Was Darwin Wrong?

[This_person]

You answered it with the typical This_Person circular answer. You didnt answer whether you believe Man and :

• Tyrannosaurus Rex exist at the same time?
• Triceratops exist at the same time?
• Velociraptors exist at the same time?
• Ankylosaurus exist at the same time?
• Stegosaurus exist at the same time?

I'll provide the same answer, reworded to meet your criteria.

• No
• No
• No
• No
• NO

but, the science provides that these creatures are as likely to exist today as not, based on an inaccuracy of +/- 65 million years in being able to identify when a species died out.

 

[OoberBoober]

And, the differences in the 65 million year old fossil and the living creature? Effectively nil.

You defeat your argument when you show that we can't figure out within the accuracy of 65 millions years whether a species still exists.

You further defeat your argument when you demonstrate animals that exist with a virtual evolutionary standstill for hundreds of millions of years, like

• Alligators
• Crocidiles
• Army ants
• A sea lilly called a crinoid
• Dragonflies
• Horseshoe Crabs
• The Laotian rock rat
• Salamanders
• Sturgeon
• A lizard called the tuatara
• Velvet worms

So species are required to die out over time for evolution to hold? Where are you getting this idea? It sounds like this is more of a argument that evolution is working to me.

 

[ItalianScallion]

but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....

Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.

Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word? So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.
When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it. Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem. How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?
How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible? How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?

I should have followed your signature line but oh well...
Nothing was left out of the Bible. You have left faith out of the equation.
Without faith in God's power to make all these things happen, OF COURSE you can't get your questions answered. With God all things are possible but you choose not to believe this.
P.S. The first humans were all Republicans that's why God let them live to over 900 years old. Once the Democrats came into being, God shortened their lifespan...

So What dose that prove your no Theologian I'm sure and just because,,, You believe in something dosn't make it So ,,,and just because you Don't,,,dosn't mean it's not True. That goes for Reglion,UFOs,Bigfoot and so on and so on!Look genius the Bible was written by authors unknown,,,Fact....Storys left out of the Bible,,,,,,,,,Fact....It was written centurys later,,,,Fact. The problem is that anytime that anything gets written down people figure it must be true or why else would somebody have written it. PS,,,You know what they say about God don't you,,,He's an invisible friend for grown up's!

Typical person with no faith...
Your spelling causes me to believe in God more and more. You're lucky Darwin was wrong....

So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and
2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
and Ethic backgrounds?And it has not been proven that there was
global flooding,,,,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact! You guys
always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took
the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on.Yet we have found
that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands
of years ago. But God explains everything that's always the Excuse.

Tower of Babel, worldwide flooding was proven, no Bible contradictions just a lack of understanding from you, the missing link is your brain, archaeologists are finding Bible artifacts regularly. Anything else? Bring it on...

PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
can not be all true.And as far that goes all great stories need
a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right?

Only true if you leave God out...

Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What fool bases his faulty info on Wikipedia???

[*]How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites?
[*] And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?[/list]
[*] The total amount of water carried for the animals would have sunk the ark. The aquarium for a pair of whales genus, would have sunk the ark many times.
[*] Some animals, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
[*] Some, animals like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
[*] Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months.
[*] Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating.
[*] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
[*] How did predators survive? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?
[*] How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc.,
[*] According to the account in the bible, every mountain to was covered with water, Mt Everest is just a little over 29,000 ft above sea level
[*] Where did the water come from?
[*] Where did the water go?
[*] water doesn't just disappear, once here always here, it just changes form from gas to liquid to a solid. So if there was enough water to flood the whole earth, it would still be here today, and if it were here today, we would still be under water. Even if all the ice melted there would not be enough flood the whole planet.

The answer to all your questions is GOD but, since you factor Him out, you'll never understand. Scientists and people will fumble and look foolish trying to disprove what God has written and done. How silly of humans to try.
If I, as a layman, read a book on major medical procedures, I would only understand a small part of it because I'm not a doctor. I wouldn't have the right or desire to say it was wrong, flawed or made up in any way. The Bible is just such a book to you so why don't you accept this and leave it alone?
If God can make powerful meat eating beasts be docile in Heaven after this life, why whould it have been hard for Him to sustain them in the Ark?

 

[BeHereNow]

Gone one day and look what happens.

~ ~ ~

This person All things? Including a supreme being?

I am a Deist.

Originally Posted by BeHereNow
Here's how I would say it.
The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.

This_PersonYOUR version of perfection.

Why would that necessarily be someone else's version of perfection?

I suggest that an individual lives, so that the species might live, and the species lives for its own sake.
The reason for a species existing, is simply so it can exist.
This is, it seems to me, indisputable.

