Would discovery of species previously thought to be extinct impact the theory of evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

I'm uncertain why it's an either/or creationism or evolution. Even when I was Catholic I had no problem reconciling evolution with the idea of God's ongoing refining and changing of creation. Genesis is a simplified explanation, it's not geology, biology, cosmology. Does anyone seriously believe people in the desert of the Middle East 3,500 years ago could read and write and understand science? Seriously? There was no archaeology, paleo-archaeology, paleo-botany. People saw in the world only what they saw in the here and now. There is no conflict as far as I'm concerned.

Too many were taught that it is all or nothing. According to their preachers others are not True Christians™ and are going to burn in hell.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Sharks have been around for about 450 million years. Whales have been around for about 50 million years.

You do have a great imagination. Congratulations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do have a great imagination. Congratulations.

That sort of comment is against the rules here since we do know how old the Earth is. We do know how it is dated and why those dates are reliable. You on the other hand have admitted that you are ignorant when it comes to maters like this.

If one wants to be ignorant that is fine. But one should not be making false claims about others where that person assumes that the other knows as littles as he does. If you want to ask people how they know that, that is fine. But when you pretend to know more than others after admitting that you do not then you are making personal attacks that you can't support. If you are a Christian you are also breaking the Ninth Commandment. Which is a Commandment that does not ban lying as so many seem to think. It bans people from making false statements about others. Not knowing that a statement is false is not an excuse.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I'm uncertain why it's an either/or creationism or evolution. Even when I was Catholic I had no problem reconciling evolution with the idea of God's ongoing refining and changing of creation. Genesis is a simplified explanation, it's not geology, biology, cosmology. Does anyone seriously believe people in the desert of the Middle East 3,500 years ago could read and write and understand science? Seriously? There was no archaeology, paleo-archaeology, paleo-botany. People saw in the world only what they saw in the here and now. There is no conflict as far as I'm concerned.

I like your way of thinking, because once I also thought it might be some kind of connection between the theories of science and the Bible.

When I realized that the theories of science are not science itself but just the theoretical side of it, then I started to check the veracity of their claims.

Your input, that 3,500 years ago men didn't know science as we do today, and that is a very good point.

However, because you don't know physics, you don't need to know the characteristics of water or of an earthquake in order to know what those are.

For example, those men didn't know geology. (well, they did, but such is food for another topic) But, they wrote that about three generations after Noah, when a guy named Peleg was born, that in his days "the earth was divided" (read land)

This is not "the families were divided" or, "the flesh was divided" but the land. In those times they knew the have been lived in one land, the known Pangaea.

Geologists claim that Pangaea was divided millions of years ago. On the other hand, the Bible claims it was divided just some thousands years ago.

No connection between time data between those two sources, only that it was one land.

From my part, I believe the witness, this is to say, the biblical narration. It goes in accord with all the claims written about how was the world in those days.

Geologists, on the other hand, have not a single valid idea of what caused the division of Pangaea, all their hypotheses stink.

I go for the winner, the Bible.

The world might be thousands of years old or trillions of years old, but life on earth is not more than a few thousands years old. A sure fact.

Then, there were not extinctions millions of years ago, that is pure pseudo-science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like your way of thinking, because once I also thought it might be some kind of connection between the theories of science and the Bible.

When I realized that the theories of science are not science itself but just the theoretical side of it, then I started to check the veracity of their claims.

Your input, that 3,500 years ago men didn't know science as we do today, and that is a very good point.

However, because you don't know physics, you don't need to know the characteristics of water or of an earthquake in order to know what those are.

For example, those men didn't know geology. (well, they did, but such is food for another topic) But, they wrote that about three generations after Noah, when a guy named Peleg was born, that in his days "the earth was divided" (read land)

This is not "the families were divided" or, "the flesh was divided" but the land. In those times they knew the have been lived in one land, the known Pangaea.

Okay, I have to break in here. There is no doubt that the Noah's Ark story is a myth. It never happened. Pangaea broke up about 200 million years ago. Again, there is endless evidence for this. There is no scientific evidence for the mythical flood of Noah. Learning the basics of science does not take too much time and it will make you a better debater.

Geologists claim that Pangaea was divided millions of years ago. On the other hand, the Bible claims it was divided just some thousands years ago.

No, they do not claim that. That is why you do. They can show endless evidence that it happened.

No connection between time data between those two sources, only that it was one land.

From my part, I believe the witness, this is to say, the biblical narration. It goes in accord with all the claims written about how was the world in those days.

Geologists, on the other hand, have not a single valid idea of what caused the division of Pangaea, all their hypotheses stink.

I go for the winner, the Bible.

Whoa! What "witness"? The Bible was not written by eyewitnesses. Even it says that. Not even the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses nor did the authors appear or even claim to have talked to any.

The world might be thousands of years old or trillions of years old, but life on earth is not more than a few thousands years old. A sure fact.

Then, there were not extinctions millions of years ago, that is pure pseudo-science.

Sorry, wrong again. We have scientific evidence to the contrary. You just have a book of myths. If you are going to declare a winner remember that it is science that enables you to post here. Not a book of myths.

 

[Luchito Prays]

That sort of comment is against the rules here since we do know how old the Earth is. We do know how it is dated and why those dates are reliable. You on the other hand have admitted that you are ignorant when it comes to maters like this.

If one wants to be ignorant that is fine. But one should not be making false claims about others where that person assumes that the other knows as littles as he does. If you want to ask people how they know that, that is fine. But when you pretend to know more than others after admitting that you do not then you are making personal attacks that you can't support. If you are a Christian you are also breaking the Ninth Commandment. Which is a Commandment that does not ban lying as so many seem to think. It bans people from making false statements about others. Not knowing that a statement is false is not an excuse.

Look, like you there are many people making zany comments all around with respect of millions of years life on eath.

Lets see. Not long ago, I was talking with a guy who told me, without injecting me with anesthesia, that sharks "are still the same" even when the passing of millions of years.

I almost fainted.

Wow! Sharks still are the same regardless of millions of years or existence here on earth.

Then, I pulled a reference book and showed him that there are (including "there were") hundreds of shark species, and a few illustrations showed how different was one species from the another.

"The same", sure... right...

I have no idea how evolutionists have come with such nonsense of millions years here and there. What they say definitively is not science. Their millions years age are just unacceptable.

If they wanted to go against the Bible, they really didn't need to reach the limits of the absurd with their intentions.

You are an example of how much damage evolutionists have caused with their mumbo jumbo terms and their obtuse theory in the minds of people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, like you there are many people making zany comments all around with respect of millions of years life on eath.

Lets see. Not long ago, I was talking with a guy who told me, without injecting me with anesthesia, that sharks "are still the same" even when the passing of millions of years.

I almost fainted.

Wow! Sharks still are the same regardless of millions of years or existence here on earth.

Then, I pulled a reference book and showed him that there are (including "there were") hundreds of shark species, and a few illustrations showed how different was one species from the another.

"The same", sure... right...

I have no idea how evolutionists have come with such nonsense of millions years here and there. What they say definitively is not science. Their millions years age are just unacceptable.

If they wanted to go against the Bible, they really didn't need to reach the limits of the absurd with their intentions.

You are an example of how much damage evolutionists have caused with their mumbo jumbo terms and their obtuse theory in the minds of people.

It is not zany. You are projecting You are the one that believes in a magic boat.

No one says that sharks are the same. No one says that anything is the same. You are listening to lying sources. Yes, sharks have been here for hundreds of millions of years. Do you think that all sharks today are the same? They aren't. Different species cannot breed with other species.


You admitted to having no education in these matters. That means that you are unable to argue against them and can only demonstrate your own rather amazing ignorance.

Right now you should be asking "How do you know that?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do have a great imagination. Congratulations.

Those were verifiable facts. You should try studying some science sometime.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look, like you there are many people making zany comments all around with respect of millions of years life on eath.

Lets see. Not long ago, I was talking with a guy who told me, without injecting me with anesthesia, that sharks "are still the same" even when the passing of millions of years.

I almost fainted.

Wow! Sharks still are the same regardless of millions of years or existence here on earth.

Then, I pulled a reference book and showed him that there are (including "there were") hundreds of shark species, and a few illustrations showed how different was one species from the another.

"The same", sure... right...

I have no idea how evolutionists have come with such nonsense of millions years here and there. What they say definitively is not science. Their millions years age are just unacceptable.

If they wanted to go against the Bible, they really didn't need to reach the limits of the absurd with their intentions.

You are an example of how much damage evolutionists have caused with their mumbo jumbo terms and their obtuse theory in the minds of people.

"Evolutionists" don't determine the age of the earth. Geologists do.

Who cares what the Bible says?? We're talking about science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm doing it.

The finding of species being alive but to be thought were extincted millions of years ago, is because those millions of years ago are pure fallacy.

No. Sorry. The evidence is pretty solid on that. You can live pretending otherwise. Lots of people do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin said:

Origin of Species, Recapitulation and Conclusion.

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable* variations. It can produce no great or sudden modifications. It can act only by very short and slow steps.

(*English from England)

Certainly his natural selection is completely false.

You must admit that the theory based on Darwin is false.

Read again, the theory based on Darwin is false.

How it comes evolutionists keep saying the current theory of evolution is an update of the theory based on Darwin's natural selection?

Refute that damn theory, it's pure fraud.

I see your problem. One of them anyway. Natural selection is the same now as when Darwin formulated his theory of evolution. Natural selection is the environment acting on populations. You have consistently been confusing the definitions you post as definitions of natural selection. They are not. Darwin supported a gradualist mode of evolution. It does not mean that evolution does not occur if Gould and Eldridge observed punctuations followed by periods of stasis. That is another mode of evolution. There is no fixed rate of evolution for all taxa and all environments.

Darwin's theory is not false. It is incomplete. That was fixed by the synthesis of the early 20th Century. His theory of natural selection still stands.

You can continue to pretend otherwise and find reasons to convince yourself to maintain denial, but it doesn't make any difference. That sort of view hasn't slowed down science in over 150 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, of course.


My nephew is totally obsessed with shark teeth. Looking for shark teeth is like, the only thing he wants to do at the beach. We've got bags and bags of them.
Can't say I blame him really, they are pretty cool.

I was just reading a story about a guy in Florida that would dive looking for fossil shark teeth. He was attacked by an alligator that bit him on the head and was able to fight it off and survived the attack. I think I would prefer the beach as well.

Western Kansas is a great place to find fossil shark teeth I'm told. This is the result of ancient, shallow seas that once covered that part of what is now the plains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Luchito Prays , a line that you posted indicated to me that you believe in a Flat Earth. Am I correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Evolutionists" don't determine the age of the earth. Geologists do.

Who cares what the Bible says?? We're talking about science.

I remain unsure what an evolutionist is. Is it an evolutionary biologist? Is it a scientifically literate lay person that accepts the theory? Is it some vacuous name applied as a pejorative to those that a religious literalist applies to anyone that speaks positively about science? Is it someone that really likes change over time?

There is no evolutionist major in colleges and universities. There is not job called evolutionist. It is science that is accepted by both theists and atheists, so it is not a religious title.

I never read anything that casts light on the use of the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I remain unsure what an evolutionist is. Is it an evolutionary biologist? Is it a scientifically literate lay person that accepts the theory? Is it some vacuous name applied as a pejorative to those that a religious literalist applies to anyone that speaks positively about science? Is it someone that really likes change over time?

There is no evolutionist major in colleges and universities. There is not job called evolutionist. It is science that is accepted by both theists and atheists, so it is not a religious title.

I never read anything that casts light on the use of the term.

There is a reason that creationists hate Darwin. Guess who came up with the term "creationist" and used it as a pejorative?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is a reason that creationists hate Darwin. Guess who came up with the term "creationist" and used it as a pejorative?

I did a very short investigation and I found something that indicates Darwin was using that term as far back as the 1840's in some of his unpublished letters.

I am not bothered by it or the use. It does denote the general basis for a particular antagonism to the science. However, I am trying to find a better term, since, as a Christian, ultimately I would fall under the umbrella of that term. I have considered and sometimes use biblical literalist, but that only captures those rejecting science from one specific religion and misses those placing their rejection on a different religious basis.

In the end, despite those flaws, creationist does apply to most of those that are generally in opposition to the theory and crosses religious boundaries.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did a very short investigation and I found something that indicates Darwin was using that term as far back as the 1840's in some of his unpublished letters.

I am not bothered by it or the use. It does denote the general basis for a particular antagonism to the science. However, I am trying to find a better term, since, as a Christian, ultimately I would fall under the umbrella of that term. I have considered and sometimes use biblical literalist, but that only captures those rejecting science from one specific religion and misses those placing their rejection on a different religious basis.

In the end, despite those flaws, creationist does apply to most of those that are generally in opposition to the theory and crosses religious boundaries.

I would disagree. As Darwin coined and used the term was not as a description of theists in general. It only referred to those that rejected the sciences and put their own creation myths ahead of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would disagree. As Darwin coined and used the term was not as a description of theists in general. It only referred to those that rejected the sciences and put their own creation myths ahead of science.

That's basically what I concluded in my search for a better term. But some have pointed out that a theist ultimately believes in some form of divine creation and that calling those rejecting science--creationist--is seen as hypocritical coming from a theist.

I believe, just not in any published literal versions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's basically what I concluded in my search for a better term. But some have pointed out that a theist ultimately believes in some form of divine creation and that calling those rejecting science--creationist--is seen as hypocritical coming from a theist.

I believe, just not in any published literal versions.

I can see how some might think that, but that are wrong. That comes from, once again a common problem of creationists, being too literalistic. I have noted that creationist tend not to be overly literalistic in other areas too. Perhaps it is due to a minor thinking disorder. That would be understandable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can see how some might think that, but that are wrong. That comes from, once again a common problem of creationists, being too literalistic. I have noted that creationist tend not to be overly literalistic in other areas too. Perhaps it is due to a minor thinking disorder. That would be understandable.

There always seems to be a pick and choose method to many things that people believe strongly about. The literalist that demands the Bible be viewed literally while it contains contradictions, poetry, parables and an entire book built on symbolism that cannot be read literally always confounds me.