Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok so one of my questions (# 1) was answered fully, thanks trans.
One answered partially (# 5) thanks Mike
One answered (# 4) that is still up for debate even among evolutionists. Thanks
Phetaroi and matadora
That leaves questions 2 and 3 and the partial left of 5. anyone got any insight on them?
On question #5, regarding why no fossils of coelacanths have been found in rock younger than 65 million years, I found this statement from the University of California Museum of Paleontology:
''Let's start with the most famous case of a ghost lineage in all of biology: the coelacanth. Coelacanths are lobe-finned fishes related to lungfish and to primitive tetrapods (animals with four limbs, like us). They have a long fossil record from the Devonian to the Cretaceous — about 300 million years. But no coelacanth fossils have been discovered in sediments younger than the Cretaceous, and scientists assumed that coelacanths had been extinct for the past 80 million years. Then in 1938 a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of Africa, and Berkeley biologists recently discovered a second population in Indonesia. So coelacanths obviously have been around for the past 80 million years, they just haven't left any fossils.
There are very good reasons for the absence of coelacanth fossils. The living species of coelacanth occurs only in relatively deep water around volcanic islands. Sediments from deep waters are preserved and exposed on continents, where paleontologists can get at them, but they are usually much older than 80 million years. By that time the continents were very close to their current positions, and there have been few opportunities for ocean-bottom sediments to be uplifted and exposed by erosion. These factors explain why coelacanths have an 80-million-year ghost lineage.''
''The story of the coelacanth illustrates two characteristics that most Lazarus taxa share: they have a limited geographic range, and they live in environments where fossils rarely form. These factors allow them to survive for a long time without leaving many fossils.''
1. No one cares what you see. Your whole series posts is just an excuse to state your opinion, not to learn anything. That's what I suspected all along. Science is about what the body of science believes, not what a few out in left field scientists believe.
2. Not everyone agrees on anything. So therefore, believe nothing. I guess that's your answer.
You either don't understand science or have no respect for it. You're just a creationist in sheep's clothing. For those of us who are enlightened, this whole thread has been a futile waste of time.
Why because I disagree with you
I have no problem with creation, science or evolution. You obviously do. This post is simply a knee jurk reaction because you know I am a christian. If I was not and had the same concerns and pointed out the same things what would you do then?
Just because someone has a different perspective on something is no reason to go all wonky on them. sheesh
That is not it at all. I am only pointing out that some things are still up in the air because of the uncertainties, thus when I see someone say or speak as though dino to bird (transition) is a scientific fact I am going to call them on it.
That there is 95% or 99% consensus rather than 100% hardly means it's "up in the air".
That there is some subjective judgment in the mix hardly means the theory itself is "up in the air".
This is like arguing that a dispute about the significance of certain kinds of particles in samples of moon dust means we never visited the moon, or that rockets can't work.
There is nothing to call anyone on. The consensus view on this particular sub-sub-sub-sub-sub topic is that this is a transitional fossil. It might be wrong; if so, it's of small consequence. Still, there is no reason to change the consensus without presenting new evidence, but rather, just a subjective personal impression, namely, "it looks like just another bird to me. Allow me to present my credentials -- oh, wait, I have none".
On question #5, regarding why no fossils of coelacanths have been found in rock younger than 65 million years, I found this statement from the University of California Museum of Paleontology:
''Let's start with the most famous case of a ghost lineage in all of biology: the coelacanth. Coelacanths are lobe-finned fishes related to lungfish and to primitive tetrapods (animals with four limbs, like us). They have a long fossil record from the Devonian to the Cretaceous — about 300 million years. But no coelacanth fossils have been discovered in sediments younger than the Cretaceous, and scientists assumed that coelacanths had been extinct for the past 80 million years. Then in 1938 a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of Africa, and Berkeley biologists recently discovered a second population in Indonesia. So coelacanths obviously have been around for the past 80 million years, they just haven't left any fossils.
There are very good reasons for the absence of coelacanth fossils. The living species of coelacanth occurs only in relatively deep water around volcanic islands. Sediments from deep waters are preserved and exposed on continents, where paleontologists can get at them, but they are usually much older than 80 million years. By that time the continents were very close to their current positions, and there have been few opportunities for ocean-bottom sediments to be uplifted and exposed by erosion. These factors explain why coelacanths have an 80-million-year ghost lineage.''