There may be other reasons as well, but these are secondary.
If there is another reason, such as (to glorify god), or (to lead to another species), or (to help another species to prosper), none of these can occur if the species does not exist, so it must exist. The is the primary, and it seem to me, indisputable reason for a species existence.

If it does not exist, it cannot fulfill any secondary purpose.

If you want to say maybe the existence is ‘meant’ to be temporary, then you are assuming something not in evidence.

This_Person But, you're defining the success or failure. By defining the success and failure, you are assuming an intent, a purpose, a reason. Back up, and don't assume YOU know the reason for the species longevity. If you're not presumptuous in that way, you can be more objective.

Existence is its own reason, first and foremost.
This is not assuming anything, it is merely observing objective reality.

The longevity of a species is dependent on its ability to survive in the environment, as it occurs naturally or as it has been modified by the species.
This is a truism, and assumes nothing.
This is objective. To assume there is more, is subjective.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Im_Me I agree to a degree...It really comes down to the fact that faith can be supported by logic and science but it is neither science or logic. I think I see an active and loving Creator in the same things that indicate to you that there is not one.

Those thing which are known not by logic/science, not by faith, are intuited.
The mind can intuit truth.

 

[This_person]

Your confusion is vast, and thanfully it can be helped. The Colecanth that was dated as being 65 million years old, was believed to be extinct solely because there wasnt any evidence of any species surviving.

So, we were unable to find 65,000,000 years worth of fossils of an existing species, yet you think the fossils we find hold any value?

See, I understand the fossil dated was dated properly. I understand the current animals are the current animals. My point is, we're too unaware of what's gone on the last 65 million years, why would there be any faith in the fossil records?

If someone were to tell you they are an expert on car companies, and they haven't found any evidence of Ford Motor Company vehicles in two decades, would you really trust anything else they had to say on their area of "expertise"?

Just because something existed 65 million years ago, does not mean it still doesnt (You forgot Whales, and Great Whites in your list).

And there is no correalation between the animals listed above and their evolutionary state. You further expand on your failure to understand what evolution is.

While the animals you listed above existed, they are not the same back then and todays variants. They have evolved, just as the Colecanth.

Actually, they are virtually unchanged in hundreds of millions of years.

Apparently, they are immune to evolution.

 

[This_person]

So species are required to die out over time for evolution to hold? Where are you getting this idea? It sounds like this is more of a argument that evolution is working to me.

Animals and plants not evolving for hundreds of millions of years is proof of evolution?

By that logic, lack of finding Atlantis is pure proof positive it existed. Not finding it in the Chesapeake Bay proves that's where it was.

 

[BeHereNow]

This_Person Actually, they are virtually unchanged in hundreds of millions of years.

Apparently, they are immune to evolution.

Evolution has no requirements.
It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an environment, and sometime that change means extinction.

You sometimes like to play 'what ifs', so let me try one on you.
What if the internal organs changed (mutated possibly), allowing completely different food sources, but externally they remained the same.
If they did, this would be an example of evolution at work, and evidence to show it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate.

We can expect that evironments will change drastically, and some organisms will adapt, some will die out, and some will pack their bags and move to a friendlier environment.
Nothing in evolution says all organisms are expected to become extinct.
As it turns out, many of them have.
By the time earth is no longer habitable for mankind, we may well be at another location.
And of course there is the cockroach, that seems to florish nearly everywhere. We will probably take them with us, unintentionallyh of course.

 

[Beta84]

Did Dinosaurs and Man co-exist?

I don't know. Why are you asking me? I'm not a scientist. It's possible, sure. But did they? Who knows. I think man was put in one of the later eras closer to stuff like the saber tooth tiger and whatnot, instead of during the era of the colossal dinosaurs. That's just based off memory though. I think it's possible, but not a definitive yes.

Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.

The Jews don't believe in Jesus as the son of God or the messiah because he didn't fulfill the prophecies that were expected of him. He is considered a prophet, but NOT the son of God or the messiah.

P.S. The first humans were all Republicans that's why God let them live to over 900 years old. Once the Democrats came into being, God shortened their lifespan...

I presume you mean present day Democrats and Republicans? Since, of course, the present day parties have basically flip-flopped during your lifetime (or thereabouts), slick.

Tower of Babel, worldwide flooding was proven, no Bible contradictions just a lack of understanding from you, the missing link is your brain, archaeologists are finding Bible artifacts regularly. Anything else? Bring it on...

