31 Aug '12 17:47>
Originally posted by VoidSpiritAnd there is one ring to rule us all 🙂
nah, i think he's being dwarf-righteous. dwarf-righteousness is perfectly acceptable here.
Originally posted by Phil HillGeorge Coyne of the vatican observatory claims that creation is by evolution. He said it takes several generations of stars and their dusts to form new solar systems to get the chemistry for life to exist. He also states that we may not be the end product of creation but a step along the way. Some claim the lack of missing links are evidence against evolution, but I am not sure we have a big enough sample of fossil evidence yet for that conclusion.
I often have heard this claim but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this. Often I am given biblical reasons or reasons of evolution's improbability. Can anyone give me any valid scientific reasons that evolution is a fairytale?
Originally posted by joe beyserWhere are the scientific reasons that some people say evolution is an adult fairytale?
George Coyne of the vatican observatory claims that creation is by evolution. He said it takes several generations of stars and their dusts to form new solar systems to get the chemistry for life to exist. He also states that we may not be the end product of creation but a step along the way. Some claim the lack of missing links are evidence against evolution, but I am not sure we have a big enough sample of fossil evidence yet for that conclusion.
Originally posted by joe beyserA lack of evidence isn't evidence, I asked for evidence. Read the OP a bit more carefully. There is no lack of fossil evidence unless one wants there to be a lack. There is a wealth of fossils considering the mechanics of fossil formation. Besides, evolution does not need fossil evidence to be shown.
The lack of fossil evidence.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI don't believe any of that. Just saying that the lack of fossil evidence is what I have heard to be any kind of scientific evidence against creation. George Coyne though would advocate the idea that we are in the continual process of creation by evolution by a deity. Interesting Ideas but cant say I know enough to draw conclusions. I do believe he is right about having enough generations of stars exploding and recombining into new stars for the chemistry to be right for life.
what is it that you believe? a one-time creation event by a deity or deities, or several creation events by a deity or deities?
Originally posted by Phil HillIf there is a wealth of fossils then where are the missing links? You made my point better than I did. Cant say as a lack of fossil evidence makes me believe one way or another, but it does many others. You could be right about not needing fossil evidence. If we get better at deciphering what all that junk DNA is for maybe it will shed light on our past.
A lack of evidence isn't evidence, I asked for evidence. Read the OP a bit more carefully. There is no lack of fossil evidence unless one wants there to be a lack. There is a wealth of fossils considering the mechanics of fossil formation. Besides, evolution does not need fossil evidence to be shown.
Originally posted by Phil HillYes I did reread this post and all I can see by it is an angry person calling out for answers and being rude to anyone replying. Not just this post but also the one about vacuum energy. If you know it all then quit asking people. Also, a person can have discussions of points of view without being an advocate of that view. You seem like you wish to brand people and tuck them away in your mind under an assigned category. Lighten up a bit dude.
I often have heard this claim but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this. Often I am given biblical reasons or reasons of evolution's improbability. Can anyone give me any valid scientific reasons that evolution is a fairytale?
Originally posted by joe beyserThere is no such thing as a missing link. That is an old outdated concept from half a century age that creationists think is valid, Shows how much they keep updated in science. If you mean transitional form, all fossils are transitional. Tell me, do you think everything that dies leaves a fossil?
If there is a wealth of fossils then where are the missing links? You made my point better than I did. Cant say as a lack of fossil evidence makes me believe one way or another, but it does many others. You could be right about not needing fossil evidence. If we get better at deciphering what all that junk DNA is for maybe it will shed light on our past.
Originally posted by joe beyserConsidering the number of species that have existed, and the number of fossils found so far, we are a long long way from finding fossils of all species that ever lived. In fact, as species slowly change over time and speciate or go extinct, it is practically impossible to really give solid boundaries to species anyway.
If there is a wealth of fossils then where are the missing links?