Origin of Life

College Confidential Community
181

<p>"bats appeared so suddenly in the fossil record some 50 million years ago"</p>

<p>Explain to me how the fossil record works again? How do you determine the age of a fossil? Rock layer = circular reasoning, and radioactive dating requires a constant concentration, which even evolutionists don't guarantee.</p>

<p>What makes the possibility that the entire fossil record was created at one time so farfetched? I mean, a worldwide flood could easily sort dead plants and animals into strata, just like you can take backyard soil and sort it. "More developed" animals, i.e., smarter ones, appear higher up because they have the sense to get out of the water for as long as possible, so they were added last. OR, they could have been sorted by habitat location.</p>

182

<p>


</p>

<p>Wow. You know what, tanonev? I think you've got me there. Prehistoric fish just didn't have the sense to get out of the water. That explains so much.</p>

183

<p>no they dont guarantee it. nothing is guaranteed. it just seems very plausible and is backed up by experiments. which is more than anyone can say about creationism. </p>

<p>Of course science is just a theory. It could all be wrong. Just like when you board a plane, the theory describing the lift could turn out to be wrong , and you would plummet to the ground. Still most people fly as it seems very unlikely that the theory of lift etc. is wrong. Same for evolution.</p>

184

<p>Why do u say Science is only a theory? How can the theory describing lift be wrong when it works quite well? U just cant claim all of science is thoery. Every fact has undergone grave reseach and opposition before it could be proved. Creationism was never really researched nor proved. It survives due to ppls beliefs. </p>

<p>Can animals really suddenly mutate to different species by change in one gene and anway can a gene suddenly change? Maybe it'll produce freaks but to claim that it happened to all shrews and thus bats evolved is a bit absurd.</p>

185

<p>tanonev I'm embarrassed that there are people like you in CA</p>

186

<p>Figures...say you're a creationist, and instantly get ridiculed...</p>

<p>Whatever happened to the idea of respecting other people's opinions?</p>

187

<p>@tanonev: Some things are opinons, some things are falsehoods. Creationism is respectable in a religious context. Science is respectable in a scientific context. As such, it would be inappropriate for me to waltz into a church and proclaim that The Bible is full of filthy lies that contradict scientific theory. It is similarly inappropriate for a creationist to crash a National Academy of the Sciences meeting by screaming that evolution is a farse. You're trying to use what you interpret as science to discredit (not "disprove") evolutionary theory. That simply won't work. This is the conclusion that modern science has come to. Until we discover more, evolution is "fact" in the scientific community.</p>

<p>Science and religion follow different rules. That is to say, science does and religion does not. As a result, neither one can disprove the other. However, one can have tangible evidence where the other does not. If evolution is being debated scientifically, religion must follow the scientific method in debate. Observation and experimentation are required.</p>

188

<p>OK, but this is a public message board, not "a National Academy of the Sciences meeting"</p>

<p>What I've been trying to say is that creationism is not scientifically impossible...of course, I don't think people from either camp are likely to cross over in this day and age, so...ok, I'll be quiet now...</p>

189

<p>tanonev if creationism is not scientifically impossible then how is it sciencetifically possible?</p>

190

<p>"Figures...say you're a creationist, and instantly get ridiculed...</p>

<p>Whatever happened to the idea of respecting other people's opinions?"</p>

<p>first of all, even though I am a kind educated liberal I don't go around "respecting" other people's opinions.</p>

<p>For example, I dont respect the opinion of the people in Wyoming who crucified Mathew Sheppard. Nor do I respect the opinion of that nut pastor in Kansas who goes around the country saying that homosexuals are demons. I also don't respect ann coulter when she says that "we should invade their country[islamic nations] kill their soldiers and convert them to christianity. </p>

<p>The religious right has run amok and is now well on their way to create a theocracy in the US. That is why many leading scientists are leaving the US to do embryonic stem cell research.</p>

