Freethought & Rationalism Archive

chapka · 07-17-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Imagine that every discovered and unearthened fossils are all the same: they were already developed. For if they are not yet developed and still in the process of progression, those species willl never be found on earth!

Of course. That's kind of the foundation of evolutionary science. Evolution doesn't have, and can't have, any kind of a "progression." Every species must be well-adapted to its environment. But there's more than that...

Quote:

What we had observed in nature was that all species are all unique to each other but INTERRELATED in some parts, either biological or chemical or physical or whatever...

Actually, we observe more than that. We observe that they are interrelated in a very specific way that indicates gradual change.

If we looked at the fossil record and saw, in chronological order, "dinosaur dinosaur dinosaur pigeon dinosaur dinosaur archaeopteryx", we would have a collection of interrelated fossils which shared some features, but no indication of evolutionary order.

But that's not what we actually have. What we have are fossils indicating a clear progression from dinosaurs to modern birds. And so on throughout the tree of life.

Wolfie · 07-17-2007, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

There is no such kind of "gradual progression" in the fossil record. It was only an invention and scripted explanation by ET believers to prove, in circular reasoning, that this theory is correct.

Don't talk such utter nonsense! How dare you make such an unsupported accusation!

Quote valid references that show there is no gradual progression in the fossil record.

And don't let this turn into another 78.

Wolfie · 07-17-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

Since you did not answer the challenge in any meaningful way, I must assume that you have no credentials of even the lowest level in science.

Do you think that perhaps the opinion of a poor student on the subject of science might be somewhat less than insightful?

As I had told you that the word "science" is a noun. You can make it, "supernatural science", absurd science", "foolish science", "illogical science", "logical science" or "naturalistic science" or what...

There are almost 7 billions humans on earth. Assuming that 7 million of them claimed that they knew science, then, what will be your rule to distinguish the correct science?

As I had told you again that you may had all the best learned/aquired science in our times, but they are all supernatural and mythical. So it doesn't make any sense in our logical and natural science. So your credentials are still void.

This is a nonsensical argument.

Science is science - it needs no qualifying adjective.

You have refused to state what your 'scientific' qualifications and/or background might be - had you done so, people here might have some respect for what you say and your arguments. However, until you come up with such in information, be prepared for increasingly scathing remarks as no-one will accept arguments based on the "this is the way it is because I thought about it and I say so" method you seem to have adopted.

Your constant inclusion of 'supernatural' - with literally no evidence, or even logical argument - is getting tiresome.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-17-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

There is no such kind of "gradual progression" in the fossil record.

Don't be a twat.

Let me put this bluntly:

Yes. There. Fucking. Is.

Oh, don't believe me?

Peter R Sheldon (1987) Nature 330, 561 - 563

Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abstract

There are very few high-resolution studies of the fossil record from which to assess the relative frequency of gradualistic and punctuated evolution. Here I report some of the first detailed evidence of phyletic gradualism in benthic macroinvertebrates, based on a study of ~15,000 trilobites from central Wales. Over a period of about three million years, as many as eight lineages underwent a net increase in the number of pygidial ribs, a species-diagnostic character. The end members of most lineages have previously been assigned to different species and, in one case, to different genera. In view of intermediate morphologies and temporary trend reversals, however, practical taxonomic subdivision of each lineage proved impossible. The apparent success of earlier Linnean nomenclature (with its implications of discrete species) could easily have been misinterpreted as evidence of punctuation and stasis, and it is probable that detection of many other gradualistic patterns has been hindered by ready application of binominal taxonomy to fossils.

A single species of Pliocene snail:

Eocoelia lamp shells:

Details

Pelycodus, a primate:

Details

Radiolarians:

Details

Foraminiferans:

Details

Orbulina:

Details

Therapsids (reptile-mammals):

Details

And who could resist:

Details

Pipe. Stick. Smoke.

Ray Moscow · 07-17-2007, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Samurai: What we had observed in nature was that all species are all unique to each other but INTERRELATED in some parts, either biological or chemical or physical or whatever...

but they are not evolving.

Samarai, have you explored the concept of seppuku? I believe you have already committed it in intellect, but without the honour required for your caste.

Wolfie · 07-17-2007, 09:05 AM

Oolon - thanks for that definitive post!

I don't know about you other guys and gals, but I reckon this thread has run just about as far as it can. If it is left open it is bound to interrelate evolve into an ad hominem slanging match.

Samurai deflects rational argument as a duck's back deflects water.

Can we please be put out of our misery?

ravenscape · 07-17-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Can we please be put out of our misery?

Yes.

Raven
~E~ Moderation Team

samurai · 07-20-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Radio Star

Warning: This thread contains a dangerous level of heresy. Use caution.

Creationists: Why did God create us as humans? Why a sentient ape species as opposed to all of the other creatures imaginable?

Theistic evolutionists: Were humans God's goal with evolution? Or was he just waiting for a sentient species to come along, no matter what it was, sending an occasional mass extinction to clear out anything which would hinder such a species from coming?

I'm looking forward to any and all answers.

This thread was originally posted in GRD a couple of weeks ago, but quickly arrived in ~~Elsewhere~~ before any quality answers were given because posters did not act seriously. By placing it in E/C I hope this will not happen again.

Don't worry RADIOSTAR, I can answer your simple question:

WHY HUMANS ARE so special in the sight of God???

The answer is: HUMAN IS UNIQUELY DIFFERENT in all aspects

What does it means?

It means that

1. HUMAN is the most beautiful "created matter", the crown of creation of the physical realm that we know today and will be known tomorrow. The trees are beautiful, the stones are beautiful, the galaxies are beautiful, but HUMANS surpassed them all in beauty.
TAKE NOTE: Humans today are being considered as apes or animals.

2. HUMAN is the most closed (in terms of value and beauty) to God in spritual realm. I mean, if there is such created "spiritual beings" such as angels or whatever, humans' spirit surpassed them all. I think this is one of the most probable reason why Lucifer had rebelled against God. Lucifer could not simply allow God to introduce higher spiritual beings than him and his fellow angels. So, Lucifer hated human and rebeled to God. Proof???

John 3:16 (IN REVERSE MEANING)

"For Lucifer so hated the world (humans) that he gave his many demons that whosoever believe in them should perish and have eternal death."

3. Humans had soul. It is true that plants and animals have "soul" too. But humans souls had surpassed them all!

So in another simple word,

everything, except God, that we see and not see in the whole universe (and maybe in Heaven too) is not worthy enough compared to the value of one single human. Human is so valuable and so worthy that even his Creator Himself had given His (physical) life just to save this human.

That is why human is so special. Human is less lower than God but above to all other creation

Flint · 07-20-2007, 09:14 AM

What a wonderfully striking contrast between two faces of faith. One of them actually has a mind behind it.

Peez · 07-20-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

samurai:
<Blah, blah, blah...>

I seem to remember some famous person stating that the history of science has been a long story of knocking humans off of one pedestal after another. It is clear that some people just don't like not being on a pedestal.

Peez

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2007, 09:05 AM	#376
Wolfie Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Wolf Pit, England, old chap, what? Posts: 1,627	Oolon - thanks for that definitive post! I don't know about you other guys and gals, but I reckon this thread has run just about as far as it can. If it is left open it is bound to interrelate evolve into an ad hominem slanging match. Samurai deflects rational argument as a duck's back deflects water. Can we please be put out of our misery?

07-20-2007, 09:14 AM	#379
Flint Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Huntsville AL Posts: 2,552	What a wonderfully striking contrast between two faces of faith. One of them actually has a mind behind it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.