No Bones About It

[Nom_de_Plume]

[Mr Danksworth]

I am just going to post this here, even though, in my heart of hearts, I know it will do no good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

[cliffy1]

I am just going to post this here, even though, in my heart of hearts, I know it will do no good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Ha ha, but "the Earth is only 6000 years old" so I can hear the tittering from the creationist side already. To believe the fundie version of creation one must suspend logical thought. It is evolution in reverse.

[Hmmm]

Ha ha, but "the Earth is only 6000 years old" so I can hear the tittering from the creationist side already. To believe the fundie version of creation one must suspend logical thought. It is evolution in reverse.

This is true, as you would have to ignore solid scientific evidence to believe that. As I've posted several times myself, the Bibles use of the word day can stand for a period of time, just like we say, "in our day". This view is in line with solid scientific evidence.

On another note, I am not aware of the major amount of fossil evidence that must exist to support evolution. What I understand is that there are clearly defined groups of fossils that are complete and according to their kind.

And before someone brings it up again, I know dinosaurs existed millions of years before mankind, this is also supported biblically, just not by the 6000 yearers.

[Mr Danksworth]

This is true, as you would have to ignore solid scientific evidence to believe that. As I've posted several times myself, the Bibles use of the word day can stand for a period of time, just like we say, "in our day". This view is in line with solid scientific evidence.

That is some really convenient moving of the goalposts. Just the sort of thing I would expect. Redefining words and concepts so that you can continue to grasp at straws. That's some pretty weak tea. What is next? Thermodynamics? The Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's floods? Irreducible complexity? Because the bible said so? The standard list of creationist arguments is short and easily defeated.

[Mr Danksworth]

On another note, I am not aware of the major amount of fossil evidence that must exist to support evolution. What I understand is that there are clearly defined groups of fossils that are complete and according to their kind.

The evidence is all there for you to see. Either you are blind or you are ignorant.

And before someone brings it up again, I know dinosaurs existed millions of years before mankind, this is also supported biblically, just not by the 6000 yearers.

How nice, even within the creationist camp, they cannot even keep their stories straight. I guess as long as "goddidit" is a part of the answer, they can dutch-rudder themselves into believing that they are correct.

[cliffy1]

This is true, as you would have to ignore solid scientific evidence to believe that. As I've posted several times myself, the Bibles use of the word day can stand for a period of time, just like we say, "in our day". This view is in line with solid scientific evidence.

On another note, I am not aware of the major amount of fossil evidence that must exist to support evolution. What I understand is that there are clearly defined groups of fossils that are complete and according to their kind.

And before someone brings it up again, I know dinosaurs existed millions of years before mankind, this is also supported biblically, just not by the 6000 yearers.

I believe Mr Danksworth posted a link to evidence to the contrary but I realize to admit there is evidence would put your belief system in jeopardy. I also qualified my statement by referring to "fundies" who make *bleep* erectus look like intellectual giants.

Personally I lean toward evolution but is severely lacking in many areas. The explanation of what really happened is probably somewhere between creation and evolution or science and religion, but I think there are giant holes in human evolution that require some missing information. This is not a black and white story. What fascinate me most are the grey areas. I also think, for many, science is a religion and suffers from the inherent problems of dogma and misinterpretation and misunderstanding.

[Mr Danksworth]

Personally I lean toward evolution but is severely lacking in in many areas. The explanation of what really happened is probably somewhere between creation and evolution or science and religion, but I think there are giant holes in human evolution that require some missing information. This is not a black and white story. What fascinate me most are the grey areas.

Which parts are missing? Where are your perceived 'holes'? I'm asking in the honestest and most non-confrontational of ways.

[cliffy1]

Which parts are missing? Where are your perceived 'holes'? I'm asking in the honestest and most non-confrontational of ways.

Yes, well, those are difficult questions to answer given the space restrictions. I see our reality as not just being a physical one and science is restricted to physical reality. Quantum physics and mechanics, however, are bridging science and the nonphysical or spiritual realms. Also, judging by how humans hold the Earth is such low regard, in other words do not seem to feel any attachment to it or feel parts of the continuum of life, I think that the quantum leaps in our evolution may have been influenced by some form of genetic manipulation by extraterrestrial beings. That would be it in a nutshell but the oversimplification leaves it wide open to misrepresentation.

[LoneWolf_53]

Let me simply say that what with modern science and all, we have the capabilities to put all the various components that comprise a plant, or human for that matter, into a petrie dish and stir it up yet we would not end up with a plant or a human.

Knowing that, there are those that would have me believe that life and everything around us just happened to materialize all on its own without all the necessary components in close proximity even.

I'm thinking NOT!

[Mr Danksworth]

You seem to have a sub-basic understanding of the basic workimgs of science. You will have to clarify your misgivings in order for you to gain some clarification of what you are asking about. if not....poof...magic! It's much easier.

[cliffy1]

The holographic nature of our existence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXQlVG2Oq4o&feature=fvwrel

[fluffy]

...there are those that would have me believe that life and everything around us just happened to materialize all on its own without all the necessary components in close proximity even.

Of course not silly. It was a really old magic guy with a beard and a big "G" on his sweatshirt. And he had a bunch of back-up singers. With wings.

[Mr Danksworth]

I submit that all posts by about creationism be moved to the 'conspiracies' sub-forum. Seems to me that's where they belong. They are all fueled my rampant speculation and absolutely no facts. Or does it get a free pass because 'christianity' is involved?

[steven lloyd]

Or does it get a free pass because 'christianity' is involved?

I would submit it is in the Religion Forum because Christianity is involved.
Perhaps we should only discuss evolutionary theory in the Science Forum.