 |
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Our total range of "human" experience isn't even 1/1,000, or in many cases, 1/10,000 of the generational time frame for significant evolutionary changes, so yeah, it's hard to get a grasp of the process. |
If we can never observe "significant evolutionary changes" because the timespan is way too short, then macro-evolution can not be considered fact. After all, if we never actually observe "significant evolutionary changes", then how can we be 100% sure that they ever occur? It is possible that micro-evolution within a species occurs, but that macro-evolution from one species to another does not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
diplomat - quote:
The fossil record does not prove macro-evolution. The fossil record is only a "snapshot" that says approx. X years ago individual A lived here, approx. Y number of years individual B lived here. That in and of itself does not say anything about process. Furthermore, if the geological record shows an evolutionary process, then it shows an abrupt and sudden evolutionary process not a smooth process. |
But when we see more apelike bipedal creatures 3 million years ago followed by a ~progression of more modern looking hominids leading to us, we need to ask why these primitive creatures are old and not new and why we don't find anatomically modern humans in the record from 3 mya. Sure, we weren't there to see them roaming the savannah, but we do know they existed then and not now just as we know we exist now and not then... You get enough snapshots and a story unfolds...
quote:
Last, I'll remind you that the foosil record is not as clear cut as you seem to say. Fossils have been found in the "wrong" layer. For example, fossils of the Equus nevadenis have been found in the same layer as fossils of the eohippus. |
Which is why more snapshots tell the story. Confusing layers and deposits doesn't explain the overall picture being drawn. Pointing to occasional mistakes to argue evolution is fraudulent by people who can't even figure out what Genesis says doesn't tell me much. When these people who are supposedly expert in their own field - theology and the Bible - are so oblivious to their own realm, I have no reason to trust their claims in other fields when they obviously have a motive to deceive or deny.
quote:
"Human evolution" is a case of micro-evolution within a species not macro-evolution between different species. |
If you can look at Afarensis and it's predecessors and conclude we are the same species, then macro and micro becomes awfully blurred. Like MTG said, the terms are not concrete... If "humans" progressed that far in 4 million years, what were Afarensis' predecessors like 10 or 15 mya?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Evil Knevil
|
 |
St Andrews, Scotland.
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Oh, if you're including war..........
200,000 in death camps.
500,000 in the Civil War. Of which only 200,000 were combatants.
75,000 people purged between 1936-38
100,000 in Economic privations following SCW.
150,000 'disease excess deaths' although this may overlap with above.
50,000 in Morrocco.
40,000 in other colonial wars.
+3% of the population in mass exile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Knevil
1/ Christianity borrowed heavily from Zoanthroism. |
It may have similarities with it, but it did not borrow from it. Christianity came out of judaism, as it was the result of the Apostles who were Jewish, who believes that this Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testamant. Christianity began as a Jewish "sect",and only later spread outside of Israel, to Gentiles.
quote:
2/ There is plenty of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. There is no evidence of a resurrection.
3/ Except in the Gospels, which were largely written 3 generations after Jesus died. |
The disciples were eye witnesses to the resurrection.
The Gospels were not written 3 generations after Jesus died. Matthew was written c. 50AD, Mark was written in the late 60's AD, Luke was written around 60 AD, and John was written around 70-80 AD. This is no way near 3 generations after Jesus died.
If you are interested I can show you the evidence for the dates.
quote:
4/ The Sermon on the Mount includes references to the destruction of Jerusalem c70AD. |
I don't think it does. Show me the verses you are referring to.
quote:
5/ The books of Martyrs were written before the Gospels. Surprising the Gospels maintain the same features as the martyrs books. Even down to the same phrasology. |
What are these "books of martyrs"? If they are not in the Bible, then they don't count!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO1003
Mtg...I was unaware of any evidence of one species evolving into another species. Evolution within a species is a proven fact. But evolution from one species to another is just a theory without any hard evidence to support AFAIK.
Could you also give me an example of what physical evidence incontovertably disputes biblical text? |
Uh, wrong:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
We've observed speciation.
"Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" are terms invented by Creationists to obfuscate the truth of observed evolution. They asked for scientists to prove evolution by showing it in progress. Okay, so scientists showed the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation + natural selection in action. Creationists then moved the goal post by making the specious claim that what scientists observed was "microevolution," and that "macroevolution" was not possible.
However, have any Creationists tried to prove their assertion? No. How can they? Where do they delineate where the variations in a species from generation to generation reach some sort of barrier? What is this barrier? They don't explain. That's because the notion is patently absurd, and once again relies on some sort of supernatural barrier being put up that is untestable.
"Macroevolution" is nothing more than the cumulative microevolution of a species to the point where it becomes something demonstrably different. Given enough generations and numbers of a species, it's going to happen. Darwin observed this in his trip to the Galapagos islands. He collected samples of numerous birds from the islands, including what he thought were 13 variations of Finches. He was startled with John Gould, the biologist to whom he gave the samples to study, told him what he had brought back weren't just varieties, but different species. Upon tracing the locations of the islands where each type of bird was found, it was possible to see a clear progression of evolution of the birds until speciation had occured.
One thing people don't realize is that Darwin was a committed creationist until he undertook his journey on the Beagle. His conclusions were made from direct scientific observation, and he saw with his own eyes that evolution was the only explanation for the way in which species were distributed in the Galapagos Islands.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
If we can never observe "significant evolutionary changes" because the timespan is way too short, then macro-evolution can not be considered fact. After all, if we never actually observe "significant evolutionary changes", then how can we be 100% sure that they ever occur? It is possible that micro-evolution within a species occurs, but that macro-evolution from one species to another does not. |
This is scientific nonsense. One does not have to directly observe something to consider it scientific fact. Were that the case, you'd best start reconsidering a good deal of modern science besides evolution.
Observational inference is perfectly valid when one as overwhelming evidence that something occured, even sans direct observation. How would we ever prove a murder happened without witnesses? Forensic science is built on the idea of observational inference.
The fossil record is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. Creationist retreat further and further into the gaps as more and more fossil evidence comes to light, or they fall back on demanding complete sets of fossils for every possible minute transition, and won't accept anything less as proof.
Here are some pages I suggest you read before making false assertions (doubtless repeated from creationist sources) as to what the fossil record does or does not say:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...art2c.html#misc
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
All of the above show how outright false creationist claims for there being no evidence of evolution truly are.
Another thing people fail to consider is what happened when Darwin published all the evidence he collected. Keep in mind that prior to his voyages, the vastly predominate accepted theory was of creation. A few scientists had proposed some sort of evolutionary mechanics, but they were considered fringe.
After Darwin published and the scientific community saw his evidence, they thought it was so thorough and complete that, virtually overnight, evolution became the accepted norm of biology. Now, I ask you, do you really think tens of thousands of scientists around the world would have changed their view so quickly and absolutely without what they saw as irrefutable evidence?
Why would 99.9% of todays biologists, all trained in rigorous scientific method, still adhere to evolution as absolute fact were there not overwhelming evidence for it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
Uh, anyway, this has been a bit of a threadjack, but somewhat related to the original post, I posit this:
I have heard many Christians, especially funamentalists, claim that Jesus died for our sins. When asked about people who don't sin, they respond it's impossible to be without sin, because of the Original Sin, which taints us all to this day. This is, of course, the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden of eating the Fordbidden Fruit.
Now, I had always assumed fundamentalists reject evolution just because they found it distasteful to think their ancestors of millions of years ago were apes, and that it contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis. But if Christian doctrine is so built upon the notion of Original Sin, then I can see the threat of evolution. Evolution being fact proves that Adam and Eve is a myth, and thus eliminates Original Sin as a factor in the world. This, in turn, would render Jesus's mission moot!
Now, perhaps this is the kind of thing Spong is referring to? If Christians are to accept the scientific truths of evolution, they should reject creeds that allude to Original Sin?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I have heard many Christians, especially funamentalists, claim that Jesus died for our sins. When asked about people who don't sin, they respond it's impossible to be without sin, because of the Original Sin, which taints us all to this day. This is, of course, the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden of eating the Fordbidden Fruit.
|
Original sin just means that human nature is corrupt, ie humans tend towards doing wrong. We are not sinners because Adam and Eve sinned, we are sinners because of our own actions. Adam and Eve's orginal sin was simply the first evidence that human nature was corrupt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2003 00:49
And why do you bring up the past? What is wrong with you?
|