athiests and agnostics know more about religion than churchgoers

[IPorange]

The funny thing is ID and evolution both require faith. Evolution doesn't explain everything and general scientific consensus has been wrong a few times. If evolution explains existence where do bats come from? A flying mammal is an evolutionary oddity. There is no evidence of half bats...at all.

Evolution does not require faith. Don't confuse evolution with the origin of life. It is based on observation and theoretical testing, through multiple mediums (fossils, genetics, biogeography, etc.). The fact that scientific consensus has been "wrong" is directly because of the scientific process. Never has a priest or nun or pope disproved a scientific theory. It was a scientist, using the scientific method. The scientific method is continuously ongoing, and the theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of intense scrutiny from many angles. Many don't realize that the theory underwent a major reform at the turn of the last century, as genetics filled in a missing piece of the puzzle that Darwin didn't have: how traits could be passed down.

It's interesting you mention bats. You might also offer up eyes. If you were actually familiar with evolution and "The Origin of Species," you would know both of these examples of potential criticism were actually proposed by Darwin himself in the book. It's quite possible that the ancestors of bats originally used what would become wings for a separate purpose, such as smacking and collecting bugs, that led to bigger bug collectors being better, and lighter individuals more easily able to climb around looking for bugs. Such gradual steps ended up allowing for some rudimentary flight.

The limited fossil ancestry of bats is often cited as a serious problem by creationists (you can just google it and see what I mean) but bats aren't exactly the most easily preserved or common of animals. They are highly specialized in where they live, making the odds of the chance events necessary for fossilization to occur much less likely on the time scale we are talking about. Even still, one could turn the argument as to why there is so much evidence of other animals' evolutionary ancestry? But of course, the debate against evolution is working from a point of weakness, as the alternative has no evidence of anything whatsoever, bats or not.

In any event, a sugar glider-like creature could easily have been the forerunner for bats. It isn't the stretch some act like it is.

 

[VolBurgers]

Atheists study religion because they want to confirm what they believe about it...that it's false.

No, not really. At least in my case. I find religion and other cultures in general interesting to study. Just like you may have found it interesting to study Greek Mythology. Just because you enjoyed reading about Zeus and Apollo doesn't mean you were doing so to confirm your beliefs about Polytheism.

 

[IPorange]

Yeah, but you don't study hours and hours to confirm that there is no whale on the back side of the moon. Faith inspires action. Atheists study religion because they want to confirm what they believe about it...that it's false.

And I wasn't trying to generalize all atheists. I was just talking about how obsessive this guy became over studying religion. The thread is about religious knowledge, so I thought it tied in.

I don't think the typical atheist is studying religion to confirm what they already think... Religion is interesting.

 

[n_huffhines]

I genuinely appreciate the opinions. I just don't really find evolution all that believable either. I find religion extremely boring, so from my egoist point of view I can't understand why any non-believer would want to study it.

 

[VolBurgers]

I genuinely appreciate the opinions. I just don't really find evolution all that believable either. I find religion extremely boring, so from my egoist point of view I can't understand why any non-believer would want to study it.

What don't you find believable about evolution? Minus the lack of transitional fossils for bats.

 

[bamacheats]

Anyone read "Darwin's Black Box"?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

What don't you find believable about evolution? Minus the lack of transitional fossils for bats.

I don't believe their explanation of life. I accept that there is minor evolution among species, but I don't think we came from the same thing a gator came from. Or the Big Bang. It doesn't jive with me. Seems like too much speculation to be so widely accepted.

 

[KnoxVillain]

I don't believe their explanation of life. I accept that there is minor evolution among species, but I don't think we came from the same thing a gator came from. Or the Big Bang. It doesn't jive with me. Seems like too much speculation to be so widely accepted.

But a man living in the sky creating the world as we know it isn't too much speculation?

 

[CSpindizzy]

But a man living in the sky creating the world as we know it isn't too much speculation?

Are you talking about Bill Gates?

 

[rjd970]

The funny thing is ID and evolution both require faith.

Evolution doesn't explain everything and general scientific consensus has been wrong a few times.

If evolution explains existence where do bats come from? A flying mammal is an evolutionary oddity. There is no evidence of half bats...at all.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think faith plays into evolutionary science?

If you are looking for something to explain everything, you aren't going to find it...scientific, religious, or otherwise. And while science has been wrong before, its very nature allows for correction. Religion has been wrong too (corrections don't come near as easy), and if we are comparing track records it is a pretty easy decision for me to make as to which one is better at explaining the world.

 

[KB5252]

Evolution does not require faith. Don't confuse evolution with the origin of life. It is based on observation and theoretical testing, through multiple mediums (fossils, genetics, biogeography, etc.). The fact that scientific consensus has been "wrong" is directly because of the scientific process. Never has a priest or nun or pope disproved a scientific theory. It was a scientist, using the scientific method. The scientific method is continuously ongoing, and the theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of intense scrutiny from many angles. Many don't realize that the theory underwent a major reform at the turn of the last century, as genetics filled in a missing piece of the puzzle that Darwin didn't have: how traits could be passed down.

It's interesting you mention bats. You might also offer up eyes. If you were actually familiar with evolution and "The Origin of Species," you would know both of these examples of potential criticism were actually proposed by Darwin himself in the book. It's quite possible that the ancestors of bats originally used what would become wings for a separate purpose, such as smacking and collecting bugs, that led to bigger bug collectors being better, and lighter individuals more easily able to climb around looking for bugs. Such gradual steps ended up allowing for some rudimentary flight.

The limited fossil ancestry of bats is often cited as a serious problem by creationists (you can just google it and see what I mean) but bats aren't exactly the most easily preserved or common of animals. They are highly specialized in where they live, making the odds of the chance events necessary for fossilization to occur much less likely on the time scale we are talking about. Even still, one could turn the argument as to why there is so much evidence of other animals' evolutionary ancestry? But of course, the debate against evolution is working from a point of weakness, as the alternative has no evidence of anything whatsoever, bats or not.

In any event, a sugar glider-like creature could easily have been the forerunner for bats. It isn't the stretch some act like it is.

Please expand on this for me. How were most fossils formed and why would bats be less likely than other mammals or birds to be fossilized? Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand these comments.

The way I understand it fossils are formed in a wide variety of way many times due to massive landslides, sink holes etc. It would seem to me that an animal often times found living in caves and hollow trees would be no more or less likely than the average bird to end up fossilized. Just a couple of observations I came up with after reading your post.

 

[IPorange]

I don't believe their explanation of life. I accept that there is minor evolution among species, but I don't think we came from the same thing a gator came from. Or the Big Bang. It doesn't jive with me. Seems like too much speculation to be so widely accepted.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or the big bang. Those are separate things.

 

[IPorange]

Please expand on this for me. How were most fossils formed and why would bats be less likely than other mammals or birds to be fossilized? Not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand these comments.

The way I understand it fossils are formed in a wide variety of way many times due to massive landslides, sink holes etc. It would seem to me that an animal often times found living in caves and hollow trees would be no more or less likely than the average bird to end up fossilized. Just a couple of observations I came up with after reading your post.

Usually a process called "petrification," where minerals from rock seep in to and replace organic tissue that has not readily decomposed (i.e. not soft tissue but rather bones and the like) cell by cell, leaving behind a mineral caste of the organism's remains, or, as in the case of the dinosaur bones we see in museum's a mineralized bone itself (no actual bone material is left, which many people don't realize. Physically, it's a "rock.")

Little bats with their light and not very dense bones are unlikely to have their remains last long enough to fossilize, as they'll break down. Similarly, there is very little fossil evidence for worms, and practically none for jelly fish. yes, things with dense bones or shells, like large terrestrial animals and shellfish type creatures, are comparatively all over the place.

Compare a bat bone to a bird bone, and you'll have an idea of the difference. There aren't a ton of hummingbird fossils, either.

There are always going to be holes in the fossil record, because species are a human construct. They're always changing and always in flux. Bats are just a popular one to jump on to, but if bat fossils started being found then another animal would be used as the great rally against evolution.


The question one should ask is, is it really relevant if one type of animal or plant doesn't currently have a fossil record, when museum basements are packed with fossils from all sorts of creatures that do fit in lineages to modern ones, and even fit into dead-end offshoots of other fossils? Does the relative lack of bat fossils disprove anything? Does it prove anything?

 

[KB5252]

Thanks IP, sounds like bats being small frail creatures lack the bone density of other animals and are therefore much less likely to remain long enough for fossilization to occur. This makes perfect sense to me now.

 

[IPorange]

I don't know that there is much in the way of songbird fossils, now that I think about it, either.

 

[T-TownVol]

Excellent debates on this subject on this site....you have to "sign up" to see them, but it is totally free. He takes questions from the members. That is the only reason you have to join.

ReasonableFaith.org:

 

[GVF]

Except it isn't endless. And the life process, to get to where we are today, was unfanthomly cruel and capricious.

It would be endless, if evolution is indeed real and possible. Evolution would allow the demise of one form of species to develop into another to continue survival within the transitional environment that deems the former species to be obsolete. What I'm saying is things change, and living species have to change with it, leaving some in hte dust so to speak. The point being is maybe the creator gave his creation the ability to perpetuate through evolution in order to adapt, change, and survive in advanced and different forms from the original.

 

[rjd970]

It would be endless, if evolution is indeed real and possible. Evolution would allow the demise of one form of species to develop into another to continue survival within the transitional environment that deems the former species to be obsolete. What I'm saying is things change, and living species have to change with it, leaving some in hte dust so to speak. The point being is maybe the creator gave his creation the ability to perpetuate through evolution in order to adapt, change, and survive in advanced and different forms from the original.

Silliness. We are one rougue asteroid away from the whole thing crashing down. Not to mention, the sun is a ticking time bomb to destroy the entire planet in about 5 billion years.

There is an end, complete or incomplete, sooner or later. Period.