Religion

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 29 2006, 09:15 PM) [snapback]247438[/snapback]</div>

You are exactly right on this. One of the examples given back in the early 1970s was a "chart" of a certain type of fish said to be the progenitor of a land animal. The chart had the fossils of the fish and land animal, and predicted the intermediate animals that would be found. This was highly criticised in the Creationist literature. Earlier this year, or perhaps late last year, I picked up a Scientific American and they had this very animal, with the "fill in" fossils that have been found. Interestingly, the story was not about the fulfilled prediction of the intermediary forms, but instead about how science was wrong about how the fins turned to flippers then to legs. It seems they turned to flippers much earlier than expected, and the theory now is that the flippers helped the animal avoid predators by allowing it to flip out of the way (or something like that).

Evolutionary theory has one of the hallmarks of true scientific theory: it is predictable. The predictions of the last 30 years have seen fulfillment in many areas, including discoveries in the fossil record. Creationism cannot predict anything, other than the idea that these transitional forms will never be found. But they have been found.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 29 2006, 09:15 PM) [snapback]247438[/snapback]</div>

I think you are wrong and if you are not then you should be able to produce evidence of these "numerous examples where we have clear fossil evidence."

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 30 2006, 03:41 AM) [snapback]247504[/snapback]</div>

The post immediately above yours gives one example. And all it takes is one to disprove your hypothesis that species never change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 30 2006, 03:41 AM) [snapback]247504[/snapback]</div>

One of the most recent ones is Tiktaalik roseae, a fish with legs, with a good explanation of it at the Univ. of Chicago site. I believe, but have not verified, that this is the case in the Scientific American article I read in the past few months.

However, you will look it up on a creationist site, and find some objections to the finding. Let's all save some time and cut to the chase by reading first the response to that initial volley of nonsense from creationists non-palentologists by reading the First Response from a scientist.

More challenges will come, of course, but fish-with-legs and and snakes-with-legs fossils are NOT predicted by creationism OR intelligent design. They are predicted by evolution, and looky-here, those predictons are coming true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 28 2006, 01:22 AM) [snapback]246514[/snapback]</div>

Interesting......I joined this forum to learn more about the car I recently purchased and to hear about other's experiences and lo and behold, there is discussion about religion as well, a bonus I guess.

I would respond to your post Tripp by saying that yes, Jesus did say a lot of great sounding things such as the quote you mention, but lets not forget his harder to hear sayings such as: "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may befulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword and shall be led away captive into all nations". And also, "But the same day Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all".

Apparently, God is love, but this world is wicked, and so there is punishment for that wickedness. Jesus' message didn't always come in the form of nice sounding words, but was often firm, piercing, strong, hard to hear!

So then, yes, if you only hear the pleasant sounding words and agree with those, then I guess I can see how you would not understand how the harder sayings give the full picture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(christchurch @ Apr 30 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]247654[/snapback]</div>

Welcome Christchurch.... nice you have you join the cat fight!

I appreciate those who have shared thier true heart feelings on this post.. whether in agreeance or not, its good to share feelings that we all hold secret but are never able to share and or never feel anyone really wants to listen. Priuschat serves as a nice place to hit so many topics.....

Good you have your thoughts thrown in the mix.

 

seems starnge how poeple get into others faith or belief or something,
have always thought of religion as a super personal matter, i mean end of it its between God ( the spiritual side) and man ..why to bother opposing others view point be them athiests , fundementalists or whatever

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 26 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]245580[/snapback]</div>

The article was entitled: "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" by Roger Lewin, Science magazine, Volume 210, 21 November 1980, pp 883-887

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 28 2006, 11:36 PM) [snapback]247080[/snapback]</div>

So that's how he disposes of them with a clear conscience? How convienient.

It doesn't take believing in a specific God, particularly one who casts souls into Hell, to see the value of societal bounds. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morals and ethics. Socializing children (occasionally through discipline) is, of course, very important. Everyone needs to understand the interconnectedness of themselves and the communities that they live in. Community should also include the surrounding physical aspects, not just the human relationships.

God, Satan, angels, and devils... sounds like Greek mythology without quite as much celestial fornication.


ChristChurch (are you from NZ?),

I'm aware of these but I had no specific quote. None the less, I think that you're only confirming my confusion with passages such as these. What is the point of this suffering? Why are Jesus and God so angry with people who don't live according to their EXACT plan? Why is there only ONE right way? Why has the message been hidden from so many people throughout time? What's so special about the Jews (besides daniel :lol: )? Why were they chosen in the first place? Why wasn't God's word made known throughout the world in a timely fashion? Why did it take 2000 years?!?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 1 2006, 06:25 PM) [snapback]248220[/snapback]</div>

Not from NZ.

It is refreshing to see so many questions in one post since, when the discussion turns to religion, generally speaking, people tend to tell far more than ask. This seems to be true in regards to most all topics actually. When I meet other religions folks, they are often all answers and no questions. I see this as a point which lies at the core of education and is visibly pronounced when it shows up in discussions of religion. How the world might shift if a well thought out question were valued over a well thought out answer. Anyway, I sense that your questions are geared to provoke thinking more than for a quick rush to answer them, but perhaps I am wrong and you would like to hear some possible thoughts on them. Let me ask you some first though.

