Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.
One of the main arguements "against" evolution was:
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world.
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.
But on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
The scientists described evidence in the forward fins of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.
The discovering scientists called the fossils the most compelling examples yet of an animal that was at the cusp of the fish-tetrapod transition. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, at the suggestion of elders of Canada's Nunavut Territory. Tiktaalik (pronounced tic-TAH-lick) means "large shallow water fish."
I really don't like the use of the term "Intermediate" species however, it looks like the creationists are going to have to remove a very large piece of thier accusations leveled at Evolution. As of now the creationist statement as noted above is (as we all suspected) utter BS.
This is a major find that fills in the gap
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.
Embedded in the pectoral fins were bones that compare to the upper arm, forearm and primitive parts of the hand of land-living animals. The joints of the fins appeared to be capable of functioning for movement on land, a case of a fish improvising with its evolved anatomy. In all likelihood, the scientists said, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs mainly on the floor of streams and might have pulled itself up on the shore for brief stretches.
agreed.the notion that we were all created from a ball of gas then exploded and thus the universe.is just stupid. and why are humans the smartest species? because God made us that way.
and my question is where did this ball gas come from anyway? did someone fart it out?
Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)
I once asked my astronomy professor the same question, like where did this ball of gas come from to begin with, and WHAT is it expanding IN to? Even nothingness is something that is being filled. He said that behind closed doors (off the record), most scientists agree that there is a Higher force behind all this.
Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)
well since jinns are from the unseen I'm excluding them.im talking about the species we can see
"Religion is very easy & whoever overburdens himself in his religion won't be able to continue in that way.So you should'nt be extremists,but try to be near to perfection & receive good tidings that you'll be rewarded;& gain strength by worshipping in the mornings,the nights." (bukhari vol.1 no.38).
Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)
I once asked my astronomy professor the same question, like where did this ball of gas come from to begin with, and WHAT is it expanding IN to? Even nothingness is something that is being filled. He said that behind closed doors (off the record), most scientists agree that there is a Higher force behind all this.
Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)
Well, they are supposed to have substance, they are made out of Fire and water. Their level of intelligence is debatable though.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Oh noes! Theres loads of myths. Robin Hood...king Arthur...The Grassy Knoll in '63, Giant Spiders killing American Special Forces in Kandahar. Thousands of Myths about really......
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Oh noes! Theres loads of myths. Robin Hood...king Arthur...The Grassy Knoll in '63, Giant Spiders killing American Special Forces in Kandahar. Thousands of Myths about really......
agreed.the notion that we were all created from a ball of gas then exploded and thus the universe.is just stupid. and why are humans the smartest species? because God made us that way.
and my question is where did this ball gas come from anyway? did someone fart it out?
Your claim is just as fantastic as the theory of evolution though. You accept your God-did-it fantastic claim, perhaps even on faith, while denying the very possibility of evolution and the big bang, even though its the best guess scientists currently have.
I suggest to you that both could be wrong.
I suggest to you that we don't actually know if either is right or if both are wrong. There ae thousands of other possibilities.
Well, they are supposed to have substance, they are made out of Fire and water. Their level of intelligence is debatable though.
Jinns are made out of smokeless fire only. we are made out of clay and water, so we're just mud and water, shouldn't our "intelligence" be debtable as well?
Jinns have substances, unlike us, they have more capabilities like we have more compared to other species we know of.
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Jinn are myths, like the unicorn and angels, they are not species in the realm of science till you have evidence.
And on the record no scientists to my knowledge believes that a higher force is supported by science.
unicorns, magical springs in china, and other things are myths. Jinns, angels, devil, and God are faith based. There's more to science than mere limited knowledge of us humans. By logic of science we can say you don't have a brain becuase we can't hear, touch, feel, see or do other "scientific" observations.
Science is limited, today we know of other planets, we know of a whole new world of micro-organisms, 100yrs ago we didn't know such things even existed. Today we can go in space, and at one time we believed flying is only for birds. Tomorrow we may discover more that today we are ignorant of and deny. To judge something by a method (science) that we developed by our limited capacity will only fool us from those things we have yet learned to help us understand. Who knows, tomorow we may discover a way to see into other dimensions and a whole new world of species. Don't limit your understanding and beliefs by the limitation of science.
a scientist is not foold to go on record and say something against his career. I don't care about records, i'm saying what i've heard from the horses mouth.
unicorns, magical springs in china, and other things are myths. Jinns, angels, devil, and God are faith based.
Ok lets say they are religous based myths. Other myths include lockness, chubakubras etc.. and those have slightly more evidence for them.
There's more to science than mere limited knowledge of us humans. By logic of science we can say you don't have a brain becuase we can't hear, touch, feel, see or do other "scientific" observations.
Ill take the You comment as a generalization for everyone. No by science we have many reasons to suppose people have brains. Biological for one. We also know that we can take pictures of our brains with technology as well. We have evidence. Now maybe a long time ago we may have not known what the brain was but today we do.
Science is limited,
As opposed to what? Its limited by what we know and it strives to decrease that.
To judge something by a method (science) that we developed by our limited capacity will only fool us from those things we have yet learned to help us understand.
Thats why science contiues to strive to learn. Thats why we use evidence in science.
Don't limit your understanding and beliefs by the limitation of science.
Most people dont, thanks to science we can explain what we couldnt a hundred years ago. Now we know what causes natural disasters, floods, earthquakes , etc.. And no spirits are responcible.
Your claim is just as fantastic as the theory of evolution though. You accept your God-did-it fantastic claim, perhaps even on faith, while denying the very possibility of evolution and the big bang, even though its the best guess scientists currently have.
.
Religion-- at least Islam doesn't deny the big bang theory in fact many verses hint at it.. further there is nothing (about or against) evolution mentioned (save that of man)... Evolution fails on its own accord from a scientific stand point.. it is a belief as G-D is to religionists.
Peace!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
There's more to science than mere limited knowledge of us humans. By logic of science we can say you don't have a brain becuase we can't hear, touch, feel, see or do other "scientific" observations.
Ill take the You comment as a generalization for everyone. No by science we have many reasons to suppose people have brains. Biological for one. We also know that we can take pictures of our brains with technology as well. We have evidence. Now maybe a long time ago we may have not known what the brain was but today we do.
Science is limited,
As opposed to what? Its limited by what we know and it strives to decrease that.
To judge something by a method (science) that we developed by our limited capacity will only fool us from those things we have yet learned to help us understand.
Thats why science contiues to strive to learn. Thats why we use evidence in science.
Don't limit your understanding and beliefs by the limitation of science.
Most people dont, thanks to science we can explain what we couldnt a hundred years ago. Now we know what causes natural disasters, floods, earthquakes , etc.. And no spirits are responcible.
Good thing is that you believe that we are limited in our understanding as is our science of finding the truth. What we know now is very vast compared to what we knew before, but what we now is nothing compared to what we may know 100yrs from today. Dinosaurs are a reality today where as they were a myth before, angels and jinns are myth today for you but maybe not for others in the future. Our science is only limited to our intelligence, the more we advance the better our scien will be. So I advise you to keep an open mind and don't dismiss these beliefs so easily. Scientists don't believe in magic either but it still exists.
One area I see where science is misunderstood and misused. Science is not a belief system. It is a system of measurements and quantifications.
Science neither proves or disproves all aspects of Creation. It is merely the study of that which can be measured. I can prove with a measuring stick that a Dollar bill is 6.125 inches long. But, I can not prove the Loch Ness Nonster is 30 meters long. The fact I can not measure the Loch Ness Monster is not proof that it does not exist.
One area I see where science is misunderstood and misused. Science is not a belief system. It is a system of measurements and quantifications.
Science neither proves or disproves all aspects of Creation. It is merely the study of that which can be measured. I can prove with a measuring stick that a Dollar bill is 6.125 inches long. But, I can not prove the Loch Ness Nonster is 30 meters long. The fact I can not measure the Loch Ness Monster is not proof that it does not exist.
I couldn't imagine saying it better... I am not sure why there needs to be branching into elements in the realm of the unknown-- to make a claim for evolution? This has been a dreadfully long topic!..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Agreed, as has been said ad nauseum, science in not good a answering philosophical questions.
I guess the only reason it is used is if there are certain propositions put forward, such as YEC, that doesn't fit with scientific consensus. I'm sure if someone digs up Noah's Ark, the YECers would be all over it.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks