Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Evolution really is silly. It couldn't explain the lack of fossil evidence. It couldn't explain the timeline goofup that ultimately led to ''quick evolution', lol. What, are you joking?
-
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!
Evolution: anything to replace religion.
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
But religion cannot explain anything, give me evolution any day.
There is no lack of fossil evidence - and as matter of fact, there is not even a need for any fossil evidence anymore.
I don't know what this goofup and this quick evolution you are talking about would be, so no comment. Maybe you mean the Cambrian Explosion?
In any case, the thread title suggests that you are commiting a serious misunderstanding. Evolution is not meant, nor fit to "replace religion". It is rather misguided religion that has trouble accepting it.
Last edited:
But it did predict it.
'Sides, the lack of fossil evidence is hardly a compelling reason to reject biological evolution.
What timeline goofup?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
What timeline goofup? And which quick evolution?
Not sure what 'lack of fossil evidence' means, to be honest. Are you talking about the 'lack' of transitory fossils? If so I'd be interested in what lack you find in the record. I've often seen arguments along these lines based on existing fossil records from 25 years ago.
Timeline goofup...well...again, sorry, not sure what you mean, but personally, I find it doubtful that ANY scientific theory is 100% correct (hence it's never called a fact, but a scientific theory). My expectation is that we should all move and consider DEVELOPING PROOF.
Do you think the ToE doesn't do this? What proofs (if you can forgive the loose language).
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Is that the best you can do? Whow.
"Timeline goofup" isn't a "timeline goofup". At least, not in the manner you insinuate. It's how science works; we learn as we explore and discover. What we believe to be true is always subject to refinement.
Einstein disproving the notion that light had no mass did not disprove light. The different model we have of an atom; how it works and what it looks like; did not disprove the atom. Newton refining Galileo's model of gravitational theory did not disprove gravity. Learning that leeching blood from sick people did more harm than good did not disprove medicine. Learning that evolution does not always occur at a steady, slow pace but can happen quite rapidly does not disprove evolution.
Evolution can't explain the lack of fossil evidence because it's not supposed to explain the lack of fossil evidence. Paleontology and geology have done a pretty good job at explaining lack of fossil evidence by demonstrating to us how few bones actually become fossilized. If, however, you are referring to the lack of "transitional fossils" then you have not looked at the evidence, as examples of transitional fossils are numerous.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Why would it predict it? There is no compelling 'reason' for there to be lack of transitionary evidence.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
K-5 GeoSource > Activities > Investigations > Fossils > Why do some things become fossils, but others do not?
The staggering odds and unlikelihood of biological remains is a very strong and compelling reason for there to be lack of evidence for the existence of many species that once called Earth "home".
The "lack of transitionary evidence" is a lie. Base propaganda.
Are you aware of just how rare the conditions required for fossilization actually are?
Besides, there's no "transition", except in every single generation. It's not "let's be one species for a while, then change into another." There's change each and every generation, even to this day.
What I find more compelling of an argument is the lack of fossil evidence for magic. Where are the bones of Adam and Eve? Where are the bones of the giants before the flood? Where is the scientific evidence that plants covered the earth before the sun was created?
I honestly do not understand this queer compulsion for people to reject things that don't fit their beliefs in magic. Sounds like a really weak faith. This thread should be called "Denialism. Anything to not let go of childhood fantasies".
I honestly do not understand this queer compulsion for people to reject things that don't fit their beliefs in magic. Sounds like a really weak faith. This thread should be called "Denialism. Anything to not let go of childhood fantasies".
Yerda
Veteran Member
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
You can't explain the lack of fossil evidence because there isn't a lack of fossil evidence. I don't know of any "goofups" or "quick evolution" that you are reffering to except to the change in opinion from the original theory of constant gradual change to quicker spurts of evolution. And I don't see how the better understanding of the process is now somehow evidence against our understanding of the process. But evolution has nothing to do with religion. If religion bases itself counter to scientific fact and wishes to take on evolution it will loose in the battle of facts and deserves to be destroyed. But if religion can be a spiritual experience where it doesn't run counter to the observed universe and doesn't make factual claims that are not in line with reality then that is intentional misleading of people into a deluded belief system that is outright false.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I'm asking again, since there's no answer provided.
What timeline goofup? Do you mean the goofup of the genealogy of Jesus's timeline? Or the goofup of Noah's flood that never happened? Or the timeline goofup that there were civilizations around 4,000 years before creation?
And what "quick evolution" are you talking about? Do you mean the one after Noah's ark? There are 10 million species in the world, or more. It is literally impossible to put all current species in one boat (not enough space for that many) for one year without the majority dying out or getting infectious diseases. So Noah had only "kinds" according to creationism. Those "kinds" then evolved in a hyper-rapid pace over the next few years to produce all the species we know existed thousands of years ago and up until now. Evolution on rocket fuel. That's the "quick evolution" you're talking about?
So could you please be a little bit more specific. Right now, I'm thinking of the Creationists' goofups and not evolution's.
McBell
Unbound
Why are you so eager to have your *** handed to you again?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Fossils as they were "captured" of the dinosaurs may have been a very rare occurrence - needing just the right placement of both the animal and geological anomalies to preserve the bones on into the future. With the dinosaurs, the span of time they were the dominant species of beings on the planet was so great that it offered many more chances for this to happen. That, combined with the relatively volatile landscape of the Earth as it was still in its settling phases probably provided for not only more statistical probability of the right geological circumstances for this form of preservation occurring, but also more chances of the death of a lot of these creatures in otherwise "strange" or "infrequent" ways.
Besides, just look at the scope and dynamic of dogs that currently populate the earth. Do you not realize that ALL breeds of canine present today have their roots in just a handful of canine species that truly existed in the wild (mainly wolves)? We humans have been the drivers of the selective processes and pressures in the case of dogs, forcing the "evolution" to happen rapidly over the course of just a few generations - always hand-picking the most furry, or the smallest, or the lightest in color, or the most docile of each successive generation and breeding those animals together. This means there were NEVER wild Pomeranians, NEVER Saint Bernards, NEVER German Shepherds in the wild. We created these species using the very foundations of evolution to do so. It's really quite remarkable.
Besides, just look at the scope and dynamic of dogs that currently populate the earth. Do you not realize that ALL breeds of canine present today have their roots in just a handful of canine species that truly existed in the wild (mainly wolves)? We humans have been the drivers of the selective processes and pressures in the case of dogs, forcing the "evolution" to happen rapidly over the course of just a few generations - always hand-picking the most furry, or the smallest, or the lightest in color, or the most docile of each successive generation and breeding those animals together. This means there were NEVER wild Pomeranians, NEVER Saint Bernards, NEVER German Shepherds in the wild. We created these species using the very foundations of evolution to do so. It's really quite remarkable.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's right. The majority of dog breeds (sub-species) have been artificially bred (through selection of unique genetic material). I have a dalmatian for instance. It's white with black spots. And then I have a poodle, she's black (well, rather dark gray, she's getting old). They're so different in color, in muscle build, nose, ears, everything. Their tails are different as well. It shows how much mutations can change the look of a species over time. So it's not strange at all to just think of this happening in nature.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I've always thought that. A few alterations of the genome creates huge changes in appearance.
Anyone having difficulty accepting evolution should make an effort to learn a little genetics and biochemistry. There can be no doubt that genes will be altered over generations. These changes accrete.