I don't know if it's necessarily true that the flooding was "worldwide", nor did it have to be "worldwide". Why? Because most of the stuff in the Bible seemed to have the world on a pretty small scale. The world wasn't all that large to them, so the flooding really only needed to be a specific area, which there is indeed evidence of flooding in that general vicinity.

As for other artifacts from the Bible...well geez dude, no crap! That doesn't mean all of the events actually happened though. Even if they found the exact described sandal in the exact location where they said Jesus lost it after he walked on water, that DOESNT mean he actually walked on water! Or well, I guess he could have walked through a puddle. They might find the cup where he turned water into wine, but it doesn't mean he didn't add some powdered substance like Crystal Light!

My point is, same as the one I made before that was avoided, the artifacts SHOULD come up because these books were written and probably relatively accurate in a historical perspective. But that doesn't mean the stories they wrote were 100% true. I question that for all religions including my own...but I'm sure various artifacts are pulled up with any and all of the religious books (cept for Dianetics!)

What fool bases his faulty info on Wikipedia???

Wikipedia may not be perfect, but most of their stuff is at least useful for discussion. Discrediting his argument on what appears to be a good link (if you actually click on it) is just a coward's way of trying to avoid an argument.

 

[This_person]

Evolution has no requirements.
It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an environment, and sometime that change means extinction.

It may not "require" change, but lack of change over hundreds of millions of years, during which time other species supposedly changed drastically and evolved into significantly more complex beings, seems to suggest that random mutations are SO random they skip some species altogether. That time is the explaination for the gradual, virtually unnoticable changes over many generations but when considered in the millions of years it does matter - it doesn't matter.

It tends to shed doubt on the concept of evolution on a macro scale. The species we were sure were extinct for tens of millions of years (and come to find out really aren't) sheds doubt on our ability to come to conclusions based on fossil records. Species who look something alike (horses and giraffes) but do not appear to have followed the same evolutionary chain - they just look alike - tends to shed doubt on the assumption of evolutionary chain.

None of this proves anything. That's one of my points - there is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured on a macro scale.

 

[BeHereNow]

It may not "require" change, but lack of change over hundreds of millions of years, during which time other species supposedly changed drastically and evolved into significantly more complex beings, seems to suggest that random mutations are SO random they skip some species altogether. That time is the explaination for the gradual, virtually unnoticable changes over many generations but when considered in the millions of years it does matter - it doesn't matter.

It tends to shed doubt on the concept of evolution on a macro scale. The species we were sure were extinct for tens of millions of years (and come to find out really aren't) sheds doubt on our ability to come to conclusions based on fossil records. Species who look something alike (horses and giraffes) but do not appear to have followed the same evolutionary chain - they just look alike - tends to shed doubt on the assumption of evolutionary chain.

None of this proves anything. That's one of my points - there is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured on a macro scale.

Look, in science there is no proof for anythng.
You think the sun will rise tomorrow? Prove it!
You thing the sun rose today? Prove it wasn't mass hysteria.
You think you exist? Prove it.
There is convincing evidence, or not.

Was the earth and universe created in 7 days, the convincing evidence is that it took much longer.
Were all species created out of mud or dirt, the convincing evidence is that they were not.
Is macro evolutions a sound, viable principle? The overwhelming evidence is convincing that it is.

Do aliens shape life forms on earth? The convincing evidence says no.

Did transpermia start life on earth? The verdict is out, no convincing evidence either way. Has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

You can't prove anything, and neither can I.
Try it if you doubt me. I can always give an alternate explanation that questions the 'proof' you provide.

Enough evidence and a reasonable person is convinced.
Through logic out the window and nothing and everything is convincing.

 

[This_person]

Look, in science there is no proof for anythng.
You think the sun will rise tomorrow? Prove it!
You thing the sun rose today? Prove it wasn't mass hysteria.
You think you exist? Prove it.
There is convincing evidence, or not.

These are philosophy class questions, not science questions

Was the earth and universe created in 7 days, the convincing evidence is that it took much longer.
Were all species created out of mud or dirt, the convincing evidence is that they were not.

I'll buy your argument about 7 days. Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days. Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part. What were the conditions on earth when life first formed? By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up. Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.

Is macro evolutions a sound, viable principle? The overwhelming evidence is convincing that it is.

And it's good you have that religion to hold onto. The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions. And, even those pieces have holes.

Micro evolution - dandy. Macro evolution - religion.

Do aliens shape life forms on earth? The convincing evidence says no.

What convincing evidence? Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans? Holes in evolutionary chains? The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids?

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.

Did transpermia start life on earth? The verdict is out, no convincing evidence either way. Has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

You can't prove anything, and neither can I.
Try it if you doubt me. I can always give an alternate explanation that questions the 'proof' you provide.

I provide no proof. I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.

 

[thatguy]

Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.

you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.

your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah

 

[OoberBoober]

These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsI'll buy your argument about 7 days. Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days. Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part. What were the conditions on earth when life first formed? By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up. Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto. The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions. And, even those pieces have holes.

Micro evolution - dandy. Macro evolution - religion.What convincing evidence? Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans? Holes in evolutionary chains? The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids?

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.I provide no proof. I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.

You should also start arguing that the stars are just giant flash lights in the sky that we can't reach, because it is only based on fragments pieced together with assumptions. Observation is how science works, you just do not seem to understand that.

No one has ever observed a god. Therefore religion... People have discovered evidence, and made observations that support macro evolution. Therefore science.

 

[This_person]

You should also start arguing that the stars are just giant flash lights in the sky that we can't reach, because it is only based on fragments pieced together with assumptions.

You make an interesting argument. One I strongly disagree with, but interesting nonetheless.

Observation is how science works, you just do not seem to understand that.

I understand it just fine, thanks!

No one has ever observed a god. Therefore religion... People have discovered evidence, and made observations that support macro evolution. Therefore science.

Not true. People have made observations and discovered evidence regarding micro-evolution, and extrapolated macro-evolution from that.

Big difference. Therefore, religion.

 

[This_person]

Gone one day and look what happens.

I suggest that an individual lives, so that the species might live, and the species lives for its own sake.
The reason for a species existing, is simply so it can exist.
This is, it seems to me, indisputable.

That you STRONGLY believe it doesn't take it out of the realm of your belief.

Whenever you try to put an intent on design, without knowing the intent, you're simply making an assumption. You're rejecting a possible answer based on an assumption. You've concluded, as a diest, that you're wrong about diety because you don't agree with your version of the intent. Really, is that the way you want to go?

If you want to say maybe the existence is ‘meant’ to be temporary, then you are assuming something not in evidence.

No, it's speculation just like the speculation that the existence is NOT "meant" to be temporary. They're both just assumptions. One allows for more potential answers, the other dismisses possible answers.

Those thing which are known not by logic/science, not by faith, are intuited.
The mind can intuit truth.

Exactly!

 

[wxtornado]

Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.

Oh the irony..............

 

[Beta84]

you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.

your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah

that...was...awesome.

 

[foodcritic]

:bullshiat: Many cultures have some form of Flood Myth, but that isnt the same as saying its a widely accepted "story".

There are plenty of problems with the parable:

• Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?
• Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity.
  • For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
  list]

If your going to cut and paste full pages....at least cite the source!! Don't pawn it off as your own thought....

 

[This_person]

Oh the irony..............

When it comes to my personal beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine to believe as I will.

When it comes to discussing Darwin vs evolution vs ID, it doesn't really fit.

 

[BeHereNow]

These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsI'll buy your argument about 7 days. Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days. Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part. What were the conditions on earth when life first formed? By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up. Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto. The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions. And, even those pieces have holes.

WEll, if you want to describe 'mud', so that is is mustly water, we can agree.
now must poeple think 'mud' can be made into mudpies, and that is rather thick, and not likely to allow combination of amino acids and such.

Micro evolution - dandy. Macro evolution - religion.

Religion? Well I hav e seen some people define 'religion' so that baseball can be considered a religion.
To me, religion involves faith. Evolution is based on evidence, some concrete and some logical, valid, reasoning based on the concrete evidence. Not faith, so no, not religion by my use of the word.
Since you did not say why you consider evolution to be religion, I will have to wonder.

What convincing evidence?

Well, we could agrue about the details. I've studied up on it some. But lets cut to the chase.
The scientific community, as a whole, endorses evolution as valid.
I've examined their findings and arguments, and find them to be solid, valid, and consistent with reality.
I've also studied their detractors, and find them to be illogical, discordant with the evidence, and not credible.
Some among all of the convincing evidence, what I find extremely credible, esy to understand and explain, and undeniable, is the opinon of the scientific community.

Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans?[//quote]Well, if you disregard evolution, it might be unexplainable.
I find no 'sudden spurts' to be inconsistent with the principles of evolution.

Holes in evolutionary chains?

Holes?
oh, I see, you mean evolutionary studies are an ongoing thing, and not a completed science. Newsflash: No science is a completed study.
No scientific endeavor has answered all of the questions.
I might add, they probably never will. Always a new frontier.

The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids?

Wonderful!
What does that have to do with evolution on earth, expect some idle speculation you may have.

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.I provide no proof. I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.

Religious aversion?
What is this religious aversion?