NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Azazello1313]

are we sure it was 50 or 60's years, they observed a much different calender back then... we can nit pick all day but i wont

 

so you're saying years were shorter or longer back then?

[tonorator]

that there are transitional fossils AT ALL thoroughly repudiates creationist theory. are they fewer in number? well, that is probably why they are labelled "transitional".

 

the fact that they even exist at all is still not an accepted truth. in the original NOVA show, they mention finding one single flathead fossil ... just one ... and from that one they were able to make a major connection in their family tree branching. that is just not sufficient evidence to "validate" an expansive theory like evolution. again, darwin shared this concern and nothing has been done since he expressed his concerns to eliminate this major gap. many are trying ... some have been proven as frauds ... and all that work has lead to a very small group of questionable fossils that supposedly paint a path of evolution that took millions of years ... like from a handful of bones. sorry ... that is just as hard to buy as creationism or martians.

[tonorator]

1) a layer of plants deeper than

2) a layer mixed with the before mentioned plants, fish, crustaceons, jelly fish, whales, all winged creatures etc. deeper than

3) a layer mixed with the above and land based creatures, and then

4) a layer mixed with the above and man.

 

Except for #4, the order is all wrong.

 

Conclusion: Genesis is not supported by the fossil record.

 

check out this link.

 

The earliest organisms in the fossil record were complex organisms and there is no evidence for the progressive advance required by the theory of evolution. Yes, there were many organisms such as trilobites and ammonites that existed in the past that do not exist today, but this does not make them primitive. They were just as complex as anything living today. In fact, the fossil record shows a past wealth of organisms which is staggering. Surprisingly, most of the organisms of the past were much larger and impressive than present day animals even where they belong to the same groups of animals. In fact, in this regard, the fossil record is evidence for devolution rather than evolution.

 

There are many reasons beside progressive development which could be given for the order in the sequence of fossils. The sequence from sessile to free-swimming to terrestrial indicates ecological zones being destroyed progressively as can be illustrated by a simple example. If a bulldozer rapidly covered a duck pond with soil, then the organisms in the pond would be buried in sequence. The bottom dwelling worms and snails would be at the bottom. The fish somewhat higher and the ducks on top. The sequence represents the ecological zones in which the animals lived and definitely not the order in which they evolved. The same holds true for the fossil record. And in fact, we do find assemblages of fossils e.g. radiolarians in the same sequence in the fossil record as they occur in a present day ecological zonation. The ability to float or not would also produce zonation. Mammals and birds float due to bloating or trapped air in feathers and hair and are thus to be found in higher strata. Coal layers reflect this same phenomenon. The Paleozoic coal seams consist largely of non-floating species whereas those found in higher strata of floating species.

 

makes me think of the big bugs that were recently found ...

 

hear me out ... i'm not pushing creationism as fact as much as i'm trying to convince that evolution is not a done deal and much doubt remains. further, if the scientific community started with creationism as their starting theory of origin, with the bible as an accurate history of record, we would see them create as many volumes of "scientific evidence" to support this theory (such as the above findings/arguments).

 

and neither of these approaches invalidates the need for science and the scientific method. whether we came to be by evolving or by creation or by martians, it has no bearing on the scientific research of the day. in fact, science today is based on very specialized classes of species. how they came to be specialized is really irrelevant to all forms of research that provide positive benefits to mankind.

[The Irish Doggy]

the fact that they even exist at all is still not an accepted truth. in the original NOVA show, they mention finding one single flathead fossil ... just one ... and from that one they were able to make a major connection in their family tree branching. that is just not sufficient evidence to "validate" an expansive theory like evolution. again, darwin shared this concern and nothing has been done since he expressed his concerns to eliminate this major gap. many are trying ... some have been proven as frauds ... and all that work has lead to a very small group of questionable fossils that supposedly paint a path of evolution that took millions of years ... like from a handful of bones. sorry ... that is just as hard to buy as creationism or martians.

 

 

So you then choose to believe in creationism because it has no evidence at all? I mean, you did read the above posts by Az and I right? The ones that tested your Genesis hypothesis and it failed....

[tonorator]

So you then choose to believe in creationism because it has no evidence at all? I mean, you did read the above posts by Az and I right? The ones that tested your Genesis hypothesis and it failed....

 

i've countered your post (see above). there's much evidence out there for creationism if we chose to view things through that lens.

 

also saw an article in this weekend's paper about the popularity of the Creation Museum in kentucky. it has already far surpassed all attendance expectations and there is talk of expanding.

[Yukon Cornelius]

so you're saying years were shorter or longer back then?

both... depended on were you lived.... but suffice it to say you need faith my friend

[tonorator]

other articles from the same site.

 

much of evolution and our radiometric dating processes assumes that the earth was as it is for all those billions of years. the fact is, a major catastrophic event could throw off all of our scientific findings in this space.

 

thought to consider ... let's suppose that conclusive evidence was provided that the earth was indeed 6,000 years old. say a voice from the sky came clearly calling and the entire world heard the message. i would bet you that every inch of research we've done on evolution and our dating processes could be reset according to this new fact. our scientist would create new hypotheses and axioms and formulas that would relabel what we observe. even with all this, our advances in medicine, technology, etc. would continue on unabated ...

[The Irish Doggy]

Ton, now you have a mysterious earth-wide bulldozer laying down rock? That's your evidence?

[tonorator]

Ton, now you have a mysterious earth-wide bulldozer laying down rock? That's your evidence?

 

sheesh. it was an example dog.

 

the "evidence" you have for macro-evolution is every bit as suspect as the "evidence" that exists for creationism.

 

beyond that, how can you conclusive rule out any type of catastrophic event that would effectively render much of our current thinking invalid? this happens all the time in science and i hardly think that after 50-100 years of research we have definitely narrowed down the age of the earth and our universe to be in the billions of years.

 

evolutionists, despite how revolting the concept is to you, take just as much a leap of faith (i think a bigger one) than creationists. you just don't like to admit that because it is more comfortable to be shielded by your infallible "data", which, in this case, is very subjective, is based on unproven assumptions (the conditions on the earth have been constant), and has a track record of being reset via new fundamental discoveries (the earth is not flat, the universe is expanding).

 

and again, you do not have all of science on your side. the science that has led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, industry, biochemistry, etc., etc., are all completely independent of the discussion of how we came to be. what you have on your side is a bunch of classified observations, based on bigtime assumptions, and 50 or so years of the accumulation of targeted observations (some fabricated) to support a theory.

[Kid Cid]

check out this link.

makes me think of the big bugs that were recently found ...

 

hear me out ... i'm not pushing creationism as fact as much as i'm trying to convince that evolution is not a done deal and much doubt remains. further, if the scientific community started with creationism as their starting theory of origin, with the bible as an accurate history of record, we would see them create as many volumes of "scientific evidence" to support this theory (such as the above findings/arguments).

 

and neither of these approaches invalidates the need for science and the scientific method. whether we came to be by evolving or by creation or by martians, it has no bearing on the scientific research of the day. in fact, science today is based on very specialized classes of species. how they came to be specialized is really irrelevant to all forms of research that provide positive benefits to mankind.

ton, man I'm confused. In one paragraph, you seem to say that science and data collection is self serving and not to be trusted and then in the next paragraph you say that we need these self serving scientists and their methodologies. I just really don't get where you're coming from.

[Ursa Majoris]

say a voice from the sky came clearly calling and the entire world heard the message.

I think it's fair to say that a personal appearance from God would change things around a tad, yes.

[evil_gop_liars]

I think it's fair to say that a personal appearance from God would change things around a tad, yes.

 

He may show up at one of those pay day loan places. Apparently he's not very good with money...

[tonorator]

ton, man I'm confused. In one paragraph, you seem to say that science and data collection is self serving and not to be trusted and then in the next paragraph you say that we need these self serving scientists and their methodologies. I just really don't get where you're coming from.