Have you read Scripture? Portions? All? What version(s)? Does Scripture appear contradictory to you because of the love/fire&brimstone, hence your confusion in how these are reconciled? Do you prefer something besides a literal reading, and if so, what is it?

I think the answer to your questions lies in perceiving the message behind the literal words of those harder passages. You say in so many words that the literal rendering is problematic, so then, do you have a non-literal rendering that you could share?

-cc

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 1 2006, 04:25 PM) [snapback]248220[/snapback]</div>

If you actually look at the Old Testament, it never says there is only one god. What it actually says is that one particular god, named Jehovah (except that in those days they left out the vowels) picked one particular group of people to protect in return for worship. They refered to him as "the living god."

Remember that in those days the Greeks and Romans had many gods, but every city had one particular god that it gave special treatment to (sacrifices and such) in return for "protection." Athena was the sponsor god of Athens, and so on. Some individuals also picked one particular god for special treatment.

So the OT tells the story of one god who nobody wanted to worship. Poor fellow got no sacrifices. So he picked one group of people (the Jews) and told them: "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Note that it does not say "there are no other gods," it says rather that the Jews are not to have other gods.

The Jews were the chosen people of one particular god.

Jesus was a Jew, so naturally the christians, following Jesus, took the Jewish god.

Later on somebody decided that Jehovah was the only god, which suddenly made the Jews seem really special to be "the chosen people of god." The other gods got relegated to the status of angels and devils.

Caveat: I obviously do not believe a word of it. But that's the story I read in the Bible. I've always thought it was rather snooty of my people to insist that we are "the chosen people." Of course it's also snooty of christians to insist that theirs is the "only true religion." I don't buy any of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 26 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]245543[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 26 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]245580[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ May 1 2006, 04:15 PM) [snapback]248110[/snapback]</div>

okay so i read that article.

first...

it was a news report not a research article
there was no hard data presented to back up the quote referenced above
i couldn't even find the exact quote referenced above- although there was a small discussion of generalists vs specialists, which i am assuming is the root of the quote.
even if i could, everything quoted in the article was opinion and not stated or implied as fact
it was reporting on a conference
the purpose of the conference was to determine whether the current model of evolution fit the current data at the time
the data at the time was 26 years ago
they had very little molecular biology experience and almost no clue about the intricacies of embryology and developmental biology

second...

"science" is not the entity that said the above quote
misquoting is one way creationists try to get science to say what they want to say
calling a bluff is what it takes to debunk stuff like that.

third....

brief summary of the NEWS article.

this was a report of a research conference. basically a huge gathering of scientists of all disciplines with interest and passion about the subject, intended to discuss the theory of evolution and possibly amend the structure of the theory as held at the time- which, may i reinforce, was nearly 26 years ago.

task at hand: discuss mechanisms that underlie origin of species and evolutionary relationships between species

original theory: modern synthesis. principles of modern synthesis are that mutations in STRUCTURAL genes and changes in gene frequency are behind organismal change, pace of evolution is slow and due to progression of gradual changes. natural selection is based upon organismal morphology.

also discussed and reaffirmed was how microevolution and macroevolution are considered a continuum with notable overlap.

there were three areas of discussion: the tempo of evolution, the mode of change, and physical form constraints.

the conclusions from the discussions were as follows:
- tempo may be gradual or may be due to punctuated equilibrium (which is now a very valid theory and would explain the lack of complete connection between variants in the fossil record)
-mode- at the time there was insufficient molecular biological evidence to really decide what could be happening. J Maynard Smith, England's most prominent evolutionary biologist at the time, was quoted as saying that they were "waiting on molecular biology" (and that right there should be enough to consider any opinion article more than 10-15 years old in this and many other fields INVALID)
-constraints- adaptation is important, however there were constraints in embryological development or what was referred to as the "blueprint" of mechanical properties that for example kept 4 limbs common (it was asserted that hte four limb design came from fish- very distant ancestors). they also decided that there may be a developmental switch involved causing either feathers or hair, which would explain the disparate theories for where each originated.

overall they added much to the theory that was current at the time but modern synthesis was not on teh whole rejected.

evolutionary theory was not rejected. it was not even challenged. the whole meeting was to discuss current evidence and whether modern synthesis was still a full explanation or if it needed to be amended and changed.

this is what science does. people get together, they have it out, present what evidence they have, and after a bit of arguing settle down and modify what the current theory structure holds.

this was twenty six years ago. in that time, embryology, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and many other fields have made leaps and bounds in understanding.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 30 2006, 08:10 AM) [snapback]247534[/snapback]</div>

heh, just look at animal husbandry and you can see a very focused version of evolution and gene manipulation.

Why is it, that with change happening all around us, that so many people cling to this static, unchanging world? The constant in this world is change.

Nice post, galaxee. Very informative.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 2 2006, 11:56 PM) [snapback]248918[/snapback]</div>

I've NEVER argued that the world doesn't change, or that animals don't change, people change. Yes, things do evolve. But, when the Bible says that God created each animal, according to its kind, I believe that to be correct. I don't believe that he created a primordial soup, and never looked back. I don't believe that the macro-evolutionary changes we can see prove that all life started as a single-cell organism, and over millions of years became a fish, then a frog, then a lizard, bird,......whatever. I believe man to be a deliberately created being by God, with a huge gulf between man and other animals. It has nothing to do with "clinging to a static world".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 2 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]248918[/snapback]</div>

Some creationists, forced to admit that animals change with time, have decided to assert that these changes are all "small" and are merely different expressions of the genes already in the ancestors.

What I find curious, is that people who insist that "the ways of god are mysterious and unknowable" insist that god could not have "created" present-day species by directing their evolution over billions of years.

Keydiver says he does not believe that god "created the primordial soup and never looked back." What makes creationsits so sure that their god could not have used the method that all the evidence points to? T.H. Huxley, responding to the proposition that god put the fossils in the ground to confound us, said, "I cannot believe that God would have written across the rocks such an enormous and all-pervading lie."

Creationists, by disputing the fossil record, are clearly implying that their god is a liar. Christian biologists, in contrast, are saying that through the fossil record god is giving us information about the world around us which we can use to learn about the past.

To all creationists: Biology and evolution, in and of themselves, do not say that god does not exist. Personally, I believe he does not. But this is not a question that science addresses. When you deny evolution, you are trying to place limits on what your god can or cannot do, and at the same time you are calling him a liar. Is this how you worship the spirit you believe created you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 2 2006, 08:16 AM) [snapback]248551[/snapback]</div>

Who is this "very valid theory" valid to? All evolutionists or just some?

Punctuated Equilibrium
instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new forms.

One renowned evolutionary thinker, John Maynard Smith of England, wrote in 1995: "Because of the excellence of his essays, (Gould) has come to be seen by nonbiologists as the pre-eminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary theorists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists."

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The story of punctuated equilibrium is a classic example of how scientists (like the rest of us) sometimes see what they expect to see, not what's really there in front of their eyes. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

So the evolutionist which believes guadualism says that evolution took place in a gradual step by step process over millions and millions of years? Thus since it took so long there is no transitory fossil evidence. While the punctuationalist, who believes in punctuated equilibrium says that there were long periods of stasis followed by very rapid macromutation and therefore we do not see a transtory fossil record now because evolution happened too fast? Is that correct? B)

I would venture to say it is a very valid theory with scientist that support "Punctuated Equilibrium" and not evoluntionary scientist who believe in gradualism. I won't even mention the scientist that believe in God or Creation of which there is a growing number.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]249141[/snapback]</div>

it's a valid explanation of why the fossil record has some gaps. there are alternate explanations out there, however none are completely invalid. it is valid to the evidence. personal opinions are nothing on this matter.

as an explanation, it is criticized as much as any other. those who are arguing for other explanations will opine that it is less valid than their own idea in interest of promoting their alternate explanation as a more complete description.

scientists of all relevant disciplines got together to discuss whether it was valid and relevant based upon the evidence they had. the overall consensus was that it held water.

oh and btw... your source?


one last thought before i jet out of this thread.

religious people seem to think they must extinguish so much as the thought of evolution- take down the giant if you will- to prove whatever they're trying to prove.

evolution is part of the foundation of science. science won't die as long as we have people with genuine curiosity and the drive to ask why. scientists can certainly choose what we believe in, and are not required to believe in anything we object to... but the principles will always be used. we use rats as a model organism for a reason, for example. we study mutations in disease for a reason. and on and on.

over and out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 30 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]247534[/snapback]</div>

IT"S NOT CHANGE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ITS EVOLUTION!

Can't you at least try to get quotes and facts straight? How old are you?

One Fossil or example of creature with characterizations of another does not prove evolution. All that proves is that there is a great diversity of life. The Gap scientists have discovered that leads one to question evolution is the step-by-step change from one species to another. One reason the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented. Just because someone has discovered one fish with fins that could be or appear to be legs does not show that fish, reptiles or mammals transitioned, mutated, and/or evolved from another.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]249141[/snapback]</div>

There is strong evidence for punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. The major extinction events in the fossil record are usually followed by a new diversification (the mammal "explosion" that occurred after the demise of the dinosaurs, for example). This makes a lot of sense. Evolution is driven by change in the environment. If the environment changed very little there would be less pressure on the organisms in the environment. The old saying "if it a'int broke, don't fix it" applies here. However, if there is a major change in the environment, organisms "sink or swim". Suddenly new niches are created and others are vacated by extinction.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]249184[/snapback]</div>

how old are YOU? you haven't yet learned that being a complete *** does not help your argument.

and all that diversity starts out looking quite similar... i gotta quit getting drawn back into this.