[inthebox]

No. I don't ASSUME it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works.

Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each EVOLVED them separately to fulfill the same function. So insects and birds both EVOLVED wings. But their wings are different from each other. ......

If you don't assume, then why is "evolved" in your language to describe present evidence? It betrays your bias right from the start.

[inthebox]

No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha



Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.

Your link does not work.

But here is the original article :


Access : : Nature


Notice how they start... they are being honest, because science has to be investigated... the headline cannot be believed on face value, because other scientists will look at the data, the methodology, the conclusion, and critique the paper.

The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but THE ORIGIN of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for LACK of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.

There have been numerous rebuttals such as

"That is a strange statement for a scientific paper. It sounds something like, We know it’s true; we just lack evidence.

A technical description of parts ensues. Compared to the earlier known fossils, Tiktaalik has a larger this and a smaller that, etc. For all its impressive jargon, the technical description DOES NOT IN ITSELF ESTABLISH THE CASE THAT THE CREATURE WAS EVOLVING into a tetrapod. Data provide the hard evidence, but INTERPRETATIONS ARE SUBJECTIVE . Side-by-side skull comparisons do not look that informative, especially when there are no soft parts and no videos of how the creature actually lived. It must be remembered, for instance, that COELACANTH was long considered a transitional form because of its bony fins, but when discovered alive, THE FISH DID NOT USE THEM FOR WALKING OR RAISING ITSELF UP IN ANY WAY. Without soft parts such as gills and organs, and without living examples, interpretation of anatomy from bony parts alone is at best an exercise in EDUCATED GUESSWORK."

As to feathers and scales:



Access : : Nature

The Absence of feathers or feather-like structures in a fossil phylogenetically nested within feathered theropods5, 6 indicates that the evolution of these integumentary structures might be MORE COMPLEX THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.

And the rebuttal:

Problem? What problem? Scales are scales, and feathers are feathers. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs, and birds are birds. Before, evolutionists wanted us to believe that scales, a skin feature, evolved into feathers that are totally different and embedded beneath the skin. They expected us to believe there was a straight line of descent from gray wrinkles on a dinosaur into the colorful, aerodynamic, exquisitely-designed feathers of acrobatic swifts and high-diving cormorants. They asked us to believe that birds co-opted what appeared to be “integumentary structures” of doubtful utility on the legs and tails of some dinosaurs and turned them into flying wonders, complete with interlocking hooks and barbules that are lightweight, water-resistant and extremely adaptable (compare doves and penguins). They expected us to believe that at the same time feathers evolved, dinosaurs transformed all their internal organs and completely redesigned their lungs and most other bodily systems.

[Credendovidis]

May I draw attention to the leading questions of this topic?

I received the following private question from sassyT, and I think it is usefull to handle that one here in all openness.

Ok. let's do that one line by line ...

"... i have found it quite ironic that you claim to only believe in things that have objective evidence"

Wrong, totally wrong! I do not believe in things that have objective supporting evidence. You do not need belief in such evidence. Belief you need as support for claims. I do not claim anything, I just question religious claims.

===

"however none of the claims you have made are backed by any such evidence. "

I have not made any claims. That is already done sufficiently here on this board by theists.

===

"In fact most of your beliefs are based on Faith not facts. "

A wild claim. What religious beliefs may that be? I have no religious beliefs.

===

"So please before you make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs, consider and examine your own beliefs and you will realise that it takes as much faith to believe what you believe as it does any other religious belief. "

How nice ... I do not make condescending remarks about other people's beliefs. Instead I respect other people's religious views. But that does not make their religious claims reality.

And note : I have no religious beliefs. It does not require any faith at all to accept what you claim I believe. I base as Secular Humanist my life's philosophy on reality and objective supporting evidence. Not on dogmatic religious claims.

===

"You are only creating a double standard which makes you appear to be a hypocrite."

There is no double standard. My views are based on objective supporting evidence. Your views are based on religious claims.
The ones who try to create double standards are people like you, who insist that because they believe something, that they may use that something and elevate it to the "one and only truth". You may do that at for instance the Christianity board, but not here, on the religious discussions board.

Thanks sassyT !

