Quote:

---

posted by Fredgiblet- *sigh* Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

---

Quote:

---

The only theological influence that evolution has is that certain specific beliefs are incorrect. By that measure you should be against geology for showing us that the Earth is ancient,

---

Quote:

---

astronomy for showing that the Earth revolves around the sun (contrary to popular Christian belief back in the Dark Ages),

---

Quote:

---

physiology for showing that men and women have the same number of ribs and on and on

---

Quote:

---

The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?

---

Quote:

---

Dinosaurs' demise didn't spur mammalian evolution, study finds
Burst in new species happened before and after extinction.

By Malcolm Ritter
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, March 29, 2007

NEW YORK — Maybe you learned this in school: The big dinosaur die-off 65 million years ago was a liberation for mammals, and they quickly produced a bunch of new species that included ancestors of humans and other modern-day creatures.

Remember? Well, a new study says, forget it.


Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.

Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.

"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

At the time of the dinosaur demise, mammals were small, about the size of shrews and cats. The longstanding idea has been that once the dinosaurs were gone, mammals were free to exploit new food sources and habitats, and as a result, they produced a burst of new species.

The new study says that happened to some extent but that the new species largely led to evolutionary dead ends. In contrast, no such explosion of species was found among the ancestors of modern-day mammals such as rodents, cats, horses, elephants and people.

Instead, researchers report in today's issue of the journal Nature, they showed an initial burst about 85 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs' extinction, with another between about 55 million and 35 million years ago.

The timing of that first period of development generally agrees with the conclusions of some previous studies of mammal DNA, which argue for a much earlier origin of some mammal lineages than the fossil record does.

The second burst had shown up in the fossil record, MacPhee said. But he said the study explains why scientists have been unable to find relatively modern-looking ancestors of the creatures known from that time: Without any evolutionary boost from the dinosaur demise, those ancestors were still relatively primitive.

Other experts praised the large scale of the new evolutionary tree, which used a "supertree" method to combine data covering the vast majority of mammal species. It challenges paleontologists to find fossils that can shed light on mammal history, said Greg Wilson, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

William Murphy of Texas A&M University, who is working on a similar project, said that no previous analysis had included so many mammal species.

However, he said, "I don't think this is the final word."

The study's approach for assigning dates was relatively crude, he said, and some dates it produced for particular lineages disagree with those obtained by more updated methods.

As for its interpretation of what happened when the dinosaurs died off, Murphy said, "I'm not sure that conclusion is well-founded."

John Gittleman, a study co-author and director of the University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, said the researchers considered a range of previously reported dates for when various lineages split. They found that the overall conclusions of the study were not significantly affected by which dates they chose, he said.

Researchers should now look at such things as the rise of flowering plants and a cooling of the worldwide climate to explain why ancestors of modern-day mammals took off before the dinosaurs died out, Gittleman said. The cause of the later boom is also a mystery, he said.

The study's family tree includes 4,510 species, more than 99 percent of mammal species covered by an authoritative listing published in 1993. To construct it, the researchers combined published work that relied on analysis of DNA, fossils, anatomy and other information.

S. Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new work "pushes the envelope in the methods and data, and that's really important."

He said the demise of the dinosaurs might have affected mammal evolution by influencing characteristics such as body size rather than boosting the number of species created. Such changes wouldn't be picked up by the new study, he noted.

The researchers conceded that much more research would be required to explain "the delayed rise of present-day mammals."

"The big question now is what took the ancestors of modern mammals so long to diversify," MacPhee said. "Evidently we know very little about the macroecological mechanisms that play out after mass extinctions."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. There is no need to show evolution at the kingdom level to demonstrate macroevolution as macroevolution is not defined as evolution at every level at or above species, just as evolution at or above species level.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Evolution, particularly "micro"evolution and natural selection have been proven to around the fullest extent possible in the scientific system where absolute proof is unattainable.

Better?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

---

Quote:

---

And while speciation has been said to have occurred by evolutionists, there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires, nor do evolutionists contend that such a record could possible exist since it would require ... prohibitively long time periods.

---

Quote:

---

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. .

---

Quote:

---

I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this 1) macroevolution idea, ... (Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough) which is a wholly 2) improvable position ... when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly. Now as a scientisti

---

Quote:

---

I understand the nuances here

---

Quote:

---

but as a scientist

---

Quote:

---

For people who have other more important things to worry about ... what they see is 1) an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more 2) honest, and therefore believable.

---

Quote:

---

There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. ... people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their.

