What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #561
hey alpha, you havent gone into muct detail (akak rant) about sexual selection yet. it would further back up our argument for evolution
 
  • #562
Forget the weight of souls - that's like weighing your hard drive to see how much information it's storing...

Let's see... throughought this thread we've been hearing about solid evidence for intermediate life forms. This idea comes from geological columns. However, anyone who knows much about geological columns knows that they prove more about creation than about evolution. So where's our solid evidence about intermediate life forms?

Peter
 
  • #563
How do geologic columns give any weight to creationism? On the contrary, while there are anomolies that are a certainty given the possible upheavals in the ground, for the most part they give a nice glimpse into the sequence of the development of life. Contrary to creationist predictions, they don't correspond to an ability to escape the flood at all, but rather to the time that they existed. This progression is also bolstered by radiometric and other dating techniques which all correspond to show an ancient earth.

The evidence of intermediate life forms is shown not by geological columns, but rather through the analysis of the forms that come immediately prior to, and subsequent to the fossil in question. The sequence is determined not just by strata, but by dating, location, and a number of methods that all coincide in a way that they could not if the dating methods were indeed faulty.

Capslock
 
  • #564
Geological columns give weight to creationism in that many organisms are consistently found in every layer, from top to bottom. Secondly, there are many microscopic organisms that seem to have gone extinct, but haven't reevolved. The majority of microorganisms are still around today.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The evidence of intermediate life forms is shown not by geological columns, but rather through the analysis of the forms that come immediately prior to, and subsequent to the fossil in question.

Well all of this would show up in a geological column, wouldn't it?

Peter

BTW, for those of you who were asking for scientific creationist websites, check out this one.
 
  • #565
On the subject of intermediate life forms, they do show up. The reason there seem to be gaps is twofold: first, the process of fossilization requires specific conditions that don't always exist. The entirety of life's progressions will never be found in the fossil record as a result, but a good framework certainly exists. Second, current evolutionary theories, like Puncuated Equilibrium, show that evolution occurs in fits and spurts and not as a smooth continuous process. This means that lots of intermediate stages between more stable periods lack the same opportunity to make fossil records.

Why, I have to ask, do you think that more primitive life forms occur lower in the colum, despite no link to their ability to escape water?

Capslock
 
  • #566
Hi Rubra,
How does the geological column show recent creationism?
 
  • #567
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]hey alpha, you havent gone into muct detail (akak rant) about sexual selection yet. it would further back up our argument for evolution
I don't know what you're talking about :p
take it away!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So where's our solid evidence about intermediate life forms?
everywhere. fossils, killfish, the gulls, etc.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]many organisms are consistently found in every layer, from top to bottom. Secondly, there are many microscopic organisms that seem to have gone extinct, but haven't reevolved. The majority of microorganisms are still around today.
just wondering but what organisms are found in EVERY layer?
If you mean things like sharks or cockroaches or damselflies that evolved long long ago and are still alive that doesn't prove creatioinism in the least bit. They just have a good design and that's it. It's like recipes... sometimes they come early in a company's history and are still here, and others are miserable failures :p... besides, you can see that many of those organisms (sharks, cockroaches, damselflies) are NOT the same species of today. Sure, giant cockroaches the size of dinner plates are still cockroaches but they're not the same species found today. (by the way... giant arthropods prove that the earth has changed. There used to be tons of O2 in the atmosphere which allowed for giant arthropods on land- it has to do with how they breathe)
and as for "there are many microscopic organisms that seem to have gone extinct, but haven't reevolved" I have no clue how that proves creationism. No one said that once species go extinct they "reevolve"!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reason there seem to be gaps is twofold:
not to mention that certain organisms (Ie. jellyfish) are almost or totally impossible to fossilize because of their body is too soft, etc or because of where and how they live. (for example- just my own educated guess- if there's a population of whatevers that lives on top of a volcano they wouldn't fossilize because 1. a volcano would be too high 2. the volcano may erupt and burn the fossils... or maybe the organisms live in the middle of the ocean. When they die they drift down, down, down, and for them to get to be burried before other things eat it would be extremely rare.... or if they live in a subduction zone then the fossils would go deeper and deeper and then melt... etc)
 
  • #568
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So where's our solid evidence about intermediate life forms?
remember that many times (ie. homo erectus? or was it another homo? lol.. anyway) people don't even know if to say they're humans or other apes, mammals or reptiles, etc...
I don't get why people keep saying that there are no intermediate life forms! how much more intermediate can you get when you don't know which one they belong to?
 
  • #569
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The entirety of life's progressions will never be found in the fossil record as a result, but a good framework certainly exists.

There certainly isn't a "good framework" for anything. All we've got are scattered fossils, and in the lower levels we find ones that don't exist anymore. As for "primitive life forms" not being able to escape water, most land dwelling ones could easily find a home in an larger animal habitats in an ark.

From what I can tell Punctuated Equilibrium is not unlike creation - a bunch of new life forms appear, and then we have an equilibrium for many thousand years.
 
  • #570
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There certainly isn't a "good framework" for anything. All we've got are scattered fossils, and in the lower levels we find ones that don't exist anymore. As for "primitive life forms" not being able to escape water, most land dwelling ones could easily find a home in an larger animal habitats in an ark.
no, there's not a good framework of fossils. there's a GREAT framework.
They're not "scattered" anyway. (as you would expect with a great big flood)
so you're saying ALL individuals of "primitive life forms" went to the ark? HA!
for those of you who still believe in the ark and want to base your unplausible stories on it, PLEASE take a look at this. You don't have to read it all... if you change your mind about it :p but if you still believe it, do read it all. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html (good catch eh?)
 
  • #571
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]just wondering but what organisms are found in EVERY layer?

Oh, lots - protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates are all found in the lower levels much like they do in the top levels. The lower levels contain no intermediates between these groups, either. I'm not saying giant cockroaches didn't exist. They just didn't survive. What do you think a cockroach would be more likely to do - develop the ability to deal with less oxygen, or to decrease in size?

Peter
 
  • #572
If creationists where to study evolution and comprehend it... well.. they wouldn't be creationists anymore.

and i bet if christians were to find out some information about their bible they wouldn't be religious anymore.
 
  • #573
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh, lots - protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates are all found in the lower levels much like they do in the top levels. The lower levels contain no intermediates between these groups, either. I'm not saying giant cockroaches didn't exist. They just didn't survive. What do you think a cockroach would be more likely to do - develop the ability to deal with less oxygen, or to decrease in size?
you're naming GROUPS of animals. They are NOT the same species that are today (most of them anyway)
and if you notice they come in order.
Most of the animals you named are soft bodied animals (or decendants from them). Of course there aren't going to be intermediates because the actual animal rarely fossilizes.
and for example you can even find them in the himmalayas which totally disproves a young earth and the flood.
as for the cockroaches, they decreased in size.... that's proving evolution.
 
  • #575
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Wesley @ Jan. 04 2005,9:03)]It is not getting equal focus, cause we are not talking about Hindus.... we are talking about...err against Christains. The Hindu belief of how the earth came into being could very well be correct, but as it is religious along with Cristianity and all the othere. It is wrong cause it states there is a god... hmmm how sad. I'm so glad I have a god. I like knowing that I will go somewhere(well that's what I believe) when I die, I don't want to merely cease to exist. Evolution "proves" that right? We have no soul but we do lose weight the moment we die... I heard many examples done(by the way dogs don't lose weight when they die interesting "fact" aint it).
Sorry luis but you're wrong on this one. The experiment was called 21 Grams and it was done by Dr. Duncan MacDougall. It was even published.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
People have believed that the "soul" has a definite physical presence for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years. But it was only as recently as 1907, that a certain Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill in Massachusetts actually tried to weigh this soul. In his office, he had a special bed "arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales" that he claimed were accurate to two-tenths of an ounce (around 5.6 grams). Knowing that a dying person might thrash around and upset such delicate scales, he decided to "select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted".

He recruited six terminally-ill people, and according to his paper in the April 1907 edition of the journal American Medicine, he measured a weight loss, which he claimed was associated with the soul leaving the body. In this paper, he wrote from beside the special bed of one of his patients, that "at the end of three hours and 40 minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three fourths of an ounce."

He was even more encouraged when he repeated his experiment with 15 dogs, which registered no change in weight in their moment of death. This fitted in perfectly with the popular belief that a dog had no soul, and therefore would register no loss of weight at the moment of demise.

But before his article appeared in American Medicine, the New York Times on the 11th March, 1907 had already published a story on him, entitled Soul Has Weight, Physician Thinks, on page 5. His reputation was now assured, having been published in both a medical journal and The New York Times (a Journal Of Record).

As a result, the "fact" that the soul weighed three-quarters of an ounce (roughly 21 grams) made its way into the common knowledge, and has stayed there ever since.
 
  • #576
and snopes.com already pointed out why it wasn't a good experiment/conclusion.
besides... the fact that it was published doesn't mean much.
 
  • #577
the fact that it was published means that you should still give it a little consideration.
 
  • #578
but it doesn't mean it's right and it was already pointed out why it wasn't very good.
 
  • #579
I didn't say it was... did i? I just said you should consider it.
 
  • #580
and I didn't say it didn't... did I? I Just said it was already pointed out why it wasn't very good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top