Ape to Man
- Started
- Last post
- 273 Responses
- discipler0
Concluding that the Upper Devonian tetrapods evolved from a fish ancestor, or that they gave rise to Carboniferous tetrapod lineages is not based on any scientific findings.
Hypothetically, assume that fish to tetrapod evolution occured. You still have to get from tetrapods to humans... and the fossil record remains silent.
- mrdobolina0
all of this ID crap is to set a precedent so that they start teaching it in schools, then next step is prayer in public school.
why cant you just be happy teaching this stuff in parochial schools?
- -sputnik-0
did you even look at the link i sent you, with dozens and dozens of bones shared between reptiles and mammals?
about fish:
"Creationists claim that there are no transitional forms. This claim is made over and over as if it were a mantra. The plain fact is that there are transitional sequences but they never discuss the details. This is a sequence of fossils which occupy the transition from fish to amphibian.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/tran…
i've posted enough on the matter. i respect your beliefs, but posting "there is NO evidence..." statements about evolution is just a bit ignorant.
- mrdobolina0
you need all of this proof to prove our point, but need no proof of your god.
that is a huge fucking double-standard dude.
- ukit0
discipler, if your really backing ID and not creationism, please explain to me why intelligent design and evolution have to be mutually incompatible.
- Mimio0
Discipler likes to wear both hats Mr.D. One minute he's a Christian, the next he's an 'objective' proponent of the 'ID movement'.
- gruntt0
y'all need medication.
same fight, different thread title, everyday.
if there is a god i bet the first thing he will say is "dang i made you hard headed."*
*not directed to anyone in particular, just the usual suspects that frequent these "discussions"
as you were.
- ukit0
the sad truth is that there isn't a revolution in science happening with regard to biology, just corporations and politicians exploiting the beliefs of people like discpiler to advance their agendas. and discipler, you're doing them a great favor by arguing so fervently on their behalf when the evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face.
- discipler0
sputnik, on what "appear" to be transitions:
"Of all of the other supposed transitional fishes, only Acanthostega is found as anything close to a complete fossil that can be truly analyzed. While it first off looks impressive as a transition--it has a body for swimming and four well-developed clear legs--upon later inspection it appears that this animal too is an amphibian. The main noted similarity to fishes is the notochord and possible internal gill slits (many living amphibians also have gills, though they are external). It is also said that:
Acanthostega was similar to its later descendants, the higher tetrapods, in having a pelvic or hip bone that is big enough to be attached to the vertebral column. In fishes, this attachment doesn't exist, or is very small, whereas in tetrapods, this attachment is very well developed, to help anchor the vertebral column to the main support elements, the legs."Again, you'll find a bevy of information about it here:
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…In essence, you either have a true fish, or a complete air breathing amphibian. There are no TRUE transitions.
- discipler0
I wear one hat - a Christian Creationist. The I.D. movement is comprised of people from all backgrounds and beliefs. I support it because I believe it is this movement is going to successfully bring good, current science to the mainstream and it will be instrumental in dismantling the Darwinian myth. As much as certain people would like to make it an political agenda, it simply amounts to honest scientists observing the complexity of biological life and the embarassment that is the fossil record and then communicating this truth. It truly is becoming a movement within the scientific community which is having a tremendous impact.
The growing Dissent list:
- ukit0
discipler, if your really backing ID and not creationism, please explain to me why intelligent design and evolution have to be mutually incompatible.
just curious. really.
- Mimio0
lol. You mean Apologetic Christian Conservative think-tanks Discipler? Come on man...Phillip E. Johnson, the founder of the 'ID movement' is a zealot.
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
- Phillip E. Johnson
- mrdobolina0
exactly what I was saying a few posts back, mimio.
this entire debate is over whether it should be taught in schools. once that precedent is set, the next fight will be over prayer in public schools.
- cosmo0
discipler, want to clarify something.
how old do u think the earth is?
do u believe in the big bang theory?
- discipler0
Mimio, Phillip Johnson may have had a hand in helping organize things, but, as you can see from the list in my last post, this is about a community of scientists who span the globe coming together in light of recent scientific discovery. Rather than attempting to find conspiracy theories, why not look at the science and deal with the specific issues? In the books I've read and am going to read which support and promote this current science, not one is authored by or mentions Phillip Johnson.
- mrdobolina0
discipler, you do know that there are christian universities that are churning out "scientists" and some of these institutions are known as "diploma mills", right?
you may not have the agenda that these people have, but you must admit that this does go on.
- discipler0
ukit, I back both movements. They only seem to differ on the "where" and "when", not the "how", generally speaking. They both observe the same scientific facts.
The issue is not God and evolution being compatible. The issue is: what does science observe and reveal? And it does not reveal evidence for Darwinian evolution. Regardless of God in the equation, or not. BUT, I suggest that God and evolution are philosophically incompatible because of the cruel and inefficient progression that evolution teaches. It's incongruent with an infinitely intelligent designer.
- discipler0
mrdobs, you are espousing exotic theories now. I think I know what you are getting at. The I.D. & Creationist websites list the credentials of their proponents. Sorry, but they're legitimate.
- discipler0
again, legitimate like the scientists in the dissent list I posted above.
- gruntt0
this thread has evolved to 100