Poll: How did human life come about?

[Seekermeister]

MoOo,

What are the other "scientific" theories about the fossil record are there currently? There only other two explanations for fossils and they both envolve religion

Does a theory require the stamp of either science or religion to be valid? A good theory is one that ignores the biases of both science and religion. A theory is merely a form of logic, which doesn't necessarily require a person to be indoctrinated into. If I label this "scientific", it is just for the convenience of a common term that people might understand, because it is a trait that is supposed to be interwoven within the scientific mind...though that is not true.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

What are the other "scientific" theories about the fossil record are there currently? There only other two explanations for fossils and they both envolve religion

Does a theory require the stamp of either science or religion to be valid? A good theory is one that ignores the biases of both science and religion. A theory is merely a form of logic, which doesn't necessarily require a person to be indoctrinated into. If I label this "scientific", it is just for the convenience of a common term that people might understand, because it is a trait that is supposed to be interwoven within the scientific mind...though that is not true.

well i would consider a valid scientific theory if there is ample physical evidence to support based on natural laws to support that theory. but if your theory comes from a piece of historical text with no predictive value then i would say its more a of a religious theory .

and you still haven't said what those theories are

 

[Seekermeister]

As for those of you offering links to other sources of information, it should be obvious that no one is asking for or wants them. They do nothing other than cause distractions and detours on the thought highway. The goal is for as many people as possible to arrive at a common destination safely, not end up on deadends or wrecks.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: torpid
Erm... is there some evidence that the bible was not written literally? Because I don't find it all that implausible that people were just foolish back then and believed the things in the bible were possible. It wasn't all THAT long ago when we thought aphids were spontaneously emerging from dew.

I see that somebody else has recently read the wikipedia article on abiogenesis.

The bible is a conglomeration of stories that have been passed down through the ages in the form of oral stories from one generation to the next. These ancient stories were written down when writing was invented. The Old Testament was used to first group the various stories in one place in the Hebrew language, followed by the New Testament with its own updates in Latin.

Stories inherently distort the truth due to the need to keep interest in the art of storytelling. We are familiar with this in the stories of our own grandfathers who know (knew?) they can tell whatever stories they wish of their actions in their youth with no one able to correct them. We are more familiar with this aspect in modern soap operas and Hollywood movies that distort normal interpersonal reactions, thereby providing more conflict to increase the tension within a story.

Genesis is a written and condensed grouping of stories passed through thousands of years of oral storytelling. The concepts of Heaven and Hell are often taught in Catholic institutions not to be taken literally but instead to be considered as a frame of mind. Heaven can be seen to be inner peace while Hell can be seen to be inner turmoil, each based on our own conscious mind and morality.

I consider the literal understanding of the bible to lack the higher level of thought taught to us in our undergraduate English/Literature classes.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
As for those of you offering links to other sources of information, it should be obvious that no one is asking for or wants them. They do nothing other than cause distractions and detours on the thought highway. The goal is for as many people as possible to arrive at a common destination safely, not end up on deadends or wrecks.

well in the interest of not bringing out all ready disproven arguments, its important people are at least well versed in both arguments. RapidSnail brought up quite a few fallacies that demonstrates a strong misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. And since when did bringing out evidence count as a negative in a debate?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

Instead of basing your claims purely on the blind faith that the scientists obviously know better, why don't you explain to me how those issues can be explained without destroying the theory of evolution?

I don't care what degree you have in anything, that doesn't mean you can't or won't twist the facts to support your belief, nor does it prevent you from being deceived or blinded from the truth.

Elaborate on the issues you have with evolution and I'll gladly explain them. I'm not basing my claim on blind faith I'll have my B.S. in Biology by the end of this year. What about you? What are your claims based on? Certain people have more credibility than others. Science is based on data. If the general consensus among scientists is that evolution exists it means that there is factual data that shows evolution exists. But like I said it is not blind faith.

Scientists are not lawyers, don't confuse the two. You know what the difference is? A lawyer makes a claim and cherry picks data to support it. A scientists looks at the data and derives a conclusion. Creationists or anyone who blindly subscribes to any idea assumes there is something wrong with the evidence when it contradicts this idea. It's not like you looked at the data and decided evolution was wrong, you decided it was wrong and then tried to poke holes at the theory.

You think that the entire scientific community has twisted the truth in a plot against creationism?

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

What are the other "scientific" theories about the fossil record are there currently? There only other two explanations for fossils and they both envolve religion

Does a theory require the stamp of either science or religion to be valid? A good theory is one that ignores the biases of both science and religion. A theory is merely a form of logic, which doesn't necessarily require a person to be indoctrinated into. If I label this "scientific", it is just for the convenience of a common term that people might understand, because it is a trait that is supposed to be interwoven within the scientific mind...though that is not true.

well i would consider a valid scientific theory if there is ample physical evidence to support based on natural laws to support that theory. but if your theory comes from a piece of historical text with no predictive value then i would say its more a of a religious theory .

and you still haven't said what those theories are

Oh, but I have. But, in bits and pieces scattered throughout multiple threads. It should be recognized that all theories are the starting point, not the result of the evaluation of data. There is no such thing as a person or organization that is totally void of biases, be they religious or scientific.