 

science is great for observing and classifying things within a boundary set of conditions. i used the example many pages ago that if you were raised in a closed room with no contact to the outside world, that room would become your universe. you would study it, classify everything in it, make all kinds of observations, generate and test theories, and you would come to a set of data, which would be scientific, that would govern your room. you would also probably come to some ideas about just how that room came to be, based on your science.

 

once a door was opened that showed you another room, or maybe the outside world, everything you observed and classified would/could potentially be completely overhauled. now, many of the micro observations you made could remain constant, they would just have an entirely new construct to be placed within.

 

my point is that the theory of evolution represents a room that has been around for 150 years or so. our dating techniques have only been around maybe 100. the micro observations that we are able to make in this space are needed and are very helpful to us, but i submit that they all could have still been made under a different construct, like creationism.

 

i'm not even coming on hard trying to say that one construct or another is indeed fact (how would i know that?), i'm just trying to get someone who currently subscribes to the evolution construct to say, "you know, you are right. i am basing much of what i believe on a higher construct that really has not been proven and the possibility exists that there is another room out there, or a completely new outside world, that could reset the constructs for what i observe."

 

this, to me, is the first step in opening up the mind and heart to taking a new leap of faith that should not be prohibited by what you are told are the constructs of the day. and the faith could be in anything, not just god and christianity.

Edited November 26, 2007 by tonorator

[tonorator]

doesn't something like this even challenge your evolution construct ... just for a few seconds?

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

 

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

[Kid Cid]

doesn't something like this even challenge your evolution construct ... just for a few seconds?

What? That Darwin himself thinks that his Theory is only the best explanation that fits the available data and may in fact be missing the mark? C'mon, man, it's a far leap from that to, we don't know what we don't know so therefore the Theory is worthless.

[TimC]

As Creator of this thread, I think tonorator and Jumpin Johnies have taken the lead. Still waiting to see how it evolves though.

[tonorator]

What? That Darwin himself thinks that his Theory is only the best explanation that fits the available data and may in fact be missing the mark? C'mon, man, it's a far leap from that to, we don't know what we don't know so therefore the Theory is worthless.

 

i've never said it is worthless.

[Kid Cid]

i've never said it is worthless.

But you certainly don't seem to think there's much value in it or the tools and observations that men have used to support it either.

[evil_gop_liars]

If you have some extra time

[tonorator]

But you certainly don't seem to think there's much value in it or the tools and observations that men have used to support it either.

 

i don't agree with that either.

 

with the theory of evolution as a backdrop, many advances have been made in understanding genetics. i would submit, however, that different backdrop theories could still have led us to these conclusions. in this sense, the theory of evolution has had value.

 

the notion of how we evolve (or change, or adapt) on a micro scale has also been very valuable in many fields, like agriculture.

 

extrapolating these micro observations to a macro scale does, however, blow the theory of evolution out of the water for me. to go here, you do go to dating techniques and the fossil record which i believe are open to many interpretations which do not all lead back to human beings being the result of billions of years of compounded micro evolutions that were mysteriously initiated by a simple-celled organism and an electric charge. talk about leaps of faith ...

[DemonKnight]

read genesis.

 

read dianetics

[Yukon Cornelius]

read dianetics

[Azazello1313]

further, if the scientific community started with creationism as their starting theory of origin, with the bible as an accurate history of record, we would see them create as many volumes of "scientific evidence" to support this theory (such as the above findings/arguments).

 

that is actually exactly what happened. centuries ago, the bible essentially WAS the starting theory of origin, and everything else. gradually, particular scientific observations changed that outlook. first, geologists began to discover things that demonstrated that the earth was a LOT older than 6000 years. then darwin came along.

[Azazello1313]

the "evidence" you have for macro-evolution is every bit as suspect as the "evidence" that exists for creationism.

 

you keep saying this, but it is a preposterously WRONG statement.

[tonorator]

you keep saying this, but it is a preposterously WRONG statement.

 

i don't think so.

 

for either macro evolution or creationism, it's all circumstantial evidence and both theories have potential for reasonable doubt. if evolution were true beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would we have all this debate?