Spirituality
22 Feb 08
28 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"My objection is that your statement implies the fossils don't exist when the truth is that it is your interpretation of the fossils that you dispute and not their existence.”
Actually we do have fossils. Those fossils do show most of us a line of life between todays life and the first ones, you just choose not to be shown. My objection is that your statement implies the fossils don't exist when the truth is that it is your interpretation of the fossils that you dispute and not their existence.
Even your 'just as easily' phras ttern indicates intelligence - here you are now claiming that a pattern could mean nothing.
My objection is that your statement implies the fossils do exist that
suggest a long line of life from a simple cell to the variety we see
today, when the truth is that is your interpretation of the fossils. They
could simply be just another life snuffed out over time that has nothing
to with the life we see today with respect to being an ancestor. I have
never denied the existence of fossils, only the meaning placed on them
by other's interpretations.
Kelly
28 Feb 08
Can anybody else see what's happened here. The whole point of this thread was never the defense of Evolution. Any yet that's what's happened. And I have to admit it was quite adeptly twisted......
I want the alternative not the problems with evolution. I want the alternative held up and scrutinized. And if the conclusion can be drawn that it is scientifically unsound, then I want to know why it should be thought in Science classes and not religion classes.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWho told you that?
Where it ends, I don't see it happening beyond that in life now, if you
believe it does it is up to you to show it! Pointing to fossils does not
prove this there is such a massive change in life. We do not have
fossils that show us a line of life between todays life and the first ones
instead we see life that could have just as easly be its own kind.
Kelly
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't want to be insulted, then answer the question or admit you can't. Your question doesn't matter, start a new thread or at least answer the one in the first post first.
Call it science, or whatever you want, bright eyes. So bright eyes if you
don't want to insult I suggest you stop using verbage like 'bright eyes". Can you see how "bright eyes" that might not be recieved well?
My point in my question was that do you think 'science' is the only
way to grasp reality? If it is in your view I think you have blinders on.
Kelly
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you want to support spiritual view with science, fine, that is what is being asked. Saying that evolution is interpretable is foolish as it is a scientific process.
Look at the title of where your debating! It is a Spiritual board, so
BUDDY, you don't like my posting about evoltuion to bad for you, if
you want a board where only people you agree with post I can tell you
this is not going to be that place! Here you are going to get other
views that may or may not agree with yours, get use to it.
Kelly
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by MexicoSorry about that.
Can anybody else see what's happened here. The whole point of this thread was never the defense of Evolution. Any yet that's what's happened. And I have to admit it was quite adeptly twisted......
I want the alternative not the problems with evolution. I want the alternative held up and scrutinized. And if the conclusion can be drawn that it is scientific ...[text shortened]... nd, then I want to know why it should be thought in Science classes and not religion classes.
29 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by UzumakiAi===============================
If you want to support spiritual view with science, fine, that is what is being asked. Saying that evolution is interpretable is foolish as it is a scientific process.
Saying that evolution is interpretable is foolish as it is a scientific process.
===================================
I don't see that this sentence makes any sense.
A scientist lines up a bunch of skulls in a certain order and interprets what he thinks has happened over time - evolution, for example.
The fossil record is opened to many interpretations. Some say that since 99 % of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy rather than in its hard bones, the soft anatomy is inaccesible in a fossil. So it is difficult to discover the biological makeup of a creature by looking at fossil remains.
Jonathan Wells writes:
"The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships."
[Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, pg 219]
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by jaywillWhich would be a problem if fossil evidence were the only evidence for evolution. It is not.
[b]===============================
Saying that evolution is interpretable is foolish as it is a scientific process.
===================================
I don't see that this sentence makes any sense.
A scientist lines up a bunch of skulls in a certain order and interprets what he thinks has happened over time - evolution, for example.
...[text shortened]... h ancestor-descendant relationships."
[Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, pg 219] [/b][/b]
29 Feb 08
This is getting ridiculous, could everyone please read the first post. And then could those of you attacking evolution please present your alternatives to be assessed for scientific validity... Because whether you believe it or not is irrelevant the current TOE is based on good scientific principals.
If your alternatives contain no scientific validity then could someone please explain why they should be thought in science class.
If you can teach your religious beliefs in science classes as science. Why can't scientists come into your religious education classes (or whatever you have) and teach evolution, atheism and a variety of other things as religion?
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by MexicoAre you suggesting evolution and atheism are religious?
This is getting ridiculous, could everyone please read the first post. And then could those of you attacking evolution please present your alternatives to be assessed for scientific validity... Because whether you believe it or not is irrelevant the current TOE is based on good scientific principals.
If your alternatives contain no scientific validity then ...[text shortened]... (or whatever you have) and teach evolution, atheism and a variety of other things as religion?
29 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYes a very credible source indeed.........
[b]===============================
[Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, pg 219] [/b]
http://www.iconsofevolution.com
You religious guys really do provide endless entertainment for me :oD
However, a more constructive response, would be along the line of..... there is more than just the fossil record to help us work things out. Evidence in isolation can often be subjective, but many pieces help us build a very accurate picture.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by amannionTrue enough, its just frustrating. I actually wanted to make sure there is no credible alternative before I go defending evolution, and ensuring the alternatives aren't taught in science classes. So I asked a straight question. But evolution's detractors instantly try to turn it around and make me define, and defend evolution without every answering my question.
It's a little like nah nah nah nah nah ... don't you think?
I'd suggest getting off the whole 'what's the alternative to evolution' track. No one's going to respond to you, since there is no credible alternative.
This kind of forces one to assume they have no alternative that will ever be accepted by the scientific community at large. But they don't want to admit that their beliefs about the universe are unscientific so they jump up and down and poke holes in evolution instead.... I don't even care that they have unscientific beliefs, I just want them to acknowledge that it shouldn't be taught in science classes.....
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf the extensive fossil record were the only piece of evidence and line of reason supporting the TOE, then I would agree we would have a problem and a very weak hypothesis. But as you already know KJ the evidence supporting the TOE is vast and varied and can make testable predictions. Its like Alices rabbit hole, it goes much deeper than you can ever imagine..... until you actually look at what evidence there is.
Where it ends, I don't see it happening beyond that in life now, if you
believe it does it is up to you to show it! Pointing to fossils does not
prove this there is such a massive change in life. We do not have
fossils that show us a line of life between todays life and the first ones
instead we see life that could have just as easly be its own kind.
Kelly
I'm not actually here to argue with you KJ, as I mentioned in a previous post I have no aim to convert...... just understand. So I wanted to understand your post.
You say if we start with dogs with end with dogs albeit with a huge amount of variance (this may not be your exact words, but I dont think I have misrepresented you here). My question is, if you believe this can happen, can the first mammal evolve to create all the mammals we see today?
A simple yes or no would suffice, but I dont mind if you elaborate.
Kind regards