. I wonder how they got there. |
The Earth's crust moves, and the mountains have not always been there. When the fossil was made, it was moved (slowly) over a period of several hundred million years until the bit of crust it was on hit another piece, and they went over one another.
| Quote: | | And consider the wavy sediment in many of the earth's rock formations. Wavy sediment means that the sediment was laid when the whole mountain was under water: GASP!! The flood!!!! |
I learned about this in my college geology class three weeks ago. When a river puts down sediment, it is constantly moving the water down the hill. The ripples are a result of that. The sediment was put down by a river, and then as the crust moved, the sediment found itself atop a mountain. It's actually pretty interesting, I can suggest some reading if you'd like to learn more.[/code] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jose Guru
Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Total posts: 2007 Location: Indiana Age: 60 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
16623.24 tokens
|
|
Post 103:
Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| axeplayer wrote: | | We creationists have evidence for our hypothesis though... |
Yes, you have evidence that enables you to suggest an hypothesis to explain the evidence. It's OK that you already had the hypothesis before you found the evidence. The next step, however, is one that you haven't taken, but is essential to make your hypothesis scientific and worthy of discussion in science classes. You have to test the hypothesis. You have to ask whether alternative hypotheses can also give the same result, and then try to distinguish among them. You haven't done any of these things. So, your evidence comes across looking as if you looked far and wide for something that matches your hypothesis, and when you found it, you ignored everything else. That's fine if you adhere to that as your private explanation--just don't try to foist it onto thousands of schoolchildren as if it's science.
| axeplayer wrote: | | consider the young earth argument, the fact that the Mississippi River, the Yangtze River, and the Nile River all only show a sediment buildup of about 6,000-7,000 years. If the earth really was old, there would be much more sediment in these rivers. |
And why does the "old earth model" predict that there would be more sediment, and the "young earth model" predict that there would be less? To make this prediction, your models (both of them!) assume that sediment accumulation is relativley constant, and that there are no major floods that wash sediment out to sea. We know that such floods happen quite often. These are dynamic systems that are in a kind of equilibrium, or steady-state, in which sediment input and sediment outflow are pretty much matched. Your models also assume that these rivers have been there since the world began. Again, there is plenty of data that show this is not so. You may have ruled out one particular old-earth model, but not the real one--and your young-earth model doesn't fit the data either.
| axeplayer wrote: | | Also consider the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains. I wonder how they got there. Let me tell you, it was the Great Flood. |
Well, yeah...to quote John McPhee, "the top of mount everest is marine limestone." There's sedimentary rock up there, all right. Is it evidence for a world-wide flood, or for orogeny resulting from the suduction of the Indian plate under the Asian plate? Why not approach this scientifically, and look at all of the explanations, then determine which one fits all of the data?
| axeplayer wrote: | | And consider the wavy sediment in many of the earth's rock formations. Wavy sediment means that the sediment was laid when the whole mountain was under water: GASP!! The flood!!!! |
Where do we find wavy sediment in current environments? Under deep water, or under shallow water? A lot of it is under shallow water. The rippled sandstone of the Moenkopi looks just like ripples in the sand in shallow bays today. There are a couple of additional bits of evidence that it wasn't under deep water all of the time that it was being formed. Footprints suggest that animals walked in it. We can see the prints of their feet, and the groove made by their tails dragging. (Doesn't your model predict that these animals were drowned before the sediment was deep enough to form this layer?) There are also very nice sections of the Moenkopi that show cracks just like those we see in dried mud flats. The cracks were filled in as the next layer of sand covered up the first layer, so we can go out there and collect very nice rocks with ripple marks and mud cracks. How do you imagine the mud dried to form these cracks, if it happened during the flood?
It turns out that there is lots of evidence that God has put into his Book of the Earth, his Creation, to provide us with clues about how he made it. You have chosen to look at one or two things in order to say that they support your pre-conceived notion. Why not look at some of the other clues? Did godless atheists find them first, so they are somehow tainted, and off-limits to creationists? (Actually, most of them were found 150 years ago by steadfast Christian creationists!)
If God put hard facts into the Book of the Earth, and words into the Book of the Bible, which one do you think he expects us to interpret metaphorically? Words, that we usually use metaphorically, or solid rocks? Or is it more likely that he contradicted himself, and the earth is false? |
_________________
Panza llena, corazon contento |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gifford Newbie Joined: 12 Mar 2005 Total posts: 3 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
30.00 tokens
|
|
Post 104:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: Creation & Evolution |
|
|
New to this but here goes!
I am new to the faith, so I have no religious upbringing, indoctrination ect to cause me to have bias either way.
I would simply say that the Bible was written a long time ago and it was written according to the understanding of the world at that time.
No new fossils being found in the last 150 years is not surprising when the Earth is dated as 4-5 billion years old. So have a little patience 
The words in the Bible are as true today as they were in the time they relate to. If we followed the Ten Commandments and loved our neighbour as ourselves there WOULD not be any war, famine, poverty ect
So I think having gotten off the track a little that creation and evolution are compatible. Stephen Hawking says that the more he unravels the mysteries of the universe the more he beieves in a creator, it is just to fantastic to be an accident.
Bye for now
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| YEC Sage
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Total posts: 500 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
2031.17 tokens
|
|
Post 105:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:36 am Post subject: Re: Creation & Evolution |
|
|
| gifford wrote: | New to this but here goes!
I am new to the faith, so I have no religious upbringing, indoctrination ect to cause me to have bias either way.
I would simply say that the Bible was written a long time ago and it was written according to the understanding of the world at that time.
No new fossils being found in the last 150 years is not surprising when the Earth is dated as 4-5 billion years old. So have a little patience
The words in the Bible are as true today as they were in the time they relate to. If we followed the Ten Commandments and loved our neighbour as ourselves there WOULD not be any war, famine, poverty ect
So I think having gotten off the track a little that creation and evolution are compatible. Stephen Hawking says that the more he unravels the mysteries of the universe the more he beieves in a creator, it is just to fantastic to be an accident.
Bye for now
|
Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
micatala Site SupporterSavant
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 Total posts: 5312 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
44371.44 tokens
|
|
Post 106:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ? |
Not to circumvent Gifford answering, but my response would be that this is a falsely leading question. I believe in God as creator, and I believe in Jesus as His son. There is no problem unless you insist in a literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible. You are implying, I think, that if one disbelieves the literal account of 'creation in 6 24 hour days' then you must also deny the reality of Jesus as a person. I don't see that this is necessary.
In my view, the creation story should be taken metaphorically, both because of internal clues within the text, and because obviously no one was there to see the story unfold.
The Gospels are quite a different matter. The events described did have eye witnesses, and even if these witnesses were fallible human beings and may be biased in having an emotional attachment and a profound committment to Jesus, it is reasonable to have more faith in the 'literalness' of their accounts than in the account of the creation.
I don't accept the contention that if one interprets a particular passage metaphorically, that this necessarily means one disbelieves the essential truth of the passage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| perfessor Scholar
Joined: 31 May 2004 Total posts: 312 Location: Illinois Gender: Male
Usergroups:
2128.51 tokens
|
|
Post 107:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Creation & Evolution |
|
|
| gifford wrote: | | New to this but here goes! |
Welcome to the forum, gifford!
| Quote: | I would simply say that the Bible was written a long time ago and it was written according to the understanding of the world at that time.
<snip>
If we followed the Ten Commandments and loved our neighbour as ourselves there WOULD not be any war, famine, poverty ect. |
This seems entirely reasonable to me. Although I would say that if you follow the "Love thy neighbor" part, the ten commandments become superfluous. But this is getting off-topic.
| YEC wrote: | | Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ? |
But be prepared to take some "friendly fire", as punishment for being reasonable!
Personally, I never felt - even when I was a Christian - that I was "denying the glorious creation" - I was only denying a literal interpretation of a myth written down by a nomadic tribe of bronze-age goat herders. |
_________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jose Guru
Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Total posts: 2007 Location: Indiana Age: 60 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
16623.24 tokens
|
|
Post 108:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gifford wrote: | | No new fossils being found in the last 150 years is not surprising when the Earth is dated as 4-5 billion years old. So have a little patience |
Welcome, gifford! And here's some of that friendly fire that perfessor warned you about: where do we get the idea that no new fossils have been found in the last 150 years? Thousands have been found! This is what's so much fun about this debate...there are those who seem perfectly happy to make statements that are completely goofy, in the hopes that others will take them at their word. It's pretty amazing actually.
| micatala wrote: | You are implying, I think, that if one disbelieves the literal account of 'creation in 6 24 hour days' then you must also deny the reality of Jesus as a person. I don't see that this is necessary.
In my view, the creation story should be taken metaphorically, both because of internal clues within the text, and because obviously no one was there to see the story unfold.
...
I don't accept the contention that if one interprets a particular passage metaphorically, that this necessarily means one disbelieves the essential truth of the passage. |
Here is where you and some others seem to differ, micatala. Obviously, there are those who insist that the only possible interpretation of Genesis is the literal "creation in six 24-hour days," and who seem to insist that if we don't accept their particular view, then we automaticallyl deny the entirety of the bible, as we see here: | YEC wrote: | | Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ? |
From analyses done by others, it has been inferred that this curious viewpoint stems from a firm belief that if one part of the bible is nullified, then the entire thing is nullified--which is what makes evolution so scary. (Of course, they don't count the parts about the earth being flat, and stuff like that.) It's puzzling that people hold to this interpretation so fiercely, and insist that their view should be made law, when it is so clear that there are plenty of other interpretations of the text. I guess, it's easier, and somehow more "logical," to deny the reality of the world itself than to accept the idea of reading a passage or two metaphorically. |
_________________
Panza llena, corazon contento |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| YEC Sage
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Total posts: 500 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
2031.17 tokens
|
|
Post 109:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="micatala"] | Quote: | | Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ? |
| micatala wrote: | | Not to circumvent Gifford answering, but my response would be that this is a falsely leading question. I believe in God as creator, and I believe in Jesus as His son. There is no problem unless you insist in a literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible. You are implying, I think, that if one disbelieves the literal account of 'creation in 6 24 hour days' then you must also deny the reality of Jesus as a person. I don't see that this is necessary. |
The problem occurs when you insist that there was no special creation AS WRITTEN in the scripture.
Now for you accusation, where did I EVER say "then you must also deny the reality of Jesus as a person.
Either present a reference or please retract that statement ....and discontinue puting words into my mouth.
| micatala wrote: | | In my view, the creation story should be taken metaphorically, both because of internal clues within the text, and because obviously no one was there to see the story unfold. |
Tell me why Genesis is written as literal history? Tell me why other portions of the bible presenty it as literal? Tell me why Paul and Peter present it as literal? Tell me why the early christians took it as literal?
Tell me why the literal Jesus would base his self upon a false story?
| micatala wrote: | | The Gospels are quite a different matter. The events described did have eye witnesses, and even if these witnesses were fallible human beings and may be biased in having an emotional attachment and a profound committment to Jesus, it is reasonable to have more faith in the 'literalness' of their accounts than in the account of the creation. |
Portions of the Gospels rely on a literal Genesis. I.E., the linage of Christ. Are portions such as that in the Gospels false...or did the authors of the Gospels get that portion wrong?
| micatala wrote: | | I don't accept the contention that if one interprets a particular passage metaphorically, that this necessarily means one disbelieves the essential truth of the passage. |
Did the fall of man in the Garden of Eden actually happen..or was it nothing more than a mere metaphore? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| YEC Sage
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Total posts: 500 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
2031.17 tokens
|
|
Post 110:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jose wrote: | | snip... Obviously, there are those who insist that the only possible interpretation of Genesis is the literal "creation in six 24-hour days," and who seem to insist that if we don't accept their particular view, then we automaticallyl deny the entirety of the bible, as we see here: |
| YEC wrote: | | Gifford, how is it that you can believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ....yet deny the glorious creation He performed in Genesis ? |
Where has the entirety of the bible been denied? Once again an evo tries to put words into my mouth. Please retract that statement.
The bible tells us Jesus was the main creator of the Godhead.
...you evos claim evolution was.
The bible tells us Jesus made Adam from the dust...you evos say evolution made man from lower life forms.
The bible tells us Jesus made Eve from Adams side...you evos once again deny this biblical fact.
Now how is this the entirety of the bible? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index
-> Science and Religion |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
|
| Page 11 of 13 |
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