<p>Now, 80 years after the Scopes monkey trial we still have thinly veiled Creationism being pushed onto our children. I for one WON'T STAND FOR IT.</p>

<p>now, if you want to present scientific evidence, the fine, I will listen and critique you. Until then you'll be treated by me as any common ruffian that has burst into the mosque yelling that islam is false. The only scary part is that in america a majority of people have become stupid(which is inherently because of the ridiculously poor US education system) and believe in creationism. Thats the real scary part!</p>

<p>If it were up to me, I would do what Robespierre did and turn the equivalents of Notre Dame into Temples of Reason</p>

<p>Here is the Declaration of the Rights of Man</p>

<p>"The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen: "</p>

191

<p>
[quote]
No, it does not "prove" creationism. However, such lack of evidence harms the case for evolution, thereby strengthening the case for creationism.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A lack of evidence certainly does not strengthen the case for creationism. It only weakens the theory of evolution. However, this is not a either or situation - evolution was proposed in order to try to connect all the evidence that science has discovered. Another theory could just as easily be proposed if evolution was discovered to be erroneous (which is highly improbably, in the first place).</p>

<p>Creationism, on the other hand, is based on no evidence except the Bible, and even the Bible is weak evidence for creation (more about this in the paragraph below). Creationism is not a science, which would explain why creationists are ridiculed in a scientific context. Tanonev, your question about the number of transitional fossils is addressed at <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html&lt;/a>. Your comment on moon dust is addressed at <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html&lt;/a> (which basically says that your claim is a complete myth based on an obsolete measurement).</p>

<p>Anyway, on the topic of the Bible... Anyone who studies ancient texts will tell you that the NIV version of the Bible is far from 100% accurate for interpretation purposes. Even if the Bible is God-inspired, it will only be inerrant in its original language (and if nobody changed anything in it afterwards). The truth is, there's no point in taking the Genesis account literally when all the scientific evidence points towards something else. Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, Biblical scholars before Darwin have already been interpreting the account of creation figuratively, so it isn't because of evolution that we are interpreting it differently.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, creationists have so much faith in their beliefs to the point of dogmatic, and there's enough creationist propaganda out there to keep people believing that evolution is somehow evil and against God's word.</p>

192

<p>
[QUOTE]
The religious right has run amok and is now well on their way to create a theocracy in the US.

[/QUOTE]

The evidence suggests otherwise. In the last five years, we've had a challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, the first legal homosexual marriages, and a huge anti-Christian backlash. If you want to know what a true theocracy looks like, go to Iran.</p>

<p>When a group of people who believes in God chooses to exercise their right to vote, and vote in record numbers, this is not theocracy. This is democracy. When some of our leaders believe in God and express wishes for God to guide our country, this is not a theocracy. This is a democracy, continuing in the tradition started by the first leaders of the country. People complain that the Republican Party controls two branches of the government and influences a third, and this is supposed to be the death of the system of checks and balances. To them, I ask, "How many times has the Democratic party controlled both elected branches of the government?"
Undoubtedly, there are small numbers of reactionary Republicans who give the rest of the conservatives a bad name, just as radical Democrats cast light on other liberals. Just because you disagree with a political party's views, though, and some of that party's supporters hold religious beliefs, does not qualify as "theocracy".</p>

<p>And in response to all who have said creationism is a religion, not a science, what is your term for those researchers who do not profess any particular religion but actively engage in the study of creationism, as they find more evidence for it than macroevolution?</p>

193

<p>"When some of our leaders believe in God and express wishes for God to guide our country, this is not a theocracy."</p>

<p>actually, that is the definition of theocracy
its also alarming because of the way these ultra-right religious conservatives have gotten into positions of power.</p>

<p>"And in response to all who have said creationism is a religion, not a science, what is your term for those researchers who do not profess any particular religion but actively engage in the study of creationism, as they find more evidence for it than macroevolution?"</p>