I have already explained elsewhere, that the Earth is much older than the Genesis account of this Earth Age. The previous age(s) is where much of these fossils originated. Therefore, they do not conflict with the Bible, or even an open minded accessment of the data. This is not strictly opinion or belief, because there is ample scientific and religious data available, but unfortunately it is filtered through such darkly colored lens, that most of it is sieved out, or disregarded.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

What are the other "scientific" theories about the fossil record are there currently? There only other two explanations for fossils and they both envolve religion

Does a theory require the stamp of either science or religion to be valid? A good theory is one that ignores the biases of both science and religion. A theory is merely a form of logic, which doesn't necessarily require a person to be indoctrinated into. If I label this "scientific", it is just for the convenience of a common term that people might understand, because it is a trait that is supposed to be interwoven within the scientific mind...though that is not true.

well i would consider a valid scientific theory if there is ample physical evidence to support based on natural laws to support that theory. but if your theory comes from a piece of historical text with no predictive value then i would say its more a of a religious theory .

and you still haven't said what those theories are

Oh, but I have. But, in bits and pieces scattered throughout multiple threads. It should be recognized that all theories are the starting point, not the result of the evaluation of data. There is no such thing as a person or organization that is totally void of biases, be they religious or scientific.

I have already explained elsewhere, that the Earth is much older than the Genesis account of this Earth Age. The previous age(s) is where much of these fossils originated. Therefore, they do not conflict with the Bible, or even an open minded accessment of the data. This is not strictly opinion or belief, because there is ample scientific and religious data available, but unfortunately it is filtered through such darkly colored lens, that most of it is sieved out, or disregarded.

So what you're saying is, at one point all of life died out (fossilized) then God began again?

 

[Seekermeister]

MoOo,

well in the interest of not bringing out all ready disproven arguments, its important people are at least well versed in both arguments. RapidSnail brought up quite a few fallacies that demonstrates a strong misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. And since when did bringing out evidence count as a negative in a debate?

There is nothing wrong with introducing data, where the problem is, is that this is generally done by presenting alot of data in a preconceived ball, rather than focusing on each bit of data individually. I do not assume that anyone here is ignorant and needs the links to enlighten them. The purpose of this discussion should be for reexamining the individual data anew, and for each person to arrive at their own conclusions, not that of a church or science.

 

[Seekermeister]

MoOo,

So what you're saying is, at one point all of life died out (fossilized) then God began again?

For simplicity's sake, that is close enough. There is no evidence against this, either scientific or Biblical, and there is evidence supporting it. That is a form of a theory that I can deal with, and should be easier for others to accept. If all scientific theories were of this ilk, then science and religion could be reconciled.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: torpid
Erm... is there some evidence that the bible was not written literally? Because I don't find it all that implausible that people were just foolish back then and believed the things in the bible were possible. It wasn't all THAT long ago when we thought aphids were spontaneously emerging from dew.

I see that somebody else has recently read the wikipedia article on abiogenesis.

The bible is a conglomeration of stories that have been passed down through the ages in the form of oral stories from one generation to the next. These ancient stories were written down when writing was invented. The Old Testament was used to first group the various stories in one place in the Hebrew language, followed by the New Testament with its own updates in Latin.

Stories inherently distort the truth due to the need to keep interest in the art of storytelling. We are familiar with this in the stories of our own grandfathers who know (knew?) they can tell whatever stories they wish of their actions in their youth with no one able to correct them. We are more familiar with this aspect in modern soap operas and Hollywood movies that distort normal interpersonal reactions, thereby providing more conflict to increase the tension within a story.

Genesis is a written and condensed grouping of stories passed through thousands of years of oral storytelling. The concepts of Heaven and Hell are often taught in Catholic institutions not to be taken literally but instead to be considered as a frame of mind. Heaven can be seen to be inner peace while Hell can be seen to be inner turmoil, each based on our own conscious mind and morality.

I consider the literal understanding of the bible to lack the higher level of thought taught to us in our undergraduate English/Literature classes.

It doesn't matter whether the stories were real or fiction for this question. Nor does it matter whether they came from 300 sources. All that matters is whether the people who finally collected them into the old testament believed they were fiction or believed they were true. Someone suggested that it was impossible that they believed them to be true, whereas I suggest it is indeed quite possible.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I see that somebody else has recently read the wikipedia article on abiogenesis.

PS, I would have used the maggot and meat example that I learned in high school but it's far less enjoyable than the aphid one on the wikipedia site. For some reason that one is a lot more fun to repeat.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

The list is very short, the entire theory is one big hole. I have asked others to outline the theory in an understandable fashion, and they have refused, so instead I will ask you to explain just one aspect of it, that you believe is most significant, solid and factual.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

That entire section is filled with exactly what you're asking for.

Everyone should note that even when Seekermeister's challenges are met, he will continue to pretend that they were not so that he can justify his wanton ignorance to himself and continue spouting his obviously nonsensical claims.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
MoOo,

That complexity can arise through small minute mutations in DNA given an extended period of time, many leading to dead ends but a few lineages survive, making up the diversity of life as we know it today.

I you consider this to be the most significant and solid data proving evolution, then you should do a better job of explaining it, not merely alluding to it. I am not certain about short term mutations, but they would prove nothing. What "long term" study has been done on this, and how long of a term was it? Although my list of questions is short, don't let that deter you from elaborating on the finer points.

Why would short term mutations prove nothing? Obivously there can be no active long term study but fossil evidence has suggested a morphological continuity among phylogenies

Take a look at the QBeta RNA virus study for short term evolution

I dont make a distinction between micro and macro evolution, i think macro evolution is merely the accumulation of a long line of microevolutionary steps.

Which I could elaborate further but i gotta go to class. (molecular evolution coincidentally)

I suppose that it is easier to lump micro and macro evolution into one ball, but there is NO evidence to support this, except for a person's own biases. There is NO evidence in the fossil record to support anything, except that there were alot of extinct species of life.

One of the main traits that science claims as a requisite for good logic is an open mind. I do not claim to have one, but since those who are scientifically oriented should, I wonder why they ignore other possibilities for explaining the fossil record, other than those popularly held? Even if you ignore religion, there are other "scientific" explainations available, which have better support than evolution. Every attempt to explain life via evolution is confronted by a huge chasm that requires a leap of faith, which is far greater than that which is required to believe in God. Without this faith, nothing is left but alot of isolated bit of data without explanation, which would leave science bouncing around in a darkness that would leave it's followers very uneasy.

I assume your "other" possibility would be that God put those rocks there. or chose to kill those animals. You think a scientist can only be valid when accepting such a conclusion. This type of possibilty is the antithesis of science, and the definition of closed-minded (it accepts a conclusion without testing, and limits the ability to question)

Seekermeister, for the love of God, please read a book that your minister, cult leader, whatever has not recommended for you. 100% of your arguments are 100% flawed, and contradict themselves before you can even get going.

 

[Jahee]

Why won't this thread go away!

 

[bluemax]

They don't call it the "Missing Link" for nothing.

And how's this for an egenda - every school under UN jurastiction is forced by law to teach Evolution or close. Period.


*FORCE*DOWN*THROAT!*ugh*push*

 

[zinfamous]

An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....

 

[Seekermeister]

Garth,

Everyone should note that even when Seekermeister's challenges are met, he will continue to pretend that they were not so that he can justify his wanton ignorance to himself and continue spouting his obviously nonsensical claims.[-/q]
Perhaps you can refer me to where I asked anyone for links? You have not met any of my challenges, therefore, no pretense is necessary.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....

This is why I just ignore his posts. They're worthless. Kind of like DVK916 is when it comes to atheist arguments. They came to their conclusions beforehand, so evidence and arguments are meaningless to them. There's nothing left to discuss.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....

Maybe this thread, but I don't know what page, probably somewhere in the teens... Text

 

[50cent1228]

3.. evolution is my choice

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
An example of Seekermeister's open mind; being that he requires scientists to have one in order for their opinions to be valid:

"Christianity is the only true religion."

perhaps someone else is willing to fine the recent thread wherein Seekermeister posted this comment? i will continue to search. I know he got hammered for this....

An open mind doesn't mean that a person has to be oblivious to the facts that are available. Open mindedness means that a person is capable of connecting these facts in fashions that is not so obvious. It also helps to be able to convey this train of thought to others in a fashion that might promote their understanding.

Open mindedness, as you have pictured it, would mean requiring a lobotomy.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Jahee
Why won't this thread go away!

If it did, another one would pop up in its place anyway.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

I can throw links around too. here is a good one - it addresses every creationist claim out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: bluemax
They don't call it the "Missing Link" for nothing.

And how's this for an egenda - every school under UN jurastiction is forced by law to teach Evolution or close. Period.


*FORCE*DOWN*THROAT!*ugh*push*

They may not call it the missing link for nothing, certainly there is some historical use of the term, but that doesn't mean it's really missing. See above in my point about 398 billion fossils not being needed. Lucy and hobbits (homo florienesis or however it is spelled) aren't good enough?