''The story of the coelacanth illustrates two characteristics that most Lazarus taxa share: they have a limited geographic range, and they live in environments where fossils rarely form. These factors allow them to survive for a long time without leaving many fossils.''
That there is 95% or 99% consensus rather than 100% hardly means it's "up in the air".
That there is some subjective judgment in the mix hardly means the theory itself is "up in the air".
This is like arguing that a dispute about the significance of certain kinds of particles in samples of moon dust means we never visited the moon, or that rockets can't work.
There is nothing to call anyone on. The consensus view on this particular sub-sub-sub-sub-sub topic is that this is a transitional fossil. It might be wrong; if so, it's of small consequence. Still, there is no reason to change the consensus without presenting new evidence, but rather, just a subjective personal impression, namely, "it looks like just another bird to me. Allow me to present my credentials -- oh, wait, I have none".
I gave you people with credentials Mordant. Take it up with them.
The problem I am finding here is most of you guys don't like you belief system being challenged and I get these knee jurk reactions.
Do you guys not look into these thing and challenge your own belief system? Do you believe everything someone says because they got credential?
These knee jurk reactions because of a few questions and because I do not happen to agree with transition from dino to bird have very very much in common with fundamental Christianities attitude when you bring out reason why you disagree with religion.
You guys don't seem to see that 2 of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction, yet 1 disagreement and I am not here to learn anything attitude pops up.
I gave you people with credentials Mordant. Take it up with them.
The problem I am finding here is most of you guys don't like you belief system being challenged and I get these knee jurk reactions.
Do you guys not look into these thing and challenge your own belief system? Do you believe everything someone says because they got credential?
These knee jurk reactions because of a few questions and because I do not happen to agree with transition from dino to bird have very very much in common with fundamental Christianities attitude when you bring out reason why you disagree with religion.
You guys don't seem to see that 2 of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction, yet 1 disagreement and I am not here to learn anything attitude pops up.
Come on.
No, YOU come on.
This is not a knee jerk reaction. I have elucidated my reasoning; you have declined to rebut it, but, in fact, ironically, you have simply had a knee jerk reaction to it.
As I already said twice, if this bird is "just a bird" it presents no problem for me -- or for the TOE.
But what I do have a problem with is that you are suggesting that because you and a couple of scientists aren't so sure on this one limited topic, that it somehow has such significance that we should doubt a settled explanatory framework, or even more generally science itself, or the scientific method.
You are elevating your personal opinion and the minority opinion of two scientists on a single side issue, as if it has some bearing on whether we should think the TOE should become the first scientific theory in the history of the process -- now some 300 years long -- to be rescinded. NO scientific theory has ever been recalled. They have been refined and made more accurate (e.g., General Relativity as a more generally applicable physics than Newtonian), but never disproven. In fact, reclassifying this creature as non-transitional would be just such an example of such refinement. But it doesn't call the TOE into question in any meaningful way.
Not that I'd object if somehow this WERE to happen. I would abandon the TOE in a heartbeat for something more evidenced and substantiated. But I think that you and folks like you have a very distorted notion of what a high bar that would be to clear -- and how rightly it IS that high.
Do you reject the theory of gravity because of the dispute about whether there is a fundamental particle called a graviton, and it has not been discovered as yet?
Do you reject the theory of electromagnetism because Tesla's Death Ray didn't get a fair hearing?
I have a couple friends who grew up very religious, one a Baptist Fundamentalist and both studied science in college and their religious views changed drastically. So that and another thread made me wonder if there are a lot of religious biologists, paleontologists, physicists, neuroscientists, geologists, sociologists, psychologists, ecologists, etc and what the percentages would be.
Are there any on here and what is your religion and field of expertise?
For those of faith and feel certain governing bodies of scientists are wrong, do you think they're intellectually correct with the data up until this point? Do you feel a lack of trust with them and God will prove them wrong?
And those who are on the opposite very pro-science side, can science sometimes be bad for humanity - like the invention of nuclear weapons?
Just curious where people are coming from.
