Cambrian Rabbit Falsifies Evolution

[Guest bmorefossil]

exactly, theres no way a religious nut could use photoshop! ahhaukshkjdnv

lol nice new picture

[emmytee]

As a Deist I see now reason why science and Faith can't coexist.

if only people tailored faith to their beliefs, not tailor their beliefs to their faith.

actually my advanced studio art projects revolve around the theme of religion embracing science.

thats all im saying :-X

[Guest bmorefossil]

ok sorry to bring the religious thing up, and i might even make a topic about this because I have always wondered and wondered about this, was Jonas in a megalodon. They say that he was in a huge large sharp toothed whale! what if they were really looking at a megalodon. If I get some people talking about this Ill start a topic

[Guest Nicholas]

Megalodon was supposedly very short bodied, so I've heard.

[Auspex]

if only people tailored faith to their beliefs, not tailor their beliefs to their faith.

actually my advanced studio art projects revolve around the theme of religion embracing science.

thats all im saying :-X

E. O. Wilson has been working hard, with considerable success, to bring to the fore the common ground between faith and science. Like everything he does, it is a positive, productive endeavor.

[Dave Daniel AKA (Bones)]

I have to say, I have been a Christian a lot longer than I have studied science however, there are frauds out there everywhere that are far right

freaks that like to make fake things to try prove their point.

It's a shame. I know that when Dr. Bough in Glenrose, Tx came out with the man prints he supposedly discovered in the river bed, it hit the front

page of the Dallas Morning News. Several of us at the Museum and SMU tried to get him to allow us to examine them under an electronic microscope,

but he wouldn't let that happen. Any one of science wants to be subject to confirmation of a find, subject to his peers. I infiltrated his tourist trap

to examine his many incredible finds. (They were all fakes) And not even good ones at that. Ofcourse the DMN would not print a word of our findings.

Frankly, I see know conflict with scripture and science. Genesis is a small book of the bible, consisting of about 50 pages in most bible publications.

That's a lot of stuff to describe in a few words.

Most scientist today have changed their minds on whether the was a creator. Computers even calculate the odds of life happening by accident to be unmeasurable.

It's obvious that dinosaurs existed. My opinion "God made em, their cool, I dig em up, put em together"

Some say that I am nuts waisting my time believing in a God.

I say, "65 years on earth believing in God, is better than eternity in hell."

It's a shame that we have to have these fake people give Christians a bad name.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

The "rabbit" is classic example of Poe's Law

you do know that evolution was talked about in the bible, but then all life was wiped out or something like that, my parents took a class when we were going to church alot and they know more about it than i do.

You are referring to Catastrophism. A hypothesis that was shown to have critical flaws over 150 years ago. It is now discarded by all except anti-science ___________(add your own pejorative) with an agenda to push.

[Cole20200]

Wow, my post up there had horrible grammar, I reread it and couldn't even understand it myself. Reread the edit I did if it confused anyone.

Anyways, I don't mind getting a friendly religious DISCUSSION (not fight) going. I've read so many papers about astrophysicists coming to faith thru door of scientific discovery than I can count. Einstein, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Darwin, Plato, Aristotle.

Look, just think this over for a little bit. If God is all powerful and perfect, then he would create a perfectly functioning universe. A perfect universe would not require interference (miracles) by definition of being a perfect universe. Therefore, if God created the universe, then he would not later interfere with it's progress, which he would have complete awareness of from creation anyway.

I don't mean to say I've got some inside track to God, good gravy no. It's just a little logic sequence that makes a lot of since to me.

And too fake a rabbit fossil, or human footprints for that matter, it's a mockery to everything Christianity is suppose to stand for. Lies, deceit, I'm sorry I'm not trying to get on a soap box, it just really hits a cord with me.

[bone digger]

Most scientist today have changed their minds on whether the was a creator. Computers even calculate the odds of life happening by accident to be unmeasurable.

what are the odds of a supreme creator happening by accident? and his sole purpose in the entire universe, in its billions of years, is to create human beings? who think there the only lifeforms on the planet or the whole universe worth eternal life, who proceed to destroy the planet this supreme being supposedly created. The only reason we have religion is the fact that we understand our own mortality, and we have a hard time dealing with that fact. So we came up with these fairy tales to help us cope and give us hope that there is more than the short time we get!