---

Quote:

---

And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.

---

Quote:

---

mammals were small, about the size of shrews and cats.

---

Quote:

---

in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer.

---

Quote:

---

in nature, you must be able to demonstrate how that diversity can emerge from natural selection

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'm getting tired of this.
Finn, you say you want evidence. Yet you ignore the ONE gene that keeps legs from developing in whales. (All it took was ONE genetic change to accomplish that.) You ignore the fossil record of land animal --> whale; DNA homologies, and, as SignyM pointed out - all of geology, chemistry, physics as well. Poof. All gone. AND as a scientist you demand proof.

---

Quote:

---

people keep telling me that evolution is “proven

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre right..

---

Quote:

---

but atheists have a bias towards evolution because it fits their worldview(or IS their worldview).

---

Quote:

---

will you deny that some evolutionists are atheists?

---

Quote:

---

ill admit that not all are...

---

Quote:

---

just as not all IDs are creationists.

---

Quote:

---

the current collection of data goes both ways

---

Quote:

---

yah, but just how old? millions of billions of years? how can we possibly know that for sure.. sounds more like an educated guess, based on the evolutionary 'theory'

---

Quote:

---

contrary to what secular society has believed, the bible actually had it right before popular science did

"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place."
- Isaiah 13:13

"He hangs the earth on nothing." -Job 26:7


"Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night" -Jeremiah 31:35,36

"I will bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore" -Genesis 22:17

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured" -Jeremiah 33:22

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory." -1 Corinthians 15:41

---

Quote:

---

uh.. God took one of Adams ribs, not all mankinds. should i list what the bible DID have right?

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return." -Genesis 3:19

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" -
Genesis 2:7

biologically they were way ahead of their time

"A sound heart is life to the body" -Proverbs 14:30

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood" -Leviticus 17:11

common sense now.. but it was science that once thought draining blood would 'relieve' sickness and disease

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.

---

i could say the same for you, especially since you dont know what the bible actually says, your just perpetuating popular myths circulated by secular society to undermine judeo/christian beliefs.

---

Quote:

---

it turns out we knew things before secular science did, such as the hydrological and meteorological cycles

"He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries." -Psalm 135:7

"For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man." -Job 36:27-29

"The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit" -Ecclesiastes 1:6

"To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure." -Job 28:25

---

Quote:

---

how did they know that air had weight? pretty smart for a bunch of primitives

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

---

The distinction here is between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed. Macroevolution, the change in our collective gene pools over eons of time that we cannot directly observe, is still a theory, an explanation extrapolated from microevolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I demand “proof,” because people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” But when I ask for this “proof” that clearly must exist if evolution is “proven.” The response that I get back is ‘science can’t prove anything.’ But if science can’t prove anything, then how is evolution “proven?”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?

---

the flood.

---

Quote:

---

there is evidence that some of the highest mountains were underwater at some point

---

Quote:

---

its possible the fossils may have been preserved in the sediment as it settled.

---

Quote:

---

this would explain the inconsistency in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer.

---

Quote:

---

now, according to this recent AP article, dinosaurs and mammals may actually have co-existed

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Not me. The one thing I keep saying over and over is that SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

---

Quote:

---

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, we're criticizing you for ignoring evidence. You keep raising questions which have already been answered. As for Fred saying evolution was "proven"... he's already clarified more than twice that's not exactly what he meant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I've covered this just a few posts ago, Macroevolution first off is simply an arbitrary imaginary line, there is no actual weight to it. Second speciation is an example of macroevolution and has been demonstrated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: I ammended my post to QUOTE you. The part where you sweep away all kinds of evidence with a wave of your hand.

---

Quote:

---

CAUSAL
So I can still coherently claim that God is beyond scientific proof or disproof

ROCKETJOCK
Proof positive of science's inferiority to faith!

SIGMANUNKI
Historically speaking, things that have been thought to be acts of God have been proven to have a natural explanation. Just because we can't prove it today, doesn't mean that this isn't true.

ANTIMASON
as far as our origins, you cant prove that we came from apes

YINYANG
although it isn't possible to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of a deity
The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove

CAUSAL
implicit claim that science is the only way to know anything isn't something that the sciences can prove!
by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god

ANTIMASON
it definitely shows another side of colonial America that proves to be inseparable from our system of government

SERGEANTX
Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved.

REAVERMAN
I say that if you want to homeschool your kids, you should have to prove to a college that you can teach up to college level.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA
To prove God would be to destroy her/him/it/them/insert personal version of supreme deity here
Science on the other hand, cannot exist without proof. It builds upon and edits itself, and relies fundamentally upon empirical, repeatable, independant confirmation of fact.
If one proves god, then they eliminate the need for faith, and if one eliminates faith,
Therefore one cannot prove religion in terms of science and science cannot be proven in terms of religion.

FINN MAC CUMHAL
Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito
evolutionist run with this as “proof” that cows evolve into whales

RUE
SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING
Any argument that either demands scientific proof or claims victory on the absence of proof

REAVERMAN
You don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we haven't been studying it long enough to see profound, obvious changes that would utterly destroy any shadow of a doubt (I'm sure though, that even if we do find such proof, there would still be a bunch of jackasses trying to convince everyone that it's not true).

FREDGIBLET
Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

FREDGIBLET
Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god
The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god

FINN MAC CUMHAL
It takes a real leap of faith to say this has “proven” macroevolution. It has not, and anyone can see that. If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

FREDGIBLET
scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity

FINN MAC CUMHAL
But if we decided that because we can show an apple falling to the earth had “proven” the Theory of Gravity, then there wouldn’t be any reason for Einstein because Newton has already “proven” it.

SIGNYM
As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing

FINN MAC CUMHAL
Explain that to Fred, and all the other people on the evolution side who dogmatically demand that Evolution is “proven.”

SIGNYM
demanding that everyone take cyanide to prove that it's a deadly poison

LEADB
In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'proven'. -Several- people have used the work 'proven' above, and this seems to wrankle Finn.
it would be better to avoid the word 'proven'

SERGEANTX
Agreed, but the facts supporting them can be proven. The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven.
So, asking for proof of a theory doesn't really make sense. You can disprove, or weaken, a theory with facts that contradict the theory's explanations.

FREDGIBLET
My point was that they no longer attempt to prove that gravity exists ... not to prove it's existence
Evolution, particularly "micro"evolution and natural selection have been proven to around the fullest extent possible in the scientific system where absolute proof is unattainable
I'll add to that that "macro"evolution has been demonstrated, but since you want pedantry I'll refrain from using the word "proven". OK?

ANTIMASON
aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre

ANTIMASON
the bible does not contradict anything we can actually prove


And just because we find ourselves unable to produce that evidence or that evidence is impossible to produce doesn’t mean we can just assume the theory is proven. We don’t call the General Theory of Relativity proven, because we saw an apple fall.


CANTTAKESKY
Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed.
There are certain things science can prove
that is a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and proven or disproven.

---

Quote:

---

I was typing

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps my scientific approach is simply more cautious, skeptical, and conservative than people who speak with more certainty on this board.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific.

---

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying inferred evolution was meaningless or non-scientific. Though it doesn't mean scientific inferences and extrapolations hold NO weight at all, anything inferred does hold LESS scientific weight than evidence that has been directly observed and gathered through more rigorous means. It stands to reason that those theories need to be interpreted with more caution than theories with more rigorous support.

I think that is an important distinction die-hard evolutionists often forget. Not all evidence is equal. And most of paleoevolution is comprised of less rigorous science than other fields of evolution. A bit of caution, skepticism, and conservatism isn't unreasonable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

---

I’m not sure what you meant. Although, I don’t actually think it makes sense for something to be partially proven or proven to some extent. It’s either proven or it’s not.

---

Quote:

---

I actually would not have made such a big deal of your comment, if it hadn’t of been for how other people jumped on me because I criticize it. So don’t take it personally. What’s going on here is not that I necessarily disagree with you on Evolution, because I don’t think I do. (Although the word “proven” irks me, that’s true.) People are angry at me, for criticizing what they view, on some level, to be infallible dogma.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionreligion_070608
182238; _ylt=AgQgPwsQimHCGw5pvlsV0IvMWM0F

A full 66 percent said they believed in creationism, with 39 percent of those polled saying it was definitely true and 27 percent believing it was probably true.

More recently, the question divided Republican presidential candidates who traditionally represent the Christian conservative elements of US society, with three answering in last month's debate that they do not believe in evolution.



Idiots

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
"First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING."

What about gravity?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Evolution is taught in every school, the fact people don't buy into it hole-heartily does not make them 'Idiots'. Just makes them not sheep...Love American ingenuity!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Fred,
"Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject."

Not in Connecticut. It is taught by science teachers in every public school........

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Does have a point though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Does have a point though.

---

Not really. So, neither do you.

---