The Neck of the Giraffe

@wolfgang59 said
I can't read every book written so I discriminate.

You would do well to try it.

And are you referring to Celia Payne? She was advised to delay publishing
her theory (which she did) because it was not mainstream and she was young.
She was not laughed at.

Good science - even if revolutionary - is not laughed at.

Yes, she is the person to which I'm referring.

Her dissertation about stars was scoffed at, so much so, that she later felt compelled to amend the dissertation's conclusion as "spurious".

Then they tried to later rob her by not giving her credit for the conclusion.

Swell group of guys those objective scientists.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Earthquakes and the like bring into question 'design' and 'fine tuning', don't you think?

Fallen cursed world stuff happens.

@kellyjay said
Fallen cursed world stuff happens.

That's the thing Kelly. Life appeared on a planet of molten rock (when conditions became hospitable) and over billions of years slowly evolved into an array of species, including our own. All evidence discredits the idea that life appeared on Earth in just a few days, and that 'we' appeared as fully formed humans. This being the case, there was no 'Adam and Eve,' and therefore there was no 'fall' or 'curse' to explain earthquakes and account for the imperfect world we inhabit.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
That's the thing Kelly. Life appeared on a planet of molten rock (when conditions became hospitable) and over billions of years slowly evolved into an array of species, including our own. All evidence discredits the idea that life appeared on Earth in just a few days, and that 'we' appeared as fully formed humans. This being the case, there was no 'Adam and Eve,' and ...[text shortened]... here was no 'fall' or 'curse' to explain earthquakes and account for the imperfect world we inhabit.

You say that as if you were there and therefore know, you don't. The theory says
these things, but it is still a theory not factual. The holes in that theory are vast,
but true believers accept it without question or fail. There are a lot of things about
that theory I agree with, but abio-genesis no, the influx of new information by
unguided natural methods no, nothing that can been seen today validates those
two things, the only things that seem to support them are things like you just said,
billions of years ago, and what you think you see when you view fossils.

Nothing about resources management, priority of process, are taken into account.
You assume billions of years help your position when it adds nothing to it, because
it is always windows of opportunities without fail. Everything required must all be
ready, everything required must be in the right spot, combined in the right order
and so on. If anything is missing or any part of the process isn't done correctly
there is no opportunity for successful transformation of non-living material
turning into life. Your argument for success is based on what you think occurred
billions of years ago, and your translation of what you think are in the fossil record
none of which are anything that can disproven.

@kellyjay said
You say that as if you were there and therefore know, you don't. The theory says
these things, but it is still a theory not factual. The holes in that theory are vast,
but true believers accept it without question or fail. There are a lot of things about
that theory I agree with, but abio-genesis no, the influx of new information by
unguided natural methods no, nothing t ...[text shortened]... anslation of what you think are in the fossil record
none of which are anything that can disproven.

The link I provided earlier shows at the very least we can trace our evolution back to Lucy, a creature closer to monkey than human. There is clear scientific evidence to support this. It can not just be dismissed as theory. A religion that doesn't adapt its understanding in light of such discoveries will do so at its long term peril.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A friend here recently shared the following thoughts with me which I thought warranted a thread of its own. (He may appear to contribute, but won't name him in case he doesn't).

'The Neck of the Giraffe' (written by Francis Hitching) postulates that evolution of species has not and certainly has not always been a slow, gradual and incremental thing, but rather has ...[text shortened]... s.
It's an interesting theory, at least, and purports to explain huge gaps in the fossil record. '

Science can never teach us about the origin of life or how creation came into existence. The "gaps" in the knowledge of the truth grows exponentially with every new postulation and theory. Evolutionists are playing a guessing game with science as a mechanism for imaginations.

Jesus is the light of the world and the creator of all that exists.

@secondson said
Science can never teach us about the origin of life or how creation came into existence. The "gaps" in the knowledge of the truth grows exponentially with every new postulation and theory. Evolutionists are playing a guessing game with science as a mechanism for imaginations.

Jesus is the light of the world and the creator of all that exists.

it will in time sir, it will in time...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
it will in time sir, it will in time...

But science keeps stretching the time, and contracting it as it suits the theory.

Besides, we all know that time is a construct and doesn't really exist except as a means of measuring the passing of events.

400 billion years, trillion. Meaningless.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The link I provided earlier shows at the very least we can trace our evolution back to Lucy, a creature closer to monkey than human. There is clear scientific evidence to support this. It can not just be dismissed as theory. A religion that doesn't adapt its understanding in light of such discoveries will do so at its long term peril.

The reason it cannot be dismissed as a theory isn't because of it's rock solid evidence but rather because the alternative would be creation and to an atheist that is unthinkable.

@dj2becker said
The reason it cannot be dismissed as a theory isn't because of it's rock solid evidence but rather because the alternative would be creation and to an atheist that is unthinkable.

That's it in a nutshell. The only alternative to evolution is creation.

Thing is, it's a theory not based on irrefutable evidence, whereas creation is itself evidence for a creator, and cannot be refuted, only disbelieved.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The link I provided earlier shows at the very least we can trace our evolution back to Lucy, a creature closer to monkey than human. There is clear scientific evidence to support this. It can not just be dismissed as theory. A religion that doesn't adapt its understanding in light of such discoveries will do so at its long term peril.

I addressed that and don’t recall you refuting the concerns surrounding Lucy. I would not place much in the way science can change due to new information, as if that makes it better than religion. The reason that is true is because it has to, while religious text must remain static to be called good so there is no wiggle room for getting it right.

I gave you reasons already about Lucy, and I would also point out your using fossil speculation as if what you believe is a factual statement and not conjectures.

@secondson said
That's it in a nutshell. The only alternative to evolution is creation.

Thing is, it's a theory not based on irrefutable evidence, whereas creation is itself evidence for a creator, and cannot be refuted, only disbelieved.

I disbelieve 'creation is itself evidence for a creator' AS WELL as refuting it.

It is also worth pointing out that the term 'theory' is often misunderstood in scientific usage. (Predominantly by theists). There's a great Stephen Fry explanation of this if I can find it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I disbelieve 'creation is itself evidence for a creator' AS WELL as refuting it.

It is also worth pointing out that the term 'theory' is often misunderstood in scientific usage. (Predominantly by theists). There's a great Stephen Fry explanation of this if I can find it.

You are not consistent in your assumptions and reasonings if true. You are willing to believe that there is life on other planets because you see life on this one. That is one data point against an endless universe, yet if you look at the whole universe and see things that defy chance for supporting life, you simply reject a creator out of hand.

@kellyjay said
You are not consistent in your assumptions and reasonings if true. You are willing to believe that there is life on other planets because you see life on this one. That is one data point against an endless universe, yet if you look at the whole universe and see things that defy chance for supporting life, you simply reject a creator out of hand.

What specifically in the whole universe defies chance and evidences a creator?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
What specifically in the whole universe defies chance and evidences a creator?

From the macro to micro the laws and forces are tweaked in such a way to support life here. Observed data points pointing to a beginning, placement and rotation of bodies in space rotating in different directions. The tolerances for failure, the endless list of specific materials with conditional qualities and structural requirements necessary for life, all the requirements required for a environment needed to support life. The lists can go and on!

You give it all a, “ Oh well the conditions were right!” As if you could find a scrabble board setup with all the pieces used to spell words, so you could say someone must have shook the box and spilled the pieces on the board and look at all these words completely done by chance!