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Look, just think this over for a little bit. If God is all powerful and perfect, then he would create a perfectly functioning universe.

Since everyone is waxing philosophic...

I couldn't agree more. If there is one there, and he is perfect, then he has played a joke on man, ie, disease, cancer, appendix, ... ect.

[MB]

Hi guys, I wish I had a good english expression, I love this post and your answers

[RJB]

GOOD GRAVY!! (got that from Cole20200). I got up early this morning, made my coffee, turned on the computer, and wow!!! Look at all these post! Some great post here.

I was raised Pentacostal for the first 20 years of my life, and belive me, those folks get DOWN!!!! It just didnt make any since to me after that, and once I found fossils, that was it, religion was out of my life. But here is something to think about: is it possible that god is actually trying to kill us? I actually saw that on a bumper sticker about a year ago. But with all the diseases, natural desasters and all, it kinda makes since. Very funny too. Ha!!!!

RB

[tracer]

...from the forum rules section...

"Creationism/Evolution debate, religious and political views and comments, due to the almost certain escalation to an argument, these topics are forbidden on these forums and any mention of them may result in the post(s) being deleted."

i have always respected this rule and never said anything even when people were mocking others' beliefs...

[Guest bmorefossil]

thats why this topic is being closely monitored, if someone gets offenened or if we see this topic get out of hand then we will do someone thing about it but as of now we are all talking respectfully

[MB]

Ooops, I was thinking always that this post was about cuisine...sorry

[Auspex]

thats why this topic is being closely monitored, if someone gets offenened or if we see this topic get out of hand then we will do someone thing about it but as of now we are all talking respectfully

To all the Forum members, let me share that the "Mod Squad" is on pins-and-needles watching this discussion.

There is ample precedent for this topic to boil over into hurt feelings and unproductive argument; members have resigned over it! Within the Mods themselves are represented every possible viewpoint; the common goal is to keep it civil. Please do your part .

[Dave Daniel AKA (Bones)]

To all the Forum members, let me share that the "Mod Squad" is on pins-and-needles watching this discussion.

There is ample precedent for this topic to boil over into hurt feelings and unproductive argument; members have resigned over it! Within the Mods themselves are represented every possible viewpoint; the common goal is to keep it civil. Please do your part .

Good point Auspex. There is no reason for anyone to be offended or to be offensive to anyone else. I have had many discussions like this with my pastor. He gets all bent out of shape, as I keep my cool and that really ticks him off. He was taught through Dallas Theological Seminary. Macarther teaches 5 point Calvinism and also teaches that the earth is only 5,000 years old.

Although Darwin's theory, is just that "Theory" Neither side came prove their point with absolutes.

I believe that proving the earth is more than 5,000 years old (Empirically) is easy to do.

Most theologians have, through interpretation of the Greek, realized that the seven days discussed in Genesis, refer to each day being much more

than a 24 hour day. 14 references in scripture speak of these days as being like thousands of years according to mans timeline in awareness.

Gods being in a flash.

I am open to believing that God created and destroyed the earth multiple times.

As believers, we know by the written word that he destroyed the earth once by flood. and that he will destroy the earth by fire again.

Since Noah and his decendants were the only survivors, there would have only been references in scripture to any history by them or by devine

revelation. Prior existence would be redundant or inconsequential.

One thing I have always had trouble reconciling is, Cromagnon and Australopithecus. Graves have been found of children with flowers and toy artifacts. They were organized societies. Hunters/gatherers, artist, the flowers say to me that they had emotions.

Where do you put them in scripture? They were not animals!

When I mention this to the pastor, he gets a "Deer in the headlights look" No response.

Planned evolution????

If you look at pictures of your ancestors, they were different physically than we are today. Shorter, shorter fingers, extended brow, more body hair.

Environmental causes, ie: their bodies adapted to lack of a controlled environment, work environment, physical struggles, etc.

The Bible is a small book to have so much history that is not explained.

I tell my pastor. Our difference in opinion has nothing to do with whether either of us have salvation.

The day will come when we will know all truth, and i will be able to say "Neener,neener,neener". Tole you so!

Cladistics are rapidly becoming an opinion of the past.

