Evolution: The grand experiment

[nebula]

The video presentation isn't saying they can't find links between pterosaurs and modern animals, the video presentation is saying - or rather the evolutionists themselves are saying they cannot find a fossil ancestry for the pterosaurs. No ancestor, no transition, nothing! For all the fossils they have found of pterosaurs, they have found nothing that can be claimed as an ancestor to the animal.

This is false, just recently such a fossil was found - Darwinopterus modularis.

Warning: this link contains real science explained by an actual paleontologist.

OK, I read through the article. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to dissect it -

But it looks to me like that claim is this animal was a/the transition between rhamphorhynchoids - the primitive, mostly long-tailed basal forms of pterosaurs - and pterodactyloids - the more strongly modified, consistently short-tailed pterosaurs.

I am not seeing it claimed to be an ancestor to the pterosaurs, which is the point of the video segment.

[Guest Ditchens]

So youre basing your whole opinion that the fossil record doesnt support evolution on a quote by Gould (which, by the way, could possibly be taken out of context, like Darwin and his view of the evolution of the eye)? What about that fact that Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, both extremely well known and well respected evolutionary scientists who have been doing their work on evolution for well over 30 years, consider the fossil record to be extremely supportive of evolution? So does every science teacher I've ever had, and, being in my 3rd university year of animal biology, Ive met quite a few.

You misunderstand - I am basing my opinion that the fossil record doesn't support evolutionism on the scientific evidence I have reviewed. That evidence shows a fossil record that does not even come close to supporting common ancestry. It doesn

[Guest Ditchens]

Well I guess it's pretty clear that Im not convincing anyone. As far as your statement that the fossil record is full of holes and is missing transitional forms, its partially true. You are correct in that there is a lot that we haven't discovered. But we have found SOME transitional fossils. I know that seems like a useless argument, but consider this: if we have a few transitional fossils but have not found the majority of them, does that mean that we have to throw out the idea that it supports evolution?

Ditchens

[Bold Believer]

Ditchens,

You state that your training has been to interpret evolution to other scientists. I contend that makes you a theologian, whether you realize it or not; a theologian in the religion of random chance. Nature does not prove evolution to be true. Like begets like. Cats beget cats, dogs, dogs; and so forth. The Scriptures (and frankly, common sense) tell us this and nature proves it to be true. A cat doesn't eventually become a different species; it may interbreed with other types of cats to produce a previously unknown type of cat, but it's still a cat.

God is not given to flights of fancy, He is logical. All that He does makes ultimate sense, even if it is not perceived by we lesser mortals. As a previous poster has indicated, you've been lied to. Not only that, but the lie is deliberate, by someone who ultimately has a vested interest in ridding the world of even the very idea of God or a god.

[MorningGlory]

Yes, a god that loves you is a comforting thought (and doesnt it seem odd that you're told that youre born a lowly, pathetic sinner yet the whole universe and heaven has been created with you in mind?), yet it also drives people to harm and kill each other in the name of the god that brings them comfort. I see no need of that. And that, to me, seems logical.

I will pray for you. You need it.

[ollkiller]

Ditchens,

Not only that, but the lie is deliberate, by someone who ultimately has a vested interest in ridding the world of even the very idea of God or a god.

I still don't get this. Whether evolution is true or not does not in any way tell me if there is a god or not. If evolution is true could god have started it. Well if he can create everything evolution would be simple.

Maybe it's just me, but if there is a god when you come before judgement at the gates of heaven i don't think your fate will be decided on whether or not you believed in evolution. I think there are way more important things to be judged on. Of course i may be wrong....

[Guest Ditchens]

Ditchens,

You state that your training has been to interpret evolution to other scientists. I contend that makes you a theologian, whether you realize it or not; a theologian in the religion of random chance. Nature does not prove evolution to be true. Like begets like. Cats beget cats, dogs, dogs; and so forth. The Scriptures (and frankly, common sense) tell us this and nature proves it to be true. A cat doesn't eventually become a different species; it may interbreed with other types of cats to produce a previously unknown type of cat, but it's still a cat.

God is not given to flights of fancy, He is logical. All that He does makes ultimate sense, even if it is not perceived by we lesser mortals. As a previous poster has indicated, you've been lied to. Not only that, but the lie is deliberate, by someone who ultimately has a vested interest in ridding the world of even the very idea of God or a god.

1. I do not consider, nor would anyone else like me, science to be a religion. It is changeable, demands only what can back it up, and does not require worship. I love science in the way that a musician loves his music or a painter loves art, but I will not resign myself to blind obedient faith and nor should anyone else. I believe in science because I can see it work.

2. Evolution is NOT random. Nor is any other universal law.

3. Like does not always beget like and just because any scripture says so does not make it true. You're refusing to see evolution on the grander scheme. A cat cannot just randomly give birth to anything that is not a cat, and you're right in saying that that is highly illogical, but you seem to know nothing at all about how evolution really works. The change in species is so gradual it takes hundreds of millions of years. In that time, whatever a cat had evolved into would not have been born from a cat.

4. Am I truly the one being lied to? Let's think about this... I learn science from men and women who are apart of a system of fact-seeking through trial and proof, leading all the way from the lowly undergrad student up to world famous scientists like Dawkins. And, in the mainstream of the scientific community, evolution is 100% accepted (I refuse to count in the number of rebels against evolution in this, for it would be like saying christianity is false due to the presence of atheists and other religions, which gets me nowhere). Now compare the science teacher to the priest. I don't see scientists going on tv proclaiming we'll all be saved if we donate our money to them. Science teachers, though their styles differ, are not divided into wildly differing sects (catholicism, protestantism, baptism, anglicanism...). They don't ask for our money at the end of class and pass judgment on no one except when it comes to the midterm and final exam (is it not un-chrisitanly to judge?). The science teacher has countless books backing up his arguments. The priest has one, written by we don't know who in the year we don't know when making statements we cannot prove and advocating that we turn our eyes away from seeking truth and fact and silently obey or else we will be punished by the one who supposedly loves us. The science teacher is simply passing on knowledge. The priest is vying for your soul. Now. who is the one being lied to?

[Guest Ditchens]

Ditchens,

Not only that, but the lie is deliberate, by someone who ultimately has a vested interest in ridding the world of even the very idea of God or a god.

I still don't get this. Whether evolution is true or not does not in any way tell me if there is a god or not. If evolution is true could god have started it. Well if he can create everything evolution would be simple.

Maybe it's just me, but if there is a god when you come before judgement at the gates of heaven i don't think your fate will be decided on whether or not you believed in evolution. I think there are way more important things to be judged on. Of course i may be wrong....

Good point.

[MorningGlory]

The science teacher is simply passing on knowledge. The priest is vying for your soul. Now. who is the one being lied to?

You. I pray that you repent and seek the Lord before it's too late for you.

[MorningGlory]