Originally posted by Ullr "If you add to the mix that we have only really been looking for fossils for 100yrs or so, it's not surprising we don't have than many."
That is a good point. This is an ongoing effort. More information is being uncovered each year. Our knowledge of evolution will be much greater 100 years from now.
What concerns me is that there are so many who just want to dismiss it out of hand, for religous reasons, rather than press on with research.
I think a lot of theists are scared of evolution because it contradicts what they believe. If you've spent most of your life believing God made everything x amount of years ago, and along comes evolution which suggests otherwise, i would imagine it'a a bitter pill to swallow. Hence why so many people dismiss it. The people who don't accept evolution are also the people who know least about it.
Originally posted by menace71 I've heard or read can't remember & if I need to be corrected or educated so be it but that the major issue with classic evolution is that there aren't any transitional species in the fossil record. Example: like you see pics in a text book of a fish slowly morphing into a bird or monkey like creatures becoming man. I think there is an absence of these so c ...[text shortened]... and you would think there should be an abundance of them over millions of years.
Manny
Well said. All the layers of fossils still show no gradual changes in species. Each layer of fossils still show complete and indentifiable groups, no missing links.
Originally posted by galveston75 Well said. All the layers of fossils still show no gradual changes in species. Each layer of fossils still show complete and indentifiable groups, no missing links.
You've demonstarted clearly you know nothing about fossils and the fossil record.
Have look at this boy, Archaeopteryx.
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
Originally posted by Proper Knob I think a lot of theists are scared of evolution because it contradicts what they believe. If you've spent most of your life believing God made everything x amount of years ago, and along comes evolution which suggests otherwise, i would imagine it'a a bitter pill to swallow. Hence why so many people dismiss it. The people who don't accept evolution are also the people who know least about it.
this is untrue, religious people are probably more aware than most, for they realise that a contradiction exists and must evaluate the evidence for both. I hold the view that it is not science that is at fault, but that evolution is unscientific! yes that, for the evolutionist must also be a bitter pill to swallow!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie this is untrue, religious people are probably more aware than most, for they realise that a contradiction exists and must evaluate the evidence for both. I hold the view that it is not science that is at fault, but that evolution is unscientific! yes that, for the evolutionist must also be a bitter pill to swallow!
Evolution is unscientific, could you be a little more specific here Robbie.
I don't think it's untrue, you'll notice i said 'a lot' of theists, not all of them.
Thanks Proper Knob. That at least gives a valid explanation about the transitional species question. I admit I'm a theist but I try to look at facts & science best I can without prejudgment. Not always easy 🙂 I used to fully believe that God started evolution LOL but one of the arguments to me that militates against evolution is that these things took millions & millions of years. I always struggled with that. So inefficient I would think. I wholly believe in adaptation which I guess is a type of evolution?
Originally posted by menace71 Thanks Proper Knob. That at least gives a valid explanation about the transitional species question. I admit I'm a theist but I try to look at facts & science best I can without prejudgment. Not always easy 🙂 I used to fully believe that God started evolution LOL but one of the arguments to me that militates against evolution is that these things took mill ...[text shortened]... would think. I wholly believe in adaptation which I guess is a type of evolution?
Manny
But one needs to remember the scriptures at Genesis that say's God created then according to their kinds. There can be variances within their kinds but still they do not change from one spieces to another.
But there are so many contradictions and to many missing links in evolution. But the fact is it does not agree with the Bible and that is a decision that Christians have to make on accepting the theory of evolution and to be patient on letting God direct us to the answers.
Originally posted by galveston75 But one needs to remember the scriptures at Genesis that say's God created then according to their kinds. There can be variances within their kinds but still they do not change from one spieces to another.
But there are so many contradictions and to many missing links in evolution. But the fact is it does not agree with the Bible and that is a decisio ...[text shortened]... on accepting the theory of evolution and to be patient on letting God direct us to the answers.
How do you explain Archaeopteryx then? Half bird, half dinosaur. Which is clearly inbetween species.
What are these contradictions in evolution you mention?
This whole argument reminds me of a quote of Steinitz when someone told him they didn't understand a game he played: "Of course not, have you ever seen a monkey playing with a watch?" If you really want to understand biology you have to be (drumroll please!) a biologist! But the original poster (and all the sacred text posters) don't want to be a biologist - they just want to feel good about reaching a conclusion without the benefit of knowledge. And if history and logic are reliable guides, they'll keep on playing with the watch without ever learning how to tell time. I don't care. It is their loss. Let's just hope we can somehow (despite them) educate the children so we can have a human future instead of a bunch of grunting apes.
Originally posted by Proper Knob How do you explain Archaeopteryx then? Half bird, half dinosaur. Which is clearly inbetween species.
What are these contradictions in evolution you mention?
there was a post in the science forum, not too long ago, in which sonhouse (an evolutionist) posted material which showed that birds and dinosaurs did not share the same common ancestry, did he not?
Originally posted by TerrierJack This whole argument reminds me of a quote of Steinitz when someone told him they didn't understand a game he played: "Of course not, have you ever seen a monkey playing with a watch?" If you really want to understand biology you have to be (drumroll please!) a biologist! But the original poster (and all the sacred text posters) don't want to be a biologi ...[text shortened]... ) educate the children so we can have a human future instead of a bunch of grunting apes.
lol, very funny quote from the great Seinitz, more chess quote for the spirituality forum please!
Originally posted by galveston75 [b]But one needs to remember the scriptures at Genesis that say's God created then according to their kinds.
There is a second view to this. God creates a bird. the bird goes through evolution and at some point it has some of the the same features as a dinosaur and is labled a dinosaur by scientist but the bird never is anything but a bird and so as their own kind.
Originally posted by Thomas Lavery There is a second view to this. God creates a bird. the bird goes through evolution and at some point it has some of the the same features as a dinosaur and is labled a dinosaur by scientist but the bird never is anything but a bird and so as their own kind.
Best evidence
12 Sep '09 12:54
Back to Top