Christians look at things by "Faith"

Others look at things by "Theory"

Neither can be proven.

Where there are those in the Christian community that create fake things to try to prove their point.

There are those that are not Christians that are just as guilty by spewing irrespective manucia, in anger.

Both are wrong!!!!

[Harry Pristis]

To all the Forum members, let me share that the "Mod Squad" is on pins-and-needles watching this discussion.

There is ample precedent for this topic to boil over into hurt feelings and unproductive argument; members have resigned over it! Within the Mods themselves are represented every possible viewpoint; the common goal is to keep it civil. Please do your part .

Countless religionists have been burned at the stake or crucified for their religious beliefs and you're worried here about hurt feelings! ROFL

It's always a bit unnerving to find amateur paleontologists attacking the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing scientific theory to explain the phenomena we discuss in this forum. (Of course the Cambrian rabbit is parody.)

Attacks on evolution are the latest tactic of fundamental religionists to promote their religious ideas in the public schools. Parody is an effective way to counterattack.

The first tactic of the fundamentalists was to promote creation [pseudo]science as a theory co-equal to the theory of evolution. That was rejected a few years ago by a federal judge in Arkansas.

The second tactic was to promote Intelligent Design as an alternative theory in school science curricula. That attempt was slapped down by a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, not long ago.

The current tactic of the fundamentalists is to attack and undermine confidence in the theory of evolution in order to inject "teaching the controversy" into the science curricula.

A battle is currently underway in Tallahassee over new science standards in Florida school curricula. These standards are strong on evolution which is a change. Fundies are arguing for "teaching the controversy," the wedge they would use to get their unscientific ideas into the curricula.

Whatever the current tactic, it's all about creation pseudoscience.

The essential components of the creation pseudoscience vision of the origin of the Earth and its life forms is contained in the following pledge sworn to by each member of the Creation Research Society:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes withing the original created kinds.

Within these precepts, it is easy to see how important is the notion of a relatively recent inception of the Earth and living things. Other beliefs important in this scheme of things are the occurence of a global flood and a separate ancestry for man and apes.

It is clear that in order to make their case, creation pseudoscientists must attack the conventional scientific views on the great age of the earth and the evolution of species, including humans.

This is religion which has co-opted scientists' language. When a creation pseudoscientist says he believes in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution," he is saying that he believes in the biblical account of creation in Genesis and not in evolution as scientists understand that concept. Those who promote this creation pseudoscience are like preachers disguised in lab coats.

Why would these fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) go to all the trouble to disguise their religion as science? It is because they want to teach their fundamentalism in government schools. They want unsuspecting young people exposed to their religion -- in effect, using the public schools to proselytize those children in contravention of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

This proselytizing effort is on-going. In Arkansas a few years ago, creation pseudoscience was rebuffed in a federal court decision. In doing so, the Judge William Overton established a list of criteria for deciding whether or not creationism is science. The Overton criteria are:

It [science] is guided by natural law.

It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

It is testable against the empirical world.

It's conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word.

It is falsifiable. [That is, it is testable and refutable.]

Creation pseudoscience fails on every count.

Creation pseudoscientists can collect fossils in a disciplined way. They can even catalog fossils and describe their appearance. They cannot be trusted to interpret the fossils as to age and affinity. Any taxonomy by a creation pseudoscientist would be highly suspect. Many ideas about the evolution of life on our planet cannot be entertained by a creation pseudoscientist -- not based on the evidence, but on the basis of dogma.

Don't be distracted by fruitless arguments about details and examples. These often are canards (such as "irreducible complexity") offered up to distract us from the struggle between science and pseudoscience taking place in school systems across the nation.

---------Harry Pristis

[Dave Daniel AKA (Bones)]

Countless religionists have been burned at the stake or crucified for their religious beliefs and you're worried here about hurt feelings! ROFL

It's always a bit unnerving to find amateur paleontologists attacking the Theory of Evolution. There is no competing scientific theory to explain the phenomena we discuss in this forum. (Of course the Cambrian rabbit is parody.)

Attacks on evolution are the latest tactic of fundamental religionists to promote their religious ideas in the public schools. Parody is an effective way to counterattack.

