- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by whodeywhich scientific conclusions do you not accept?
Ever heard of Biblical archeology It is a science based on the stories in the Bible? There are also other philisophical/spiritual truths that come to mind. My point was that there are truths within the Bible as there is in science. However, I accept all of the conclusions from the truths in the Bible that have yet to be shown to be flawed but I do not accept all scientific conclusions which have in the past shown to be flawed at times.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs I have stated, I consider abiogenesis to be nothing more than a myth. All I hear from those who are proponents of this theory on these boards is give me an X number of dollars and an X number of years and I will prove it can work. As far as evolution goes, look at the Cambrian explosion millions of years ago. This episode was the most violent and instantaneous explosion of life ever seen on earth. Common sense tells me this is creation. Your average evolutionist, however, would say that is was a process. So what caused this explosion to occur? Now we must rack our brains to figure out what kind of evironmental factors triggored such an explosion. Its a pity there seems to be no scientific evidence for thinking there were environmental factors that triggered this event, rather, scientists continue to speculate about this event and continue looking for evidence to back their beliefs that there was no supernatural envolvement. To a lesser degree, I also have my doubts about species evolving into other species in terms of missing links and such. Also, species evolving into other species has never been observed.
which scientific conclusions do you not accept?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by whodey"As I have stated, I consider abiogenesis to be nothing more than a myth."
As I have stated, I consider abiogenesis to be nothing more than a myth. All I hear from those who are proponents of this theory on these boards is give me an X number of dollars and an X number of years and I will prove it can work. As far as evolution goes, look at the Cambrian explosion millions of years ago. This episode was the most violent and instan ...[text shortened]... s of missing links and such. Also, species evolving into other species has never been observed.
ok then first question is, -are there any circumstances underwhich you would consider it possible?
-If someone were to create life in the lab would that convince you it was possible?
for you to beleive that abiogenesis is a myth you have to beleive that it is impossible. I would have to ask why, life is mearly a very complex set of molecules which collectively can replicate. DNA is made from protines, protines are made from amino acids, and amino acids can not only be made in the lab now, but can be detected floating around in intersteller space. and we have hypotheses based on well established and highly reliable physics which explain how. now it is true that then entire thing has not yet been done in the lab (I fully expect it to be done in my lifetime however) and that an explenation for all the steps has not been developed, but what makes you so sure that one never will? baring in mind that there was a point in history where any particular phenomena that has been explained wasn't and every device that works when it didn't.
"the Cambrian explosion millions of years ago. This episode was the most violent and instantaneous explosion of life ever seen on earth. Common sense tells me this is creation"
-what about the fact that at some point in history there was a vast increase in the diversity of life on this earth tells you (via your 'common sense'😉 that here was the work of some outside influence, be it alien, god/god's, or fairys?
there have been huge explosions of life after every major mass extiction, this was just the biggest.
"Its a pity there seems to be no scientific evidence for thinking there were environmental factors that triggered this event,"
-what if I were to tell you that there is evidence of a massive change in the earths atmosphere at exactly the same time that could explain both the mass extiction before and with evolutionary theory explain the population explosion afterwards, would that make you reconsider?
"This episode was the most violent and instantaneous explosion of life "
it was not instantanious. fast (geologicaly speaking) but not instantanious.
"continue to speculate about this event and continue looking for evidence to back their beliefs that there was no supernatural envolvement"
-How much evidence (if any) do you have that says there was supernatural involvement? occums razor applies here.
"To a lesser degree, I also have my doubts about species evolving into other species in terms of missing links and such. Also, species evolving into other species has never been observed."
ah well here you are definately wrong, new species HAVE been obseved and evolution by natural selection is observed on a regular basis. the particulars of this I will leave to someone qualified in the subject to fill in.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf it could be done in a lab I would have to concede it were possible in nature. As it stands now I am being asked to believe something happened without intelligent thought in an uncontrolled environment when it can't even be done with intelligent thought in a controlled environment.
ok then first question is, -are there any circumstances underwhich you would consider it possible?
-If someone were to create life in the lab would that convince you it was possible?
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think saying that the Cambrien explosion was merely the biggest is an understatement. Here is a web site I found on the issue.
-what about the fact that at some point in history there was a vast increase in the diversity of life on this earth tells you (via your 'common sense'😉 that here was the work of some outside influence, be it alien, god/god's, or fairys?
there have been huge explosions of life after every major mass extiction, this was just the biggest.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/re9701/chien.html
In the article there is a Christian scientist by the name of Dr. Paul Chien. In the article he says, "Most text books will show a live tree of evolution with the groups evolving through a long period of time. If you take that tree and chop off 99% of it, (what is left) is closer to reality; it's the true beginning of every group of animals, all represented at the very beginning. Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups coming about, ever. There is only one little exception citedthe group known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later. However, most people think we just have not found it yet; that group was probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."
