|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,626 Year: 948/6,935 Month: 229/719 Week: 17/204 Day: 1/16 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which view makes sense of the fossil record ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith claims - for reasons yet unstated - that the explanations offered by mainstream science for the fossil record are "weird" and "ridiculous".
The purpose of this thread is to investigate the question of which is "weirder" and more "ridiculous" - Faith's explanations or those offered by science. As an opening point I want to consider the order of the fossil record. Faith has to sweep this under the carpet because it is so damning. Yet it is a pervasive feature of the fossil record as a whole and any explanation which ignores it or cannot reasonably account for it must be considered seriously deficient. It is not just crabs and trilobites, it is sauropods and hippopotami, dolphins and icthyosaurs, confucisornis and ravens and doves. And so many more. Even without considering evolution (which further helps explain the order) the view that the order in the fossil record is explained by change over time in the species inhabiting the Earth (i.e. different species at different times). There is nothing obviously unreasonable about this and further evidence only supports it. What alternative can Young Earth Creationism offer that is anything like as sensible ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I'm really not sure what that is intended to mean. It seems to say that it is logically impossible to shuffle a deck of cards. But I very much doubt that that is what is intended.
quote: This is more confused rambling.
quote: Which would be relevant if we were dealing with theoretical predictions rather than provisional conclusions based on the available evidence - which are quite properly revised as more evidence comes in.
quote: This seems absurd. It is of course possible to refute theories that incorporate facts. Even if the theory successfully accounts for those facts it does not follow that it can even account for all the known facts within it's scope, let alone those that will be known in the future, nor does it mean that there is no theory that better accounts for the known facts.
quote: Of course it is quite clear that this is just a silly strawman. If the theory is the best explanation available for the facts, then those facts are evidence for the theory. Simple, easy. and no conflation involved.
quote: That would depend on the nature of the association.
quote: Mikey, nobody is stopping you or Faith from using them as resources. But going out and arguing with random websites is hardly a good use of this forum. It's about discussion - and claims made on this forum are much more likely to lead to discussion than claims made on the web page of somebody who probably never comes here.
quote: And Mikey offers yet another strawman.
quote: Faith is responsible for supporting her own claims. Nothing you say changes that. You are quite free to make your own arguments using the articles you claim to have knowledge of as support - and so is Faith. And nothing you say changes that. So really your objections are both dishonest and improper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: But it is Faith's view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: The order in the fossil record is a fact, and no different from any other in that respect.
quote: It is quite common for evolutionists to correctly point out that the order in the fossil record is evidence for evolution. And that is true - the fossil record is strongly consistent with evolution, which would be quite surprising if any version of Genesis-based creationism (Young or Old Earth) were true. And that's no different from pointing out any other evidence that supports a theory.
quote: But is is not true that the fossil record has to match up with evolution to anything like the degree it does. The many transitional fossils, for instance, do not even have to exist - are not expected to exist, if creationism is true. Nor is it true that the fossil record could not match up with the order given in Genesis 1, which would support Old Earth Creationism, or for what order there was to be more plausibly explained by the Flood as Faith would claim. Even the Precambrian rabbit - if there were no other vertebrates in that period - would be hard to accommodate into any theory of how evolution happens. So it is not sufficient to say that evolutionary theory would simply match any order that exists. Different orders could favour evolution much less and other views much more than the order that we have.
quote: It was an obvious fact that seemed to have slipped your notice.
quote: And yet, despite your claims, science still works. Despite the fact that there are any number of theories that will fit whatever evidence we have. (The Duhem-Quine thesis).
quote: Which is why I am speaking of evidence and not proof.
quote: In fact I proceeded to do so by explaining the actual situation.
quote: And Mikey offers yet another dishonest straw-man. If your claim that Faith was seen as a real expert on YEC, such that defeating her is a defeat for all YEC was true then you could have produced evidence for it. That I point out that it is obviously untrue in no way means that the responses I gave to your arguments do not exist.
quote: Well Mikey, my honesty may be irrational by your standards, but it is the way I am and it is not going to change. However, your view is wrong even by your standards. Whether honesty is the best policy or not, being obviously dishonest is usually worse.
quote: And Mikey invokes yet another strawman. I only have to support my actual accusation, and that is it is dishonest for you to claim that Faith's arguments are taken as the best there are for Creationism.
quote: Well, then I shall just have to satisfy myself with the knowledge that I am more righteous than you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: So the point of your blog entry was to claim that evidence can't support a theory.
quote: I've already refuted that claim. And as others have pointed out many of the most significant discoveries came after Darwin.
quote: But that doesn't explain why the fossil record supports evolution to the extent it does. If Precambrian rabbits were known before Darwin he could not have fixed up his theory to accommodate them, because they don't fit. So you aren't even addressing the points I made. And, modern creationists, writing decades after Darwin also know the order of the fossil record. If that is all it takes then why haven't they been as successful as Darwin was ? And I should point out that Darwin did predict that transitional fossils would be found and they were, so even there your argument fails.
quote: Mikey, to be quite honest, your blog isn't worth reading. And there are far more transitional fossils than you know.
quote: Mikey, you really ought to learn to follow your own advice. Being obviously dishonest is an evolutionary disadvantage. To name just one reason if people know that you're dishonest it is much harder for you to con them. If you had any idea of the actual work in the field (even decades old common knowledge of game theory, such as The Prisoner's Dilemma) you'd know that.
quote: Mikey I pointed out quite a number of your dishonest claims. And really you can't get out of it by pretending to be a Christian. Because as you point out - if you really were a Christian you wouldn't be so dishonest.
quote: But this is not true. Faith certainly should be expected to have a better knowledge of YEC belief than of the arguments made for those beliefs. And this is pretty muchh the same for everyone on both sides. So a mistake about creationist beliefs is insufficient to make your case. My opening message was about Faith because I wanted her to defend a claim that she made. Which does not entail that she has the best arguments at all. Nor did I rule out other people coming in or using creationist resources. So that isn't even weak support for your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: That's a very silly thing to say. Do you actually understand the concept of explanation Mikey? Do you understand what it means to say that evolutionary theory explains the order ? Because if you do, you know that what you said isn't true.
quote: The answer that an honest person would have to give is "most likely because evolution is true". The relationship between evolutionary theory and the fossil record as we now know it has nothing to do with what Darwin wrote.
quote: If the fossils were reversed exactly then there would be a pattern that needed explaining but it's not one that fits comfortably with evolutionary theory. So no, Darwin couldn't just say that he'd have to come up with a theory that was quite different. But what if the order actually fitted well with creationist flood geology? Wouldn't that be even worse for evolution than your reversed order ?
quote: That's more an adjustment to the history of life than to evolutionary theory. Pushing mammals back a bit has no implications for the theory at all.
quote: Of course this is another Mikey strawman. First it uses only three balls so pure chance is a viable explanation. Second, and more important there is no demand to refute the order, showing a better explanation for the order would be an adequate and better reply. And THAT is the point of this thread. I didn't ask for the order to be refuted, I asked which side has the better explanation. Now in your "example" you could easily win by the criterion of parsimony by pointing out that, with only three balls, the pattern is to weak to require any explanation other than chance. But you can't do that with the fossil record. Chance isn't a viable explanation.
quote: Because the order we see is one more likely to be produced by the processes of evolution than it is by the processes of a "mass burial watery catastrophism". That is why the order is evidence for evolution. That is why evolution offers the better explanation of the fossil record. And that is the fact you are so desperately trying to deny.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025