The first tactic of the fundamentalists was to promote creation [pseudo]science as a theory co-equal to the theory of evolution. That was rejected a few years ago by a federal judge in Arkansas.

The second tactic was to promote Intelligent Design as an alternative theory in school science curricula. That attempt was slapped down by a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, not long ago.

The current tactic of the fundamentalists is to attack and undermine confidence in the theory of evolution in order to inject "teaching the controversy" into the science curricula.

A battle is currently underway in Tallahassee over new science standards in Florida school curricula. These standards are strong on evolution which is a change. Fundies are arguing for "teaching the controversy," the wedge they would use to get their unscientific ideas into the curricula.

Whatever the current tactic, it's all about creation pseudoscience.

The essential components of the creation pseudoscience vision of the origin of the Earth and its life forms is contained in the following pledge sworn to by each member of the Creation Research Society:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes withing the original created kinds.

Within these precepts, it is easy to see how important is the notion of a relatively recent inception of the Earth and living things. Other beliefs important in this scheme of things are the occurence of a global flood and a separate ancestry for man and apes.

It is clear that in order to make their case, creation pseudoscientists must attack the conventional scientific views on the great age of the earth and the evolution of species, including humans.

This is religion which has co-opted scientists' language. When a creation pseudoscientist says he believes in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution," he is saying that he believes in the biblical account of creation in Genesis and not in evolution as scientists understand that concept. Those who promote this creation pseudoscience are like preachers disguised in lab coats.

Why would these fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) go to all the trouble to disguise their religion as science? It is because they want to teach their fundamentalism in government schools. They want unsuspecting young people exposed to their religion -- in effect, using the public schools to proselytize those children in contravention of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

This proselytizing effort is on-going. In Arkansas a few years ago, creation pseudoscience was rebuffed in a federal court decision. In doing so, the Judge William Overton established a list of criteria for deciding whether or not creationism is science. The Overton criteria are:

It [science] is guided by natural law.

It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

It is testable against the empirical world.

It's conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word.

It is falsifiable. [That is, it is testable and refutable.]

Creation pseudoscience fails on every count.

Creation pseudoscientists can collect fossils in a disciplined way. They can even catalog fossils and describe their appearance. They cannot be trusted to interpret the fossils as to age and affinity. Any taxonomy by a creation pseudoscientist would be highly suspect. Many ideas about the evolution of life on our planet cannot be entertained by a creation pseudoscientist -- not based on the evidence, but on the basis of dogma.

Don't be distracted by fruitless arguments about details and examples. These often are canards (such as "irreducible complexity") offered up to distract us from the struggle between science and pseudoscience taking place in school systems across the nation.

---------Harry Pristis

I find humor in this discussion. You have it backwards. Christianity was taught throughout history in schools until respective recent history, we were attacked by the evolutionist trying to drive Christianity out of not only schools, but every aspect of life.

Atheist have the right to their opinion. I find no anger in that.

As far as amateur scientist goes, myself included, I know several PHD professors that respectfully disagree.

[Dave Daniel AKA (Bones)]

Oh, and by the way, the judge thing. Not a good argument.

Unelected, unaccountable, irrespective of life, liberty, freedom, the constitution...........

Trying to move God out of every aspect of our lives.

Would anyone have thought they would have ruled in any different manner than the agenda they hold?

One thing I find interesting is that Atheist and Agnostics are not as far away from God as they think.

Do you think that moral issues are logical?

Do most people not rape, murder or rob because it is against the law?

No! They are things that are within our fabric from birth that tell us these things are wrong. Not logic.

Besides an opposable thumb, our moral cumpus separates us from the animals.

[Guest Nicholas]

No! They are things that are within our fabric from birth that tell us these things are wrong. Not logic.

Besides an opposable thumb, our moral cumpus separates us from the animals.

Actually, most Anthropologists agree that human beings are conditioned to learn a moral compass, as you can see in other societies around the world things like murder are conditioned to the point that one society can find reasonable cause for the slightest thing where in another murder for such an act would be unthinkable. Morality is directly linked to social conditioning through stigmas and culture, it just so happens that in most cultures reliance on others and the community happens to be a major need, hence why such virtues such as honor your family, do not kill, etc... are so deeply ingrained into what is called the human condition. No human being is born with morality, and a clear cut list of right and wrong and history will show as culture changes the laws around such acts reflect the ever changing social values of human kind.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

As far as amateur scientist goes, myself included, I know several PHD professors that respectfully disagree.

Any that have published in peer review journals on the subject at hand? Out of the 50,000, or so, published papers on evolutionary biology, and paleontology, not one from the creationists/IDist could pass muster.

As Harry pointed out, rather than established a fundamental, testable hypothesis, this group continuously tries disprove evolution by finding flaws... that ain't science-it is pseudo-science.

Another tactic used, in an effort to deceive the public, is the conflation of the word "theory". To the average, non-scientific, person, a theory is just a set of principles, but to a scientist, a theory is a tool that is built upon by years of repeatable observances that have been replicated by many with the same repeatable conclusions time after time.

There is a theory to explain gravity, but that is all it is, but not many proclaim that gravity is a lie. It is the same with evolution. Let me state this loud and clear: EVOLUTION IS A FACT! There are theories to explain how it happens, but the fact remains... it does.

As an analogy, I was in New York in Aug. collecting trilobites. Now, I am in Kentucky. There are many theories to explain how I got from there to here... I could have flown, maybe drove, perhaps I walked, ... ect, but the fact remains that I was there, and now I'm here.

[Dave Daniel AKA (Bones)]

Actually, most Anthropologists agree that human beings are conditioned to learn a moral compass, as you can see in other societies around the world things like murder are conditioned to the point that one society can find reasonable cause for the slightest thing where in another murder for such an act would be unthinkable. Morality is directly linked to social conditioning through stigmas and culture, it just so happens that in most cultures reliance on others and the community happens to be a major need, hence why such virtues such as honor your family, do not kill, etc... are so deeply ingrained into what is called the human condition. No human being is born with morality, and a clear cut list of right and wrong and history will show as culture changes the laws around such acts reflect the ever changing social values of human kind.

I understand what you are saying however, emotions are a strong part of a moral compass. These are not things that are conditioned, like Love, hate,

anger, sorrow. These things are a part of and a thread to knowing right from wrong.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Trying to move God out of every aspect of our lives.

Would anyone have thought they would have ruled in any different manner than the agenda they hold?

I see it the other way, it is the theists that want to impose their dogma on society. Until the Red Scare of the 50s, religion in government was not an issue. And, It wasn't because it was in the fabric of this nation. Perhaps, you might want to read "The Federalist Papers". Used copies can be picked up fairly cheap at AMAZON

Do most people not rape, murder or rob because it is against the law?

No! They are things that are within our fabric from birth that tell us these things are wrong. Not logic.

Besides an opposable thumb, our moral cumpus separates us from the animals.

That is one of the arguments for evolution. Man, and other specie, have evolved a sense of morality because it is beneficial to the survival of it's clans.

[emmytee]

i believe the bible should not be the sole source for one's faith. i think real faith should come with what makes sense to you. if that happens to coincide with the bible that's fine. but the bible, like many other documents written before our time, has to be interpreted because of the blunt fact that it was written in a different language. the bible has been translated time after time after time that it is very difficult to distinguish its true meaning from its diction. even if you dont believe in biological evolution, you cannot deny that language evolves. meanings of words can change rapidly, especially between the time the bible was written, and present day. things exist that were never dreamt of. the bible claims it is the word of God, yet it is created by humans. these authors may have inserted the accepted morals of the day into the religous text. so i think we should all aim for less tangible "evidence" of God's existence, and adopt faith by its definition--as a belief that is not based on proof.

as for evolution, its hard to disprove things like natural selection, and intelligent design. thats all i want to say about that.

i have friends who deeply rely on the bible in their religion, when i politely ask them about why they believe ______, or why they dont think ____ happened, i often get the reply, "because the bible says _____" i dont try to convert them or anything, i just wish i could encourage them to think for themselves. on the other hand. a majority of my friends are athiests. i think as teenagers many atheists believe they are above, or smarter than religion. they often associate religion with the most radical types, and do not explore the many variations like i do. for both sides of the coin, i think we can meet at a good consensus where science and religion can coexist. in case you're curious, i go to a congregational church, but i think my views are more closely related to deism. i hope i didnt offend anyone.