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.
Actually it is more evidence. Those who want the truth care me thinks which says a lot about you.
Well, much of these fossile record seems as interpretation. Actually, Harun Yahya showed an example of how evolutionists were able to get three different apes from one fossile. As you know, we find only the bones, but a body is much more than that, so there's a lot of room for interpretation.
That simply doesn't follow. Evidence for a scientific theory or explanation is frequently evidence against a non-scientific explanation.
Only if the unscientific explanation is taken as a falsifiable theory. Let's use the examples you have given...
Sufficient weight of evidence may even result in what was once a "scientific" theory no longer being one - such as believing the Sun circles a stationary Earth, or that the Earth is flat.
Geocentricity was falsified when examined as a theory, as was the theory of a flat earth. Look at it this way - if creationism is not a scientific theory then it is not affected by scientific evidence; scientific evidence doesn't make creationism any more likely or unlikely. Finding what evolutionists call 'transitional forms' may support the theory of evolution but they won't falsify creationism because it doesn't contradict creationism. These species can just as easily be looked at as independent species which died out as they can be looked at as transitional forms.
Another example - solipsism is not a scientific theory, hence it cannot be falsified.
Evidence supporting a mutually contradictory explanation must therefore be evidence against it.
What do you feel is 'mutually contradictory' about creationism?
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
You can show me the complete fossil records all the way from the very first cell all the way to the human being, without a single missing link, and I'll still believe in God.
Second time around and you still don't get it. I'm not arguing over whether creationism is theory or not - my point is that if you claim it is NOT a theory, then no amount of evidence can falsify it. Evidence only supports or falsifies scientific theories.
I sure wish you would stop using the term "creation theory" then.
Creationism/ID as a theory is not falsifiable and unscientific. However, Creationism/ID not being correct is scientific and falsifiable. All you have to do is prove creationism/ID.
Another way to look at it is thus:
In contrast, the theory that the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).
You still keep stating that "I claim" that creationism is not a theory instead of just saying creationism is not a theory, why is that!
Theory or no theory, creationists like to suppport thier belief by trying to disprove evolution to which they cite no transitional fossils, again this thread puts an end to such creationist claims.
[BANANA]hey[/BANANA]...
If evolutionaists want to believe their fore fathers were a bunch of chimps and monkeys...they are free to do so. Don't spread the lie around trying to covince the believers of the same.
The people who cry about freedom are slaves to their own desires. I am a slave of my Exalted and Merciful Rabb, Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Alhamdulillah
You can show me the complete fossil records all the way from the very first cell all the way to the human being, without a single missing link, and I'll still believe in God.
I wouldn't want you to do otherwise. But would you accept that evolution would be a reasonable explanation for how God created the diversity of modern life, assuming I could show you a complete fossil record all the way back to the first cell?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
I wouldn't want you to do otherwise. But would you accept that evolution would be a reasonable explanation for how God created the diversity of modern life, assuming I could show you a complete fossil record all the way back to the first cell?
Well I would need to see the fossil record, first of all. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I don't believe we evolved from chimps. But the Title of the thread was "Creationists dealt a blow". My point was that fossil records don't disprove a creator.
If evolutionaists want to believe their fore fathers were a bunch of chimps and monkeys...they are free to do so. Don't spread the lie around trying to covince the believers of the same.
May I ask why you think that? And what you think the appropriate response would be if I tried to convince a Muslim, here, that evolution was true?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Well I would need to see the fossil record, first of all. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Seems reasonable to me. Do you accept my point about the emergence of bird fossils - that there were none, then there were some, and gradually there were a lot?
I don't believe we evolved from chimps.
Would you accept that we share a lot with chimpanzees in terms of DNA and body structure? In fact would you accept that the skeletons of most mammals, even whales, show strong similarities to humans?
But the Title of the thread was "Creationists dealt a blow". My point was that fossil records don't disprove a creator.
True, but it is a problem for some types of Creationist. They either have to claim that the fossils are fakes, or put their by God for some reason, or accept that God utilises evolution in His plan. May I ask what you think?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Before going deep into the lies of evolution, let us define evolution.