Now : has anyone anything to add to this ? Just feel free to react !

;)

Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic ....

;)

[asking]

Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic...

I think we were just feeling free to react!

[inthebox]

I see Cred that all threads on this site stick to the OP ? :)

Let us see, Sassy T implies that belief in Evolution is "faith" ---- and I agree.

When I post links directly from noted science journals --there is your evidence that even "scientists " can see the evidence that questions evolutionary ASSUMPTIONS. :D

[Credendovidis]

I think we were just feeling free to react!

Yes, but there should always remain some connection to the topic, is it not?

:D

[Credendovidis]

Let us see, Sassy T implies that belief in Evolution is "faith" ---- and I agree.

That was not my point ! Sassy implies a lot of things by twisting words! I never stated that evolution is a fact.
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

:rolleyes:

[inthebox]

Design,Complexity, Engineering marvels [ echolocation, flight, protein synthesis, compund eye, etc... ]



Cred

Pick up a science journal and read the DATA and come to your own conclusions..

[Credendovidis]

pick up a science journal and read the DATA and come to your own conclusions..

That is IRRELEVANT in this lead!!
The point is that sassy is deliberately misinterpreting what others state, and post than these words in a twisted version to support his/her own wild religious claims.

Similar to what you do here!!

I never stated that evolution is a fact.

I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

So if you like me to support evolution, than at least start supporting FIRST your own religious beliefs, as these do not carry one single iota of objective supported evidence !

:D

[Nestorian]

That was not my point ! sassy implies a lot of things by twisting words! I never stated that evolution is a fact.
I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

:rolleyes:

Objective supportive evidence, eh? I don't know about that but; Now this may be a strange thought, but I'm well known for that, so...

What about the stories?? Is not some ones' recount of a happening important to consider? We don't really know if they hyped up the truth or what ever may have happened, but if oyu think about it, there probably is some seeds of truth here and there in thoughs stories.

Objective supportive evidence is just another suggested idea is it not, I mean really maybe these creatures were just deforemd. Not evolving,but deformed from some kind of birthing defect, maybe the mother of them deforemd creatures was almost killed by another, thus stressing it, and creating complications, and such. No, no takers? Maybe we were really just here, or aliens brought us here to destroy the planet! Haha, just kidding, but I mean that this is all very elusive, unless we ourselves where there, we'll never really know will we?? SO any thing is a possibility, with in plosibility of course.

[Credendovidis]

Objective supportive evidence, eh?? .... What about the stories?

Take any dictionary, and look for objective... Stories are just as subjective as your or my personal beliefs of whatever subject or direction...

Is not some ones' recount of a happening important to consider?

No, not when considering OBJECTIVE supporting evidence !

Objective supportive evidence is jsut another suggested idea is it not

Why would that be? How can asking for reality or proof for reality be "just another idea"?

... but i mean that this is all very elusive, unless we our selves where there, we'll never really know will we?

That only shows you to even take more reservations against empty unsupported claims !

... SO any thing is a possiblity, with in plosibility of course.

Many things are possible. But also are highly unlikely to happen. To separate the wheat from the chaff therefore you require facts and/or objective supporting evidence for wild claims. And that is precisely what I am doing and asking for all the time. Just making sure if someone BELIEVES something, or that he/she has information that shows that that belief is based on facts... so far it almost always is purely based on belief only...

===

I just like to repeat what I stated to you before, but what you did not address :

I never stated that evolution is a fact.

I CLEARLY stated that there is a lot of objective supportive evidence for evolution and NONE for any religious claim!

So if you (or anyone else) likes me to support evolution, than at least start supporting FIRST your own religious beliefs (which most of you seem to hold as real facts), as these do not carry one single iota of objective supported evidence !


:rolleyes:

[jillianleab]

Seems to me that many here have strayed off the original topic ....

;)

Meh. Things evolve.



;)

[asking]

Cred,
Did you want a discussion about what constitutes evidence?
Asking

[Credendovidis]

Meh. Things evolve.

Tell that the creationists, not me ! LOL

:D

[sassyT]

ASKIN: No. I don't assume it. I know it from study and logic. There are lots of things I take, to a degree, on faith. For example, if an engineer says a certain bridge needs to be built to certain specifications, I'll take his or her word. But this isn't like that. I actually know how it works

.

Yes you know How the THEORY works but the theory is not necessarily a reality.

Two species can share similar features in two ways, either because they inherited them from a common ancestor, or because they each evolved them separately to fulfill the same function.

Yes based on the claims made by THEORY of evolution but, This is not factual.

So insects and birds both evolved wings. But their wings are different from each other. You are saying that God gave dogs and humans the same kinds of lungs because they are just a part, like a bicycle wheel he can put anywhere. So why don't lungless salamanders, which live on land, have lungs too? They could use some! And why don't the unrelated birds and insects have the same kind of wings? By your theory, you should see no pattern of shared traits and no way to tell which animals are related to one another. Instead, you see repeating patterns. All the animals that have backbones also share a long list of other traits, like similar kidneys, a skull, similar circulations, etc. Meanwhile, all the insects have a long list of similar traits the DON'T share with animals with backbones.

Because you BELIEVE in evolution you see similariy in living things as evidence for ancestry. I however believe in creation therefore I see similarity as evidence for a common designer. Animals breath the same air we do so why wouldn't an intelligent designer create their lungs in a similar way?

Virtually EVERY fossil in the last 3.8 billion years is a transition from one thing to another. The amphibians are a transition from the fish to the amniotes (reptiles and mammals). Eohippus is a transition to the horse. All the early hominoids are transitions to humans. There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

If there were tranisitional fosils for every animal fossil why did Gould have to come up with the theory of puncuated equilibrium? Please do some research before you continue to embarrasse yourself with such outrageous claims that every fossil has a transitional ancestor. Unless of course you have found some in your back yard in which case you would need to share with the rest of the world.

We aren't descended from amoebas, Sassy. We are descended from bacteria.

According to your faith yes, but there is no proof that that is FACT. There is no evidence that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a mythical soup and morphed into everything we see today. Those are your beliefs. I do not believe that.

It IS an irrefutable fact if you actually look at the evidence.. But that doesn't prevent you from arguing against it for whatever reason. I could insist that the City of New York does not exist and that it's a hoax and has never existed and that there's no evidence for its existence. I could do that for days, weeks, years. But that would not make me right.

There is irrefutable evidence that the city of NY exists but there is no fossil evidence to prove the theory of evolution is a fact.

Darwin was NOT a prophet. This is a grotesque usage. Darwin was a scientist who had an idea, spent many decades doubting it and testing and finding ways for it to be wrong and overcoming them all to produce vast of amounts of data that showed that it was almost certainly not wrong, but in fact correct.

Darwin believed that the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record was one of the weakest points in his theory. Instead of admitting that his theory was wrong, he blamed the "extreme imperfection of the geological record". This set off a mad search of the record for these "missing links" This mad search is still going on today as evolutionists are scouring China, with no sucsess,for the missing links. This is what dawin himself said..

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
-Origin of Species (292)

If macroevolution had not occurred, you would not be here arguing. You are descended from a salamander, and probably a very cute one. Get over it. Please go to some museums, look at some fossils and start putting it together--not just individual ones, as you acknowledge yourself, but the whole miraculous PATTERN of evolution. It's there waiting for you. You obviously have the intelligence and stick-to-itiveness to get it.

All I can say about you Asking is that you are a very Zealous believer because you actually under the delution that every fossil out there has a transitional ancestor. You Believe the theory of evolution is an irefutable fact but in reality it is a theory that is easily refutable because the fossil evidence is lacking. There are NO transitional fossils to qualify evolution as fact. So just because you have faith that it happened does not mean I should believe in it too. Those are your beliefs and until they find "the missing Link" I will researve my belief in the theory.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

No, you didn't bother because you might find out something new. See www.pbs.org/wbgh/nova/id/transitional.html Here's the opening paragraph for a vid that starts the site: Fossil Evidence
In 2004, a field crew digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed the fossil remains of a half-fish, half-amphibian that would all but confirm paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods (four-limbed animals, including us) evolved from their fish ancestors. The animal was a so-called lobe-finned fish that lived about 375 million years ago. Named Tiktaalik rosae by its discoverers, it is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges the evolutionary gap between two quite different types of animal. In this slide show, see this and four other well-known fossil transitions, which clearly indicate Darwinian evolution in action.—Rima Chaddha

Tiktaalik another so called "transitional fossil" lets examine
First of all there are a lot of fish—both living and fossilized. Approximately 25,000 species of currently living fish have been identified, with 200–300 new species being discovered—not evolved—every year. Many living fish are air-breathers and “walkers” air-breathing fish are not uncommon among living fish species. For example, many popular aquarium fish are surface air-breathers that can actually drown if kept under water! So Tiktaalik could easily belongs to a group of fish called lobe-fin fish. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them. Evolutionists say the lobe-fin fish became extinct millions of years ago until it was discovered in the waters of Madagascar.

Thus all the claims about Tiktaalik are mere smokescreens, exaggerating mere tinkering around the edges while huge gaps remain unbridged by evolution.

Feathers and scales have been shown to come from exactly the same place. In addition, feathers, in one hypothesis (yes, as yet unproven) that they might have afforded an insulation to dinosaurs - at least while still young.

Go figure :rolleyes:

No, because you refuse to actually try to learn and are satisfied with parroting long since discredited information. And no where have I stated my 'beliefs'...

Your definition of my "learning" is I must believe what you believe. I have studied the theory of evolution and seen the lack of solid fossil evidence and therefore I just don't believe in it. Why is that so hard for you (and people like asking) to accept. I don't have to share the same beliefs as you do. The so called evidence for it is not convinsing to me because it highly speculative and too many pieces of the puzzel are missing. (missing link)
I just find it comical and I must say childish, that you call me "ignorant" just because I refuse to share the same beliefs as you... lol I am not ignorant, in fact I am very educated on Theory and I think it is a great theory but I just don't believe it is true.

[inthebox]

If you go back to my original question, you will see that several theists (almost all conservative Christians - and I pointed one out in particular) who prefer on this board to lie , twist words, draw deliberate wrong conclusions, accuse others without objective supporting evidence, etc. etc. etc. as soon as they encounter anyone with views conflicting with their own.

The fact that there are many of such theists, and the question why they do that, was the backbone of my lead question. How can they expect to convince someone of their religious views, when they themselves skip the truth and reality at all sides, and show great disrespect for other views? Is that attitude really representing JC's "go forth and spread The Word"?

So no : I do not ask as to what constitute "evidence". I CLEARLY use each and every time the phrase "objective supported evidence" to differentiate between what people may think is evidence, and what in reality is evidence.

:rolleyes:

I see your double standard.


When asking or vh1flyer make unsubstantiated evolutionary claims, and that is refuted by sassy or I, you evade your own "I believe when I see it " standard, and go own with your generalizations of the Bible and Christians.


I wonder why that is?


You see, proof or the evidence you seek of God, is in his creations.

Psalm 8, 19




If you do not believe the "proof" what are you left to believe in?

Evolution? Is that why it offends you --- scientific questioning of this theory?

What about pure chance, or extraterrestrial intelligence? Where is your "I believe it when I see it" proof there?

[sassyT]

ASKING: There are hundreds of thousands of transition species IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

Lol... are you serious right now..?
Seriously guys someone, one of you evolutionists, needs to correct and/or school your friend here. She is sadly mislead.

[inthebox]

if those of you that are christians or believe in god or a religion (and I KNOW it doesn't condone being rude and spiteful to other people), how can you justify standing up for a religion that practices and teaches forgiveness and love by being a self-centered, sarcastic, rude-butt?


.

You are correct, Christians should live lives that reflect God's love.

I do not view Sassy's post in the OP as rude. Sassy has as much a right to call into question what Credo believes as much as Credo calls into question what Christians believe.

[sassyT]

All I am doing is holding Credo's claims to the same standards as he sets on Christians and the bottom line is his beliefs don't hold, not even for one second, to the standards he sets on other's beliefs. And yet he somehow thinks his beliefs are superior because he is under the delusion that they are based on fact but at the same time fails to provide the "objective evidence" he harassed everyone else about.