Confused about evolution

[3yardsandacloud]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.nature.ca/notebooks/images/archaeop.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/archaeo.htm&h=300&w=263&sz=27&tbnid=eMhnke2bnJgJ:&tbnh=110&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbird%2Bdinosaur%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8

there ya go, this is your missing link between dinasaurs and birds.

Soldier, this is text from your link:
"Was archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur, an ancestral bird, or neither, or both?"

The two other articles I've checked also take a similar stance. Questions are unanswered as to this fossil being a bird, dino, or link. Doesn't sound like concrete evidence to me.

Lastly, can we try and keep on topic. The coments about blood transfussion have absolutely no bearing. The topic is the Bible vs science (generally). The bible says nothing about blood transfussions. By your logic, science is nothing more than fairy tail because many (if not all) scientists believed that the earth was flat (for quite a number of years). Your continued "shots" on religion are centered on man's interpretation of the Bible ... not what the Bible says. I could provide as many (probably more) instances where scientists have been wrong. So what? Also, to call the Bible a collection of stories is "inaccurate". Large portions of the Bible are simply recorded history. Most (if not all) of this historical information is confirmed by other accounts and texts and widly accepted as fact by the scientific community. To simply discard the entire Bible as fairy tail is unjust. In fact, it leads me to beieve that you have very little knowledge of the Bible and are relying on vague generalizations and biases to compare the Bible to science. Both sides (science/religion) show their ability to change and alter their "view" of the facts at the moment. Both sides show their ability to put "faith" in a theory. The more I read this thread the more similarities I see between the two. BTW, it has been an interesting discussion so far. My kudos to those of you continuing (carrying) the discussion.

 

[BrutuStrength]

"If at first you don't succeed..."

OK, I'm gonna try this again. The link below is to (what appears to be) a book posted on the website. This is covered in an entire chapter that is fairly lengthy (for copying purposes moreso than simply browsing or reading) so you will have to access the link and scroll down the page to find the information.

Essentially this claims that fossil is either of a bird only (not a reptile fossil at all) or is a fake. The writer of this page feels more strongly that it is a bird fossil (probably because a factual evidence supplied in the response portion that Woody pointed out), although he does list both. With the bird only claim, he sites things such as: modern birds found further below ground than the layer where this bird was found; the absence of a sternum has been detected in other birds as well; feathers are formed too completely to be in a linking fossile along with a complete absence of reptile scales which would also be present; and more.

It's really pretty interesting stuff and it shows a more clear illustration of the fossil than the previous link did.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/3evlch23.htm

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Have you guys ever heard of Immanuel Velikovsky? I highly recommend reading some of his books, such as 'Earth in Upheaval', 'Ages in Chaos' and 'Worlds in Collision'. What he has done is collect ancient oral and written histories and correlate them with geologic evidence to lay out a theory that 1) earth has experienced catastrophic events in historic times and 2) that the 'generally accepted' timeline for the ancient egyptian era is erroneous. He provides very compelling evidence that the great flood actually occured and that is was caused by a 'cometary' orbit of the planet Venus.

I must admit, I subscribe to the theory of evolution. I also believe in God, but do not interpret the Bible strictly. Therefore, I feel the Bible is full of translation-induced inaccuracies and 'allagories'. Therefore, the notion that a man named Noah collectde two of every know animal is preposterous, imho.

At any rate, these books are very interesting. Unfortunately, Velikovsky was absolutly ridiculed by the scientific community and his theories never got much 'air time'. Do yourselves a favor, read his books.

 

[BrutuStrength]

FCollins - Thanks for the tip. I looked him up on the Internet and I've been reading some of his theories. They certainally provoke some different thinking. I doubt that I will get his books though, I think I'll wait for the DVDs .

 

[buckiprof]

boy, it would really suck to be you if you're wrong, huh? what, does God have to literally kick you in your ass for you to get it?

do yourself a favor: get in your car. drive far away from any city or any man made lights. (do this at night). stop your car. get out. LOOK UP! if you think what you see is all a random act of who the hell knows what, and we are all here because of that random act, then, well, i don't even know what to say to you

LV - By stating that it does not prove God exists does not imply that I stated that God does not exist. Read carefully. My point was that if there is a scientific explanation to support a story that is in the Bible that does not mean God exists. And it doesn't! It also doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

When I lived in Phoenix I would drive out into the desrt and look at the Milky Way in awe. I would contemplate that we orbit one ordinary star in a galaxy with billions of stars and that our galaxy was one ordinary galaxy amongst billions of galaxies. I would contemplate the arrogance of mankind in thinking that this is the only place where there is intelligent life considering the vastness of the universe. It was very spiritual for me.

I am not trying to be a smart-alec, but I would appreciate an explanation as to what is implied when you use the term "distinct" and it's significance. I truely appreciate your non-combative, well-reasoned posts.

I did not take it as smart-alec and I appreciate your non-combative well-reasoned posts. I believe that there is growing support that modern day humans and Neanderthal's could have reproduced and produced a viable offspring. Still a debated topic in biology however. I actually asked this question about 5 years ago of one of my biology colleagues and was told that it was a "very hot" topic.

So now you're calling me out, huh... that's OK.

Always such a negative connotation to the phrase "calling me out" and it appears that you didn't take it that way. From the rest of what you posted I suspected that you were as you described yourself. Which to me that is very refreshing when you say you don't know how you fall on this and are still trying to sort it out for yourself. A truly honest response!

I can see where the appeal of an Intelligent Design concept can bridge both groups.

This is the point of discussion that I believe provides more of the "philosophical" point that I had alluded to earlier. By default, "Big Bang" has no more factual basis directly associated with it than does Creationism or "Intelligent Design." In particular, Intelligent Design parallels portions of Big Bang, the primary difference is that some form of divine influence structures the shaping of creation into a logical and workable manner. The inclusion of divine influence (even though it is never stated to be God, Allah, or any other defined form of divinity) automatically excludes it from being deemed scientifically viable. In reality, however, it is just as plausible as Big Bang, if not more so. To put things in an equal perspective Big Bang and Intelligent Design should be taught in the same subject grouping, be it science or philosophy, but neither should have more perceived correctness associated with them from a scientific rationale.

I understand now where your philosophical point comes from. The Big Bang is based on the observations of background radiation. What isn't as well known are the other theories competing with the Big Bang such as the multiple parallel universes which exist on, for lack of a better phrase, large "sheets". This theory postulates that there have been many Big Bangs caused by the "touching" of one parallel universe plane with another. The Big Bang does explain via science what has happened to I believe up to some infinitesimally small fraction of a second after the Big Bang, but it doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang. In my studies of cosmology, it was usually stated that "We don't know what started the Big Bang but here is what has happened since". Many cosmologists allow for a supreme being to have "ignited" the Big Bang but yet they couldn't account for what created the supreme being. (I suppose I had one too many discussions with some cosmologists.)

To state that the thought of God and heaven are best used for providing comfort to people while grieving seems to trivialize religion as a whole.

It does and I hope it didn't offend you. I believe that the history of man is riddled with too many killings of humans in the name of religion. For me there is way too much ceremony in many organized religions. Almost to the point that the ceremonies have become more important than what the religion is really about. For me, it is about being spiritual and seeking spirituality and my experience has been that organized religion doesn't have much to do with spirituality. (Except for one church that we went to in Phoenix that is.) But that is just me and my experiences.

 

[BrutuStrength]

...I believe that there is growing support that modern day humans and Neanderthal's could have reproduced and produced a viable offspring. Still a debated topic in biology however. I actually asked this question about 5 years ago of one of my biology colleagues and was told that it was a "very hot" topic...

Out of curiosity, since Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were so "distinct," would it be possible that their uniqueness was derived from isolating themselves and being victims of too much inbreeding? I wonder whether massive inbreeding over time would create such distinct features and also lead then to their ultimate demise. I am at a loss to know whether such an occurence is even scientifically feasible.

...Many cosmologists allow for a supreme being to have "ignited" the Big Bang but yet they couldn't account for what created the supreme being. (I suppose I had one too many discussions with some cosmologists.)...

This is definitely the tricky part. In any imaginable scenario, how could anything, within the concept of "Time," ever begin from nothing? If anything being eternal or suddenly forming of it's own volition within the concept of "Time" is not logical (and it wouldn't seem to be), then another concept would be needed. This additional concept would likely be a static environment where time and chrononlogical events would not occur, rather it would always be constant state of "now", essentially being that "time" would stand still (This would probably require it's own thread.)

...It does and I hope it didn't offend you. I believe that the history of man is riddled with too many killings of humans in the name of religion. For me there is way too much ceremony in many organized religions. Almost to the point that the ceremonies have become more important than what the religion is really about. For me, it is about being spiritual and seeking spirituality and my experience has been that organized religion doesn't have much to do with spirituality. (Except for one church that we went to in Phoenix that is.) But that is just me and my experiences.

No offense taken. I believed that you were simply posting your thought view in a simply stated manner. I agree that some religions/churches seem to rely too much on ceremony. I was not raised as a Catholic, but my wife was. I am always amazed when we go to church how many people seem to be just going through the motions with their responses to the priests. I know that there are many parishioners that are there for worship, but it seems as though there are also many of them that are there just to get Communion. Perhaps many of them seem so robotic due to having to recite the same things throughout their lives.

I think that much greater offense is taken when someone refers to religion as a "myth" or a "fable." Especially when it is labeled as such by someone who is an admitted atheist. I believe that if someone is at an extreme range regarding religion, whether they be pro or con in their beliefs, then they lose their ability to objectively weigh scientific matters.

For example, we have all heard of religious people denying themselves proven scientific remedies, such as surgery, medicine, etc. On the flip side though, if someone is a devout atheist, they might reject reasonable conclusions from even being considered should they include any inference to divine influence. In doing so, they may believe that they are being more scientifically accurate, however, they might actually negate their ability to find the proper solution because they intentionally avoided researching something along such lines.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

not gonna argue, cuz im glad this thread seems to finally be dying... but as the atheist in question i figured i should clarify a little bit... and maybe give a lil ground

dont get me wrong... i try to be as open minded as humanly possible, and i actually dont doubt that there LIKELY are some "supernatural" occurances that could be called gods or angels or goblins or whatever you want to call them.. but i dont believe it should simply be explained as "magic" or "divine"
if our universe is truly infinate then the odds of there being something out there with these "abilities" seems pretty strong..

i call myself an atheist in that i do not believe it is possible for anything to be OMNIPOTENT... take out that word and you have credibility with me.. but i also assume that whatever these creatures are that might have "powers" would also be able to be explained scientifically, even if we arent any where near that level of understanding yet..

as for your "beginning" its as simple as it is complex.. is space infinate? we dont know.. is TIME infinate? we dont know... but if it is then why is it not feasable that SOMETHING has always been here?

my beef with creationism is that it is not based on anything we understand so why should we assume it is right? evolution is based on things we get... it might be wrong.. but thats why you dont teach it as being a law, but a theory.. and you can teach any other theory you want to as long as it is based in things that we have some REASON to believe...

 

[BrutuStrength]

...as for your "beginning" its as simple as it is complex.. is space infinate? we dont know.. is TIME infinate? we dont know... but if it is then why is it not feasable that SOMETHING has always been here?...

I guess this sort of my point in a way. I was semi-alluding to science's want for proof that some form of life could live infinitely. Science doesn't know whether time is infinite, however, if time can be infinite, that would leave open the possibility that some form of life has been/is infinite as well. Proving this may never be possible (in this world anyway) with respect to either scenario. But if time can be viewed in this light then there seems to be a scientific precedent for acknowledgement of this (infinite life form) theory, which I now realize that you are open to considering.

my beef with creationism is that it is not based on anything we understand so why should we assume it is right? evolution is based on things we get... it might be wrong.. but thats why you dont teach it as being a law, but a theory.. and you can teach any other theory you want to as long as it is based in things that we have some REASON to believe...

I understand what you're saying about Creationism in it's normal context, and I'm not certain whether I can except it at face value either. I read through one of the articles about teaching creationism in schools in Ohio. I believe that one of the proposals was to teach the Intelligent Design theory (this is where I first read about that theory last week), without specifically referencing a divine entity (God, Allah, etc.) The courts struck the proposal down stating that referencing any form of divine influence would be alluding to a form of deity, which in turn would categorize the subject as religious in nature.

I think that this is where many people find this whole process to be rediculous. This would not appear to be teaching religion, rather it would seem to stimulate thought. The school systems were not being asked to teach religion, rather only to consider that more things may have been at work then are scientifically quantifiable.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

i have far less problems with intelligent design than i do creationism, and while i havent read the whole court document to see EXACTLY what is said i doubt it was that clear cut, judges do tend to think these things out pretty well, and in ohio judges tend to be pretty conservative.. however i still dont think you can teach intelligent design in a science class because even if you could do it without us assuming a specific god (pretty hard to do when EVERYONE knows which one you are talking about) but tthere is still technically no evidence to support the "theory" so it would have to be taught in a philosophy class..

 

[BrutuStrength]

Perhaps I read the article last week to hastily (I certainly didn't intend to mislead anyone regarding this matter.) I was under the impression that the article (which I am now unable to locate again) was dated in 3/2002. It may have been that many of the opponents believed that the courts would rule against any curriculum containing the Intelligent Design theory.

As it turns out, however, in 3/2004, the state school board (Ohio) "voted 13-5 in favor of "Critical Analysis of Evolution," an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test." (
http://us.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/03/10/evolution.debate.ap/ )

This new curriculum is 22 pages long (found here: http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis.pdf ) and has about 9 pages of steps in learning about evolution, then it provides some resources that challenge Evolution, or at least certain aspects of it. Students then write briefs that support and challenge certain evolutionary theories.

IMHO, this appears to be a reasonable compromise. I believe that it doesn't mention Intelligent Design, but I am pleased to think that students will at least be taught that there are valid, opposing viewpoints regarding evolutionary theories.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

thats fine... like i said, no one said evolution is full proof.. or it would be a law.. so teaching that it has holes is fine..