Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 2887 (767928)
09-03-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-03-2015 11:59 AM


There is no "right order." They are sorted in a rough way according to size and original location, ...
If they are 'roughly ordered' why are there no verified exceptions?
But of course it must be added that there is no rational explanation for the sorting of the sedimentary strata in which they appear either, as if eras of time could be characterized by only one kind of sediment.
Who said this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-03-2015 11:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 42 of 2887 (768006)
09-04-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
09-03-2015 10:09 PM


Of course not. Because once the paradigm was established and accepted there was nothing to do but build upon it and within it.
Nonsense. There is the alternative of disproving it.
It has become an entrenched assumption or presupposition.
So is germ theory.
Did it ever occur to you that a theory becomes 'entrenched' because is is robust?
There is enough seeming evidence, or at least plausibility, to keep the system going, as long as tge few best bits of evidence are emphasized over and over and the difficult areas are sidestepped, which is very easy to do with a theory that is unprovable in the direct ways the hard sciences are provable.
very well, go ahead and start a discussion of the unprovable points.
By the way, it should be emphasized that proof in science means a preponderance of evidence and it proof only to reasonable people. There are fringe elements of society in all arenas that practice hyperskepticism.
Unprovable because the whole thing is an edifice of interpretation upon interpretation, none of it can be replicated, it can only be interpreted.
As I said, 'provable' means to the reasonable person.
You can't replicate the burial of dinosaurs, all you can do is interpret what you think must have happened, and in that enterprise you are limited by what has already been accepted, so you fit your bit of understanding into the already-constructed edifice.
And the problem is?
My point is, what do you have that's better? Let's hear it.
You add your interpretive plausible bit to the whole edifice and just keep building, although it has no foundation in actual fact, it's all mental conjurings.
The show where they are wrong.
It should be a simple task.
The whole thing is a gravity-defying reality-defying multiplication of interpretations floating some distance above planet earth.
Well, the more complex a theory becomes, the more likely is should fail, not? I mean, predictions should be impossible an observations should refute parts of the theory.
You have the illusion of science, the illusion of evidence, you mentally manipulate mental figments as if they were realities. It's all very convincing if you are entrenched in the system yourself.
So you say. But, as near as I can see that is what science does. It creates explanations.
You have no motive to see through it but it's pretty transparent to one who does.
And 'one' is the approximate number who see it that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-03-2015 10:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 2887 (768028)
09-04-2015 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by mike the wiz
09-04-2015 5:01 PM


Here is the list I have accumulated of all of the stasis, please note the term, "evolutionary stasis" is the biggest oxymoron in history. "changing stasis". Lol!
Mike, could you kindly tell us how fast evolution should proceed, and then show us where evolution 'says' that it must proceed at that rate?
Just curious.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 09-04-2015 5:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2015 7:31 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 2887 (768585)
09-12-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
09-12-2015 11:41 AM


I have the same fossil record that you do. I just read it differently than you do.
I'm sorry, but 'began to exist' isn't much of an explanation...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 11:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 12:11 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 76 of 2887 (768588)
09-12-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
09-12-2015 11:37 AM


All the oil, and natural gas in the earth began to exist.
So, you don't think there are processes that formed fossil fuels? You think that they just appeared in their modern position?
ETA: All of it? At once?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 11:37 AM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 83 of 2887 (768601)
09-12-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
09-12-2015 12:11 PM


Are you telling me you do not believe that the universe began to exist?
Are you telling me that 'began to exist' is the same as 'intelligently created?
Are you telling me you do not believe that the earth began to exist?
Are you telling me that your little semantic games are an argument for YECism?
Are you telling me you do not believe that life began to exist?
Are you telling me that the beginning of life is definitive argument in the evolution/creationism discussion?
If you do not believe they began to exist, do you believe they have always existed?
Of course not. Are you saying that make me a creationist in the sense that we discuss in this forum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 12:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2017 3:11 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 84 of 2887 (768603)
09-12-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
09-12-2015 12:13 PM


Where have I ignored it?
Well, you leave out a few facts.
The fossil record is not just a collection of fossils. You are talking 18th century reasoning here. We know a little bit more than that nowadays.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 12:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:11 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 2887 (768659)
09-12-2015 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:11 PM


If the fossil record is not just a collection of fossils, what is it?
The fact that you ask this question confirms my suspicions about many YECs' knowledge base in this discussion.
Anyway, there are all kinds of patterns in time and space such as stratigraphy that Dr. A has suggested, but there are also geographic patterns, extinctions, chemistry, etc. that only make sense in light of evolution.
In fact, it was those 'collections of bones' that eventually led to the recognition of patterns in rock that were the beginnings of the modern science of geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 97 of 2887 (768660)
09-12-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
09-12-2015 2:21 PM


It doesn't refute that the earth is very old.
It does refute evolution, as the fossils do not support evolution.
There is no gradual change shown in the fossil record.
There is the fact that the record shows that at many times there appeared completely new creatures on the earth.
(bold added)
Does this mean you are finally going to get to your point?
Are you going to do more than make assertions now?
Considering that an overwhelming majority of scientists, including Hawking would disagree with the bolded statements above, perhaps you should explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 2:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 102 of 2887 (768710)
09-13-2015 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by JonF
09-13-2015 9:17 AM


The universe exists. Earth exists. Animals, including man, exist.
This is the obvious starting point for discussing fossils.
How those things came to exist is another topic.
I think the ploy here is to broaden the topic so that distinctions become meaningless. I don't know what that accomplishes, or that we've ever seen the end game here since it usually falls apart before then. YECs just can't seem to finish the argument.
In other words, we understand that the topic here is young-earth-creationism, but ICANT has substituted 'creationism' for YEC and then introduced confusion by conflating 'creationism' with 'creation'. It's all very convoluted reasoning.
So, we also understand that everything was 'created' by various processes, so we must all believe in creationism, right?
Now, take into account the FACT that complex things must be created by intelligent processes and voila', we are all creationists!
At least that's my breakdown of the strategy here.
It's sort of like the smug "We-all-believe-in-God-we-just-don't-know-it" canard, or the "We-all-believe-in-evolution-since-evolution-is-change-and-my-car-is-evolving-into-a-pile-of-rust" argument.
I'm just not sure what their conclusion is.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by JonF, posted 09-13-2015 9:17 AM JonF has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 175 of 2887 (769727)
09-24-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-24-2015 10:21 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest?
I'm hesitant to to go off-topic and address this question, but how do you expect to have a meaningful discussion if you cannot abide established definitions?
My guess is that you should expect continued ridicule and multiple suspensions, so don't complain when that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 180 of 2887 (769737)
09-24-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
09-24-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
,,, When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative.
I have not participated in this thread, but it appears to be going like most of your threads.
However, I did read your comment that, ' ... old ages are simply out of the question.'
No explanation, no reasoning, ... just a comment as if to say that, 'this is a foregone conclusion, so I can disregard it and everyone should accept the rest of my story'. It's meaningless, and a bit disrespectful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 11:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 09-24-2015 9:17 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 210 of 2887 (769798)
09-25-2015 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
09-25-2015 3:15 AM


That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species. You'd just be imposing the theory on them, not getting evidence from them.
And that's a pretty pathetic understanding of the fossil record.
Do you know why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 3:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 4:37 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 224 of 2887 (769827)
09-25-2015 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
09-25-2015 10:30 AM


Re: Just the Facts, Ma'am
I don't dispute any of the facts.
Okay, so you accept Ned's facts.
The point is that you left out a few of them in your description of 'a collection of fossils that might be related.'
This is what you said:
That's pretty funny if the fossil record is a lot of separate unrelated species.
Actually it's really just an accurate description of the bare facts...
That's a pretty bare description of what we know. In fact, that's what people thought about fossils a couple of hundred years ago.
I think Ned made it pretty clear that there are a lot of other facts which you may not deny, but you surely ignore them.
The most important one of these is the fact that they line up in a sequence through time. That's kind of important.
What I'm disputing is the evolutionist interpretation that this sequence of living things proves evolution, ...
No one is saying 'proven', at least not in the absolute sense the you are asking for.
... the genetic descent of the higher from the lower.I've acknowledged that the order is very seductive of that sort of interpretation, but nevertheless there never has been any actual evidence of genetic descent, and now I've been arguing that in fact the changes required to get from the reptile bones to the mammal bones are genetically impossible.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'genetic descent' here. Of course we don't have genetic data here. These are fossils that we are talking about.
I think I've made a good observation here: genetics doesn't work the way it would have to work to produce the gradual changes between fossils that is always assumed to be how evolution works. It doesn't produce gradual changes over generations, it produces variations.
This is not an observation. It is a conclusion that you have drawn based on your religious mythology and rejection of the principle of relative ages.
If you think it is an obseration, please show us where we can look to see the same thing as you.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 10:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 235 of 2887 (769872)
09-25-2015 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
09-25-2015 7:14 PM


The problem I'm trying to highlight here is that discussions of fossil evolution completely ignore what genetics actually does. Evo theory just goes on and on about how such and such changes occurred over those millions of years without knowing if it is even possible, and in reality it's just not.
Problem is that the changes happened; this and many others that we see in the fossil record.
The purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to explain the changes. The data are there whether you like them or not. And they also support long ages.
And, incidentally, you have no explanation, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 09-25-2015 7:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024