This is the best way I've ever seen to teach someone evolution

Views: 187701

Comment by Steve on June 18, 2011 at 2:46am
Also the term "missing link" is ridicously overused. There are an infinite number of so-called missing links. If you were presented with one, you'd then demand the link between that and your base. It's like Zeno's Paradox.
Comment by William C. Walker on June 18, 2011 at 9:05am
BoB,If you will read a few biographies on the founder of Xianity - Emperor Constantine, & the council HE convened & directed it will give you a better understanding of it. the Jesus of the bible the council compiled was just one of about 2 dozen Saviors / Messiahs that were considered & voted on. Jesus is sort of a composite, not an historical figure. None of the twenty some Roman & Greek historians of the first century noted any of the wondrous events imputed to Jesus. Constantine felt that he needed a new Roman god under which he hoped to unite his sprawling Empire. He directed the council to :" Make it to astonish". They did. They voted on the folklore & mythology from all over the Middle East & India spanning over 5 centuries. Those who could not agree were expelled from the council. Please get to your library & ask for biographies on Constantine. There are many. You'll 'get the idea'  He didn't save his Empire, but he did create one of the worlds biggest well organized religions.
Comment by Robert Taylor on June 25, 2011 at 7:14pm

Allow me to speak my politics involved I assure you.  I believe that some form of evolution has indeed occurred.  But, I'm not dogmatic about it.  Science is and should be open-ended.  I also believe transperia may also be involved.  I also believe that homo sapien has been around for millions of years due to the number of artifacts that have been found embedded in matrixes dated millions of years old be they coal mines or gold excavations.

 One of the big problems I have is basic DNA.  This highly, highly complex structure had to have taken millions of years to evolve...not a hundred thousand.

 I believe that the science establishment has a 'filter' mechanism that automatically prejudges many findings because "they just CAN'T fit" into current theories.  I'm definitely not allowing for religion and mythicism.  These theistic scams turn my stomach.  There is no "magic-man-in-the-sky", BUT, knowing that, doesn't keep me from exploring additional possibilities.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 25, 2011 at 7:28pm

You may want to look into claims of human artifacts being found in coal mines.  I searched two that I heard about and found out that they were hoaxes.  I remember that one was in California and an investigation was launched almost immediately afterward and several miners were interviewed who admitted that they had played a prank on the geologist in question because they didn't like him.


DNA did in fact take millions of years to evolve.  In fact, there was a very long stretch (I think millions of years) over which RNA evolved, long before DNA ever entered the picture.  Secondly, not every aspect of DNA/RNA needed to spontaneously form here on earth since space is full of very complex building blocks that have been incorporated into terrestrial life.


Science does indeed filter information that doesn't fit into the current model - but it doesn't get deleted such as one famous archaeologist likes to claim.  The many who discovered Lucy had to wait over 30 years for his findings to be recognized, and the woman who got all in a huff about skepticism over her findings of pre-clovis ruins in North America has not said a word since pre-clovis ruins have come to be accepted.  Science filters these things to wait for confirmation - you can't have a meaningful knowledge base if you immediately through out tens of thousands of findings to favour one new controversial one, so you have to move slowly to figure out what the controversial finding really means.

Comment by Stephen Walski on June 25, 2011 at 7:35pm
To limit the evolution of DNA to only 100,000 years im assuming your starting from a point that human being started out as nothing and then evolved all of its parts over that short time of 100,000 years. But that is simply not the case. We know that we share common ancestory with 2 other western great apes and that that ancestor shares dna with other great apes. While its estimated that humans are between 100 and 200k years old as a distinguishable species it doesnt mean that the DNA that was passed down from our ancestory is only that old. We didnt start fresh with new DNA its a process of mutation.
Comment by Robert Taylor on June 25, 2011 at 11:16pm

If you're referring to PHD geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre...the "huffing and puffing" came from her fellow scientists that rejected her findings out of hand even though she utilized 3 different aging techniques on the matrix involved and they all came to the same had made these artifacts over 200,000 years ago.  Of course, that doesn't "fit in" with science's theory that modern man evolved just 100,000 years ago.  The artifacts beneath Table Mountain in a matrix that was 55 millions years old was never thoroughly was dropped.  Same thing goes for discoveries in Indiana, et al.

 Remember, Java man was accepted by the "temple" of science for many years...even exhibited in the Natural Museum of Science in London for many years.  Those scientists were proved wrong later when it was finally admitted that the scalp portion of the cranium was indeed from an ancient ape.

  Filtering...yes...apparently to the point that many fellow scientists have never had the opportunity to hear about such findings, sad...very sad.


Comment by Stephen Walski on June 25, 2011 at 11:25pm

Okay so the timeline is not fully accurate... of which you will find not one scientist ive heard say definitively it is 100 or 200k... but that its believed to be based on the evidence we have around that long...


Even if i give you 55 million how does that change the idea of DNA evolution AT ALL. doesnt it strengthen your previous argument that you dont think it could have been done in 100k years?

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 25, 2011 at 11:50pm

Virginia Steen McIntyre got her PhD on that dig down in Mexico.  She wasn't the lead on the site, she was a graduate student working under several other archaeologists.  Not all 3 dating techniques came to the same age, there was a wide range and she was adamant about going with the oldest one while the lead archaeologists felt the dating needed further review because of the discrepancy.  You should read what her colleagues have to say, the original papers produced by the various teams involved, and stop getting your science from a Charlton Heston documentary.


Java man was wrong, that's true, and Piltdown man was a hoax - both corrected for and both a big part of the reason that many scientists are far more methodical about dealing with new findings these days.  If you want to deal with any one of these claims, like how Steen-McIntyre destroyed her OWN career, pick one and I'll go dig up the sources for you.  I will ask, however, that you provide your sources as well, because it sounds to me like you've been watching too much youtube.


Scientists deal in science, not fairy tales or fantasy findings and that is not sad at all.  Most of these "forbidden archeology" guys are creationists who just like to pull up already debunked non-issues and make out like science is a big conspiracy.

Comment by Cleetus VonArbuckle on June 26, 2011 at 12:06am
@Robert Taylor Some can reject the totality of science unless it is some outsider with unaccepted, unsupported, beliefs that contradict every reasonable theory.  Ask yourself, how many times has someone working in their basement come out with a free energy machine?  They never do.  They never will.  The reason scientists treat these people as crackpots, is because they usually are, you just don't know enough of the science yourself to realize this.  Think about a subject you know a lot about, say, NASCAR.  If I claimed that NASCAR was a plot by Arab Sheiks to trick people into driving faster, therefore using more gas, you would wonder what evidence I had.  If I told you I had evidence, but couldnt show you or confirm it you would quickly call BS.  This is the case with the creation stuff.  There are cases when some scientists were wrong about some things but to say that science was not willing to evaluate data on its merits is absurd.  The reason we have the theory of evolution is because of the strength of the science.  It took a generation before that was the accepted biological explanation for speciation.  Humans do hold on to their understandings to long, on occasion, but that is an issue with humans, not science.
Comment by Robert Taylor on June 26, 2011 at 12:07am

Whew...did'nt mean to strike such a defensive chord.  Sounds like the same thing I've been discussing about "Don't do this", "Don't do that"..."do it my way see...I'm Rocco". It apparently is a matter of "votes" outweighing what a graduate student is saying.

  So, I guess I shouldn't hear out what a graduate student discovers...that just doesn't sound right.  As far as Charlton Heston and the video...again why so defensive.  I especially appreciated the facts about Glen Rose, the lifting of the strata, to discover more of the same footprints.  I don't accept the Xtians' view of man's beginning 6,000 years ago or what may be prevalent among certain segments of scientists sticking to 100,000 years ago.  Is it just the fact that it's Heston that bothers you? 

 By the way, it was Heston that came up with these discoveries.  It was others scientists that were discussed, some viewed, in the documentary.  Have you seen it? Again, have YOU seen it?


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service