This is the topic of this thread. Looking over the past few pages, you guys seem to be attempting to argue (poorly) about the science of evolution. Nobody is saying anything about religious scientists. If there is nothing to say on the topic, we can close this thread.
So that and another thread made me wonder if there are a lot of religious biologists, paleontologists, physicists, neuroscientists, geologists, sociologists, psychologists, ecologists, etc and what the percentages would be.
Are there any on here and what is your religion and field of expertise?
I'm a pharmacist (a lot of science background) and am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (a few of our members are in the medical field--one doctor I know of and at least two nurses. Lots of engineers too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo10
For those of faith and feel certain governing bodies of scientists are wrong, do you think they're intellectually correct with the data up until this point? Do you feel a lack of trust with them and God will prove them wrong?
Two main facts (one known by faith) influence my view of science:
1) It is ALWAYS biased. You CAN NOT remove bias completely from any and all experiments.
2) We live in a fallen world which is immersed in sin. Us humans are fallen creatures in rebellion against God and look for ANY reason at all to make us believe he does not exist. Science provides a pretty good outlet for that. Then you have the verse in second Thess that the Lord will send strong delusions because they did not love the truth (his word). I think that is what science mostly is, a delusion.
I'm in a favor of science overall though. As long as you don't use it as a test to prove God's word. God's word is the absolute and final truth because it comes from God. If science shows something contradictory, we are either looking at it the wrong way somehow or sin has corrupted our ability to see it the way God has revealed it to us in his word.
Through science though, God has provided us some wonderful advances to make our lives comfortable (my favorite: indoor plumbing!!!!!!!!!!!) and to help us in our illnesses (modern medicine). I'm not against it at all! It has great uses and like I said, has been quite a benefit to us overall.
This is the topic of this thread. Looking over the past few pages, you guys seem to be attempting to argue (poorly) about the science of evolution. Nobody is saying anything about religious scientists. If there is nothing to say on the topic, we can close this thread.
I think it may be time to, in the light of the ruling on not discussing science as such.
Religious scientists has pretty much been explained. Many believe in a god of some sort and may even believe a particular religion, but not in any way that upsets science, or shows that they have some quarrel with it. There may be a few creationist scientists (genuine ones, not flaunting a Qualification they haven't earned) about but either their science does not really relate to Creationist Dogma or they do not do Creationism when they do science and do not do science when they do Creationism.
The two do not mix; they can only co -exist with a barrier between the mental compartments.
Revisiting evolution is, I think not helpful. As well as not ToS policy. We have done it so many times before, and really I don't know what Pneuma's problems actually are, and I'm no scientist anyway - just a fairly experienced atheist apologist.
Talk origins and several other sites will answer any question he has.
So maybe this thread has outlived its' usefulness.
It might be time to say for myself (bearing in mind Shirina's comments about unmoderated forums sinking into a holocaust of flaming) how I appreciate the work the Mods do (excuse me for talking about them) in stopping this stuff getting out of hand. You get a lot of stick but not much praise. So I say,
"praise the Mods; Cuio i Moderiain anann! Aglar'ni Modera'annath! praise them with great praise".
And may you -wall (atheist and agnostic colleagues and opponents alike) have a very enjoyable Christmas.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-20-2017 at 06:47 PM..
I have a layman's understanding, I am no scientists.
You don't have to be a scientist to understand Evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Transition from dino to bird. I don't believe it.
It does not matter what you chose to believe...the evidence is there regardless if you believe it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Of course not since this is not how evolution works.
There is plenty of evidence contrary to your solo claim. You clearly have no understanding on how evolution works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Just posted a response to the supposed transitional fossils.
I get it that you don't understand what intermediate species are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Your wrong to assume that one cannot believe in creation and evolution.
How so? Tell me what makes me wrong here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You believe in a dino to bird transition, I would say that is a misconception, so to follow your line of reasoning you would have no understanding of evolution either.
This again? I will ask you again...What exactly is the misconception...give specific examples of these supposed misconceptions. Instead of asserting that I don't understand evolution...perhaps it would be better to point out what I don't understand about evolution. You have already admitted to not understanding evolution yourself...what credentials do you hold to tell a person with vast knowledge of evolution that they don't understand it?
Last edited by Matadora; 12-21-2017 at 12:18 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
