Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
The church, however DOES expect you to take their word for it - and has, in the past, condemned folks to death for not doing so.
That, as Frank would say, is the crux of the biscuit.
oh cut the crap- 300 fossils? 300 different species Ahayes? No? Well my goodness, that was what you were implying, and now, you’re throwing a tantrum and accusing me of lying when I made it perfectly clear that there are NOT 300 species, BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies that were studied? EVERYUTHING I stated in my post is factual.
“Supposedly contradictory fossils”? Tell me Ahayes, are there, or are there not, fossils that CLEARLY show the jaw bones moving in the OPPOSITE direction needed for the supposed ear evolution to occure? If you can show that there aren’t fossil examples doing just that, then you are free to call me a liar- until then- zip it and dispense with silly little games.. Your article did NOT show 300 seperate species who were all related and showed a clear evolutionary movement of the jawbones to the ear. They shwed fossil remains of the SAME species with perhaps slight variances in the location and positions of the bones.
For more on how lame a jump in assumptioins is needed to make the connections between the supposed ‘300 fossils’ is needed in order to make a link between the species that supposedly show the ‘evolution of hte ear and the relatedness of the supposed relatives to supposed whales based on a few simlarities, http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
More: “The mammal has two bones in the lower jaw, the reptile has six; these bones are fused by sutures so that the assembly in each case appears as a single jawbone. The mammal has three tiny bones in the ear, the reptile has one, and it is claimed that in evolving from the reptile, two bones from each side of the reptile jaw migrated into the ear to provide the full complement of bones found in the mammal ear and account for the diminished number in the mammal jaw (Colbert 1949; Manley 1972).[8] Now the general public is not usually made aware of these assertions. The reluctance to test public credulity is understandable, and since this work is reported in the esoteric language of the scientist in obscure specialist publications, it is considered worthwhile to bring to the reader just some of the details on which the claims are made. It should be borne in mind that when fossils of these extinct creatures are found, it is usually just the teeth and jaw and only sometimes the entire skull, but in virtually every case the bones are broken and disarticulated.
In 1973 Kermack and others reported finding what they refer to as the Morganucodon, which they claim is the transition that has passed beyond the stage of the Cynodont, that is, beyond the true reptile stage. Earlier (1968) the same investigators had described a similar creature they named the Kuehneotherium. Several sets of Morganucodon fossil parts were found in China and in Wales, which would seem to indicate that the same transition evolved twice on opposite sides of the earth and at approximately the same time. The investigators acknowledged that the Morganucodon had a fully reptilian lower jaw with all six bones, but the claim for its being a transition was based on an inferred assembly of the jaw hinge. Bones in the assembled condition were not actually found. Digging through some of the minutia of a monumental eighty-eight page report relating just to the lower jaw of this creature, it became apparent that this item ranged from one-half to three-quarters of an inch long, which would make Morganucodon about as big as a rat if the entire skeleton had been available. Detailed drawings of both the Morganucodon and Cynodont jaws appeared in the Kermack (1973) paper, and although both were drawn to the same size for comparison, the drawings were actually on different scales. It turns out the Cynodont was in fact eighteen times larger than the Morganucodon. We are now faced with the reality of this notion, which is saying that a mammal-like reptile the size of a rat evolved from a true reptile the size of a large pig”
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm
“They should provide a satisfactory explanation about how outer ear gained the feature of increasing the sound, how ear membrane, the three little special bones, together with a special organ in inner ear which has a special liquid and ten thousands of perceptive cells producing electric signals according to these vibrations on the surface of this organ came into existence by “coincidence.” Surely they fail to make such an explanation; there is no explanation for this. Evolutionists having more profound information , on the other hand, prefer to remain quite rather than ridiculing themselves like Atayman.”
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/evolutionist_misjudgments.php
You give me links to anectdotal simlarities in jaw bone structures, and would have me beleive, without further questioning, that the ear bones evovled? Sorry- but htere is far far more to the story than lining a few vastly dissimilar species who are supposedly seperated by many millions of years up next to each other and stating that the ear hearing evolution, repitle to mammilian hearing evolution “is well documented”
Renowned evolutionist A. E. J. Engle even admitted that “No more than one percent or so of the history of the earth is decipherable.... By imaginative manipulation of the evolving data we can reconstruct a magnificent and awesome history of the earth and its life.”
“Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Exactly!
Here’s a link to evidence of transitional forms; which you claim do not exist:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
Furthermore, all those opposing evolution and quoting Scripture as proof that evolution is not true, should think of this: If God created the Universe, and, by extension, the Earth, they why did He create the Earth and FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEAD US ASTRAY FROM HIS TRUE PATH? I am constantly amazed at the rejection of science and the lengths otherwise sensible people will go to in order to cling to their mythical beliefs. Evolution has been proven to a scientific certainty to all those who are capable of understanding and analyzing the mountains of evidence in favor of it.
“If God created the Universe, and, by extension, the Earth, they why did He create the Earth and FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEAD US ASTRAY FROM HIS TRUE PATH?”
Maybe it’s not false evidence, but evidence misunderstood.
[[Furthermore, all those opposing evolution and quoting Scripture as proof that evolution is not true, should think of this: If God created the Universe, and, by extension, the Earth, they why did He create the Earth and FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEAD US ASTRAY FROM HIS TRUE PATH?]]
Who said He filled it with false evidence Locke? The evidence is what it is- the conclusions, which are rormed by fallible man, are what they are. BOTH hypothesis can NOT be ruled out- You can’t state emphatically and in finality that a Designer can NOT possibly be rersponsible for the designs we see in nature and that a random process HAS to be the ONLY logical interpretation. There is plenty of Evidnece to HIGHLY suggest that an itnelligent agent is behind the vast vast amounts of irreducible complexities. The link you provided lists all manner of evidneces that are OPEN TO INTERPREATION and are NOT difinitive proofs for macroevolution in the least- Macroevolution is just ONE HYPOTHESIS. There is also plenty of evidnece and scientific fact to speak against the hypothesis of evolution. You and I must make up our minds which one has the stronger, and therefore more convincing evidences to support it and also which has the stronger and more scientifically valid evidences to show the otehr is weak and not plausible. But don’t blame God for for ‘planting false eivdences to throw us off the path’. The evidence is overwhelming for His direct involvement and creation. You’ve made your mind up that the lack of supporting evidence, the obscurities of evidence, and the biological impossibilities aren’t a problem and you choose to beleive the HYPOTHESIS’ of evolutionists- Swell- Noone’s telling you you can’t- however, to claim there is ‘mountains of evidnece’ supporting macroevolution is not true. there isn’t.
I wasn’t yellin, but stressing key points-
When an evolutionist looks at hte evidence, he does so with an a priori belief that it will lead to support of evolution- The evidence doesn’t TELL a person what happened, they simply take the eivdnece and SUGGEST what MIGHT have happened- in other words, they HYPOTHESISE in order to support their position on the matter. As well, they will take the eivdence and PREDICT, and when predictions are shown to be true by the evidnece which is later discovered, they INTERPRET that as supporting their HYPOTHESIS.
However, these very same predictions ALSO support ID and DESIGN, which, the design HYPOTHESIS can not be simply dismissed in light of this. This will of course never be admitted by the evo side who demands that all interpretations be favorable to ONLY the evolution HYPOTHESIS, and they will go to great lengths to deride anyone that points out that the eivdneces can ALSO have a very valid Intelligent Design inference- there IS definately an A Priori bias at work here.
No- God idn’t deceive or plant wrong evidnece- He DID however give each one of us hte free will to choose which we interpretation of the evidences we will believe
The “irreducible complexity” argument is flawed, for many reasons. Please reference:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/behe.html
There is NO convincing evidence for the existence of God. You cannot prove God exists just because you want him to. Do you really want to worship a “jealous” God who first orders people not to kill in his commandments, but designs them with a hair-trigger killer instinct? Does that blunder sound like the thing an Omniscient, all-powerful, all-merciful being would do? What sense does that make? Why does your infinitely-compassionate, infinitely merciful, infinitely loving God allow the kind of butchery we witnessed during the 20th century? Or is this the kind of behavior we would expect to see from warlike anthropoids - the result of millions of years of competitive evolution? As for the Free Will argument - do we allow our children free will to the extent that we just let them savagely kill each other whenever they feel like it? If you understood science and M-Theory, the implications of the Double Slit experiment, and the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - you would be a much wiser man. Denial of the evidence will not make it all disappear, no matter how hard you wish it.
When an evolutionist looks at the evidence, he does so with an a priori belief that it will lead to support of evolution.
WRONG. Modern evolutionary theory took shape over a period of hundreds of years of empirical observations of the natural world. Darwin really kicked it off in his “On the Origin of Species” book. Do you understand the Scientific method? Any theory must be supported by evidence (data) - and is published for peer-review. All the other scientists read it and try to DISPROVE it. When they cannot find empirical evidence to disprove the theory - it becomes a stronger theory or a LAW - like the LAWS of Thermodynamics. The reason evolution is still a theory (albeit nearly a Law) is because it simply is not complete yet. When we have dug up the last fossil, and dispelled the last, tiniest doubt that may exist, and the theory is entirely complete, it will become Law. You don’t need to assemble an entire puzzle to figure out what it is a picture of, the sailboat, or tree or house will become apparent long before all the “evidence”, in the form of the remaining as-yet-to-be-added pieces, are inserted. This is a good analogy of where we find ourselves with the Theory of Evolution today
Nonsense!
The evolutionist's FALSE INTERPRETATION of the true evidence is the real problem.
The sarcasm, smugness and arrogance of the hardcore evolutionists reveals a hardness of heart that makes it almost impossible for them to see the handiwork of God in anything.
Rather than looking at the real source of much of the misinterpretation, their own arrogance and arrogant assumptions, they blame God and ignore the entry of sin into the world.
While real science is good, the cult of hardcore evolution is not real science. Though it is falsely called science, much of it is nothing more than politicized "historical conjecture".
Sorry- I’ve read the ‘flawed irreducible complexity’ rantings before- they aren’t scientifically sound arguments.
[[There is NO convincing evidence for the existence of God. You cannot prove God exists just because you want him to. Do you really want to worship a “jealous” God who first orders people not to kill in his commandments, but designs them with a hair-trigger killer instinct?]]
Lol- what a misguided biased opinion you have of God’s creation- God didn’t design it- we FREELY CHOSE it- lol- blaming God for your own shortcomings- no evidnece God exists? I beg to differ- however, you’ll apparently not take the necessary step to see that evidence- oh well- that’s your choice.
[If you understood science and M-Theory, the implications of the Double Slit experiment, and the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - you would be a much wiser man. Denial of the evidence will not make it all disappear, no matter how hard you wish it.]]
Lol again- If you understood that an omniscient God HAD to allow free choice, then you’d understand that it IS out of love that He allows us to FREELY CHOOSE- A short course in theological philosophy will clear that up for you. To destroy evil IS to destroy FREE WILL. Here’s a short primer for you: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html
[[Any theory must be supported by evidence (data) - and is published for peer-review. All the other scientists read it and try to DISPROVE it. When they cannot find empirical evidence to disprove the theory - it becomes a stronger theory or a LAW]]
WRONG- they ‘TEST” the evidence with an a priori position on evolution- When they find anectdotal evidences that SEEM to support hteir own A Priori beleif, then they use their INTERPRETATIONS to support their prior INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence for evolution. Macroevolution has NEVER been shown- ALL the hypothesis for it are just that- an A Priori HYPOTHESIS- or interpretation of the evidnece- The fact that they can’t ‘disprove’ the new set of evidences does NOT in any way make it a scientific fact or even close- it simply makes it another aspect of the A Priori belief that naturalistic process’ are responsible for everyhtign we see and know. So please, spare me the ‘naturalistic is superior because it is factual’ insinuations- Naturalistic explanations rely on FAITH and NOT on factual evidence. It’s all an assumption minus difinitive absolutes and you know it!
[[ Do you understand the Scientific method?]]
Grow up.
...FILL IT WITH FALSE EVIDENCE...
Nonsense!
You can’t dispel the mountains of evidence for evolution, nor my statement, by simply declaiming it nonsense. What is your evidence that evolution is wrong? Scripture? As for your “hardness of heart” comment, my wife would be shocked at that - she thinks I’m an old softie (and where she is concerned, I am!). I think you mistake a rational, scientific, dispassionate attitude, which is necessary in order to examine the available evidence without prejudice, for “hardness of heart”. Evolutionary theory is some of the best science I have ever seen, and if you don’t understand it, or would rather resort to atavistic dogma for the source of “truth”, that is certainly your right. But it doesn’t make it true.
Many people are old softies in much of their lives. This neither proves nor disproves a dispassionate attitude in all areas of your life or mine. (as your anecdote suggests it does in your case). It is not the attitude toward one's wife, but the attitude toward God with a hardness of heart that I am referring to.
Since you brought it up, what is your source of truth and of right and wrong? Please be specific.
I reject your science, that does not follow the scientific method or have any evidence worthy of real science. So yes I do. And btw, these “transitionals” are BS as well.
Again, WRONG! If ANY evidence of merit that would disprove evolutionary theory were to be uncovered, it would undoubtedly make the cover of scientific journals globally - it would be a sensation and would be immediately recognized by reputable scientists everywhere. As yet, no such evidence has been uncovered. Science is a search for the truth - and it is a self-correcting process of ever-improving theories and hypotheses - unlike any religion which requires ZERO proof and claims to be the summation of all knowledge - (when current knowledge renders this obviously untrue).
Please don’t use supercilious arrogance to attempt to make your points, or to make your poison on the subject look superior to mine; to wit: “grow up”. If you have facts or data to support your hypotheses, please present them. There is no room in science for personal attacks or emotional outbursts in an attempt to cover your lack of evidence and a cogent argument.
It’s easy to just deny the truth, isn’t it? However, the truth remains the truth, in spite of your weak protestations. It is certainly your right to live in ignorance; apparently you have chosen to do so.
Since you brought it up, what is your source of truth and of right and wrong? Please be specific.
Very simply, my source of truth is the summation of all empirical scientific evidence in existence. My summation of right and wrong would be “Any act that causes no harm to innocent human life, or aids innocent human life, is either neutral or good. Any act that causes harm to innocent human life, is bad.” This is because I want Humanity to thrive, and grow into something wonderful someday. I sincerely hope we can outgrow our warlike tendencies - the holdovers from our evolutionary past. It is ironic that the very traits that allowed us to survive to this point may be the cause of our eventual undoing. I think you think I am a bad person for denying the existence of God. It isn’t that I really want to for ulterior reasons, it’s because I see absolutely no evidence for his existence, despite a great deal of searching. I think you might be surprised at the degree of morality that exists in my life - I could be mistaken for a devout Christian because of the strict moral code I live by. This came naturally to me, as I have no need to be frightened by the prospect of eternal damnation in order to act like a decent human being. I do it because it is my nature to be civilized.
If someone's nature was to act uncivilized (when weighed in the balance of 'your' moral code) would this be immoral or "absolutely" wrong? Should it be illegal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.