Forgive me...the mind wanders, are we talking about "theory of evolution"? I thought so anyway. It is a religion I take no part of. I enjoy conversing with others about their beliefs, and why they believe as they do. Darwin, an interesting story that. Have you read much about him?
What Religion Are You?
- Thread starter threefirefour
- Start date
MemberWell with genetics yeah. I've read Origin of species and about him but I don't see what his personal life has to do with evolution. Evolution isn't a religion either the evidence for it is way too strong.
My new friend I must respectfully disagree. That the evidence is strong, that is. What was the purpose of fabricating an entire creature called "Lucy" with only a bone or 2? So much of that stuff is fake, and all about the money. If you haven't investigated it unbiased I urge you to do so whenever possible. See, that's what got me fed up. The lies, the scams. However if it is very important to you I will not be disagreeable, friendship is more important.
The Lucy skeleton is a lot more complete than that. We have a pretty complete frame of her.
Sure I went in biased towards it but I also have seen creationists like Hovind make arguments against evolution. Almost all of the mods are extremely flawed. The dishonesty I see comes from the creationists.
How is it about money? Or how is evolution a lie or a scam? That would imply that almost every scientist involved in life science is involved in some sort of evolution conspiracy which is very hard to believe.
Surely you must recognize there are multiple sources questioning the authenticity of Lucy. Reasonable to conclude you and I may never agree on Lucy, and also you and I are not privy to check firsthand for ourselves. We may only decide which side we will believe...the one saying it's almost a complete set of bones, the other saying "wait, there's a baboon bone in the mix!" I chee wawa 
Sure but what does the opposition look like? The vast majority of the archeological and biological community agree the find is authentic. Why would I disagree with such a sheer amount of professionals on the subject?Surely you must recognize there are multiple sources questioning the authenticity of Lucy. Reasonable to conclude you and I may never agree on Lucy, and also you and I are not privy to check firsthand for ourselves. We may only decide which side we will believe...the one saying it's almost a complete set of bones, the other saying "wait, there's a baboon bone in the mix!" I chee wawa
You're right there. That's why creationism lost to evolution when it was the majority view.
And the fossil was at one point examined thoroughly by experts. They decided that it was valid and further confirmed. Could a scientist who thinks Lucy is fake go against the establishment and come out on top? Yes but they better be sure they're right. Betting against Lucy's authenticity is just a bad bet.
See what we've done? You and I have looked at the same evidence and concluded in opposition. You know why that is? I believe it must be our perspective, or vantage point. World view, whatever you want to call it.
Sure opinion is relative blandness people have different vantage points but truth is truth.
He was very progressive for his time. And even if he was it doesn't make his theory wrong.
The break between man [and his nearest allies] will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead as present between the negro or Australian (aborigine) and the gorilla. (Descent of Man. ~ Darwin)
He also said this:
And even if he had the views that "negroids" were a lesser race (which was common scientific thought at the time), it just makes him wrong about that not evolution.
You're right, I'd forgotten his stance on slavery. Was just reading a bit from the literature. He was a mixed bag, was he not? I suppose we all are in one way or another...walking contradictions that is.
Still, the study of an eyeball, for instance. That alone, so complex, extraordinary! That ain't random.
Still, the study of an eyeball, for instance. That alone, so complex, extraordinary! That ain't random.
Science doesn't work that way, you go where the evidence takes you even when it is inconvenient.
I also have good examples where scientist do point out a hoax but in favor of evolution.
Let's take feathered dinosaurs for example because they are the ancestors of birds and birds still are dinosaurs
regardless of what false depiction creationist have about dinosaurs based on outdated 1940's restorations or Hollywood movies trying to make them lizard like.
Since the early 90's scientist first started finding direct evidence of feathers on dinosaurs preserved in fossils in China and Mongolia
There were ALOT of amazing discoveries that pretty much confirmed what some scientist were suspected about dinosaurs and birds being related due to similar anatomy. This is just the final confirmation they needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
Many amazing specimens were found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
However there were hoaxes and frauds such as this, and immediately when the fakes were discovered Young Earth Creationist and science deniers made it very vocal that evolution must be a hoax and that birds cannot come from big scary lizards.
However the ones that discovered this fossil was a fake were the scientist that accepted evolution, they pointed out the fake because of flaws in the anatomy of it being pieced together from several dinosaurs and a modern bird.
The earliest predators had very simple eyes, like the Lyararapax during the Cambrian Explosion. They were light sensitive spots that sufficed. The eyeball was an evolutionary development based on older light sensitive organs. That's how evolution works.
I've talked to Contrast about dinosaurs in PM. He's a genius with this stuff so his opinion is worth more than mine.
if my hypothesis is correct fuzzy tree dwelling semi warm blooded crocodile thingies that split into dinosaurs, pterosaurus as possibly several other groups existed.
Sadly most creationist cannot grasp or refuse to grasp the concept of deep time and assume everything is human centric based on a bronze age fable.
All I can really do is post some of Aron Ra's videos and hope they open their mind. It's pointless arguing. they are looking for ways to get us kicked out of this site too. So i'm not gonna bother a heated argument.
Hi Contrast, interesting reads, however feathers and scales are apples and oranges. Has anyone observed a feather morphing into a scale or a scale becoming a feather? No. These are not facts, they are theories. A skinned cat looks very similar to a skinned rabbit. Are those species closely related? Pshaw
Anyway, I got my own theory and it makes more sense to me. Almighty created everything in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. He made all the creatures out of the same clay, so naturally there are common components. There. Not complicated,
Carbon dating is subjective also. It's been proven unreliable. What else ya got?
Look, If Creationism is the soundest expanation, try attacking it. Watch some creationism attacking videos. If Creationism still stands up then you know you have a good hypothesis.Hi Contrast, interesting reads, however feathers and scales are apples and oranges. Has anyone observed a feather morphing into a scale or a scale becoming a feather? No. These are not facts, they are theories. A skinned cat looks very similar to a skinned rabbit. Are those species closely related? Pshaw
Anyway, I got my own theory and it makes more sense to me. Almighty created everything in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. He made all the creatures out of the same clay, so naturally there are common components. There. Not complicated,
Carbon dating is subjective also. It's been proven unreliable. What else ya got?
Here's a decent debate with two smart people at both helms (ignore the title):
hold on there, you are not going to refute the last century of scientific research with a comment on a tinnitus forum that has no body of evidence to back it up.Hi Contrast, interesting reads, however feathers and scales are apples and oranges. Has anyone observed a feather morphing into a scale or a scale becoming a feather? No. These are not facts, they are theories. A skinned cat looks very similar to a skinned rabbit. Are those species closely related? Pshaw
Anyway, I got my own theory and it makes more sense to me. Almighty created everything in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. He made all the creatures out of the same clay, so naturally there are common components. There. Not complicated,
Carbon dating is subjective also. It's been proven unreliable. What else ya got?
I don't think feathers morphed into scales. From what researchers hypothesis feathers first appeared as sensory receptors (whiskers on tree dwelling proto dinosaurs) primitive feathers looked a lot more like mammalian hair and could have grown in between reptilian scales.
Feathers originally were used for sensory reception, warmth, display to attract mates on dinosaurs.
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
oh yeah it's a fact primitive feathers superficially looked more like mammalian hair (even though different)
not to mention all those feathered dinosaurs I listed were real and if you want to expand the definition of a bird to a boney tailed, pelvis sticking out, with teeth and armed claws then that's pretty much being in self denial.
oh yeah it's a fact primitive feathers superficially looked more like mammalian hair (even though different)
not to mention all those feathered dinosaurs I listed were real and if you want to expand the definition of a bird to a boney tailed, pelvis sticking out, with teeth and armed claws then that's pretty much being in self denial.
Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!
Similar threads
