-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A simple question for creationists.
- Thread starter PennyKay
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Eh.
gives one something to do to relieve the boredom...
Me too.
January of 2009 to be more precise.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You never know who might be lurking here.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
This is a really simple and probably obvious question to ask creationists (or anybody who doesn't think evolution is correct), but one to which I can not ever recollect obtaining an answer to.
My question is simply, how do you explain fossils?
It may sound like a daft question to ask, but it honestly does baffle me.
Please give your honest opinions
What does evolution have to do with fossils anyway?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Fossil evidence, along with the multitudes of other empirical evidences, fully support and verify Biological Evolution.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the bible only indicates that it was mankind as a species who were created a little over 6,000 years ago.
the earth and the preceding 6 days would have been eons of time....the hebrew word Yom doesnt stand for any set length of time....it simply means 'time' so those 6 periods of 'time' could mean any length.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
evolving doesnt mean changing into a different type of animal though
'adapting' to environment is entirely different to idea that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor
Scientists have changed their opinion on darwins idea of common decent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.
The same article also quoted evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. Whats less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.
outhouse
Atheistically
Sorry Peg.
That is false
those articles are dealing with horizontle gene transfer, and both gentlemen have been completely debunked as many have taken what they said out of context. [not for horizontle transfer] but they words they used.
I suppose its why you dont have links to the orignal article.
Who's Eric Paptiste? Never heard of him. Did he "say" that in a peer-reviewed scientific article? Hundereds of thousands of biologists beg to differ, and they do it in peer-reviewed scientific articles. That's what counts.
Who's Michael Rose? Never heard of him. Did he "say" that in a peer-reviewed scientific article? Hundereds of thousands of biologists beg to differ, and they do it in peer-reviewed scientific articles. That's what counts.
You don't realize that anybody can write any nonsense* if they wanted too? It's what they can demonstrate that counts. That's the only thing that's is accepted by the experts on a subject
*My apologies to anyone that might take offence. The most likely scenario is that Pegg did quote mining by copying and pasting from some creationist web site not telling the truth. I have no doubt whatsoever that her sources were not telling the truth about what those scientists actually tried to convey.
Last edited:
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Fossil evidence doesnt have anything to do with evolution. When we find a fossil the only thing we are able to determine is that something died. THATS IT. People read into the evidence based on preconceived notions and once you do that you immediately leave science and go to religion, because at that point it becomes a faith based system.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
So you are basically saying, if you put a million humans on the continent of Antartica, over time they will "adapt to their enviorment" by evovling fur to help against the climate conditions?? The concept is nonsense to me.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
How long are you willing to wait?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
i am not saying that at all. Our kind do not have fur no matter how cold it gets.
I do believe that all animals have a level of tolerance for certain conditions, hence why some can adapt... but no, i dont believe they change their nature or biology in order to adapt.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
How long are you willing to wait?
If i dont start evovling fur within 2 mins im gone
Yeah, we wouldn't want someone to hear the other side of the ToE issue, so let's try to discredit anyone who disagrees with evolution.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Have you ever had to shave your legs?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Setting someone straight is not the same as discrediting them.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Actually this is not that out of the ordinary if you're familiar with various species on the planet. Take for instance the Stump-tail Macaque vs. the Japanese Macaque. It's without a doubt the Japanese Macaque over generations have adapted to the cold environment so they grow thicker hair. Their not the only species like this. Various species of wild dogs are like this as well. Take wolves for instance. They have a better chance surviving in the snow/cold regions better than any short haired dog.
Adaptations such as these aren't really all that in question. It happens with us as well. People from the high mountainous ranges of the Himalayas, over the generations, are able to handle higher altitude where the air is thinner than you and I.Since we don't live there we will find it a little harder to breathe but to the native people it's of no matter.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually that's not all we can tell...
If we couldn't tell more then "it died" from a dead body then we could never solve a murder.
wa:do