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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Contradicting Darwin’s theory “On the imperfect geological record” “earth’s surface is constantly in flux”
Have you ever heard of floods. Flood carries sediment or particles from one place into another place as they were move by water in a drainage bed and once they settled on water and dries out it hardens and form around bones and fossilized it.
Thanks for this. I did some break-dancing to it, and now I'm in the e.r. with broken ribs and my head is turned around backwards, but the doctor said that now I can better see where I've been.
You are just rephrasing my statement.
There is only one thing you guys are agreeing with each other, i.e., going after my statements, but as far as having the same answer or mind, totally contradicting each other.
I wasn't commenting on any of your posts but just making a generic statement.
Chapter 9 is not a new scientific theory. It's a section where Darwin discusses the numerous possible reasons for the lack of "countless" fossils being found in the fossil record. I gave you those well known reasons in a post you have yet to respond to. And it's already been pointed out to you that despite those reason, thousands and thousands of fossils have indeed been found since Darwin's day. And it's further been pointed out to you that the evidence for the theory of evolution certainly does not rest solely on the fossil record you keep harping on about.
If you are actually interested in the science you can separate what is legitimate and what is "pop". You will also know that "pop" is not considered fact but simply intriguing concepts or findings. When it is accepted as fact it is only because of overwhelming evidence.
False. We stock the jury with our common idiots (bad idea in my opinion) because in England there was a concept where a panel of the same people determined the fate of everyone who went through the court system. The American system hated his concept of total power and control of our lives. Our jury system is incredibly flawed and subject to interpret-able statements and its why we have such a highly screwed up system where the person with the highest paid lawyer tends to win rather than the logical or moral person.
And evidence changed their minds. Doesn't matter what they had they all changed their minds and we no longer abide by the static universe model. If we had obvious evidence that the universe was not static and the experts remained in the concept then you would have an argument. But they don't and you don't. People used to believe that bile was a good thing and would actually rub fresh bile into wounds to help it heal. Now we know that is gross and harmful. Are you going to knock all modern medicine because there were bad theories in the past.
Oh yes you do! Half-lives are theoretical age used to calculate the age of igneous rocks. If you don’t used half-lives you simply cannot arrive to any conclusion as far as age of any fossils and sedimentary strata. So, theoretically, the ages of fossils are all based on another theory, and that is, dating igneous rocks, and dating igneous rocks based on another theory of half-lives of elements found in it.
Same argument you are just rephrasing my statements.
A good analogy is the hourglass clock just turn it upside down and think of it as decaying and when you reach half then that is what you call half-life and when reach another half another half-life and so on. You can’t argue from this man.
And what are those again? I believed you posted this: “Thus the geological record will almost necessarily be rendered intermittent. I feel much confidence in the truth of these views, for they are in strict accordance with the general principals inculcated by Sir C. Lyell; and E. Forbes independently arrived at a similar conclusion.” (page 201)
Until you explain it to me on how you guys got the 3,200,000 years on fossils.
Actually it was a rhetorical question.
Dating the ash deposits above and below the find.
And yet the scientific community changed its opinion to fit the evidence. There were several "possible" models that were all equally valid until further evidence provided the answer for one. Big crunch was based off of evidence and so was the rest. Further evidence threw it out. Minds were changed and no one said that big crunch was a fact. It wasn't a theory created to disprove god it was a valid theory with the information at hand.
Stalin didn't have the best interests of people in mind. Stalin wasn't a scientist. There wasn't evidence that his techniques were better. In fact the evidence proved otherwise and no scientific establishment ever insisted we use Stalin's methods. Your point here is meaningless.
The evidence supported what we eventually accepted. There was no atheist conclusion. This is a conspiracy theory that many theists have because science and its evidences don't point to their theological beliefs.
They strongly suspect this is because "supporting evidence here". Its not pure conjecture. It is based off evidence and there is no evidence that they suddenly came from nothing. In fact we have since the quote you have used, FOUND evidence of pre-Cambrian animals.
That fossilization is a very rare process. That most of the earth hasn't yet been geologically explored. That sections of the geological record are separated by "wide intervals of time" which makes it difficult to find closely related species together in the fossil record because animals tend to migrate from the places their ancestors may have inhabited. He also discussed difficulties in naming and categorizing various species of animals. I suggest reading my post again, or better yet, the entire chapter of Darwin's book, if you've forgotten already.
It's the title of a chapter in the book, not a scientific theory.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.
1) Darwinian evolution isn't really accepted by any specialists in evolutionary theory; it's just a convenient term for a vastly more complex, interdisplinary field involving multiple theories.
Wrong. Genetics and epigenetics are evidence for evolutionary theory but aren't evidence against intelligent design, which is deliberately constructed so as to not make this the case.
Or they have some basic familiarity with epistemology, the philosophy of science, and what "proof" means to scientists.
How unfortunate.
You're right, it was rhetorical. The real question is: why did he ask it?
Having doubts already? Dalai Lama was once asked what he would do if science proved that his beliefs were erroneous, not that I believed in his religion, but he said in a heartbeat, “I’d change my mind.”