<p>Quacks, and/or paid operatives of the Religious Right</p>

194

<p>Amen, Sigh and sempitern555. Amen.</p>

195

<p>"actually, that is the definition of theocracy
its also alarming because of the way these ultra-right religious conservatives have gotten into positions of power."</p>

<p>Correction: that is the LEFT's definition of theocracy</p>

<p>And both ultra-right and ultra-left positions are dangerous. And that last post reveals you're leaning really left...</p>

<p>""And in response to all who have said creationism is a religion, not a science, what is your term for those researchers who do not profess any particular religion but actively engage in the study of creationism, as they find more evidence for it than macroevolution?"</p>

<p>Quacks, and/or paid operatives of the Religious Right "</p>

<p>See? Any new discovery is either absorbed into evolution if possible, or dismissed as unbelievable if not...</p>

<p>I thought being liberal meant keeping an open mind...but that last remark shows you're just as close-minded as the "ultra-right" you criticize...</p>

196

<p>@tanonev: BZZT, incorrect on both counts.</p>

<p>
[quote=<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/"&gt;http://www.dictionary.com/&lt;/a&gt;]

theocracy</p>

<p>n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance</p>

<p>Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[/quote]
</p>

<p>


Please provide one (1) single piece of evidence to support this claim. I can hardly wait to enumerate the faults in your "smart fish" theory, as painful as it will be.</p>

197

<p>Loch ness lol (of course you won't believe me, but doesn't she look like a pleiosaur?)</p>

<p>On the same line, a very suspicious aquatic corpse washed up on the beach somewhere (I'll look it up later)...scientists said its DNA matched 95% that of a shark, but we know that's by no means a close match (monkeys and humans match 99%)</p>

<p>The discovery of a LIVE dinosaur, of course, would be best, but fresh dead ones are almost as good...either way, that is quite a bit of support for all of the animals being created at once, because it fits very well with the water canopy idea...</p>

<p>I know, now you think I've gone completely bonkers and am a conspiracy theorist...but think what you please...</p>

198

<p>


It was a sperm whale. There have been a number of beachings recently. Some people thought they were a new species of deep sea creature. This theory has been debunked thoroughly.</p>

<p>


At least have a word with a geologist before submitting your "smart fish" theory to Nature. . .</p>

<p>


Not really. I think you're uninformed and unwilling to investigate the matter further.</p>

199

<p>I see nothing wrong with a theocracy tsktsk, some people. Just because an honest God loving republican is in office, you guys think he's out for blood. Besides, there's nothing in the Confederation that says God shouldn't influence government. Athough...i do agree that a theocracy can get out of hand. However, tha's only if overly zealous religious fanatics get elected. (yeah, i know nothing related to this thread)</p>

<p>Anyway, I believe we originated as prokaryotes that slowly became more complex as they developed new adaptations.(nah, now that i think about it, it's too implausible) I tried forcing myself to read Darwin's theory of evolution, but it was much too boring. What I dislike about evolution is the lack of evidence to prove the transition periods that Darwin endorsed in his book. I mean there isn't a single skull or skeleton fragment suggesting that humans really did evolve from apes. (Although they did find askull that had a human skull and an ape jaw that turned out to fraudulent).</p>

<p>So concerning our education on this matter: I realize that evolution is universally accepted and agreed upon, (notice i didn't say proved)but i don't think that;s justification for schools not teahing us other theories of human evolution if any at all that have been proposed and have a fairly strong back up. Napolean once said, "history is a pack of lies agreed upon." I can say the same for evolution. Until we can find concrete evidence in fossils, or other prehistoric markings that prove the that evolutionary theory is indeed infallible, I don't think evolution should be the one and only imprint in our minds outlining the origin of our species.</p>

200

<p>


Not only does the same hold true for creationism, but also there [url=<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html%5D%5Bi%5D%5Bb%5D%5Bsize=+7%5DIS%5B/size%5D%5B/i%5D%5B/b%5D%5B/url"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html]***IS***[/url&lt;/a&gt;] evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Mountains of the stuff. Click the link.</p>