As you can see, you were lead to believe by evolutionists that the Cambrian explosion was just another evolutionary era and not 99% of the big picture. You probably were also not aware that that it was the beginning of EVERY group of animals.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeJust remember there were six days of creation. I do not believe in 6 literal days and have covered this in another thread on evolution if you care to look. However, compared to the Cambrian explosion, I think that saying the other eras of creation were huge is misleading.
there have been huge explosions of life after every major mass extiction, this was just the biggest.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDr. Chien said when asked if he considered the Cambrian era an explosion,
it was not instantanious. fast (geologicaly speaking) but not instantanious.
"Yes. A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means (there are) more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils (of animal life), than exist now."
However, you are correct in that overall, the Cambrian era lasted a relatively long time according to human standards.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis you will have to show me. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. I am open to the findings, however.
ah well here you are definately wrong, new species HAVE been obseved and evolution by natural selection is observed on a regular basis. the particulars of this I will leave to someone qualified in the subject to fill in.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThis is simply not true. Land plants evolved in the Silurian and Devonian from 400 - 330 million years ago. Much later than the Cambrian. Angiosperms (Division Magnoliophyta) evolved only 120 million years ago.
Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups coming about, ever.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes and no. Now that I think about it, if God were involved with creation he would also be involved with creating a planet worthy of habitation. I would be interested in what you have to say on the matter, however. A dramatic change in the atmosphere is just as intreguing as a dramatic change of life exploding on earth.
-what if I were to tell you that there is evidence of a massive change in the earths atmosphere at exactly the same time that could explain both the mass extiction before and with evolutionary theory explain the population explosion afterwards, would that make you reconsider?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
hi there scottishinnz, could you give a decent account of the evidence for evolution as an observable phenomena today. You are far better qualified to do this than me and probably have better examples than me just looking some up. if not the no worries.
something like 96% (I will look it up when I wake up later today (it's so late it's early)) of life got wiped out from the fossil record around 65mln yrs ago in one of many mass extictions through out earths history. all the species around today came from the few that survived, that doesn't count as significant speciation to you? I know this particular mass extinction gets done to death, but it killed off some of the coolest creatures and being the most recent is possibly the best studied (as more evidence from this time is available to study).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by whodeyit's known as the oxygen catastrophy. before hand there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere. the microorganisums of the time 'breathed' in CO2 and other gasses and gave off oxygen as waste biproduct. this oxygen was toxic to them and so (after a vast period of time) as their population followed the usual exponential growth the oxygen levals reatched leathal concentrations (for them) and so killed the vast majority off, (not all as some of the same (ish) species are still around) and into this bright new oxygen rich world stepped fourth the oxygen breathing creatures where they speciated merrily.
Yes and no. Now that I think about it, if God were involved with creation he would also be involved with creating a planet worthy of habitation. I would be interested in what you have to say on the matter, however. A dramatic change in the atmosphere is just as intreguing as a dramatic change of life exploding on earth.
It's more complex and interesting than that but as I said it's tomorrow and I'm tired. I might do it more justice tomorow.
see you on the flip side.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzDid you read the entire article? I am wondering what you thought of it overall other than your disagreement with him on this issue. Also, do you know of the account about a species evolving into another species that was mentioned previously. A web site would be nice.
This is simply not true. Land plants evolved in the Silurian and Devonian from 400 - 330 million years ago. Much later than the Cambrian. Angiosperms (Division Magnoliophyta) evolved only 120 million years ago.
Originally posted by whodeyThat link leads nowhere. Why not get your info from a real university (i.e. not devoted to finding out that the bible is correct)?
I think saying that the Cambrien explosion was merely the biggest is an understatement. Here is a web site I found on the issue.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/re9701/chien.html
In the article there is a Christian scientist by the name of Dr. Paul Chien. In the article he says, "Most text books will show a live tree of evolution with the groups evolving ...[text shortened]... . You probably were also not aware that that it was the beginning of EVERY group of animals.
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Did you read the entire article? I am wondering what you thought of it overall other than your disagreement with him on this issue. Also, do you know of the account about a species evolving into another species that was mentioned previously. A web site would be nice.
This site gives a half dozen examples of observed speciation events.
I could not read the article. The posted URL only resulted in a 404.