Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory

[invader]

@invader: They are still in the ground most likely, until every strata of every suitable sedimentary rock on earth is separated, that's not a reasonable question.

Extinction? They didn't, entirely. The time scales involved are beyond comprehension.

 

Big bang- i'll leave that one.....

 

In response to an earlier query of yours: It makes fairly good forensic sense to propose that the 'gatherings of fossils' including those giving birth were in quicksand or thick mud, a cause of death still common in nature today, and impossible for scavengers/predators to exploit without their own demise.

 

Ok well in actual fact the mamal involved was in firm ground at the time of her demise.

 

Now as to the the fossil question, I think it is a reasonable question. We have had almost two hundred years of fossil searching/ dating etc (by means which I consider to be false, by the way - I can go into this if you so insist as I have extensive knowledge in this subject) and we have found - NOTHING to support evolution. So are you proposing that we wait the same timescale of millions of years searching to find the ONE missing link?

 

You have had two hundred years (or more) to find this fossil with increasing intelligent input into the search and it still results in a NIL.!

 

Where oh where is any missing link ?

 

I put it to you that they are missing because they simply do not EXIST.

 

engage

 

by the way the weather is great at the moment. Why aren't people out hunting for fossils on our beaches and moors???

[Fjool]

There should be billions of fossils showing this evolutionary process. Intermediate ones from each stage - the ones that died at child birth/ 20 or so etc due to distinct evolutionary jumps - i.e. the ones that didn't make it due to their changes.

 

I think it's a problem of scale and it is exactly this effect which confuses matters. Consider that a fossil doesn't retain everything about a species; only the major structural information is present. Very little about musculature, pigmentation or eating habits can be gained from a fossil. Practically nothing about intelligence, chemical composition and mating habits can be determined.

 

Changes which affect the super-structure of a particular species are also likely to take the longest to evolve and, with only a reasonably narrow set of parameters, the beneficial mutations would be an aggregation of minuscule changes that, when studied by modern day paleontologists provide many perplexing and confusing scenarios.

 

It is true though that, on average, creatures rarely become fossilised. It is only due to the sheer number of living creatures that a reasonable number of fossils are found in particularly good places for fossils. This factor in itself makes being sure that you've found everything very tricky.

 

Judging by what we can observe in modern times, in the rare case where a large mutation appears, it is generally unlikely to be beneficial.

[medunn]

There should be billions of fossils showing this evolutionary process. Intermediate ones from each stage - the ones that died at child birth/ 20 or so etc due to distinct evolutionary jumps - i.e. the ones that didn't make it due to their changes.

 

I think it's a problem of scale and it is exactly this effect which confuses matters. Consider that a fossil doesn't retain everything about a species; only the major structural information is present. Very little about musculature, pigmentation or eating habits can be gained from a fossil. Practically nothing about intelligence, chemical composition and mating habits can be determined.

 

Changes which affect the super-structure of a particular species are also likely to take the longest to evolve and, with only a reasonably narrow set of parameters, the beneficial mutations would be an aggregation of minuscule changes that, when studied by modern day paleontologists provide many perplexing and confusing scenarios.

 

It is true though that, on average, creatures rarely become fossilised. It is only due to the sheer number of living creatures that a reasonable number of fossils are found in particularly good places for fossils. This factor in itself makes being sure that you've found everything very tricky.

 

I'm afraid this doesn't hold up to scientific argument. The fact that the fossil record is used to help prove evolution doesn't quite coinside with this argument. what invader was implying was that the fossil record cannot prove evolution. However maybe it can. It shows us several if not all of the species that lived/ are alive today. Surely the fact they are found in certain rock structures is proof they were certain ages?

 

I am just a young scientist here but maybe i'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

 

THIS POST IS GREAT BTW

[Sudden Stop]

(by means which I consider to be false, by the way - I can go into this if you so insist as I have extensive knowledge in this subject)

 

I'm just going to query this little part of your post, I'm not going to debate the rest of it because I fear I don't know enough, but you say that you consider these means false. I'm not sure if you are refering to carbon dating or not, because you didn't specify, but the reason I bring it up is that I have spoken to a creationist who swears that the earth (as we know it) is only six and a half thousand years old and that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate because the speed of light (also known as C (constant) in the world of physics) is slowing down exponentially.

 

Now if that is true, and carbon dated objects that are dated at millions of years old are actually only a couple of thousand years old, how are some of these buried in sedimentary rock which has built up through the laying and re-laying of layer upon layer over many many years?

[NewMagnie]

@invader: They are still in the ground most likely, until every strata of every suitable sedimentary rock on earth is separated, that's not a reasonable question.

Extinction? They didn't, entirely. The time scales involved are beyond comprehension.

 

Big bang- i'll leave that one.....

 

In response to an earlier query of yours: It makes fairly good forensic sense to propose that the 'gatherings of fossils' including those giving birth were in quicksand or thick mud, a cause of death still common in nature today, and impossible for scavengers/predators to exploit without their own demise.

 

Ok well in actual fact the mamal involved was in firm ground at the time of her demise.