Evolution is a gradual change in the structure of the organism to bring about new species.
Darwin himseld said that his theory could be proved otherwise if there were no intermediate forms.
If one looks at the fossil record, one sees that new species appear suddenly. There arent any intermediate forms, hence Darwins theory collapses
Before going deep into the lies of evolution, let us define evolution.
Evolution is a gradual change in the structure of the organism to bring about new species.
Becuase of problems with definitions of "species" most scientists say these days that it is a change in the frequency of genes in the gene pool over time.
Darwin himseld said that his theory could be proved otherwise if there were no intermediate forms.
If one looks at the fossil record, one sees that new species appear suddenly. There arent any intermediate forms, hence Darwins theory collapses
Well that depends what you mean by an intermediate form. Usually any possible intermediate forms are given new names as a new species. But there are forms between what we have now and what we find back then. Again I point to the dinosaurs from China with feathers. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs and tell me there are no intermedia forms between birds and dinosaurs.
Again, there are three basic premises to Darwin's Theory:
1. Deep time: the Earth is very old.
2. Inherited Features: offspring look like their parents.
3. Selection: the better adapted at any one time have more successful children.
If you accept these you must accept change in the gene pool over time and hence Darwinism. Which of the three do you reject?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Looks like I need to start devoting some time learning more about the evolution theory it’s quite a hot topic-
I must admit my knowledge on this is quite poor! I studied Biology “A” Levels for two years, and evolution and other related subject never interested me-
When the time came to take the exam, would you know it, their was a huge section on Evolution, worth 10 -20 percent of the total mark- and all I wrote on the answer sheet-
"I don’t believe in it”
Any way I have an analogy , if you look at computer software industry- day by day its evolving , as Computer Hardware’s become more powerful, software developers are coding newer programs / upgrading older programs to complement it and vice versa –
To summarise computer software programs are evolving-
BUT NOT by Chance (the codes just don’t come together and upgrade or create a program)
Looks like I need to start devoting some time learning more about the evolution theory it’s quite a hot topic-
I must admit my knowledge on this is quite poor! I studied Biology “A” Levels for two years, and evolution and other related subject never interested me-
When the time came to take the exam, would you know it, their was a huge section on Evolution, worth 10 -20 percent of the total mark- and all I wrote on the answer sheet-
"I don’t believe in it”
Any way I have an analogy , if you look at computer software industry- day by day its evolving , as Computer Hardware’s become more powerful, software developers are coding newer programs / upgrading older programs to complement it and vice versa –
To summarise computer software programs are evolving-
BUT NOT by Chance (the codes just don’t come together and upgrade or create a program)
A programmer is still required to CODE it-
Kind Regards
Qurban
Bit different that. Computers cant regenerate cells nor are they “living”, just cant compare the two.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof
When the time came to take the exam, would you know it, their was a huge section on Evolution, worth 10 -20 percent of the total mark- and all I wrote on the answer sheet-
"I don’t believe in it”
I guess you did not do very well?
Any way I have an analogy , if you look at computer software industry- day by day its evolving , as Computer Hardware’s become more powerful, software developers are coding newer programs / upgrading older programs to complement it and vice versa –
To summarise computer software programs are evolving-
BUT NOT by Chance(the codes just don’t come together and upgrade or create a program)
A programmer is still required to CODE it
That is a common used argument - Paley's Watch argument in fact. But there is a difference between computer code and life. Computer code tends to be a logical development of one mind or at least a team. It should be trim and taught with no wasted lines or material (and Microsoft aside it often is). Life does not displays signs of that over-arching Mind that designs things in a taught logical sensible manner. For instance, the human eye is a very interesting design, but the nerve endings are on the inside of the eye thus blocking a proportion on the in-coming light and given Humans a blind spot. A sensible design would be like the octopus and put those ending on the outside of the eye. Evolution does not find the "best" solution, it finds the best local solution and often that can result in a mess.
And of course there is still the basic problem - if the Universe is so complex you need a Coder, who coded the Coder?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
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
Updated 24/7
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks