like genetic evidence. Also the theory of plate tectonics supports and explains the fossil evidence and distribution as well as figuring out some of the isolation necessary.
-
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!
The battle of evolution vs creationism
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yup. That too.
And it was the distribution of species that got Darwin realizing how evolution works. He didn't have a fossil record or genetics, but only a large set of phenotypes, finches and such. If I remember right, the turtles got his attention first (but I could be wrong about that).
My understanding is that there's a growing number of animals and plants around Chernobyl. Animals that are a bit more resistant to radioactive pollution. Like lynx, Przewalki's horses, board, owls, etc. Plants and wildlife died out there at first, but now are moving back in... new mutations. Pfft. Evolution doesn't work? Yeah, right.
soon followed by Mendels laws and studies on hereditary paving the way for modern genetics. The evidence is overwhelming and comes from all walks of science.Yup. That too.
And it was the distribution of species that got Darwin realizing how evolution works. He didn't have a fossil record or genetics, but only a large set of phenotypes, finches and such. If I remember right, the turtles got his attention first (but I could be wrong about that).
My understanding is that there's a growing number of animals and plants around Chernobyl. Animals that are a bit more resistant to radioactive pollution. Like lynx, Przewalki's horses, board, owls, etc. Plants and wildlife died out there at first, but now are moving back in... new mutations. Pfft. Evolution doesn't work? Yeah, right.
Yes, science works only on what it can observe. And observation is done many ways, including looking at fossil records. You don't have to see something happening in realtime to observe what happened in the past. As for what happens after we die, what does this have to do with science?
It doesn't need to be in order to be reliable. It doesn't need to be in order to disprove invalid ideas. When it comes to evolution, the evidence is overwhelming coming in from multiple fields of the sciences, not just biology.
How did you come up with this? How does a holistic view, a systems theory of web of life contradict evolution? Do you understand what it is? Science is not "wrong" because there is more data coming in to show it's vastly more subtle and nuanced that certain current models. All this will do is make our understanding of evolution richer and fuller, and less primitive. It's not going to suddenly expose the entire observation of all these fields of science was completely incorrect in everything! Is this what you're hoping will happen?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
The fossil record doesn't support long slow change over time, which is why there are living creatures today that resemble the same fossils from millions of years with no change. Also why the punctuated equilibrium theory came about and also why the web theory is now so prevalent. There is no evolution in the fossil record, only assumption based on presupposition. If I assume evolution to be true, then I can align the fossils based on a mosaic of features and based on "simple" to "complicated" and assume that is how it happened.
I don't accept evolution, it is based on philosophy and faith in science. It is not observable and the fossil record doesn't show that it happened. Some of the original starters of science were Christians who considered that if God did it, then there would be an order in the world. And they found out that it is true, there is order, not randomness in the world, which is the only reason that science can work. If there was naturalistic randomness then science wouldn't work.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
It doesn't contradict evolution which is my point. If evolution is based on the philosophy that it happened we just have to figure out how, which it is, then nothing can contradict it, it is merely amended to support any new findings. However if there is no evolutionary tree, which we see that there isnt now, and the fossil record doesnt support long slow change over time, then scientists are basically dismantling the evolutionary theory while still supporting that it happened. This can only be done by philosophy, not by scientific evidence.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yes it does. There's a lot of examples of it. Read Prothero's book about the fossil record for instance. I'm not going to list them for you. It's your job to study.
Only some do, like shark, because they've topped out in an ecological niche, which you would know and understand if you truly had studied this.
Uh... no. Punctuated equilibrium is only one piece of the puzzle. There are a lot of puneq events in the fossil record, but they don't support creationism. They still support evolution. Because of individuals of species group together in fringes in a separated ecological niche which is one of the key factors for speciation. Which you also would know if you actually had studied this. Puneq is not related to the "web" the way your seem to thing. The web you talk about has to do with gene flow and admixture.
Please, pick up a book and read.
No, they found out that it wasn't true. That was the beginning of geology and eventually gave birth to the theory of evolution. It was the search for creationism that disappointed the Christians. Even Christian geologists know that the fossil in the strata where they can find oil indicate age based on evolution. You really, really need to read something... unless you're just trolling... I can't tell anymore if people are just being stupid on purpose or not.
---
And you didn't answer my question. How does creationism support change?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, ants produce ants. Never an exception to the rule.
Oh my. I've forgotten how ignorant people are of science.
except it is confrimed by fossile age and location, the morphological changes, and the genetic evidence.
I just want to frubal you for this post, and I want to do it publically. Because although you have not changed your position on this subject, I can see that over time you have come to a deeper understanding of the concept of science. You may not like the fact that science is dependent on methodological naturalism to operate, but you do understand that it is a fact. So I congratulate you on your understanding. Honestly and sincerely. Well done!
outhouse
Atheistically
That is nonsense.
It only shows your ignorance to the facts surrounding evolution.
And what makes it really sad, is YOU have been explained these facts and although you have ZERO evidence to denounce them, you do it anyway
outhouse
Atheistically
Actually it does.
Creationism (or some types of it) posit that the Universe is only in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old. If that is the case, then how did light from galaxies billions of light-years away get to us in only 6,000 years? By the way, don't say "the speed of light was faster back then", because I've already got a good counter to that one cooked up.
God made it look old to test people's faith whether or not to believe in evolution or in their peculiar understanding of the book of Genesis, upon which their eternal destiny depends. Sort of like the dinosaur bones being planted by the devil to test their faith to believe preacher Bob's word of faith, or evidence which contradicts him.
It's not that the speed of light was quicker, but it just paid attention more. It didn't get distracted by The Facebook, and The YouTube. It comes down to work ethic.
averageJOE
zombie
snipped by me:
I find this argument funny because creationist don't apply the same rules to creation. Has a human being created from dirt ever been observed?
outhouse
Atheistically
Sometimes, you cannot use logic and reason on someone who did not use it to gain the faith they carry.
When faced with stone cold facts, they circularly dance around with more excuses then a man on death row.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Actually a tiger can give birth to a liger. And a lion to a Tyon.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Yeah, every once in awhile someone comes up with a remark that hits you square between the eyes and reminds you that there are people out there who are still just as clueless as ever. On a practical level what bothers me most about them is that in other arenas of life, particularly politics, their votes count just as much as mine. I've always thought that some kind of lower threshold of intelligence should be in place before the right to vote is granted. But . . . . . . . that's life.