 

Now as to the the fossil question, I think it is a reasonable question. We have had almost two hundred years of fossil searching/ dating etc (by means which I consider to be false, by the way - I can go into this if you so insist as I have extensive knowledge in this subject) and we have found - NOTHING to support evolution. So are you proposing that we wait the same timescale of millions of years searching to find the ONE missing link?

 

You have had two hundred years (or more) to find this fossil with increasing intelligent input into the search and it still results in a NIL.!

 

Where oh where is any missing link ?

 

I put it to you that they are missing because they simply do not EXIST.

 

engage

 

by the way the weather is great at the moment. Why aren't people out hunting for fossils on our beaches and moors???

 

Oh Dear.

 

Pawn to King 8...

 

A blythe dismissal of the rare and accidental nature of fossil preservation simply won't wash.

 

Please explain why you feel that the fossil record should be 100% complete to be worthy of attention - do you seriously believe that this is even possible? are we to dismiss the fossil evidence we do have because it fails to represent every species which might have existed?

 

We could always take the opposite view, of course, and conclude that even a single trilobite fossil might not be proof of evolution it makes a mockery of creationism.

 

And stop saying 'engage'. It's really getting on my tits.

[medunn]

Well I think invader has met his or her match. How can you think that the fossil record can record such micro macro evolutionary records.

 

 

hang on tho why shouldn't it?

 

I'll get back to you

[PoolHaddock]

In answer to only a small part of your post. Was going to tackle more of it and talk about recrystallization (worth reading up about as I believe it has happened in Shetland) but unfotunately I'm in aberdeen with none of my books on the subject.

 

Recrystallization is where the rock or clay in which the fossil is buried is compacted to such an extent that it's structure is changed, turning it into a much harder rock. This is how marble is created. Sedimentary clay (the ideal conditions for fossil preservation) are recrystalised into mica under intense pressure or heat.

And please don't come with the arguement that they were few and far between so the chances of them fossilizing were remote

Guess what!?

 

It's generally accepted that at one point in the history of mankind (or at least neanderthal man), a massive natural disaster almost wiped us out, leaving only a few thousand survivors. It was the mega-eruption of the super volcano "Toba". This means that every living person on this planet is an ancestor of at least two of the 5000 survivors! I find that fascinating.

 

After this eruption, I imagine the chances of fossilisation of early man were fairly remote, because as you say - "they were few and far between".

 

I realise that this eruption probably caused some fossilisation in itself, but that's something I'm not familiar with... I'll read up on it! If anybody finds any decent links in realtion to fossil age (particularly around 75,000 years ago) I'd be interested in having a look.

 

I acknowledge that it's not only mankind that was affected by events like this. Animal life of all kinds were probably affected numerous times due to massive global disasters such as meteor strikes and super volcanos.

 

Here's a link about the Super Volcano - HERE

 

It's well worth reading up on Toba for anyone that's not familiar with it. Really intersting stuff.

 

 

[Edit] - Just thought I better add in; This post is not intended to be solely about Toba. I realise that mankind (and everything else for that matter!) had a lot of evolving to do before Toba, but it's meant purely as an example to highlight the fact that things like this did happen and will probably happen again!

[Evil Inky]

Now as to the the fossil question, I think it is a reasonable question. We have had almost two hundred years of fossil searching/ dating etc (by means which I consider to be false, by the way - I can go into this if you so insist as I have extensive knowledge in this subject) and we have found - NOTHING to support evolution. So are you proposing that we wait the same timescale of millions of years searching to find the ONE missing link?

I'm not sure what sort of evidence would satisfy you. There are enormous number of fossil sequences which support evolution. For instance, a quick Google reveals the following sequence of dog/bear type fossils, which appear to show a gradual progression over time:

 

* Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).

* Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.

* Ursavus elmensis (mid-Oligocene) -- A small, heavy doglike animal, intermediate between arctoids and bears. Still had slicing carnassials & all its premolars, but molars were becoming squarer. Later specimens of Ursavus became larger, with squarer, more bear-like, molars.

* Protursus simpsoni (Pliocene; also "Indarctos") -- Sheepdog-sized. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, shorter tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.

* Ursus minimus (Pliocene) -- First little bear, with very bearlike molars, but still had the first premolars and slender canines. Shows gradual tooth changes and increase in body size as the ice age approached. Gave rise to the modern black bears (U. americanus & U. thibetanus), which haven't changed much since the Pliocene, and also smoothly evolved to the next species, U. etruscus:

* Ursus etruscus (late Pliocene) -- A larger bear, similar to our brown bear but with more primitive dentition. Molars big & square. First premolars small, and got smaller over time. Canines stouter. In Europe, gradually evolved into:

* Ursus savini (late Pleistocene, 1 Ma) -- Very similar to the brown bear. Some individuals didn't have the first premolars at all, while others had little vestigial premolars. Tendency toward domed forehead. Slowly split into a European population and an Asian population.

* U. spelaeus (late Pleistocene) -- The recently extinct giant cave bear, with a highly domed forehead. Clearly derived from the European population of U. savini, in a smooth transition. The species boundary is arbitrarily set at about 300,000 years ago.

* U. arctos (late Pleistocene) -- The brown ("grizzly") bear, clearly derived from the Asian population of U. savini about 800,000 years ago.. Spread into the Europe, & to the New World.

* U. maritimus (late Pleistocene) -- The polar bear. Very similar to a local population of brown bear, U. arctos beringianus that lived in Kamchatka about 500,000 years ago (Kurten 1964).

[NewMagnie]

Well I think invader has met his or her match. How can you think that the fossil record can record such micro macro evolutionary records.

 

 

hang on tho why shouldn't it?

 

I'll get back to you

 

It can. The very oil flowing through Sullom is composed of deceased microscopic critters.

 

But just because it can, doesn't mean that it invariably does.

[PoolHaddock]

In fact lets not pussy foot around here any longer. What was here just supposedly millions of millie-seconds after the big bang?

I'll tell de! 10-43 seconds after the "event" I'll caa it, The universe was hot. Hotter than anything imaginable infact. This heat was caused by matter and anti-matter getting thrown outwards at an incredible rate. The amounts of anti-matter and matter were almost equal at this point, but not quite. The matter and anti-matter particles collided to create pure energy as a result of mutual destruction. However, after this violent period matter prevailed, as there was slightly more of it in the begining, and so was not all destroyed at the end of the begining... Make sense?

 

Before that, the truth is nobody really knows. There are numerous theories, which is basically what's being debated here.

 

P.s. Yun number wid look lik this if it wis written oot : 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 seconds! Bet none o' you hay a stopwatch in your watch dats yun acurate!

 

P.p.s. Anybody else interested in Astronomy or Astro-physics at all? It wid be fir anidder thread, but I bet we could get some good discussions on the go!

[medunn]

In fact lets not pussy foot around here any longer. What was here just supposedly millions of millie-seconds after the big bang?

I'll tell de! 10-43 seconds after the "event" I'll caa it, The universe was hot. Hotter than anything imaginable infact. This heat was caused by matter and anti-matter getting thrown outwards at an incredible rate. The amounts of anti-matter and matter were almost equal at this point, but not quite. The matter and anti-matter particles collided to create pure energy as a result of mutual destruction. However, after this violent period matter prevailed, as there was slightly more of it in the begining, and so was not all destroyed at the end of the begining... Make sense?

 

Before that, the truth is nobody really knows. There are numerous theories, which is basically what's being debated here.

 

P.s. Yun number wid look lik this if it wis written oot : 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 seconds! Bet none o' you hay a stopwatch in your watch dats yun acurate!

 

P.p.s. Anybody else interested in Astronomy or Astro-physics at all? It wid be fir anidder thread, but I bet we could get some good discussions on the go!

 

 

Man you been reallly cool about dis caus see you you must ha bin der tea experience al dat

 

rite on

man

[medunn]

(** MOD EDIT ** - I refer you to:

 

1. You agree, through your use of the Shetlink website, that you will not post (or hyperlink to) any material or use language which is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, inciting of violence, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of ANY UK law. Personal attacks, inflammatory posts, harrassment, impersonation and trolling will not be tolerated.

)

 

astro fisyscics

 

 

awsum

[PoolHaddock]

By astro physics I mean things like supermassive black holes, "dimension" based theories (string theory, etc.), black holes and galaxies, scientific origins of the Universe, weird space-ee particles... Everything!

 

I admit that reading back ower yun, I do soond a bit poncey, so there's (^) a less poncey explanation o' da kindo stuff I mean.

 

 

 

It really is interesting.... honest!

 

 

 

Anyhow, I've dragged this post a bit off-topic. I would be really interested to know though, what do all you "creationists" out there think of the kind of examples I've listed above (especially the multi-dimensional/reality based theories). Could you believe, based on String Theory for example, that there could be an infinate number of Jesus Christ's floating around in an infinate number of realities? If you don't believe there could be more than one Christ, does that mean this theory would be dismissed by organised religion?

 

Sorry, pathetic attempt to get sort of back on track... but I really am interested!

[ArabiaTerra]

I have just been reading a copy of "Astronomy" magazine (Feb 2007). The headline on the cover, for me, summed up the difference between science and religion. The headline read:- 'What if String Theory is wrong?'.

 

I just can't imagine the cover of the "Good News" magazine the Jehova's Witnesses hand out reading:- 'What if Genesis is wrong?' or 'What if Revelations is wrong?'

 

Science starts from the premise: I know nothing, but I can trust my senses to percieve the world and my brain to understand it. (Given a little thought and effort)

 

Religion starts from the premise: The Book knows everything, and anything I perceive which contradicts the Book must be wrong. (Despite the evidence of my senses)

 

So, do you believe your own senses? Or do you believe the senses of some bloke, a couple of thousand years ago, who spoke a completely different language and lived in a completely different world who wrote down the words of some other bloke whom he didn't know but had been told about by someone else?

 

I believe in what I can see, feel and touch, and I have never touched or been touched by God.

 

[trout]

Do you touch yourself?