Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 88 (69972)
11-29-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 9:34 PM


Still dont see that thread dude, post a link please.
I refer to the flood yes, but it seems to be you also chose your authoritive figure as to the effect of evolution. I think the creationist have a good arguement I dont think evolutionist have much of an arguement persoanlly. I find that the flood did happen. this is out side of this debate however. if there is a debate going on direct me to it please.
If you approach a arguemnt with a bias opinion you are going to favour one side over the other regardless of what each say. You have to have no bias opinion. Something I am trying to form. I think evolution has a small argument currently, but creationist have a good point I think also. No bias opinion, I would think that would probably give evolution and creation a 50/50 chance. Neather is better then the other if you have no bias opinion. Only thing you can do is take what each say for grantid and come to a mathimatical conclusion as to what the chance is for each, the one with the better chance is the one more likely, but that does not mean the one more likly occured. I wont hold on to eather of them, I will just say this, one seems more relevent then the other, that is all. I have not come to this conclusion yet so, I will continue with this debate on the fossil record.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 9:34 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 10:19 PM Sonic has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 32 of 88 (69973)
11-29-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:36 PM


Here is a site with intermediate organisms. This shows the jaw to ear bone transition.
http://daphne.palomar.edu/...nter/reptile%20to%20mammals.htm
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:36 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:14 PM Asgara has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 88 (69981)
11-29-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:44 PM


A few points
here is the thread I started:
http://EvC Forum: Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods. -->EvC Forum: Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.
We are all biased. There is no good trying to pretend you are not or are going to somehow reach a state where you aren't if the topic is at all important to you. It is how you deal with it that is important.
You and I can't do all our own research. We can examine what has been done and try to determine how good it is. In science anything important must be reproduced (and probably many times) if it is going to be a foundation upon which to move forward. So that is something we might look for. We also want to see what critisms of the work has been done. Have those critisms been answered?
Since we can't do all the research we do have to refer to those who have done it. I am looking for support for the idea that the flood can produce the fossil record we see.
I think this thread is a good place for your evidence:
http://EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism -->EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism
You think the creationists have a good argument. Ok, let's see them. We're waiting. We've been shown a lot and have questioned them and pointed out flaws and not gotten answers back. There is a tendancy for the supporters to run off when they find out it is hard.
Re: 50/50 chance
The accepted explanation for geology and biology by scientists was once the creation and flood. They examined the evidence in more and more detail and could not keep those explanations. From this modern geology and biology developed. There isn't any 50/50 left, creationism (in a form) had it's chance, it was first but it didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Now back to the fossil record.
I think we still need to know what a transitional is. And what you mean by half formed. I may have missed that by answering this before reading eveything, sorry if I did.
Added by edit
OOps you did post something on it. i'll reply there
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:44 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 88 (69983)
11-29-2003 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sonic
11-29-2003 9:36 PM


Sonic writes:
For me to consider the reptilian in this picture to become mammilian like it shows in this picture we need to represent this change with intermediate jaws and ear bones, and skulls, an brains which would ffit into the skulls, just more intermediates, this would be gradulism. I understand that we dont have all fossils and we may never have them all because of how they form and because of land problems, but that is the problem exactly, without the more fossils we have no evolution according to the fossil record, we need those changes in order to say that the fossil record is evidence of evolution.
I don't understand the basic point of this. You have said you understand that having all fossils (however that is defined) is not something we will ever have. Are you now saying because we don't have (and may never have) every single, most tiny step between reptile and mammal you don't (and won't ever) accept that this transition took place?
You say we have "...no evolution according to the fossil record...". But we do. We have some of the evolutionary steps. In this case they cover the transition rather nicely. The missing steps seem to me to be pretty obvious. Is what you mean to say: "We don't have all of the evolutionary steps in the fossil record." ?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 9:36 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:33 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 88 (69989)
11-29-2003 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Asgara
11-29-2003 9:47 PM


Ok,
I cannot say this is a smooth transition BUT I can see why people would think this is evidence. I need more fossil records regarding whatever species. I like to give this a chance of 3/3 or so. so far we have 1/1 need 2 more fossil records.
You might ask if I have searched the fossil record why have I not seen these? I am not sure why I have not seen these, I just have not.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Asgara, posted 11-29-2003 9:47 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 11-30-2003 6:12 AM Sonic has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 88 (69990)
11-29-2003 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Sonic
11-29-2003 8:24 PM


quote:
Hey buzsaw, lets try not to use Micro and Macro terminology. The understanding of how micro became macro is a big problem currently in my mind.
I wasn't aware that micro ever became macro?? Anyhow, I'm sure Crashy, to whom I was responding understands what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 8:24 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2003 6:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 88 (69992)
11-29-2003 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 10:19 PM


Re: A few points
We are all biased. There is no good trying to pretend you are not or are going to somehow reach a state where you aren't if the topic is at all important to you. It is how you deal with it that is important.
True.
You and I can't do all our own research. We can examine what has been done and try to determine how good it is. In science anything important must be reproduced (and probably many times) if it is going to be a foundation upon which to move forward. So that is something we might look for. We also want to see what critisms of the work has been done. Have those critisms been answered?
Which critisms are you speaking about?
Since we can't do all the research we do have to refer to those who have done it. I am looking for support for the idea that the flood can produce the fossil record we see.
I think this thread is a good place for your evidence:
http://EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism -->EvC Forum: Stratigraphy and Creationism
You think the creationists have a good argument. Ok, let's see them. We're waiting. We've been shown a lot and have questioned them and pointed out flaws and not gotten answers back. There is a tendancy for the supporters to run off when they find out it is hard.
Thanks for the info and I am presenting a good argument I think. We will see where it goes.
Re: 50/50 chance
The accepted explanation for geology and biology by scientists was once the creation and flood. They examined the evidence in more and more detail and could not keep those explanations. From this modern geology and biology developed. There isn't any 50/50 left, creationism (in a form) had it's chance, it was first but it didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Validation please?
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 10:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:19 AM Sonic has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 88 (69994)
11-29-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NosyNed
11-29-2003 10:25 PM


Sonic writes:
For me to consider the reptilian in this picture to become mammilian like it shows in this picture we need to represent this change with intermediate jaws and ear bones, and skulls, an brains which would ffit into the skulls, just more intermediates, this would be gradulism. I understand that we dont have all fossils and we may never have them all because of how they form and because of land problems, but that is the problem exactly, without the more fossils we have no evolution according to the fossil record, we need those changes in order to say that the fossil record is evidence of evolution.
NosyNed writes:
I don't understand the basic point of this. You have said you understand that having all fossils (however that is defined) is not something we will ever have. Are you now saying because we don't have (and may never have) every single, most tiny step between reptile and mammal you don't (and won't ever) accept that this transition took place?
Yes. I dont like to base my belief off imagination if I am going to base it entirly from evidences. Yes, I am a creationist but I can use the fossil record as proof of the creation event by saying that all fossils are just skeletons, which appeared out of no where by removing the dating methods which are at best theoretical.
NosyNed writes:
You say we have "...no evolution according to the fossil record...". But we do. We have some of the evolutionary steps. In this case they cover the transition rather nicely. The missing steps seem to me to be pretty obvious. Is what you mean to say: "We don't have all of the evolutionary steps in the fossil record." ?
No, I remove the dating methods because I simply dont trust them. If I remove the dateing methods it removes the time which would be explained to be used for the evolution of these parts and they become created parts because there is no time. This would also remove how long the earth has been around according to evolution and to the restrictions in the bibles guidlines. Which means perhaps the earth has been around for thousands of years instead. Note: this is all theory of mine, but for me to switch or adopt a new theory their has to be enough proof showing that it is possible that the fossil record is talking about evolution and not creation.
------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 11-29-2003 10:25 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 1:35 AM Sonic has replied

  
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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 40 of 88 (70004)
11-30-2003 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Sonic
11-29-2003 11:23 PM


Re: A few points
Which critisms are you speaking about?
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 subscribe or buy a number of differnt mags. I don't like any that don't have letters to the editor that critise articles and get rebuttals from the original authors. You learn a lot by that.
Thanks for the info and I am presenting a good argument I think. We will see where it goes.
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.
Validation please?
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?
added by edit:
Can Creationists Fit the Flood in a Geologic Framework
This site give you a light description of the time. You can use the names there at the library to, perhaps, find histories or biographies of those involved.
and this site clearly describes Cuvier as a creationist (though not in the sense we now have to use)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:23 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:39 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 88 (70008)
11-30-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Sonic
11-29-2003 11:33 PM


... event by saying that all fossils are just skeletons, which appeared out of no where by removing the dating methods which are at best theoretical.
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.
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.
And here is another giant one for you to explain:
".. appeared out of nowhere.."
What the heck does that mean?
Note: this is all theory of mine, but for me to switch or adopt a new theory their has to be enough proof showing that it is possible that the fossil record is talking about evolution and not creation.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 11:33 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:49 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
the_mountain_hare
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 88 (70013)
11-30-2003 2:23 AM


quote:
I cannot say this is a smooth transition BUT I can see why people would think this is evidence. I need more fossil records regarding whatever species. I like to give this a chance of 3/3 or so. so far we have 1/1 need 2 more fossil records.
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.
quote:
No, I remove the dating methods because I simply dont trust them
Pity, since they have been scientifically verified.
quote:
If I remove the dateing methods it removes the time which would be explained to be used for the evolution of these parts and they become created parts because there is no time.
This would also remove how long the earth has been around according to evolution and to the restrictions in the bibles guidlines.
In otherwords, you are ramming your fingers into your ears, and placing your hands over your eyes, while screaming "No it doesn't!"
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.
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.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:59 AM the_mountain_hare 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mark24, posted 11-30-2003 6:18 AM Sonic has replied
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 9:56 AM Sonic 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Kapyong, posted 01-18-2004 4:36 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 88 by MarkAustin, posted 01-19-2004 8:34 AM Sonic has not replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 88 (70029)
11-30-2003 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by the_mountain_hare
11-30-2003 2:23 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by the_mountain_hare, posted 11-30-2003 2:23 AM the_mountain_hare 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