A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

THE CASE OF THE MISSING LINK Where are Darwin’s predicted fossils?

Posted by kayms99 on February 12, 2009

From Y-Origins Magazine

o_missing_link

The discovery of DNA has revolutionized the world of forensic evidence. Cold case files have been reopened. Criminals who thought they had beaten the system have been belatedly prosecuted by a swab of saliva or body fluids forgotten about for decades. And in some instances, the new evidence has exonerated innocent prisoners.

Herman Atkins was just 20 years old when his life began to fall apart. He was imprisoned in January, 1986 for wounding three people in a shooting spree in South-Central Los Angeles. Prior to his imprisonment a “Wanted” poster had been widely circulated.

Later, at a sheriff’s substation, a 23 year-old rape victim glanced at a “Wanted” poster on a nearby table that showed a young black fugitive from Los Angeles. In court, she testified that she turned to her mother and said, “That’s him,” and pointed at the picture of Herman Atkins. 

A clerk from an adjoining business where the attacker stopped briefly before the rape also identified Atkins. Based primarily upon these eyewitness testimonies, the jury found Herman Atkins guilty of rape and robbery. His sentence: 47 years, 8 months in prison.

Atkins spent thirteen years, three months, and six days in state prison, but not for a crime he had committed. His cold case had been reopened, and the DNA evidence had revealed that Atkins was not the rapist. On February 18, 2000 he walked out a free man, the victim of mistaken identity.

Just as DNA has revolutionized criminal forensics, the work of paleontologists has shed new light on human origins. Being an honest man, Charles Darwin made no bones (pardon the pun) about predicting that the forensic fossil evidence would ultimately prove his theory right or wrong.

But just as experts can jump to the wrong conclusion with regard to criminal evidence, so in the world of paleontology, a tooth, jaw, or piece of skull has often created premature headlines of “Missing Link Found.” Paleontologist Michael Boulter summarizes the problem with identifying fossils correctly:

 

It’s very hard to piece together a few broken bones from a fossilized group of differentially aged primates scattered over a desert or cave floor and to be sure that they come from the same animal….It follows that the reliability of any description that attempts to recognize an actual species cannot be totally objective.1

Boulter is alluding to the fact that, being human, most scientists look at a fossil through the lens of their own presuppositions. For example, those who wanted to make a case for humans descending from apes were quick to jump with joy over the supposed discovery of the “missing link” called Piltdown Man. Featured in the London Times, New York Times, and various science journals, they made it a textbook example of the connection between apes and humans. However, forty years later, in 1953, it was revealed as a fraud.

Frauds like the Piltdown Man are rare, and although objectivity is often lacking, there is actually a wealth of fossil evidence depicting the history of life on our planet.

So in order to see what the forensic evidence says about Darwin’s theory, we need to hear from paleontologists themselves about the evidence they have gathered during the nearly 150 years since he launched his theory. Our starting point is to clearly understand the predictions Darwin made regarding his theory and the fossils that should have resulted.

 

 

DARWIN’S TWO THEORIES

Charles Darwin was not the first to believe that life could arise by purely natural processes. In fact, the idea can be traced back as far as ancient Greece. And surely long before Darwin, people made the casual observation, “Hey, that guy kind of looks like a chimp.” But it was Darwin who gave the ideas intellectual teeth, or viability, through his observation and hypothesizing of several processes, including adaptation and natural selection.

Few people realize that Darwin’s theory of evolution predicts two different results: microevolution and macroevolution. We will look at microevolution first.

His micro-evolutionary theory states that variations within a species (cats, dogs, humans) can produce radical changes over time. He stated that sometimes these changes are accelerated by environmental conditions. For example, while on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin observed finches that had apparently grown slightly longer beaks during drought conditions. This confirmed his belief that creatures adapt to their environments.

Evolutionist Niles Eldredge explains the importance of adaptation to Darwin’s theory: “Adaptation is the very heart and soul of evolution. It is the scientific account of why the living world comes in so many shapes and sizes: how the giraffe got its long neck, why porpoises look so much like sharks … how birds fly.”2

Darwin believed that overpopulation of a species creates food shortages, which result in a struggle for survival, with the strongest of the species winning out. Kind of like Survivor, the winners pass on their genes to the next generation, improving the species, so life advances by survival of the fittest.

The evidence for Darwin’s theory of change within a species is compelling. Bacteria do mutate and evolve. Cats, dogs, birds, and human beings all show evidence of variation predicted by Darwin. Some of us are tall, others short. Some thin, others…oops, better not go there.

The controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution is over his general theory of macroevolution. It states that over eons of time, all life evolved by the same process of natural selection. If true, then human beings are merely the end product of a long evolutionary chain. His belief in macroevolution is the reason Stephen Jay Gould was able to say that human beings are nothing more than “glorious evolutionary accidents.”3

As we examine Darwin’s general theory of macroevolution, we need to recognize that most biologists believe it provides the only scientific explanation for human origins. Materialists use this argument to reject intelligent design, saying it is “unscientific.”

Yet only 5% of the universe is observable. The other 95% is dark energy and matter which is hidden from us. Is it possible that a designer operates within the hidden 95%? Or could a designer manipulate DNA from the invisible quantum world to create or alter matter without violating natural laws? Materialists certainly can’t exclude a designer, given they only are able to observe 5% of the universe.

An increasing number of scientists are looking at the evidence from a common sense point of view. If macroevolution is right then it makes sense that the fossil record would prove Darwin right. So they begin by looking at the evidence that Darwin predicted would substantiate his claims. Darwin predicted that transitional fossil discoveries would eventually prove his theory right.

But are adaptation and natural selection enough to account for the evolution of all life?

The idea that one species could slowly change into another creates its own special problems, and because of these, Darwin championed the idea of favorable mutations. That is, the DNA of an organism would, on rare occasions, mutate favorably, which over time would lead to other favorable mutations, and the next thing you know, that ugly rat is now a cute little armadillo. Darwin assumed that life advanced over time from one-celled creatures all the way to humankind.

 

 

THE ROCKS TALK

We have observed examples of microevolution in which variations exist within a species. But there is little or no empirical evidence supporting Darwin’s claim of macroevolution—one species evolving into another species.4 More sophisticated creatures clearly do appear to arrive in later periods, but there remain yawning chasms (not mere gaps) between not only different species, but even between the highest orders of creatures, what are called phyla.

Why are the missing links essential to Darwin’s theory? Couldn’t gradual macroevolution have occurred without producing transitional fossils? Not according to Darwin. And certainly if countless species had undergone very gradual transitions from one category to another (for example, cats into dogs or fish into birds), then, according to Darwin, there should be countless fossils.

The abundance of transitional fossils should be demonstrable within all phyla and species, not merely a few. Certainly there should be many millions of transitional fossils, since it is estimated that over a billion species have existed in Earth’s history. Again, we are not looking for microevolutionary changes of one type of bird evolving into another, or one type of horse evolving into another horse, etc.

Evolutionist Steven Stanley, a paleobiologist from Johns Hopkins, concludes in his book Macroevolution that, without the fossil evidence, “we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis.”5 In other words, all the conjecture about whether Darwinian evolution is factual or not comes down to hard evidence.

Occasionally some researcher claims to have “evolved” a new species in the lab, but that is not evidence for Darwinian macroevolution. In fact, many such claims turn out to be bogus, or merely evidence for microevolution. In any case, the lab experiment involves intelligence, not chance.

For 150 years paleontologists have been busy digging, classifying, and looking for these transitional fossils in a worldwide hunt. Billions of fossils representing about 250,000 species have been scrutinized. What have the scientists discovered? Does the fossil evidence support Darwin’s theory of macroevolution? If it does, the missing links Darwin predicted should no longer be missing.

We commence our fossil search with the mysterious Cambrian period, an era geologists date at around 530 million years ago.

 

BOOM-LIFE

Seemingly out of the blue, complex life-forms with fully developed eyes appeared during the Cambrian period. It has been called by some “biology’s big bang.”

Only fossils for simple life-forms have been discovered from the time prior to the Cambrian period. Then, suddenly, the fossil record is shown to be teeming with more complex life-forms than exist today. It is called the “Cambrian Explosion.”

Explosion is an apt term in this case. We see the period’s importance, for example, in the appearance of new phyla. Phyla are the broadest category of animals that exist. According to biologists, you are a member of a phylum that also includes gerbils and trout.

The differences between phyla are even more extreme than the differences within them. For example, the slug family falls into a separate phylum from that of humans. (So feel the freedom to squish them.) In fact, organisms in different phyla are built according to entirely different body plans.

What paleontologists find in the Cambrian explosion is not simply the appearance of a few new animals but the appearance of 50 completely different body types without prior transitions or predecessors.

Darwin staked his entire theory on the belief that a species could never suddenly appear. He said, “If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.”6

Yet complex body organs such as eyes suddenly appeared during the Cambrian period. The trilobite eye has dozens of complex tubes, each with its own intricate lens. Darwinian gradualism cannot account for the sudden development of complex organs such as the fully formed eye.7 Evolutionists are stumped because Darwin theorized that complex organs like the eye could only develop gradually over enormous periods of time, traceable to a common ancestor. Yet five totally different phyla with no hint of a common ancestor all suddenly popped into existence during the Cambrian period, each with fully developed eyes.8

T. S. Kemp, curator of the zoological collections at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, is one of the world’s foremost experts on Cambrian fossils. When discussing the sudden appearances of new species, Kemp declares, “With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved. … It is not at all what might have been expected.”9

Certainly new organisms with eyes developing quickly is not what Darwin had in mind when his theory defined natural selection as gradual changes over vast amounts of time. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins—no friend to a belief in creation—affirms, “Without gradualness … we are back to a miracle.”10

Stephen Gould, a staunch advocate of materialistic evolution, sums up the problem for Darwinists: “We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. … The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”11

Although the Cambrian explosion doesn’t disprove Darwin’s theory, it certainly does raise a huge question mark, and it has been a source of great frustration to materialists. But is the Cambrian explosion of suddenly appearing new species the only contradiction to Darwin’s theory of macroevolution?

 

 

GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE

Although paleontologists have found a few fossils they claim are transitional, such as the Archaeopteryx (a long-extinct bird with reptilian features), the fossil record has been embarrassingly disappointing. Molecular biologist Michael Denton remarks, “Archaeopteryx was probably the best intermediate that Darwin was able to name, yet between reptiles and Archaeopteryx there was still a very obvious gap.”12

Gould’s colleague, Eldredge, frankly admits the failure of the fossil record to provide evidence for macroevolution, stating, “No one has found any such in-between creatures … and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.”13

 

 

LIFE-FORMS IN A RUT

What the fossil record does show, according to paleontologists, is that most species don’t change but rather remain virtually the same for millions of years. They call this phenomenon stasis, which basically means you should not expect to grow a second head or third arm anytime in the foreseeable future.

Kemp forcefully summarizes the findings from the fossil record: “It is now indisputable that stasis … occurs in … probably a majority of cases of fossil species. … Equally it seems beyond dispute that speculation [macroevolution] usually occurs so rapidly … that the process is below the resolution of the fossil record.”14

In other words evolution rarely occurs, and when it does, it occurs so rapidly it leaves no fossil trail. Eldredge remarks, “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen.”15 But wait. Didn’t Darwin theorize that all of life gradually evolved? How do Darwinists respond to this embarrassing lack of evidence?

According to Gould, with silence: “It’s not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”16 Gould, one of Darwin’s strongest advocates, also admits, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and notes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”17

Paleontologist Whitey Hagadorn has intensely studied fossils of the early marine animal communities, looking for evidence of transitions. He remarks, “Paleontologists have the best eyes in the world. If we can’t find the fossils, sometimes you have to think that they just weren’t there.”18

 

GRADUATING FROM GRADUALISM

Eldredge discloses that the Darwinian paradigm is so strong that paleontologists refused to admit defeat by acknowledging gradualism as wrong. “Paleontologists clung to the myth of gradual adaptive transformation even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary… ”19

Eldredge and his colleague Gould, however, responded to the lack of transitional fossils by developing a new theory called punctuated equilibria, a complete departure from Darwin’s basic premise of gradualism.20

The punctuated equilibria theory contends that evolution, rather than being a gradual process, flourished quickly in small, isolated geographic regions, and then stabilized. But evolution was the exception, and rarely occurred.

Gould and Eldredge have argued that a sudden jump from species to species is the only way to explain the missing transitional fossils. Denton contests their conclusions are difficult to believe. “To suggest that … possibly even millions of transitional species … were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible.”21

Whereas Darwin’s theory required many millions of years, punctuated equilibria speculates that body forms evolved in hundreds of thousands of years, merely 100th of one percent of Earth’s history. There is no known mechanism that can work so fast.

Based upon the fossil evidence, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Cambrian fossils contradict Darwin’s theory.
2. Transitional fossils have failed to show up.
3. Most species don’t change.
4. Perplexed materialists are seeking non-Darwinian explanations.

Gerald Schroeder cites how microevolutionary examples are used by Darwinists as “proof” of macroevolution: “…when the London Museum ofnatural History, a bastion of Darwinian dogma, mounted a massive exhibit on evolution, occupying an entire wing of the second floor, the only examples it could show were pink daisies evolving into blue daisies, little dogs evolving into big dogs, a few dozen species of cichlid fish evolving into hundreds of species of—you guessed it—cichlid fish. They could not come up with a single major morphological change clearly recorded in the fossil record. I am not anti-evolution. And I am not pro-creation. What I am is pro-look-at-the-data-and-see-what-they-teach.”22

 

 

EVOLUTION WITH A PURPOSE?

Some scientists believe that the chemistry of life has been fine-tuned and that evolution was programmed into nature’s laws. Conway Morris of Cambridge University, acknowledged as one of the foremost paleontologists of his time, has proposed a theory that combines design and evolution. Morris observes, “Far from being a random, directionless process, evolution shows deep patterns, and perhaps even a purpose.”23

In his book Life’s Solution, Morris makes a compelling case for inherent design in life. Morris suggests that life could not have been a mere product of time plus chance, as Darwin theorized. He sees design and purpose in biological structures, pondering:

 

Does evolution have a structure, an overall design, perhaps even a purpose? Orthodox opinion recoils from this prospect. Evolution, it is widely believed, is an effectively random process where almost any outcome is possible. … We, like all other life, are an evolutionary accident. But is this correct? In fact the evidence points in exactly theopposite direction.24

Morris cites evidence of design patterns like the eye, that exist in unrelated phyla. How did each of these unrelated animal groups develop an eye, independent of one another? Morris believes there are common patterns built into nature’s laws. He calls his theory, convergence.

According to Morris, such common design patterns in totally separate phyla provide compelling evidence against Darwin’s theory of accidental naturalistic evolution. But is designed evolution really an option if there is little or no fossil evidence to support macroevolution?

Although, like Morris, many believe in some form of directed evolution, such theories don’t adequately explain the missing transitional fossils. Macroevolution, whether by design or by accident, still requires transitional forms. Yet the intense scrutiny of billions of fossils has failed to provide clear evidence for macroevolution other than a few debatable exceptions.

What, then, is the most plausible explanation for the missing transitional forms? There are really only three viable options:

1. Darwin was right about macroevolution. Transitional fossils will someday be found, or all the transitionals were destroyed.
2. Darwin was wrong about gradualism. Macroevolution occurred rapidly, explaining the missing transitions (punctuated equilibria).
3. Darwin was wrong about macroevolution. The fossils can’t be found because transitions never existed (design).

Paleontologists are not in agreement on which option is correct, but there is general agreement that the fossils that Darwin predicted would be discovered in abundance are truly missing. Materialists respond by showing fossil evidence of horses gradually evolving. But that is only microevolution.

They also try to depict human evolution by assembling fragments of hominid skulls.

But the origin of Homo sapiens has been a source of frustration and controversy.

As we have seen, Darwinist’s best example, the Archaeopteryx, is a debatable transition between birds and reptiles. If Darwin was right, there should be millions of his predicted transitional fossils forthcoming by now. That would end the debate.

 

DARWIN’S OWN VERDICT

In the case of Herman Atkins, DNA evidence proved that the original eyewitness testimony was flawed. Is it possible, that the combination of new evidence from molecular biology and the missing transitional fossils have revealed Darwinian evolution to be a flawed theory?

Biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders speak for many scientists who seriously question the claims of Darwin’s theory:

“It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutia of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.”25

Regardless of one’s views of Charles Darwin, the geological record seems to have confirmed his worst fears; missing transitions, and the sudden appearance of new life forms. What Gould called the “trade secret” of paleontologists, the missing transitional fossils, points to the sudden appearance of new life forms, a phenomenon that Darwin said would be “fatal” to his theory of macroevolution.

Perhaps Gould’s colleague Eldredge said it best when he admitted, “there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.”26 And so we are left with a fossil trail that raises the question: How did these new life forms, some with fully developed eyes, appear so suddenly?

Many scientists reflect the view of Dr. Jonathan Wells, holder of PhD’s in theology from Yale, and biology from Berkeley, who states, “Does this mean that biologists should devote their energies to proving the existence of a designer? I think not. It simply means that biologists should trust their common sense…biologists would be better off following the evidence wherever it leads.”27

 

 

NOTES

1 Michael Boulter, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man (London: Columbia University Press 2005).
2 Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin (London: Phoenix Giant, 1995), 33.
3 Wim Kayzer, “A Glorious Accident” (New York: Freeman, 1997), 92.
4 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. (New York: University Press, 1988), 413.
5 Steven Stanley, Macroevolution (San Francisco: Freeman, 1979), 2.
6 Darwin, 344.
7 Ibid.
8 Behe, 22.
9 T. S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253.
10 Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden (New York: Basic, 1995), 83.
11 Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” Scientific American, October 1994.
12 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase MD: Alder & Alder, 1986), 46-56.
13 George Alexander, “Alternative Theory of Evolution Considered,” Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.
14 Kemp, 147.
15 Eldredge, 95.
16 Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” (lecture, Hobart and William and Smith College, February 14, 1980).
17 Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol.86, May 1977,14.
18 Quoted in, Thomas Hayden, “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, July 29, 2002, 2.
19 Eldredge, 63.
20 Behe, 27–30.
21 Denton, 193–4.
22 Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God (New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 2001), 91.
23 Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), front book jacket.
24 Darwin, 413.
25 M. H. Ho and P. T. Saunders, “Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 78 (1979), 589.
26 George Alexander, Ibid.
27 Quoted in William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2001), 127.

 

From Y-Origins Magazine

KnowGodpersonally.org

Advertisements

114 Responses to “THE CASE OF THE MISSING LINK Where are Darwin’s predicted fossils?”

  1. lawman2 said

    “hole” in the theory: creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka “missing links.”

    biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.

    as key evidence for evolution and species’ gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.

    Like

  2. lawman2 said

    but still good read and enjoyed it.i added a pic for you.is it ok?

    Like

  3. lawman2 said

    you need to take out the back to top links as they take you back to loggin and dashboard!

    Like

  4. tothewire said

    I didn’t publish this one. I think it is from Kay. Great read!

    I’ll take out the back to top links

    Like

  5. lawman2 said

    always do a preview post to check and make sure all links work, and don’t take you to our dashboard for those readers who are wordpress.com bloggers and not to loggin page for those readers who are not!

    Like

  6. ransom33 said

    Dear Lawman2,

    Thank you for your lovely comment you left on my blog just now, to which I have replied on my post.

    You have just made my day and filled me with hope.

    ransom33 @ http://www.ransom33.wordpress.com

    Like

  7. lawman2 said

    why you’re welcome ransom! good to read ya here again!

    Like

  8. lawman2 said

    who posted this?

    Like

  9. tothewire said

    I think Kay. You post under my name all the time Lawman! It doesn’t really bother me…unless you post a comment under my name! I’ll change it though.

    Like

  10. lawman2 said

    no leave it incase it wasn’t kay. might have been dorian or ota.most like ota or kay.

    Like

  11. kay~ms said

    It was me.. sorry…

    Lawman… you just copied and pasted from the other article??? This article presents a major argument to the other one…

    It’s very hard to piece together a few broken bones from a fossilized group of differentially aged primates scattered over a desert or cave floor and to be sure that they come from the same animal….It follows that the reliability of any description that attempts to recognize an actual species cannot be totally objective.1

    Boulter is alluding to the fact that, being human, most scientists look at a fossil through the lens of their own presuppositions. For example, those who wanted to make a case for humans descending from apes were quick to jump with joy over the supposed discovery of the “missing link” called Piltdown Man. Featured in the London Times, New York Times, and various science journals, they made it a textbook example of the connection between apes and humans. However, forty years later, in 1953, it was revealed as a fraud.

    Frauds like the Piltdown Man are rare, and although objectivity is often lacking, there is actually a wealth of fossil evidence depicting the history of life on our planet.

    So in order to see what the forensic evidence says about Darwin’s theory, we need to hear from paleontologists themselves about the evidence they have gathered during the nearly 150 years since he launched his theory. Our starting point is to clearly understand the predictions Darwin made regarding his theory and the fossils that should have resulted.

    Seemingly out of the blue, complex life-forms with fully developed eyes appeared during the Cambrian period. It has been called by some “biology’s big bang.”

    Only fossils for simple life-forms have been discovered from the time prior to the Cambrian period. Then, suddenly, the fossil record is shown to be teeming with more complex life-forms than exist today. It is called the “Cambrian Explosion.”

    Explosion is an apt term in this case. We see the period’s importance, for example, in the appearance of new phyla. Phyla are the broadest category of animals that exist. According to biologists, you are a member of a phylum that also includes gerbils and trout.

    The differences between phyla are even more extreme than the differences within them. For example, the slug family falls into a separate phylum from that of humans. (So feel the freedom to squish them.) In fact, organisms in different phyla are built according to entirely different body plans.

    What paleontologists find in the Cambrian explosion is not simply the appearance of a few new animals but the appearance of 50 completely different body types without prior transitions or predecessors.

    Darwin staked his entire theory on the belief that a species could never suddenly appear. He said, “If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.”6

    Yet complex body organs such as eyes suddenly appeared during the Cambrian period. The trilobite eye has dozens of complex tubes, each with its own intricate lens. Darwinian gradualism cannot account for the sudden development of complex organs such as the fully formed eye.7 Evolutionists are stumped because Darwin theorized that complex organs like the eye could only develop gradually over enormous periods of time, traceable to a common ancestor. Yet five totally different phyla with no hint of a common ancestor all suddenly popped into existence during the Cambrian period, each with fully developed eyes.8

    T. S. Kemp, curator of the zoological collections at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, is one of the world’s foremost experts on Cambrian fossils. When discussing the sudden appearances of new species, Kemp declares, “With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved. … It is not at all what might have been expected.”9

    Certainly new organisms with eyes developing quickly is not what Darwin had in mind when his theory defined natural selection as gradual changes over vast amounts of time. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins—no friend to a belief in creation—affirms, “Without gradualness … we are back to a MIRACLE.”10

    Like

  12. kay~ms said

    Oh and great picture Lawman..thanks! and thanks TTW for removing the links..

    Like

  13. Anonymous said

    k – nice read, thanks! they have found a few “transitional” fossils but all in all i think the entire thing is a miracle of God and nature, and its material manifestations are explained to us by inspired scientists whose brilliant minds are a miracle in itself.

    Like

  14. dorian9 said

    i was anonymous again but i mean everything i say, i promise

    Like

  15. sk3ptik said

    Great article–nicely written.

    Like

  16. Just because a fallacious argument is well written and has a lot of footnotes doesn’t make it any more plausible.Well I won’t foam at the mouth, but how is it that as the human embryo develops it acquires, displays and loses various characteristics from different evolutionary periods. How is it that we still have a reptilian brain alongside the mammalian one? We carry this supposedly lost transition in our genes. And however many ‘holes’ there may be in the theory of evolution, it still seems to me to stand up pretty well against the alternative theory which is, now let me see if I understand it in all its complexity ‘um, there is an allpowerful thing somewhere and he she or it done it all’
    For more about the thing go here:
    http://www.officialgodfaq.com/

    Like

  17. lawman2 said

    hey there gang!good to read ya again!
    loved the post on noseycow’s blog http://madhatters.me.uk/2009/02/12/devolve-yourself/
    had some fun with that site duncanr pasted!

    Like

  18. lawman2 said

    @betty thinking about all you downunder.good to read ya here!

    Like

  19. dorian9 said

    very funny betty. you hold the record for the most abbreviated faq site. to make things simple just think of the snake and adam and eve. that should cover the reptile and mammal. why are we so concerned about the transitional species anyway nature will takes its course and we shall all evolve into little green men. watch out the big bat cometh…

    Like

  20. RJ said

    Just because a fallacious argument is well written and has a lot of footnotes doesn’t make it any more plausible.

    LOL

    Like

  21. lawman2 said

    yep betty has a gift with words…

    Like

  22. kay~ms said

    Bettyslocombe said…
    how is it that as the human embryo develops it acquires, displays and loses various characteristics from different evolutionary periods. How is it that we still have a reptilian brain alongside the mammalian one?

    What?? I never heard that before… sure would be nice to have some footnotes….

    Like

  23. kay~ms said

    Now again.. what is your theory? as opposed to ” there is an allpowerful thing somewhere and he she or it done it all”.

    Is it the mega complicated uh.. big bang theory?? Where there was a loud noise and then it just all happened thru evolution? Everything just happened to fall into place and make perfect sense all by itself…yeah… now that’s intelligent…makes all kinds of sense… I just can’t help wondering what was used to make the ‘big bang’ happen and where this ‘stuff’ came from…

    Like

  24. Lawman2 said

    you write that like your god magically spoke us all in to existence is probable…hehehe

    Like

  25. kay~ms said

    Here we are again… back to probability… not only is it not probable but not LOGICAL for existance to even be… you keep forgetting that… we got here somehow but no one can seem to come up with a logical explanation for this… including Darwin. Darwin explains how existance advances.. that’s all… the question of how it all began STILL leads us to believe that it WAS miracle or ‘magic’ … something beyond our comprehension… a MIND created all of this… it’s so obvious and clear. It’s just silly to think that all of this just happened… sorry, but it’s ridiculous and ignorant… there is so much that a non believer has to IGNORE in order to not believe in God… it’s the ultimate ignorance…

    Could any of the Atheists here please tell me what theory you believe as to how existance came to be? Convince me that it’s more reasonable than a Supreme Being… convince me that our existance makes sense!!!

    And if you can’t then you should really think about having an open mind on this subject… the wisest statement yet.. if I do say so myself…

    Like

  26. Lawman2 said

    Before going in depth about the formation of the first cell, it must be first understood what cells are. All life is formed by cells. What makes organisms different, is how many cells there are, what type of cells there are, and how these cells are organized. Many micro-organisms consist of only one cell, which carries out all functions needed to survive. Other organisms consist of more cells, such as humans, who contain over a trillion cells, most of which are specialized for a certain function.

    Every cells is made up of many smaller parts. There is the nucleus present in most cells, which contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), which stores the blueprint of the cell. There are mitochondria which break down compounds and produce energy. There are many other parts in a cell, each of which has a specific function. These parts of the cell are made up of proteins, which are made up of long strands of amino acids, which are made up of different combinations of the base elements of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O). Of all the possible types of combinations forming amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins. However, these 20 amino acids can form almost infinite numbers of combinations to create an almost infinite number of proteins.

    But how was the first cell created? Charles Darwin proposed that the first proteins evolved from non-living matter. But how did this happen? Firstly, the earth was not the same today as it was 3 to 4 billion years ago when the first organic compounds where being formed. The early atmosphere was too hot for oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and other elements to exist alone, as they do today. These elements combined to form methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (formula), hydrogen molecules (H2), etc. These where all, and thus the early atmosphere was called a ‘reducing atmosphere’. Further, as there was no free oxygen to form an ozone (O3) layer to protect the earth from the harsh ultra-violet radiation (UV Rays) from the sun. Also, there where incredibly violent electrical storms, which where more violent than any which occur today.

    In 1924 Alexander Oparin hypothesized that organic compounds where formed in the early earth when the high energy provided by UV Rays, and storms, caused different molecules to react, and create new organic compounds, such as Amino Acids DNA, and RNA.

    In the early 1950s, Professor Harold Urey and one of his students, Stanley Miller, began experimenting to prove Oparin’s theory. Miller built an apparatus which circulated gasses likely to be present in the early atmosphere (Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), and hydrogen (H2) ) past an electrical discharge, simulating the UV Rays and violent electrical storms present in the early atmosphere.

    After allowing the experiment to continue for a week, the results where startling. The previously colorless solution inside the apparatus had turned red. Upon analyzing the solution, Miller found many organic molecules present, some of which couldn’t be readily identified. The most important of created compounds, however, where amino acids. This, in effect, proved Oparin’s theory that organic compounds could have been created in the early atmosphere. Further studies showed that some amino acids would have combined with hydrogen cyanide (HCN), which is a byproduct of volcanic activity. This combination would form purines and pyrinidines, which are used to make nucleic acids, which in turn create DNA

    After these compounds had been created on the early earth, the earth eventually began to cool. Water vapor the condensed, which formed vast oceans, seas and lakes, in which simple organic molecules began to accumulate for millions of years, producing an “organic soup” of sorts. The amino acids would have then polymerized (which means they formed chains, such as proteins. E.g… (aa=amino acid) aa-aa-aa-aa-aa = protein). The most likely theory as to how the amino acids combined is that they where washed up into clay/rock depressions on land, where the water evaporated, leaving behind concentrated organic compounds in high heat.

    Sidney W. Fox set out to prove this. He took a mixture of approximately 20 different amino acids, and heated then to the melting point. When they cooled, Fox observed that they had polymerized into proteins.

    But how did these proteins and other organic compounds form the first cell? It is not very clear, but most likely, a group of organic molecules including proteins, and primitive fatty acids formed into a droplet, or bubble-like structure, which had the ability to combine with external elements, such as proteins not a part of it. Eventually, these droplets would grow, and divide. These droplets would eventually evolve into the first true cell. These early cells would have been autotrophs, which are organism which produce their own energy, usually from sunlight. Some of these cells would then evolve into heterotrophs (organisms which ingest organic material as a nutrient source)

    Like

  27. Lawman2 said

    http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-2.htm

    Like

  28. Lawman2 said

    a bit more probable than “poof he spoke it and it was”

    Like

  29. Lawman2 said

    NOW can you prove god exist?

    Like

  30. kay~ms said

    Not so fast Lawman…

    You posted..“But how was the first cell created? Charles Darwin proposed that the first proteins evolved from non-living matter. But how did this happen? Firstly, the earth was not the same today as it was 3 to 4 billion years ago when the first organic compounds where being formed.”

    Let me just stop you there… you do this every time…99% of what you posted is irrelevant to my question!

    “Charles Darwin proposed that the first proteins evolved from non-living matter”.

    uh… where did this “non-living” matter come from?????

    Firstly, the earth was not the same today as it was 3 to 4 billion years ago when the first organic compounds where being formed.

    My question is pertaining to where the EARTH AND ALL EXISTENCE come from… you didn’t quite go back far enough… I’m talking about the BEGINNING of EXISTENCE… you know this already… you’re not fooling anyone…

    Just be honest and admit that our existence is not logical…

    Like

  31. Rj said

    Lawman, I want to know if you understand that believing in God is much easier than understanding, or trying to understand any of what you just wrote. That way, everyone can focus their energies on destroying this God-Given earth.

    Pass me the popcorn, again.

    Like

  32. kay~ms said

    Now look what door you opened RJ… It’s EASIER to not believe in God because then you can go on doing as you please with only yourself to answer to…. and yeah yeah.. I already hear it…

    I understood the science… what I read… again.. it doesn’t pertain to my question.. that’s what you ( and Lawman ) are ignoring right now… the ACTUAL question!

    Lawman likes to post a bunch of ramblings to cloud the fact that he doesn’t have an answer…
    but it doesn’t work and it only makes him look silly…

    Like

  33. Rj said

    Yeah, Lawman, because you KNOW that non-Christians don’t have any damn morals and they don’t give a damn about greater society. Bah–so selfish.

    Like

  34. dorian9 said

    lawman – sorry, we can’t give you God’s dna.
    only living organisms have that. if you can give us the scientific elements of hope or love then maybe we can evidence the intangible. there shouldn’t be any need to prove or disprove faith. science can never disprove that there is no God.
    if God cannot be debunked then at least be open to the possibility that he/she exists and can hit you upside your head with a divine omnipresent hand. okay so maybe God won’t, but kay will, with her bat..
    i got your back on this one kay.

    pass the popcorn and can we add more butter..

    Like

  35. lawman2 said

    I have no desire to disprove the existence of god anymore than I would the tooth fairy. I just think it should be pointed out that it isn’t probable.

    Like

  36. Rj said

    i LOVE the tooth fairy. please don’t denigrate him.

    Like

  37. dorian9 said

    got the point abt the law of probability- it’s easier to bring on tangible evidence provided to us by science. but personally, partly because of the catholic upbringing and proclivity to things incorporeal , whether you would call God supreme being or creator or even force of nature, i still believe there exists that which we cannot control and find the formula for. we have our souls that will live beyond atoms and molecules. maybe my God has a different face and voice than kay’s God but i believe it’s one and the same and i continue to uppercase the first letter out of reverence. tooth fairy’s okay, so is santa. now ghosts and hauntings, i like to debunk using logic and technology because people are afraid of them , even though there’s the possibility that those energies exist. more in that, maybe that calls for a new post…

    Like

  38. dorian9 said

    there you are rj – gliberal after my own heart…

    Like

  39. Interjection: You either believe in god: or you don’t. Any sentence which begins ‘I believe in god because…’ is as completely delusional as one which begins ‘I don’t believe in God because…’.So if you do, you have the freedom to pop him in at whichever stage of life you like: he can start the big bang: he can intelligently design: he can make every little thing: he can start in 4004!
    And if you don’t then you have to try and work out how things came to be the way they are according to the best guesses and the available evidence. But the universe is still the universe, whatever you believe: it is expanding, at a definable rate, whatever you believe: so it must have, at a definable moment in the past, been as small as something can be, a singularity, which then expanded at unimaginable speed (the big bang).
    Does anyone have any other explanation?
    We know how stars and planets are formed: that’s not even contoversial. And it is possible to posit, logically, a way in which organic life came to be (cf Daniel C. Dennett’s ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ chapter seven……)
    Dennett also points out that it is quite reasonable for eyes to have evolved indepently many times because they are an efficient solution to the problem of being an locomoting creature moving through a transparent or translucent medium readily supplied with ambient light. Dennett shows quite plausibly how life as we know it could have come about with any ‘sky cranes’ as he calls them, by an algorhythmic process powered by chance and refined by the laws of selection.

    What happened before the big bang? Who knows? One day we may. One day we may understand all the alternate universes that quantum physics hints at: It is clear to me that people believe in god for the same reason that people have always believed in gods: and God is no different to Moloch or Jupiter in this regard: they want the world to make sense: they can’t go on with the idea that things just happen: even though God is just as ineffable and regressive a concept as what happened before the big bang. If no one made god there is, logically no need for anyone to have made the universe. The two concepts are logically identical. That is why the idea of evolution arose in the first place.

    And just because my arguments are distilled from all the New Scientists I have read in the doctor’s waiting room over the years doesn’t make them any less piercing and accurate.

    Like

  40. Lawman2 said

    well written betty!actually that would make a great post all on its own!

    Like

  41. kay~ms said

    Betty.. first, I’m confused about the first part of your post… Do you believe in God? If not, then why?

    I think this is the best question of all to ask an Atheist… with there being NO proof that God doesn’t exist, how do you then justify completely dismissing God’s existence?? How can you say “no” there is no God without proof??? That is not a very scientific approach.

    Dennett believes that it is “quite reasonable” for eyes to evolve independently because they are an “efficient solution” ??? That’s not very scientific either.. The Cambrian Period leaves a big hole in Darwin’s theory… Seemingly out of the blue, complex life-forms with fully developed eyes appeared during the Cambrian period. It has been called by some “biology’s big bang.”

    Interesting that it is called “biology’s big bang”… if you can believe in one big bang.. why not make it the answer to all scientific mysteries… “theories” are wrong way more often than not…

    It seems so comical that these scientific philosophers work so hard building their theories over years and years on the foundation of the ultimate unanswered scientific question… it shows that the “highly” intellegent can be even more ignorant that the “common” person… the irony is sweet…

    What I really don’t get is why the idea of evolution is always an opposing view to the existence of God. Like the two are incompatable… like science is too complicated for a Supreme Being… it’s a ridiculous and ignorant assumption…

    Wouldn’t you agree that this is true… the more intricate something is, the less likely it is by chance? For example…

    If you had never seen a car before… and come upon one on a beach. What would you logically conclude… that it was an accident? that the waves, just by coincidence, formed this thing out of random pieces along the shore? Put every nut and bolt in the right place, with every piece having a specific purpose. What are the odds of this happening? The probability???

    Which makes more sense?? A mind or coincidence?

    Atheists are choosing to believe in this ridiculous “near zero” chance coincidence!! When logic CLEARLY points to a Supreme Being.

    It seems like the more “intellegent” a person is, the less able he is to accept that he is not in control… there is an ego issue here.. and this is addressed in the Bible… ( I haven’t been able to find it yet, but it’s there ).

    You are right when you say that the two concepts are logically identical… where did the first cell come from and where did God come from… but then you have to realize… our existence is not logical…FACT… but we are here..FACT… so that leaves just one logical answer… and it’s not the “beach creation” theory.

    The reason the theory of evolution came about is because the “intellectual” man cannot accept our illogical existence…and the idea that he is not in control.

    Again, the irony is that this theory doesn’t in any way discount God… it just proves the science.. that God created…

    Like

  42. I’m pretty sure I addressed all those points already didn’t I?: anyone? Am I bonkers? The car on the beach analogy is pretty weak; of course I wouldn’t think it came together by chance. But I might think that iron ore came to be by a process of geological change and that people learned how to make iron and steel, and the wheel, by a process of memetic, mimetic cultural evolution, and that later still someone invented the combustion engine, etc etc.
    the more intricate something is, the less likely it is by chance? Like a snowflake? Or a crystal? I can’t prove there is no god. To be honest I’m not even that bothered. He doesn’t interest me that much, and if he exists I cock my snoot in his general direction.
    I think I’m quite safe to do so. I am quite able to accept that I am not in control, that no one is, and that things will turn out the way they turn out.
    I’m like the guy in Beckett: I can’t go on: I’ll go on.

    Like

  43. kay~ms said

    Yes, you addressed them but I had further questions that I was hoping you would answer… the first point being that I didn’t understand your point about using the words “believe (or not) because”… you either know something as fact or you choose / decide to believe one way or the other… we don’t have any “facts” as to whether God exists or doesn’t exist… so in turn you / we must make a choice..and that choice is “because”… I don’t get your reasoning / point…

    So that leads to my next point ….how can you justify your emphatic insistance that God doesn’t exist ( your implication that you “know”… no “because” ? ) without there being any proof?? Does science work that way??? Without proof to the contrary.. you don’t discount it… but you clearly have (“no”) so I’m asking how you can justify that…

    Then you proceed to give the common ” I don’t care ” ( “not that interested” ) response because you don’t have an answer… It’s absolutely ludacris to believe that statement… it’s simply not true… to say that you don’t care about someone who would have complete control over you if they do exist?… that is not believable / reasonable.

    As to the beach analogy… I should have included… you were the only one on the earth… that was the implication… the point was clear..wasn’t it? either a mind created it or it was by chance… which makes more sense??

    And your “snowflake, crystal” argument is weak… those are RARE exceptions and hardly meet the itricateness that we are talking about here…

    I was also hoping to get a more detailed explanation to Dennett’s belief that eyes evolve independently because they are an “efficient solution”… I tried to look this up but couldn’t find anything… at this point this ‘explanation’ doesn’t hold water…

    Anyway… I’m glad you haven’t given up yet(?) This is where Lawman always gives up!!

    Like

  44. Lawman2 said

    kay you confuse giving up with resting ones case.if we were to take a poll of our readers i am sure you would find they too get exasperated by your “would some explain this EVEN more?” in your arguments.

    http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml

    http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/02/oxford-asks-can-science-explain-why-folks-believe-in-god/

    Of course you could buy the book Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett.

    Like

  45. […] THE CASE OF THE MISSING LINK Where are Darwin’s predicted fossils … […]

    Like

  46. kay~ms said

    Lawman.. your explanation doesn’t work… I’m not asking for “even more” explanation… I’m just asking for SPECIFIC, clear answers to my questions… either answer them or prove that they are invalid… OR give up because you don’t have an answer…

    Resting one’s case means that you have nothing further…right? In this situation it means you can no longer argue my points, you don’t have an answer.

    I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how you can justify your insistance that there is no God when there is no proof??

    Daniel Dennett’s are a dime a dozen it seems… I guess if you grow a long grey beard, have writing skills, and a scientific mind… then you and your ‘theories’ are given credence… all you have to do is “branch off” from someone else’s previous theory… it’s ridiculous. And the best part of all… they get to walk around with their inflated egos…

    These theories, like I explained before, are irrevelant to my / the ultimate question… where did the first cell or matter come from?… if they are trying to ‘prove’ that God doesn’t exist they are overlooking one of the basic priciples of science in trying to do so… their ‘work’ is useless in that regard.

    The link you posted doesn’t explain how the eye started… it just explains the evolutionary process (theory) and the time involved…

    Thus the creationist’s favourite question “What is the use of half an eye?” Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 per cent, and the difference is significant. A more ponderous show of weight seems to lie behind the inevitable supplementary: “Speaking as a physicist, I cannot believe that there has been enough time for an organ as complicated as the eye to have evolved from nothing. Do you really think there has been enough time?”

    Key line… ” evolved from nothing “… is the question really time? or is it how it came to be???

    “Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye, which is already better than 48 per cent, and the difference is significant.”

    what?? how does that answer the question? 50% might be ‘better’ than 49% but better doesn’t mean it has use… it’s useless…so why did it come to be if it wasn’t serving a purpose along the way? the question isn’t answered and then the rest of the article goes on to explain the issue of the time it takes to evolve… irrelevent if you first can’t establish how the begining came to be – THAT’S THE QUESTION!!… again the ultimate question that scientists CONVENIENTLY keep ignoring!!!

    Like

  47. Okay: I can tell that kay is a bit of a last word lizzie, so this is it for now: Lawman is quite right.
    I was saying that you don’t choose or decide to believe in God, any more than you choose or decide to love someone: it is an internal, involuntary thing, which can change, but not according to reason or will. So what I am saying is that the choice is never ‘because’ and to say that it is to delude oneself. Ok?

    Now as to ‘how can you justify your emphatic insistance that God doesn’t exist ( your implication that you “know”… no “because” ? ) without there being any proof??’

    I think I said, and here it is again in capitals
    I CAN’T PROVE THERE IS NO GOD

    The next bit is a classic: in the first place it might be rather rash of me to cock a snoot at god: if there is one: but perfectly rational. I am a moral being endowed with free will (probably, allowing for the intricacies of neuroscience)so I can act rashly if I choose. In 1968, when the Russsians invaded Prague, eight Russians demonstrated in Red Square: against a state which had complete control over them. Can anyone doubt that this was a rational act?
    Pascal’s wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) looks sensible, but I’m not a gambler.

    Then again you are rushing straight from ‘There may be an entity which had a role in the creation of life at some point to some degree’ to ‘this entity is identical to the god described in the religious mythology of the Jewish people three thousand years ago as refined and redefined endlessly by Christianity ever since, who has an endless interest in all the moral toing and froing of the human race ‘

    You prove to me that ‘God’ is necessarily the god of the bible, without using the bible as evidence: then I’ll be bowing and scraping till the cows come home.

    As to the snowflake: The exception proves the rule.That really is elementary logic.

    You are right. If I was the only person on earth and I found a car I would conclude that someone had made it. As indeed they would have. But it is such a facile and irrelevant analogy: it doesn’t relate to anything in our discussion in any meaningful way.
    You accept adaptive evolution, which allows for amazing intricacies to evolve purely in response to enviroment or to reproductive success: so do be intellectually honest at least.
    What I was saying about the evolution of eyes is that you can’t say that the appearance of eyes several times independently means intervention if there is a reasonable explanation of a way in which they might anturally have evolved several times independently. And here’s a sentence from your post:

    ‘Although the Cambrian explosion doesn’t disprove Darwin’s theory, it certainly does raise a huge question mark’

    That ‘s good, because science consists of question marks. Religion consists of full stops.And exclamation marks!

    I suggest you get hold of Dennett’s book: it’s in the shops; and read it with an open mind. It is long and rather complicated: it’s quite hard work: understanding the world takes hard work. Give it a go.

    I’m off. You can have the last word. Why don’t you take a bit of extra time to write it clearly, in properly structured sentences? I do, and I think it’s only courteous.

    Ps: Lawman: excellent links.

    Like

  48. One last thing: It is impossible to disprove the existence of God : I concede that. So Kay has to concede that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Whatever the gaps in our knowledge or theories, they don’t add up to that proof. A god that has existed forever and can’t be explained is exactly the same as a universe etc etc.
    Therefore, the ONLY possible answer is to leave this question open.

    1: There may be a god.
    2: There may not.

    Kay: can you say otherwise? Really?

    I apologise for my slightly tetchy last sentence above btw.

    Like

  49. kay~ms said

    REAL love IS a choice… you’re talking about romantic (conditional) love. And if we are approaching this subject from a scientific view, which I thought we were… you DO have to make a choice as to whether to believe that God exists or not. Since there is no proof one way or the other.

    I went to your link…. which had the question … ” Is there a God”… answer “no”.
    So that is why I asked you the question that I did… How can you say “no” without any proof?

    I think I said, and here it is again in capitals
    I CAN’T PROVE THERE IS NO GOD

    So WHY are you saying “no” there is no God? Would you consider changing the answer on your site to “possibly”? Just asking… and would appreciate, in turn, for YOU to be intellectually honest here…

    Can anyone doubt that this was a rational act? you meant “irrational” right? As to the Russian protesters…

    Are you justifying you right to be irrational? I don’t deny that… I just find it hard to believe in this instance…

    you said..
    Then again you are rushing straight from ‘There may be an entity which had a role in the creation of life at some point to some degree’ to ‘this entity is identical to the god described in the religious mythology of the Jewish people three thousand years ago as refined and redefined endlessly by Christianity ever since, who has an endless interest in all the moral toing and froing of the human race ‘

    I never said / approached Christianity yet..(here)… I’m just trying to reason one step at a time. Which I can do..

    Which here we go again, all Atheists demand proof… you can’t see/ accept that it is possibly not the way God wants to do it… and that He WILL do it HIS WAY… not the unbeliever’s way… He IS SOVEREIGN and is entitled to do it HIS way.

    The snowflake point doesn’t apply to my point… that more often than not…intricacies are not by chance… which leads to the PROBABILITY (Lawman) that God ( a Supreme Being ) does exist.

    I accept the idea in evolution as to “use it or lose it”… I’m not so sure about this idea in reverse… the formation of the first eye being a great example… there is a need so therefore is forms? can anyone direct me to the explanation of this theory?

    I want to correct you… I am not saying it is impossible to prove God’s existence or not… I’m saying that there is no proof (scientific) at this time.

    And no, I acknowledge that I do not have scientific proof that God exists…

    I am choosing to believe… partly based on logic and reason…

    Like

  50. Lawman2 said

    okay believe.but it certainly isn’t based on logic nor reason!it is based on what you claim to have,and that is faith. logically we know within good reason magic didn’t create anything.

    Like

  51. Lawman2 said

    i believed in santa until my parents stopped buying me all the christmas gifts (about last year or so)…

    Like

  52. Lawman2 said

    if you really just want someone to answer to, you can always call me…hehehe

    Like

  53. kay~ms said

    then WHERE did the first matter come from that all of existence evolved from??

    Just give me a theory… otherwise.. uh.. WE are magic!

    Like

  54. Lawman2 said

    stop chasing your tail kay. look at comment 26
    and don’t forget 39

    Like

  55. Lawman2 said

    i’m done here…

    Like

  56. Lawman2 said

    i have to smile though,this is the first “debate” betty has joined in! proud ol’ caveman here.

    Like

  57. You bastard.

    Like

  58. Lawman2 said

    hehehe

    Like

  59. Rj said

    i believed in santa until my parents stopped buying me all the christmas gifts (about last year or so)…

    LMFAO

    Like

  60. Rj said

    if you really just want someone to answer to, you can always call me…hehehe

    they say everyone needs a daddy….LOL

    Like

  61. kay~ms said

    okay believe.but it certainly isn’t based on logic nor reason!it is based on what you claim to have,and that is faith. logically we know within good reason magic didn’t create anything.

    I did use logic and reason to prove the probability of God’s existence… the complexity of our universe is more likely created by thought not accident.. that’s common sense.

    There is no logical reason / way for us to be here, it’s not scientifically logical, yet we are here… so it’s reasonable to believe that we are here by a miracle; a Supreme Being. It’s the ONLY explanation… because you still can’t come up with even a scenario or a theory or even find one on the internet to copy and paste to explain how the first ‘matter’ came to be… that should tell you something!! THERE ISN’T EVEN A THEORY!!! What does that tell you?? You keep posting / directing me to the same thing… “singularity theories” and “evolution theories” and the creation of the first “organic compound” using “non-living matter”… HELLO… this does NOT answer THE question!!
    If we are here by a miracle… then you can’t discount miracles and therefore you can’t discount God. You have absolutely no basis for dismissing God’s existence… NONE! NONE of these scientific theories discount God!! And NONE of these theories explain how all of existence came to be… am I to understand that there are not even any theories AT ALL???? There must not be or you certainly would have posted them by now… Again… this should tell you something… this is GOD telling you something!!!

    It’s hillariously ironic that the scientific intellectuals, past and present, haven’t even been able to come up with a theory!!!! And why not?? because it goes against logic… they just don’t know how to even approach it… so what do they do??? THEY IGNORE IT!! What a joke!!

    my new favorite saying … “do be intellectually honest at least” and admit that my points are valid…

    Betty… did you decide to be “intellectually honest at least” and change the “no” to “possibly” yet???? These are your words… don’t be a hypocrite…

    Like

  62. kay~ms said

    Lawman.. aren’t you going to respond to my comment? Could you verify that there are no theories as to where the first matter came from?

    The singularity theory / idea still leaves this question open…

    Like

  63. Lawman2 said

    comment 26 kay. there is also SEVERAL theories about the first matter…here is an example of just one:

    In empty space you constantly have virtual particle pairs arising and annihilating. In chaotic inflation (a proposed model of cosmic expansion – it solves the ‘flatness’ problem as well AFAIK), during the early expansion, space expanded very quickly, such that virtual pairs were separated, thus becoming real matter and anti-matter particles. Due the the CP violation (that matter and anti-matter decay asymmetrically), about 1/10^9 times it results in an extra matter particle on decay. The other stuff, well, the matter and anti-matter annihilate producing high energy photons, which decay making matter/anti-matter pairs, which… You get the idea. During the expansion, space is expanding, so the wavelength of the photons increase (decreasing their energy) until they can no longer do the switching back and forth between photons matter/anti-matter pairs. Thus, we are left with a universe of matter & radiation.

    Like

  64. Lawman2 said

    you have to remember that energy has always existed, because it can not be created or destroyed. whether it always existed on this plane of existance, we don’t know. matter is formed from energy when conditions are right. (this happens all the time to light).

    Like

  65. kay~ms said

    This theory and also comment 26 are using SOMETHING to create the first whatever… where did the “virtual particles” come from? And the “empty space”??

    Energy can’t be created or destroyed? hogwash.. it’s sounds like a scientist’s wet dream… I do not have enough scientific knowledge or experience to argue this but it STILL doesn’t disprove God’s existence.. actually it explains it…

    It has always existed? That sounds like God! You just came full circle! Congradulations!!

    Like

  66. kay~ms said

    Energy has to be “IN” something… where did this something (space) come from???

    And what is the theory of space… where does it end and what is after that?

    Like

  67. Lawman2 said

    lol kay you made me chuckle.did you say something about wet dreams?

    i never set out to disprove any gods existence nor have i denigrated the tooth fairy…i might have slammed on santa but just a little

    Like

  68. Wyndee said

    wow Lawman- not sure I have the energy to catch up on this one. hahahaahaa

    Like

  69. Lawman2 said

    rj likes the tooth fairy,so he/she is off limits…lol

    kay are you saying that now you worship energy?

    Like

  70. Lawman2 said

    yep plenty to read here wyndee!

    Like

  71. Ah I see Kay. You think that God FAQ is my site so I should change it. It isn’t. It is also, obviously: A JOKE, as well. and if it said ‘possibly’ it wouldn’t be at all funny.
    The fact that you think that the First Law of Thermodynamics is ‘hogwash’ rather undermines your views on science, I’m afraid.

    ‘I never said / approached Christianity yet..(here)… I’m just trying to reason one step at a time. Which I can do..

    Which here we go again, all Atheists demand proof… you can’t see/ accept that it is possibly not the way God wants to do it… and that He WILL do it HIS WAY… not the unbeliever’s way… He IS SOVEREIGN and is entitled to do it HIS way. ‘

    See any slight contradiction between those two sentences? It’s no good going one step at a time if the steps aren’t connected…….I can see your difficulty. If it were proved that god existed I would just carry on as before: I’m a moral person conditioned with Judaeo-Christian ethics: whereas if it were proved that he didn’t your world would disintegrate: so you just go for it. tata.

    Like

  72. Lawman2 said

    Caveman Proverb:

    He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him:

    He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child, teach him.

    he who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep, wake him.

    He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise, follow him.

    Like

  73. That’s deep, but a bit Rumsfeldian…..

    Like

  74. Lawman2 said

    that is actually a persian proverb. i just like it!

    Like

  75. Lawman2 said

    not my own profound logic,but it works…lol

    Like

  76. Lawman2 said

    i heard that when i was 8 years old from one of my uncles. i liked it then and it stayed with me many a year now.
    funny, the same uncle was an attorney (he passed away while i was in my 3rd year at university)…guess i decided he was a wise man.

    Like

  77. Rj said

    kay are you saying that now you worship energy?

    LMAO…I thought you were done, lawman

    Like

  78. Lawman2 said

    a daddy is never done…lol

    Like

  79. kay~ms said

    Thank you Betty for correcting me… it was an ignorant assumption on my part… that site may be a ‘joke’ but no doubt there is much anger behind it… as the Bible states.. non believers are hostile towards God…which I interpret as that they do believe He exists.. how can you be angry at someone who doesn’t exist? I have noticed much anger on this blog from Atheist’s statements.

    Now, if you don’t mind, I would like to correct you on a couple of statements / accusations that you made in your last comment…

    1. you said…The fact that you think that the First Law of Thermodynamics is ‘hogwash’ rather undermines your views on science, I’m afraid.

    lol…No one really says ‘hogwash’ anymore… can’t you tell when someone is being glib? The following statement that I don’t know enough about science to argue the ‘energy’ point should have tipped you off.

    2. Did you notice the order of these two statements?

    ‘I never said / approached Christianity yet..(here)… I’m just trying to reason one step at a time. Which I can do..

    Which here we go again, all Atheists demand proof… you can’t see/ accept that it is possibly not the way God wants to do it… and that He WILL do it HIS WAY… not the unbeliever’s way… He IS SOVEREIGN and is entitled to do it HIS way. ‘

    The first statement is true… and THEN I proceed to address Christianity partly because you did bring it up and I did want to address it… there are no contradictions there…

    you said… It’s no good going one step at a time if the steps aren’t connected…….I can see your difficulty.

    But Betty, the steps ARE connected… you see my ‘difficulty’ because that is what you WANT to see. A Supreme Being would make Himself known… and the Bible is the way He did it… Christianity is the only religion that makes sense. That’s my condensed answer to connect the steps…

    And you’re right.. my world would disintegrate if it were proven that God didn’t exist.. but I’m not worried about that happening… my worries are for the unbelievers.

    I’m sure that you, along with most Atheists, believe you are moral… the fact is that none of us are innocent ‘good’ people, hence the need for Christ.

    It really does all make sense… and again, how do you justify dismissing Him when there is no proof that He doesn’t exist??

    Like

  80. kay~ms said

    Well Lawman, do you have any thoughts / theories / articles to copy paste on my space questions??

    Like

  81. KAY STOP CHASING YOUR TAIL YOU’RE EMBARRASSING ME

    Like

  82. Lawman2 said

    kay you don’t really expect anyone to keep helping chase your tail do you?

    let’s simplify:

    it’s like a child that asks “mom what is 1+1?” mom says “2” child asks “why?” mom takes out the crowns “if you have one crown and you add another, you now have 2 crowns.” child shakes his head no. child asks “what if one crown is broken?” “then you have 1 1/1 still equals 2” the child still doesn’t believe. child then asks “what if one crown is blue and one is red?” his mother smiles “then you have 1 red crown plus 1 blue crown, and together they make 2 crowns.” child still shaking his small head. child asks “what if your adding elephants instead?” the mother is tired of the game and shakes her head, smiles and says “you would do it the same way, 1 elephant plus another equals 2 elephants.” child still not sure “but what is one elephant is broken?” the mother kindly asks child to put away the crowns and decides to change the subject with “let’s go see daddy. maybe he can teach you to add!” the child smiled “i knew you were wrong!”

    the child was still wrong, the mother still correct. the mother got tired of the game.

    Like

  83. Lawman2 said

    who exactly are you trying to convince there is a god,who magically spoke us into existence me or yourself?with me you’ve lost so much ground your walking backward.

    Like

  84. Lawman2 said

    i still say hogwash, and that fits nicely in any response to you.

    Like

  85. tothewire said

    It is hard to sit and read these comments. I feel so sad. Sad because Kay’s responses to you really is out of trying to reach you on your level. You keep raising the bar.

    Sad, because I have faith. I believe in God. I believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I have faith based on trust, and prior experience that God loves me.

    Sad, because I know just as you know before you sit down in a chair you have faith too. Faith that the chair will hold your weight. Faith based on trust, from prior experience that the chair will not fail you.

    Sad, because I know God tells us not to throw pearls to swine.
    “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matthew 7:6

    Swine are those whom have no interest in spiritual things. Pearls are the Truths of the Bible — which excludes the traditions of man. Of course, many will argue about the distinction between the Truths of the Bible and the traditions of man. 😉

    As for when to share your pearls and when not to… Keep in mind that we are to judge (as this verse points out) but we are not to pass judgement. Do you understand the difference? Thus, as was mentioned, you’re obligated to share the Truths of the Bible at least once per encounter. Then, judging by the reception, continue sharing or knock the dust from your sandles and walk away.

    I can not prove that God exist, to you. Only God and you can.

    Like

  86. tothewire said

    I haven’t been feeling very well of late. I am sure it will pass. Anyway, I haven’t been getting on line much. When I do, I don’t stay long. I didn’t know that I would be so tired all the time!

    Like

  87. Lawman2 said

    i am confused how many crowns does it take to make 2?

    am i the dogs or the swine?

    Like

  88. kay~ms said

    Lawman.. as amusing as your analogy is… if you had any sense here.. you would have realized that it would have been easier to just answer the question.. either you don’t have an answer… to which you say ” I don’t know ” or if you do have an answer at least give a condensed version or copy and paste a theory… any of these choices would have been quicker / easier… and you say I’m chasing MY tail?? Clearly you don’t have a logical answer… because there ISN’T one… and I just don’t buy the “energy cannot be created or destroyed” as an answer to how it all began… “matter is formed from energy when conditions are right.” Gee… I wonder what ‘conditions’?? Like other matter, cells, proteins, the right weather? etc. etc…. Energy by itself cannot create anything… and you’re still left with the question of what supported or housed or held or stored or whatever, the energy that always is / was… where was it?? I can’t believe people actually reach this far because they are afraid to admit to themselves that God is in control.

    Like

  89. kay~ms said

    Sorry you’re feeling so bad TTW… hopefully it will pass in a few weeks…

    I don’t mind Lawman’s remarks… at least he’s listening/ reading… I’m really hoping that he will start to see things in a different/new light when he witnesses the miracle of the creation of a new human being who is a part of him. And then he can apologize to God for what he has been saying…

    Lawman.. don’t you think that closed mindedness equals ignorance? There are so many things that are unexplained…yet you still hold on to your illogical belief and refuse to have an open mind…

    Like

  90. That guy Dick had the right idea.

    Like

  91. Many philosophers would say that the chair is in fact not necessarily, verifiably there, but let’s not go there.

    Like

  92. […] bookmarks tagged fossils THE CASE OF THE MISSING LINK Where are Darwin’s … saved by 12 others     RoryDupledorf bookmarked on 02/17/09 | […]

    Like

  93. lawman2 said

    glad you did and I didn’t have to! lol

    Like

  94. Anonymous said

    lovely debate from kay, betty and lawman. still no concessions of course.

    i agree, ttw, kay has nobly been extending herself.

    lawman, i like this: “..you have to remember that energy has always existed, because it can not be created or destroyed. whether it always existed on this plane of existance, we don’t know…” very esoteric sounding of you.
    this line of thought started the ancients on the path to realising there may be a divine realm.

    betty; “rumsfeldian” i like it!

    FAITH takes the trophy because without it there will be no scientific discoveries. honorable mention to ENERGY. energy crosses all dimensions and planes. energy is matter and spirit. santa is spirit and he brings presents that matter.

    Like

  95. dorian9 said

    and once again dorian forgot to login before commenting.

    Like

  96. […] normally avoid all such imbroglios but these were quite fun: I waved the godless anarchist’s flag and charged like a Highlander […]

    Like

  97. kay~ms said

    Yeah.. well I’m like William Wallace fighting against Liberal Oppression and Atheist agendas.

    you said…“He remarked to his companion that they would never agree because they were arguing from different premises.”

    But Betty, I was arguing on the premise of logic, wasn’t your premise logic also?

    You quoted…“‘Errors, to be dangerous, must have a great deal of truth mingled with them. It is only from this alliance that they can ever obtain an extensive circulation.’”

    Yes, the error of assuming that if something can be proven scientifically, it then disproves God’s existance. That is the most dangerous error you can make.

    And another common (liberal) error… labeling someone who disagrees with your view as intolerant (and even dangerous! what? would love it if you could elaborate on that one).

    You quoted…“No political writing of his time was more telling than his on the side of toleration and reform; and his wit, while spontaneous and exuberant, was employed in the service of good sense and with careful consideration for the feelings of others. If he lacks the terrific power of Swift, he lacks also his bitterness and savagery; his honesty and sincerity were no less, and his personality was as winning as it was amusing.’”

    You said that this person, Sidney Smith, reminded you of yourself?

    I just want to point out how our debate got started… it was with this comment that you posted awhile back…

    “And however many ‘holes’ there may be in the theory of evolution, it still seems to me to stand up pretty well against the alternative theory which is, now let me see if I understand it in all its complexity ‘um, there is an allpowerful thing somewhere and he she or it done it all’
    For more about the thing go here:
    http://www.officialgodfaq.com/

    This comment is far from being considerate of a Christian’s feelings (calling God “it” and “thing”). And I wouldn’t call it spontaneous and exuberant wit… I’d say it’s much more like sarcasm, sprinkled with “bitterness and savagery”…

    But I admit that I could / should have used a better tone myself in some instances…

    I did enjoy our debate though… I always enjoy a good debate… BTW… I have to say that I don’t agree with your “nil-all” assessment… I know that I proved my point, even if you and Lawman refuse to admit it… 😉

    And I feel obligated to mention (since I wrote the article) that, once again, a liberal has displayed “Reverse Ignorance”.

    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-troubling-new-social-ill-reverse-ignorance/

    Like

  98. kay~ms said

    I loved the Monty Python argument clinic skit that you added on your site… it’s hilarious.. I love John Cleese…

    http://bettyslocombe.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/see-you-missus/

    Your Scottish reference has me assuming that you have Scottish ancestory… I do also…
    I read somewhere that the Scottish are the great arguers of the world.. which is definitely true in my case. Friends growing up used to tell my brother and I all the time that we argued too much. So when I learned of that Scottish characteristic it helped me to understand myself… of course I prefer to debate over having a silly arguement like in the skit… but everyone just gives up too quickly… because they think it’s all about winning and losing as opposed to just exchanging views and growing/advancing in understanding.

    Like

  99. I didn’t actually say that but you have to agree that my personality is as winning as it is amusing……

    Like

  100. kay~ms said

    You didn’t actually say that Rev. Smith reminded you of yourself? True.. but that is the impression that was made… among others…. That is another thing that the ‘intellectual’ Liberal likes to do ( and at least one Republican that I know of )… leave quotes and remarks that allude to their ’superior’ intellegence (directly and indirectly) and ‘flawless’ character without coming out and actually saying it… that way if anyone calls them out on it they can say… ” I didn’t actually say that “…. several people, actually, just about every Liberal that I’ve argued with here likes to do that… at least I have the conviction to just come out and PLAINLY say it when I feel like I’ve made the better point(s)… instead of trying to “sneak” in the last word by using someone else’s (words) to say that they’ve won. It’s not very convincing for one… just another tactic that is transparent and obvious…

    And yes, I will admit, I think that you and most of the other intellectuals here (Liberal and Republican) do have your winning and amusing moments…

    Like

  101. Kay:I thought you might like this:
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/darwins-disciples-20090302-8m6d.html

    Like

  102. kay~ms said

    Betty…that was a great article.. thanks for pointing it out to me…

    There were a few points made that I wanted to comment on…

    Science, of course, deals with the material world, with the marks that matter makes upon matter,

    This statement prompts that ultimate question… where did that first matter come from, and the 2nd matter also, for one to make a mark on the other?????? This definition of science, that is put in the most logical and basic way, ultimately says that we shouldn’t be here. Just wanted to point that out again…

    And this statement…Philip Batterham believes, with many, that faith and science can happily coexist if they recognise their boundaries.

    The previous point… points out the boundaries of science… science clearly stops at that point of where the first matter came from. As stated by the definition.

    And I also liked this statement made by the author… my faith has a body of underpinning facts and logic to it – it’s not all about gut feeling – and so much of what I believe to be true in the Bible is historically verifiable.”

    And for all the Darwin worshipers… I thought this was interesting…

    Darwin abandoned Christianity but never renounced it and refused to be called an atheist. “He remained agnostic all his life, and his reasons for not believing were not because of science but theology and philosophy.”

    Like

  103. Anonymous said

    betty! kay! and where are caveman and wife? it’s not like them to be quiet, especially the flying atheist. maybe they’re on vacation.
    would like to post some but work is getting in the way…will check out the darwin link betty gave to kay the braveheart..

    Like

  104. dorian9 said

    oops…okay, logged in. back later..

    Like

  105. kay~ms said

    I don’t know where they are… this is really unusual for the caveman… TTW said that they were out of town for a few days but that was days ago. I hope everything is ok too.. the last time they were quiet like this it was because TTW’s mother passed away…

    I’ll post some stories today… the one about the missing boaters over here is really upsetting… the two ex Bucs players and another guy are still missing and it’s been cold here in the last few days… of all times for them to be out in that water…

    Like

  106. Anonymous said

    thanks kay – i’m in and out all day otherwise i’d post one too…i did think about you when i heard abt the bucs guys. i see no peep from the lawman and ttw – i hope we hear from them soon!

    Like

  107. dorian9 said

    dang it i’m using everybody’s computer today and forgetting to log on each time, sorry.

    Like

  108. Lawman2 said

    hey there gang we are back. had some personal problems, but we are fine.

    thank you for posting kay!

    Like

  109. kay~ms said

    Hey Lawman, you welcome! … glad to see you back! And glad to hear that everything is ok.

    Like

  110. Lawman2 said

    hey kay i need to share with you the aiid # for alphainventions. actually, need to share it with everyone who post here. but it can’t be used on other blogs or sites or they will take it away. it can only be used on the blog it was purchased for.
    i’ll log into the IM yahoo. do you have mine or just ttw’s? i’ll log in under the her

    Like

  111. Lawman2 said

    or do you have her phone #? or mine?

    Like

  112. archaeopteryx1 said

    kay~ms said
    February 16, 2009 at Monday, February 16, 2009

    then WHERE did the first matter come from that all of existence evolved from??

    Question, kay~ms/Kathy – where did your god come from?

    Like

  113. archaeopteryx1 said

    You might make note of the fact, kay~ms/Kathy, that <strongI AM an intermediate species —

    Like

  114. magnificent publish, very informative. I’m wondering why the
    opposite specialists of this sector do not realize this.
    You should continue your writing. I’m confident, you’ve a great readers’
    base already!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: