Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
RicS quote:

"But evolution, as a scientific theory, has one huge thing in its favour. It describes the world as it is and was very well."

It even describes the evolution of Christianity. Even the most ardent creationist would have to admit that the concept of Intelligent Design evolved very recently, probably within the last ten or twenty years. Long before that time Christianity had speciated into Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness etc. Both Christianity and Islam evolved from forms of Judaism. I think it was DA Morgan who said on another site that there is nothing in the universe that does not evolve.

The post is called "Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion". Surely the above shows that Christianity's evolution could provide a valuable example in a scientific discussion.

.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
E
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
Maybe this is something old, but I just found it and it made my weekend. Enjoy.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Hiya ttnz,
just an fyi.
Recently, while working in library storage facility, I came across some turn of the century books on the subject of intelligent design. I was surprised that the term was not a recent "evolution," as you mention; but your point is still no less valid!
I think the historically common, turn-of-the-century, "re-awakenings" led to this back then.
smile
~samwik

** Yep. Thanks, re: link provided below


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by samwik:
I wonder how many fundamentalists would be equally floored by that statement!

Blacknad, can you cite a link for that?
Hiya Samwik,

SAGG doesn't allow you to post parenthesis in html tags so you will need to remove the speech marks and paste into your browser.

"http://www.e-n.org.uk/54-Why-some-evangelicals-believe-in-evolution-(Bulldog-for-October).htm"

Blacknad.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
T
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 179
Rics posted:
Fossils have to be just placed there by God.

Come on, get real. I haven't heard that concept since I was a kid.

SCIENCE shows that they were a product of a quick burial process. Many scientist suggest a flood.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Thanks Blacknad.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
E
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
Rics posted:
Fossils have to be just placed there by God.

Come on, get real. I haven't heard that concept since I was a kid.

SCIENCE shows that they were a product of a quick burial process. Many scientist suggest a flood.
You are right, fossils being put by a god is a silly, childish thing that only kids could believe.

Now, the snoring old man who built a boat an saved a couple of each kind of organism from a world-wide, long-lasting rain is serious, grownup stuff that not everybody is intellectually prepared to assimilate.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Thanks eternauta. ROFLOL! Thanks.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day,

"Fossils have to be just placed there by God" was not me stating what I consider a fact. I was saying that creationist theory needs to say this or something in a similar vein in order to work for creationists.

Actually trilobyte, quick burial process from a flood would seem to indicate that all these creatures were present on earth at the same time. I really don't get the distinction. In order for creationist theory of the earth to work you either have to have all the creatures for which there are fossil records there at the same time or there was a multitude of floods (and to fit Genesis, they would seem to all have to be pretty darn early in the story either in the first six days or they were all alive at once on earth and the flood Noah survived wiped them all out). The idea of flooding isn't all that far from the evidence. A great many fossils come about because of dry beds being flooded when there is an animal in them. And there has been some pretty big floods in the history of the earth, although as someone most interested in Climate, I still can't quite work out what flood fits the evidence available and would also cover all the earth. There just isn't enough water to do that. With the current ratio of continents to ocean (or anything like the ratios that have existed for around 250 million years) the variation of sea level is around 120 metres lower than today and about 20 metres higher. Twenty Metres higher does cover a lot of land. In the time of Noah, a great deal of civilisation would have lived in delta country because it is the best arable land and so even if all locked ice suddenly melted all at once (and there is no evidence for this at all) you still only bury land up to another 20 metres high. All other major floods are river systems that cannot absorb the amount of water falling along their system. The Mississipi is a good example. You get land sometimes for many kilometres away from the river inundated but it can only stay wet for as long as the water is still flowing down the river. In Australia, I've lived through floods that have stretched from hozizon to horizon and even driven through them (thing about really large area floods is the land cannot be anything but very close to flat otherwise the area of the flood is much more limited) and some have lasted for a couple of weeks in the one area and have taken several months to move down the river system completely. But this isn't anywhere near the same as flooding the whole of the land, not even a small fraction of it. So help me out here. How did this flooding actually work?

Good fossils do require quick burial in most cases. That can mean they died in mud, they were rapidly covered by silt, they sunk into tar, they were frozen and the ice was then very gradually replaced by something else that eventually was replaced by material that hardened into rock. The ways fossils can be made are quite large. The way bones can be lost without fossilization is much much larger, so rapid burial is at least a good starting point to making a fossil.

I still don't get the point about fossils being buried quickly rather than put there by God. If creationism says that Genesis is correct, then either the creatures were on the earth in a very short time frame and were turned into fossils or the fossils were created. There isn't a huge amount of difference between the two in that God has to be directly responsible. Or am I missing something about this part of Creationist doctrine? I cannot even comprehend an earth with the various fossilised remains of creatures all inhabiting it at the same time but I'm sure you have a better explanation.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
RicS. Some time ago several of us had a go at the flood problem in this Origins forum. The site was called "Gilgamesh ripped off Genesis" or something like that. Most of us agreed the Old Testament flood story grew from one flood or a series of floods on the Sumerian plain. By definition the plain would have developed as a floodplain. The Gilgamesh and Noah stories certainly have many similarities. You might like to go back and comment on that thread.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Ah Terry,

That sort of sounds like, "Don't call us, we'll call you". This isn't the science forum. I would be interested in seeing just what the response was to my post, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It is no fun everyone agreeing with the same point. This is a bit of an indulgence in looking at something that really isn't science but if I came in after everyone else has finished the discussion, that's fine.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
RicS. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I see your point but I'm sure those of us who contributed to the Gilgamesh site would be interested in anything you might add.

Anyway Trilobyte will thrash about, come up with a heap of evidence and then claim you can't prove anything from evidence.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5