Evidence for Evolution

[Rían]

Sorry for going OT - I just hated to let Rad's thoughts on the Holocaust go unaddressed by anyone ... I can't even imagine the pain that an event like that must cause

Rad, if you want to discuss this topic more, let me know, and we can move it somewhere else.

[frodomaniac12]

Evolution is false. Some proof is that they found Noah's Ark. That means that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, that means that Creation happened. I rest my case.

[Spock]

...the thing is no one knows how long a second or a minute is on the creators watch....

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by frodomaniac12

Evolution is false. Some proof is that they found Noah's Ark. That means that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, that means that Creation happened. I rest my case.

...and we put the 'fun' in FUNdamentalism

[Rían]

How can it be proven that it was Noah's ark?

I think that's pretty poor evidence.

[HOBBIT]

Originally Posted by frodomaniac12

Evolution is false. Some proof is that they found Noah's Ark. That means that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, that means that Creation happened. I rest my case.

yeah, I saw the history channel show on that a couple years ago

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How can it be proven that it was Noah's ark?
I think that's pretty poor evidence.

Actually the "ark" that was found is on the Mt. that the bible says it landed on. It appears to be the right size and construction and so the conclusion that it MAY be Noah's. Then too there was a little old guy nearby who said that he held the lien on the boat

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Mt Ararat

but, the waters of the black sea used to come up to that area, so it could be any boat whatsoever

[Spock]

Actually no. Because of the construction which indicated many hold or stall like areas, this boat is considered rather unique. Of course that's not 100% but it does narrow the possibilities greatly.

[Earniel]

Interesting news:Scientists discover possible method to determine gender of fossils

[Spock]

It gets harder to tell the old fossils sex as they get older. Usually the females don't wear long macs. oh, wait that's another kind

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually the "ark" that was found is on the Mt. that the bible says it landed on. It appears to be the right size and construction and so the conclusion that it MAY be Noah's.

I agree that it certainly MAY be Noah's, but IMO saying it's proven to be Noah's and therefore the entire Bible is true is no complement to the rationality of the person's worldview.

Then too there was a little old guy nearby who said that he held the lien on the boat

[Lief Erikson]

RÃ*an, I think you'll be happy to see me posting here . A couple key problems I have with the Theory of Evolution in its current form, I am currently bringing up.

Environment

There is a large amount of data available to us today that the environment changes extremely rapidly. Islands can be born in days, or even hours. Massive changes have occurred in Africa's climate very recently . . . I'd have to dig around somewhere again to get the data back from the old debates.

The entire Sahara-Gobi desert stretches have experienced enormous changes in climate. 120,000 years ago, according to pollen dating, they were all lush jungle. Then they switched to more arid condition within an extremely brief amount of time, but then made a shift toward heavy foresting and grassland condition. Elephant, hippo and giraffe skeletons have been found, dating to that period. Then the pollen dating shows a sharp shift toward complete, utterly lifeless desert for . . . I think it was about 5,000 years or so, and then shifts back more toward how it is now.

I've talked with people here about these changes, and they say, "well, the animals must have migrated." The theory of evolution currently requires extremely slow changes among animal species over vast periods of time. Available evidence from what we can see within the last hundred thousand years or so involving the climate shows extremely rapid shifts, however. If animals are able to just migrate all over the globe to escape traumatic and incredibly large scale environment shifts, I don't see any point in evolution according to environment. Even evolution by natural selection takes a hit, for it too depends upon vast periods of time. If animals are forced to make massive migrations every 50,000 years or so, as modern evidence suggests, then creatures would be constantly thrown in with other species. Predators would be changing too swiftly for evolution according to natural selection to keep up with it.

So modern evidence concerning the environment shows extreme flaws to me in the theory of evolution, in its current form. In view of all this, that there should have been some mistakes made involving the dinosaurs is only natural.

Humans

I just cannot believe that if humans have been around in near their present form for over 100,000 years, they have not developed more technology. It just is beyond my ability to fathom.

I know that many would argue, "before they had agriculture, they had to devote almost all their time to work. Before they developed fire, a vast number of other technologies were inaccessible."

These arguments don't ring true to me, however. Take my father, for example. He spends almost the entire week day at work. He works very hard at what he does, and when he comes back he only has about three to four hours at most. Much of this he spends with his family. However, he also spends a corner of it to focus upon pet projects. He likes to research, form theories about nature and the solar system, seek truth using mathematics and various books. He continues to tutor himself, to train his mind even despite his near incessant daily work.

I cannot believe that ancient man never had three or so hours at least to spend with his family, or with his people, or just to use as he chooses. I cannot believe that he is not curious about the world around him, either. Indeed, evidence shows that the Neanderthals believed in an afterlife and buried their dead with gifts of food and other objects, to give them a better future. They were curious. They thought. They discovered.

In spite of this, for nearly 100,000 years there is a blank void in technology. There were some major discoveries, like fire, but almost nothing is known about humanity during that period. There was almost no technology. There were almost no achievements. This is not humanity we're talking about any more . . . it's some primitive, unintelligent species. Humans are intelligent, and even if they are bound by difficult circumstances, they have a powerful way of rising above these circumstances. Our ancient humans, however, did almost nothing.

For the last 6,000 years or so, incredible surges of technology have occurred. The ingenuity of humans has been proven to be utterly astounding. There are numerous marvelous feats of architecture. The Sumerians, one of the very earliest ancient peoples we know anything about, were well acquainted with mathematics and writing.

100,000 years of humanity doing nothing is impossible, and this isn't even getting into the closely related, and doubtless intelligent species that came before them.

Other thoughts and evidence

About the break-up of Pangea, for a moment. It has happened several times that almost exactly identical species of dinosaur are found on different continents. According to the theory of evolution, which puts many of these dinosaur species well after the break-up of the continents, this should not be the case. I'd have to scramble for specific examples. Deinonychus pops instantly to mind, but I'd have to investigate him a bit.

There is also the evidence that Spock and littleadenel have brought up, about the powerful, ferocious flying or land reptiles that have been described by numerous completely separate cultures. It, like the worldwide flood, seems to be a common memory of the ancient world. The tale of Gilgamesh describes him encountering a huge reptile-like creature that ate trees and reeds. There are pictures on Roman and Greek vases and mosaics that show dinosaurs. Dragons . I have the pictures in front of me right now, in a book. They don't have wings and aren't breathing fire. They look exactly like dinosaurs.

Science is always evolving. It is always changing in its search for better and more accurate data. It keeps finding better and more accurate data, and frequently finds significant flaws in the old. If the Bible had been made to conform to past scientific knowledge, large hunks of it would by now have been proven inaccurate. The evidence is strong that it truthfully preserves an ancient experience (I can go on for a long time about that).

[The Gaffer]

The human culture/development thing is really interesting. We have to be careful about how our own cultural perspective might colour our views. Don't forget that your dad would have probably been dead by now if he were living 50k years ago. A mere couple of hundred years ago, people were still dying by the gazillion of disease and starvation and scraping a meagre existence out of the filth. Hey, they still are now in many, many places!

I think you also have to put various technological developments in that light. Off the top of my head, some key moments are:
- The invention of commerce, around 30k years ago, about the same time enough people started living long enough to be grandparents (40 yrs) and help look after the weans.
- The obvious ones of metals and agriculture, which were very unevenly prevalent.
- c5-8k years ago, writing, meaning that we (i.e. the tiny number of people who could read and write) didn't have to start from scratch every time.
- Around 1,000 years ago the deep-cutting plough was invented. This enabled the rich, heavy soils of northern Europe to be exploited, leading to agricultural surplus.
Then of course there are the other stepwise inventions. But it wasn't until the mid 1850s that we were able to co-ordinate human activity at a distance in any effective way.

So anyway, I think it makes perfect sense that, 100k years ago, intelligent, sociable humans existed who couldn't communicate outside their immediate group and temporal and physical setting, but nevertheless had their own tools and culture and such. There is ample evidence of this all around us.

[brownjenkins]

on the environment... quick changes are exactly the kind of thing that spurs evolution (quick as in near instant, not so much changes that a bit of migration could make up for)... dinosaurs seem to have existed for a very long time span, and if the climate never changed all that much, it is very likely they would still exist today... a major and very quick climate change however (as some have suggested via a meteor strike) could cause many species to die off, leaving only those that could survive in the new environment

on human technology... technological development has always been exponential as time goes by... for all the reasons gaffer mentioned (lifespan, free time, etc.) and just the simple compounding nature of building on past developments... just compare the technological developments in the past 100 years (electricity, steam and then gas powered engines, mainframe computers and now pocket-sized pcs) to the 3000 years before it... why did something as simple as a steam-driven engine take so long to develop? people where just as smart in 500 AD and they had the basic elements to build one... what took them so long?

on pangea, the age of dinosaurs lasted for a very long time span... fossil evidence suggests that dinosaurs began to appear when the earth was mostly one continent (around 200 million years ago)... over a very long time period the continents split up... so the original species were closely related... over time (100 million+ years) they diverged... the fossil record reflects this if you compare the more "modern" fossils to the older ones

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The human culture/development thing is really interesting. We have to be careful about how our own cultural perspective might colour our views. Don't forget that your dad would have probably been dead by now if he were living 50k years ago.

Well duh. I never did think that he might be able to live 50,000 years. How does THAT validate your point?

No, seriously, I understand what you're saying . However, I don't think that culture would have much impact in alterring people from being people. I think it is obvious, both from available evidence of ancient peoples and from evidence of all the people we know of in the last 6,000 years, that curiosity is integral to all humanity. It always has been and always will be. We can see that curiosity from cave drawings and Neanderthal burial rites. Curiosity has been a part of humans throughout known history . . . even modern apes and gorillas definitely have an element of curiosity visible in their behavior.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

A mere couple of hundred years ago, people were still dying by the gazillion of disease and starvation and scraping a meagre existence out of the filth. Hey, they still are now in many, many places!

That is true, and I have no doubt that it would slow discovery some. However, even these civilizations have ways of rapidly advancing in technology. They rarely become completely stagnant.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think you also have to put various technological developments in that light. Off the top of my head, some key moments are:
- The invention of commerce, around 30k years ago, about the same time enough people started living long enough to be grandparents (40 yrs) and help look after the weans.
- The obvious ones of metals and agriculture, which were very unevenly prevalent.
- c5-8k years ago, writing, meaning that we (i.e. the tiny number of people who could read and write) didn't have to start from scratch every time.
- Around 1,000 years ago the deep-cutting plough was invented. This enabled the rich, heavy soils of northern Europe to be exploited, leading to agricultural surplus.
Then of course there are the other stepwise inventions. But it wasn't until the mid 1850s that we were able to co-ordinate human activity at a distance in any effective way.

Human ingenuity is too strong. We should have come up with agriculture many tens of thousands of years ago, and fire. We had tools . . . but even apes use tools! Look at all those thousands of years there for us to come up with better things. Sure, we were few in numbers. We did have very tough lives that limited the time we could spend on invention.

Let us look at a lesson from my mother, however. She loves to paint pictures. She only has time for one hour a week to work on this hobby, and many times she has to miss her lessons. About fifteen years after she began, our house is full of glorious oil paintings.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So anyway, I think it makes perfect sense that, 100k years ago, intelligent, sociable humans existed who couldn't communicate outside their immediate group and temporal and physical setting, but nevertheless had their own tools and culture and such. There is ample evidence of this all around us.

Even different ape groups can communicate with one another in primitive ways. Hand motions, grunts and other methods can be used for two humans to communicate who don't speak the same language. My history teacher has suggested that people did this a good deal, in the past. Some gestures and noises are understandable to anyone.

It just doesn't make sense that curious humans could go for tens of thousands of years living like apes.


I'll respond to your post when I can, brownjenkins .

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

even modern apes and gorillas definitely have an element of curiosity visible in their behavior.

And thats because they are so closely related to us of course.

Lief we live in a world today where there are STILL small collections of humans that live like we lived tens of thousands of years ago. Extremely primitive. And you have a wide range of technologies in different societies across the globe. Shouldnt they all be uniform according to your logic? The fact is that advancements in technology can be shown as a nice normal predictable exponential graph. where it starts off really slow for a long time and as it picks up it accelerates faster and faster. So hold onto your hats over the next five hundred years. Assuming of course that our human propensity for killing each other doesnt push us into another dark ages for a while.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It just doesn't make sense that curious humans could go for tens of thousands of years living like apes.

I didn't say they lived like apes. I thought I'd said quite clearly that they lived like humans. However, language, communications and technology were so different that we wouldn't recognise it.

[Spock]

The jump between the existing stock (cro magnum (?) ) and Neanderthals has been a point of contention for alien intervention. The bilological jump is that great it can't be accounted for by 'evolution' alone.

..one good link on this: http://www.halexandria.org/dward816.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on the environment... quick changes are exactly the kind of thing that spurs evolution (quick as in near instant, not so much changes that a bit of migration could make up for)...

You know how large the Sahara and Gobi desert stretches are, correct? That's no mean "bit" of migration, if it was migration. It is massive scale, and doubtless involving numerous extinctions. It's also a change that happened at least three separate times in the last 120,000 years. That's an amazingly rapidly fluctuating environment, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on human technology... technological development has always been exponential as time goes by... for all the reasons gaffer mentioned (lifespan, free time, etc.) and just the simple compounding nature of building on past developments... just compare the technological developments in the past 100 years (electricity, steam and then gas powered engines, mainframe computers and now pocket-sized pcs) to the 3000 years before it... why did something as simple as a steam-driven engine take so long to develop? people where just as smart in 500 AD and they had the basic elements to build one... what took them so long?

Technologies build on each other, there's no doubt about that. However, that's just my point. According to what we currently know, for tens of thousands of years, there was no new technology building upon the old. All of humanity was content with its immensely difficult life and never sought to improve itself in any noticable way. That's not humanity. That's apes.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on pangea, the age of dinosaurs lasted for a very long time span... fossil evidence suggests that dinosaurs began to appear when the earth was mostly one continent (around 200 million years ago)... over a very long time period the continents split up... so the original species were closely related... over time (100 million+ years) they diverged... the fossil record reflects this if you compare the more "modern" fossils to the older ones

I'm not convinced that this covers the difference between raptors. (Frowns) Well, I'll have to research.