Quote from Newton

[Theophilus]

I do feel slightly in favour of Dawkins as he has given so many sound and plausible arguments that it feels comfortable reading his work.

"Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent "cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water."

Dawkins is highly imaginative about this alleged fossil evidence supporting evolutionism. Here are a couple of quotes from some more honest evolutionists:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

- Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

- Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

Unlike gravity which can be proven with repeatable experiments, the theory of evolution is merely speculation about the past that has to be accepted by faith since it cannot be verified experimentally.

[Toitjie]

Unlike gravity which can be proven with repeatable experiments, the theory of evolution is merely speculation about the past that has to be accepted by faith since it cannot be verified experimentally.

look, we can argue about this forever and in circles. It still is a personal choice, and by no means should anyone try to force his or her own opinion on someone else.

My personal opinion about evolution is that there is so much evidence that I do not see how other people don’t see it (and I became an "evolutionist" less than a year ago - I was so deadset against it and got quite angry when people spoke about it, that I realised I knew nothing about it, and couldn’t contribute anything other than "I was told its wrong". so i started reading about it, and reading some more, and watching programs on National geographic and history channel opened up a new world to me that I was unaware off)

If you look at the meaning of evolution: In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species (this is only a fraction of the whole definition)

One of the ostrich's closest relatives is the emu (australia). they had the same ancestor, but when the continents split, they developed differently, to their own specific needs and to adapt to their different environments.

i also watched a fascinating program on the evolution of wolves into dogs. From the first wolf that was captured, it took less than 50 generations for a noticeable decline in jaw-size, since they now ate different food. we as homo sapiens have also evolved. our jaws are smaller due to more refined foods. this is in part what evolution is, and its not sinister or bad, I don’t understand why people get so upset about this. Its normal, nothing stays the same forever, we change as our environments change.

to me, evolution is obvious, but if i judge myself a year ago and ask why this word makes people react to harshly and defensively (myself a year ago included), I think its because of fear. maybe fear of the unknown, and because you have a lifetime behind you of teaching that its wrong, and now someone says its not. So naturally people are resistant.

But I cannot accept our past on faith alone, there is even less "verification" for that.

[Joefromsa]

... but when the continents split....

Apologies for side tracking...

I hope DIAC realises that Aus was part of Africa... therefore, I think they need to be a bit more generous with visas... hmmn...

So many SAFFERS still waiting...

[Toitjie]

Apologies for side tracking...

I hope DIAC realises that Aus was part of Africa... therefore, I think they need to be a bit more generous with visas... hmmn...

So many SAFFERS still waiting...

maybe we should try a landgrab or a land-claim? i saw a few farms between sydney and canberra that i really fancied....

[Joefromsa]

maybe we should try a landgrab or a land-claim? i saw a few farms between sydney and canberra that i really fancied....

I'm with you... we will Toyi toyi together...

now let us not spoil this discussion, we have many slim ouens on this site... each one gooing there stuk...

I'm enjoying it... thank you... more please...

[Omzig]

Dawkins is highly imaginative about this alleged fossil evidence supporting evolutionism. Here are a couple of quotes from some more honest evolutionists:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

- Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

- Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

Unlike gravity which can be proven with repeatable experiments, the theory of evolution is merely speculation about the past that has to be accepted by faith since it cannot be verified experimentally.

Thank you for providing us with verbatim quotes from www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm .

Very cool source, and obviously very trustworthy. Nice conclusion too - very powerful, and almost gives the impression of being informed.

If I could make a friendly suggestion - please read up on fractal wrongness. It will help you to understand why I'd never even dream of trying to argue your viewpoint.

[Michele R]

i also watched a fascinating program on the evolution of wolves into dogs. From the first wolf that was captured, it took less than 50 generations for a noticeable decline in jaw-size, since they now ate different food. we as homo sapiens have also evolved. our jaws are smaller due to more refined foods. this is in part what evolution is, and its not sinister or bad, I don’t understand why people get so upset about this. Its normal, nothing stays the same forever, we change as our environments change.

Was chatting to my dentist about that a while ago. Had my wisdom teeth and back molars removed because I just don't have the space for them in my mouth, and he was telling me that he's noticing more and more people who have underdeveloped wisdom teeth or sometimes none at all. We clearly don't need them any more, so they are disappearing.

I find it quite fascinating how animals and plants change over time, adapting to new situations and environments.

[Patty]

Hi Toitjie

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You're right when you say that people get upset about this ... one side or the other inevitably ends up throwing toys out the cot!

Yes, they're in the minority, but there are many respected scientists who continue to raise valid scientific objections to evolutionary theory, and lots of them are not even doing so from a Creationist viewpoint. Unfortunately, however, the scientific establishment often gets seriously bitchy with dissenters of any kind, which effectively stifles the debate.

My understanding is poor, but the examples mentioned - wolves, jaw-size in man, and wisdom teeth - are variations in species, sometimes called micro-evolution. This is an observable fact, and does not generally seem to be disputed. No new information is added - it's a "reshuffling" of existing genetic information, and can often lead to a loss of information. If I'm not mistaken, the major disagreement comes in with the theory of one creature changing into another e.g. mouse-like creature to bat, which would be macro-evolution. Some critics of evolutionary theory point out that this would require an addition of genetic information for which mutations cannot account, and that the intermediate forms would be clumsy and inefficient. The jury is certainly out on whether the fossil record shows evidence of any "in-between" phases, and if it can be expected to. We all carry excess baggage in the form of bias and presuppositions ... at the end of the day, there seems to be a large portion of belief and preference in all camps.

[Toitjie]

the major disagreement comes in with the theory of one creature changing into another e.g. mouse-like creature to bat,

hi Patty

I must say, I tend to agree with that, I dont see either that creatures evolve into other creatures, but I do think that maybe the 2 different but similar creatures had a common ancestor? It still leaves the question of the common ancestor of ALL species.....like you said, jurie's out on that one.....

but its good to hear all's opinion...I am definitely not the expert here, just like reading a lot

[Toitjie]

But , to contradict myself a little, the more or less 350 species of dogs do descend from wolves, so they have changed into a new species, albeit not a wolf into an elephant, but a closer relative

[Theophilus]

But , to contradict myself a little, the more or less 350 species of dogs do descend from wolves, so they have changed into a new species, albeit not a wolf into an elephant, but a closer relative

Hi Toitjie,

I'm glad that we are seeing common ground here. We can obviously observe a huge degree of variation and adaption in each kind of animal. In one kind of animal - e.g. the dog kind - we get wolves, great danes, chihuahuas and hundreds of other variations. They all descended from one pair of dogs and they all remain essentially dogs, even if we choose to label them as different species. The original pair of dogs had all the genetic information for all these descendants, but the reverse is not true - genetic information has been lost along the way down each branch of the tree. What we observe is the opposite of the 'goo to you' evolution that is punted by evolutionists which would require the addition of mind-blowing amounts of information. Not to mention the fact that they've never come up with a plausible explanation for how the first living cell could have created itself in the first place.

[Toitjie]

Hi Toitjie,

I'm glad that we are seeing common ground here. We can obviously observe a huge degree of variation and adaption in each kind of animal. In one kind of animal - e.g. the dog kind - we get wolves, great danes, chihuahuas and hundreds of other variations. They all descended from one pair of dogs and they all remain essentially dogs, even if we choose to label them as different species. The original pair of dogs had all the genetic information for all these descendants, but the reverse is not true - genetic information has been lost along the way down each branch of the tree. What we observe is the opposite of the 'goo to you' evolution that is punted by evolutionists which would require the addition of mind-blowing amounts of information. Not to mention the fact that they've never come up with a plausible explanation for how the first living cell could have created itself in the first place.

Lets discuss the beginning of all things. The fact that we cant explain something does not mean there isnt truth in it. It will be many years before research completely answer all our questions. DNA was only discovered during the '50s.

But just as scientists may not satisfactorily explain the beginning of cells, just so cant creationists explain where does God come from? Who made HIM? before He made everything else? I think thats a valid question, one I was never allowed to ask as a child. But no-one is willing to go there..

[Theophilus]

Lets discuss the beginning of all things. The fact that we cant explain something does not mean there isnt truth in it. It will be many years before research completely answer all our questions. DNA was only discovered during the '50s.

But just as scientists may not satisfactorily explain the beginning of cells, just so cant creationists explain where does God come from? Who made HIM? before He made everything else? I think thats a valid question, one I was never allowed to ask as a child. But no-one is willing to go there..

That IS a valid question. The way I think about it is that God's domain is eternity. From His domain of eternity He created the universe, including space, matter and time. The law of cause and effect only applies in the domain of space, matter and time. So, while everything we see in the universe had to have a cause, God did not have a cause.

Yes, DNA was only discovered relatively recently. The general belief amongst scientists in Darwin's time was that the cell was quite simple. As advances in real science are showing us more and more details about living cells, scientists are realising how incredibly complex they are. In fact, many scientists are realising that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed as more information on the cell is discovered, and are turning to the concept of Intelligent Design as the only reasonable explanation:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670

http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

[Omzig]

Toitjie, you may want to check on a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam to understand what kind of statements are expressed here...

I'll give you an example of this fallacy:

Premise: There are gaps in scientific knowledge.

Conclusion: These gaps can, for now, be filled by acts of God, therefore God exists!

[Cyberdeth]

+1 for science. According to Slashdot :

"A woman with a rare, inherited form of blindness is now able to read, thanks to a gene therapy that caused a new fovea — the part of the retina that is most densely populated with photoreceptors — to grow in her eye. The patient suffers from Leber congenital amaurosis, meaning an abnormal protein makes her photoreceptors have a severely impaired sensitivity to light. SAhe received the experimental treatment twelve months ago when physicians injected a gene encoding a functional copy of the protein into a small part of one eye — about eight-to-nine millimeters in diameter. Along with two other patients receiving the same treatment, her eyesight improved after just a few weeks. Now the physicians report that this patient seems to have developed a new fovea, exactly where she received the injection. Because the woman has been effectively blind since birth, the results suggest that the brain is able to adapt to new visual stimuli remarkably quickly."

And for the link : http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/15...-Grow-New-Fovea

[Dax]

The following is simply a set of beliefs that I have - not the specific ideas of scientists or theologians, although I must confess that I was influenced to a large extent with scientists such as Penrose, Hawking & Wheeler amongst others:

* From a scientific angle I'm quite sure that the universe once existed in an extremely dense state (singularity)

* Next came the Big Bang (actually more of a Big Inflative event if I understand the physics correctly)

* What caused the "Big Bang"? Like most others I have no idea. Could A "Supreme Being" have had a finger in the pie or a finger on the switch, choose your metaphor.

* I choose to accept that there was some sort of divine involvement, and I know that for someone with my training and general knowledge, I seem ridiculous. The other alternative is that the Big Bang happened by itself, which of course have some merit, but I'm not too sure. Often when I hear the word "chance" I involuntary thinks of the joke of the pregnant teenager who tried to convince her dad that her condition is due to wind pollination.

MY point: bot science and religion have something to prove i.r.o. the how-and-the-why of the Big Bang.

* In my opinion there was a Big Bang and the universe as we know (or perceive it) went through an evolutionary process during the last 15 billion years.

* Personally I interpret the Bible with an open mind and I often wonder whether the creation should not be viewed in conjunction with the more or less 5 billion years since our solar system came into existence?

* I admit that some of the scientists that I've mentioned above did not study the Big bang as such, but much of their work directly or indirectly implied a an acknowledgment or understanding of the Big Bang, notably J. Robert Oppenheimer and his research on collapsing stars. Of the others Hawking might be the only cosmologist. Wheeler's initial field was nuclear physics (I think.)

Just a few thoughts

Dax

[Omzig]

That's an excellent post, Dax.

Just a small observation. My understanding was the the Big Bang was the actual singularity. Before it there was something else. I recall you mentioned you had background in mathematics, so a similar singularity would be when the function x = 1/y goes through the case of y=0. Everything goes crazy at this point (it's a catastrophe, according to another theory, but let's ignore it for now, the important thing is that all values of x may be true at this point). The previous state doesn't matter, and the next state may be very unrelated to anything else.

And yes, the universe after the singularity was, and still is, inflative - in other words - expanding, as proven by the red shift observation (the Doppler effect seen on distant light sources).

[Dax]

Thanks Omzig.

Yep, the first phase of the Big Bang must have been intense and complex to say the least. What boggled my mind as an undergraduate was the notion that radiation and matter only separated about 300 00 years after the BB.

And then there was the discovery somewhere in the 60's ( can't remember they researchers names, but they got a Nobel prize for it) that the background effect of the BB can still be detected in the microwave range - strewth!

Cheers,

Dax

[Gizmo]

Thanks Omzig.

Yep, the first phase of the Big Bang must have been intense and complex to say the least. What boggled my mind as an undergraduate was the notion that radiation and matter only separated about 300 00 years after the BB.

And then there was the discovery somewhere in the 60's ( can't remember they researchers names, but they got a Nobel prize for it) that the background effect of the BB can still be detected in the microwave range - strewth!

Cheers,

Dax

According to Bill Bryson - if you tune your TV off-chanel, 10% of the static you see is still eminating from the big bang.

So, next time you are bored, pull up a chair, flick your TV off-chanel and witness the most phenomenal event of all time!

[Toitjie]

That IS a valid question. The way I think about it is that God's domain is eternity. From His domain of eternity He created the universe, including space, matter and time. The law of cause and effect only applies in the domain of space, matter and time. So, while everything we see in the universe had to have a cause, God did not have a cause.

Yes, DNA was only discovered relatively recently. The general belief amongst scientists in Darwin's time was that the cell was quite simple. As advances in real science are showing us more and more details about living cells, scientists are realising how incredibly complex they are. In fact, many scientists are realising that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed as more information on the cell is discovered, and are turning to the concept of Intelligent Design as the only reasonable explanation:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670

http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

T, that does just not make sense. do you really understand what that means? I dont. I doesnt satisfy my curiosity, who says that He has no cause or that He is outside time? And I dont get what outside time means?

I also think that the recently found complexity of cells rather boosted the evolution theory, I am reading a book called The Ancestor's Tale, which is apart from very techical, very good, and it seems all living organisms has a similar DNA seqeunces, from animal to bacteria to plants. and the more they are able to read and understand the meaning of our genes and the history locked up in our genes, the more answers they get. I am no scientist and dont pretend to understand all they say, but reading that book makes a very good argument.

[Dax]

According to Bill Bryson - if you tune your TV off-chanel, 10% of the static you see is still eminating from the big bang.

So, next time you are bored, pull up a chair, flick your TV off-chanel and witness the most phenomenal event of all time!

Thanks, Will give it a try sometime

Dax

[Theophilus]

* From a scientific angle I'm quite sure that the universe once existed in an extremely dense state (singularity)

* Next came the Big Bang (actually more of a Big Inflative event if I understand the physics correctly)

Hello Dax,

How do you know that the Big Bang actually occurred?

[Cyberdeth]

Hello Theophilus,

How do you know that the Big Bang did not occur ?

[Toitjie]

As far as i understood scientific television programs (you must think I am a couch potato ), like Earth Investigated (my favourite program), the big bang is not a question of whether it did or did not happen. It has happened, they cited various methods of proving this, and how they measure that we are still expanding, and calculating backwards to the point of origin, determining how long ago that is

quite fascinating stuff

[Gizmo]

Hello Dax,

How do you know that the Big Bang actually occurred?

The question you should be asking (considering you are not an atheist) is not whether they "Big Bang" occurred or not. The fact is that it did most certainly occur. This is proven by mesuring the cosmic background radiation (in the form of microwaves) that is still hitting earth today (which is solely attributed to that event). See my previous post and turn your TV off-chanel for your viewing pleasure thereof!

Most main-stream Christian denominations are seeking to find how the Big Bang fits into religeous theory (and there are some pretty compelling ideas). This is the question you should be asking.