|
Author
|
Topic: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 39 of 88 (69995)
11-29-2003 11:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
11-29-2003 11:18 PM
|
|
Thanks for undestanding =) ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 11-29-2003 11:18 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 43 of 88 (70027)
11-30-2003 3:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 1:19 AM
|
|
Re: A few points
Ok,
Oh oh! Now I can really tell you haven't read the scientific literature or attended a talk! LOL Nothing gets anywhere without lots of nit picking, detailed, sometimes deliberately pain in the ass critism. An endless steam of "what abouts" and "on the other hand" or "did you consider" or "my approach ..." goes on.
That critism is what I am speaking about. I know critsms exist nosy, I am asking what critisms are you talking about, gimmie a link,etc.
The argument I'm talking about is the "flood did it" one. You haven't (that I've read yet) presented one. In fact, I haven't seen anyone present one yet. An assertion that the flood did it is not adequate. The flood?, well then direct me to some of your defense against flood webpages, I would like to read them just too see how good they really are.
Are you asking me to educate you on the history too? Do you think I made that up? Will you change your mind if I demonstrate it is true? In other words, why should I bother? I will if it is important or will make a difference. However, the history is just interesting background. It wouldn't matter how we got here if we take the evidence we have. That bit of history is to help you understand the context that you are working in. If it really would help you I will dig up something for you to read. If you really doubt the validity of what I'm saying I'll dig enough to back it up. OK? Ok. The information provided on the links was interesting, all though it is clear to me that you cannot compare the creation event with the timeline of evolution. They dont work. Why would somebody try to do such a thing. I remove the timeline of evolution because the timeline is built on the dating methods. We are discussing those methods in this forum and so far, nothing bad has been said except to point that it is a fact that we cannot depend on the methods as I said. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:19 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 44 of 88 (70028)
11-30-2003 3:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 1:35 AM
|
|
Ok,
I noted above that even if the dating is removed then the order of the fossils is still a problem that you have to explain. In addtion, separately from radiometric dating, geologists realized that the earth had to be some number of millions of years old. It was around a century later that accurate, absolute dating became available.
The order will be explained later. Right now we are talking about the dating methods.
And I suggest you stop making statments that sound a bit arrogant. The comment about, "which are at best theoretical" is what I mean. I think you might start to understand that you know very, very little about these subjects. A bit more humility might be an idea. Dating methods are theoretical. Here is a question. Even if they are near to being correct, How do you know, I mean, How do you verify those dates? You can't, nobody has lived that long.
And here is another giant one for you to explain:
".. appeared out of nowhere.." If you remove the dates what other conclusion do you have NosyNed? The only conclusion you have is life appered out of no where (i.e. You dont have the timeline of evolution to fall back on). We are discussing the dating methods now to find a conclusion. If you win I will accept certain data about evolution so far you have not given any good critisms.
Just a theory of yours? Based on what? Shouldn't you spend a bit of time learning about what a couple of centuries of research by a large number of people has learned? Then if you find fault with the data and reasoning you can have your own theory. Boy, does that sound arrogant!
The Bible and my personal intrepertation of it. I dont like to debate the bible because it is contraversal BUT I also believe that the spirit guids you when you read it and the bible is not for debating. You read it, thats it, then follow the principles you get from it, thats it. The world is to confused in our day to know what the bible is speaking about to try and say who is going to hell, persay. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:35 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
Ok,
Biologists see no need to widely publicize every transitional form they find. They don't need to because there is already enough to be classified as a scientific theory. Why should they waste their time? Do chemists bother to place every instance of a successful acid-base reaction on every science web page, just so that they can add more evidence to the Lowrey-Bronsted theory? No. They don't need to. Then why should biologists waste their precious time widely publicizing more and more evidence to support a scientific theory? To appease Creationists such as yourself? I'm sorry, they have far more important and worthwhile things to do, such as research, or slave away, chipping at stone in the hot desert(which is their job, by the way). You are kidding yourself to think that they would waste their precious time trying to defend their theory from a bunch of fanatics who don't have a shred of evidence. Maybe when evolution comes under attack under viable scientific grounds will scientists find it worth their attention. I am quite annoyed, because I once spent a lot of time searching around for transitional fossils. Once I found all of the sites and references, the Creationist merely shrugs their shoulders and says "Oh, they aren't transitional. Look at a chair, it has legs, just like me. Doesn't mean we are related." From memory, one of the fossils (which they finally admitted wasn't fake, after I spent ages hunting down evidence to show that they weren't), was Archeopyrtex (sp?) Yes, I may sound like I'm patronizing the person, but quite simply, I think that people should believe what they want to believe. Leave the science to the scientists, who actually want to do science.
This is very honest of scientist.
Pity, since they have been scientifically verified. So what, that does not mean they are correct. Who validates what they say concerning dates? No body because nobody lives now that lived then. Very simple concept.
In otherwords, you are ramming your fingers into your ears, and placing your hands over your eyes, while screaming "No it doesn't!"
Wrong, if you can prove that the dateing methods are accurate then I will accept that and adopt a new theory.
The fact is that there is nothing flawed with the massive variety of dating methods that scientists use.
And I challenge you to prove otherwise. Well smarty briches, that is what we are working on.
What you are doing is VERY unscientific. You change the facts to fit your theory. Oooh boy.
Scientists change their theory to fit the facts. This is far more honest and scientific. You missunderstood. I am here to learn.
If scientists see something wrong with a theory, they will change it to reflect the data. You, on the otherhand, upon seeing something wrong with your 'theory', attempt to destroy and ignore everything which contradicts it.
Instead of trying to support Creationism with evidence, you have attacked physics.
Well done. I have seen this pettiness before in many debates.
I dont know where you are basing this theory. I am here to change my opinion, to learn. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 51 of 88 (70176)
11-30-2003 11:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by mark24
11-30-2003 6:03 AM
|
|
-part of sonics post-
quote:
You pointed out that I dont agree that the fossil record is evidence. But then also pointed out that I agree with the process of science which is: evidence,theroy,more evidence to back it up. What is so hard about my place in this process.
Yes?
mark24 writes: Specifically, what you agreed to was this, Science works like this, an inductively derived hypothesis is conceived on the strength of an observation. Predictions are made, potential falsifications are stated, & as other facts come to light, they either support or refute the hypothesis. That is what evidence does, it allows us to deductively test a hypothesis Ok, I agree to that process, that is, if that is the process their would be no point in not agreeing.
mark24 writes: So when Darwin hypothesised large scale evolution, & made predictions based upon future discoveries in the fossil record, why is this not evidence? Are you deliberately being obtuse? You can't claim predictions are evidence, but not when it supports macroevolution. Ok, Lets see if I can explain this without being to confusing. When we think of the "TOE" we think of Organic Evolution. In order for me to say "the fossil record is evidence of organic evolution" you have to have more fossils then what we currently have so that we have a fine grained transition. I understand that the teachings from evolutionists states that we most likely wont have all the fossils ever. The problem is, Who says those fine grained tranitionals or intermediate fossils actually exists? I do understand that you pointed out that Darwin predicted that if more transitional fossils are found that it would be evidence of "TOE". The problem I see with this is, just because Darwin predicted that more transitional fossils would be found and they would represent evidence of organic evolution, that does not mean that Darwin was right. I mean I can make predictions all day long about certain things which seem true and say if this happends I am right about my theory, but really who says that I am right about my theory, just because my predictions happen? I would presume those who follow me would, but really, does that really mean I am right or was right. Compare this to Darwin, same question asked, does this mean that the "TOE" really occured just because he said more fossils would be found? NO. So I arrest my case, just because more fossils where found does not mean "TOE" is factual and just because the fossil record APPEARS to show evolution WRT evolutionists, that does not mean that Darwin was right about organic evolution. -my quote-
quote:
I dont think the fossil record is evidence of evolution which sticks me before the process of science. I would not have ever said, back when they foudn the fossil record to be evidence, that it was evidence.
mark24 writes: Neither would I. But it's irrelevant. Ok.
mark24 writes: The point is that predictions were made on the basis of future discoveries. And?
mark24 writes: The transitionals were discovered after Darwin (& Lamarck et al.) hypothesised large scale evolution. I presume this is supposed to mean that the "TOE" actually occured just because a few predictions where made regarding fossils being found and fossils where found. So Just because fossils where found after he made the prediction means that organic evolution occured? I hope not, I hope you got more then that. -my quote-
quote:
You are right, it is no-ones fault that they have found fossils which seem to be transitional fossils according to evolutionists, to me they are not really transitional fossils they are just fossils. You have to prove to me that macro occured without a doubt
mark24 writes: No, I don't. You are back to that ridiculous position in which no evidence is admissible to support the existence of electrons unless electrons are proven. Ergo, elecrons don't exist, & nor can they ever be shown to. Utter nonsense. And science doesn't "prove" anything beyond a doubt. It shows things to be supported to such a high degree that to withhold consent is unreasonable. If 2.04*10^90 : 1 isn't proven within reasonable doubt, then you are a lost cause. 2,040,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of the results being due to chance rather than evolution, above & beyond the statistical chance of random congruence occurring. This as proven as it gets in science.
Big number, I posted a few posts back that you seem to think that is regarding relatedness of species, NO, it is regarding similarities between species so that is a huge number/1 possible chance that we are similar to other species. So what if I am similiar to other species how does being similar make me a descendent of the species I am similar too? I already knew that we are similar to other species, that does not mean that infact we are descendents of other species. Maybe I am not catching what you are saying but it seems to me that I have alot of similarites to my friends, which is why we get along, but I am infact not a descendent of my friends parents because that would make me a brother to all my friends which is not true. It seems to me that you are trying to say that I am a descendent of ape just because I am similar to them or even better metaphore, I am a brother of all my friends because I am similar to them. Is that true, NO. Maybe you can explain to me a little better what this phylogene does exactly but that is what I got from it and from you, so I think that says that the phylogene is talking about similarities and not relatedness. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by mark24, posted 11-30-2003 6:03 AM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 4:27 AM | | Sonic has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 52 of 88 (70178)
11-30-2003 11:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by mark24
11-30-2003 6:12 AM
|
|
Because other evidence of evolution(i.e. not the TOE) speaks of this fine grained transition. Such as when you look at all the skin colors from black to white, you see a nice smooth fine grained transition. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by mark24, posted 11-30-2003 6:12 AM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 4:28 AM | | Sonic has replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 53 of 88 (70179)
11-30-2003 11:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by mark24
11-30-2003 6:18 AM
|
|
Re: A few points
Perhaps their are other answers for that. We should however stick to the fossil record and not open up other debates. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by mark24, posted 11-30-2003 6:18 AM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 54 of 88 (70180)
11-30-2003 11:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 9:56 AM
|
|
Re: A few points
Thank you ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 9:56 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 59 of 88 (70217)
12-01-2003 4:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by mark24
12-01-2003 4:27 AM
|
|
I gotta say MARK you are not only consistant but funny. I am on a ledge getting ready to jump because I REALLY have nothing else to say to the world regarding creationism. LOL I posted all these posts before I got into your thread about dating. The fossil record is my last attempt to speaking on the defense with creationism. I gotta say it is very possible since I have fallen from the Macro/micro debate, from the dating debate, that I will fall yet a 3rd time. I just hope that their is more foundation in the evolutionist world then what you have shown me. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 4:27 AM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 5:25 AM | | Sonic has not replied | | | Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2003 1:50 PM | | Sonic has not replied |
|
Sonic
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 60 of 88 (70218)
12-01-2003 4:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by mark24
12-01-2003 4:28 AM
|
|
Just because the fossil record is not complete WRT darwinism/evolutionsm, it does not mean that those fossils ever existed on the bases of creationism, but I also realize that this can also be based from evolutionism so it is a very weak argument. ------------------ Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 12-01-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by mark24, posted 12-01-2003 4:28 AM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2