|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 3 From: Fargo, ND, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific theories taught as factual | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You never responded to my earlier explanation, so I'll just repeat it, which began by asking a rhetorical question: Why aren't our forests awash in bird and squirrel skeletons in the process of fossilization? The answer is that fossilization is rare. Let me relate an experience I've had more than several times over the years while mowing the yard. I'm pushing the mower along and notice a dead bird or chipmunk at the edge of the yard (I have cats who are already well fed and only interested in sport, which is how I suspect this happens), and I make a mental note to clean it up later, then I forget. The next week while mowing the yard I remember that I forgot to clean up the dead animal, but when I reach that point in the yard it is gone. It's always gone. Dead animals are food, and unless some lucky accident buries them and prevents their bodies from being attacked not only by scavengers but also by bacteria and fungus, which are present even underground, then it will not be preserved. Fossilization is rare. Except in certain circumstances. An interesting example of the difference between a preserving environment and a non-preserving environment one need only look at the La Brea tarpits, where thousands of fossils have been found:
quote: You would also have scavengers or opportunistic feeders (dire wolves may have scavenged more than hunted) attempting to consume the dead animals getting stuck. So the animals in the pit would have been consumed without the tarpit trapping predator and prey. Logically the same numbers of animals would have inhabited or passed through the surrounding areas as wound up in the tarpits, but they have not been preserved in surrounding sedimentary deposits. Thousands of fossils in the pitsRare fossils outside the pits Conclusion: without some means to prevent the consumption of dead organisms, fossilization is rare. Logically, if the major source of death of animals is predation (including from within), and most dead animals are further scavenged after the predator has finished, and the skeletons are also consumed, often with bones carried away for leisure consumption, then, even without the effects of bacteria, bugs and weathering, there is little left to fossilize. Logically, if the creationist argument were valid, the plains of africa etc should be literally covered with skeletons TODAY from the deaths of animals dying in today's world. The creationist argument fails to explain the (extremely small) numbers of skeletons lying around in the present day -- and they must be oblivious to the behavior of dogs ... Conclusion: without some means to prevent the consumption of dead organisms, fossilization is rare. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
The evolutionary views I've just described are the ones you have to criticize. I am so sorry to disapoint so many but I can not find anything you said that I can not come to agreement with. I might state it a little different but I can't disagree with it. I stated when I came on this site that I had no problem with evolution. I do have a problem when people say it is a proven fact that I evolved from a lower life form. I know you have never presented that view as a fact. Sorry I didn't answer your forest question as I did not answer someone's question about the bullion cubes instead of marbles.It would take a pretty stupid person to expect to find fossils in a forrest of squirls or birds. Also of bullion cubes in a yard. I just hear so much about evidence. Even you mentioned mountains of evidence. But I can't find it, I find a mole hill hopefully someone can point the mountain out. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I just hear so much about evidence. Even you mentioned mountains of evidence. But I can't find it, I find a mole hill hopefully someone can point the mountain out. You can't find the evidence? How many of the following have you checked? (And these are a very small percentage of the journals beginning with "A" that you would need to check to see even a small part of the evidence!)
As an example, the current American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Feb. 2008) contains an article titled "Biogeochemical and craniometric investigation of dietary ecology, niche separation, and taxonomy of Plio-Pleistocene cercopithecoids from the Makapansgat Limeworks." And there are hundreds of thousands of similar articles within the many different fields of science that make up "evolution." And then there are books, and the papers presented at conferences, etc. So, I have pointed out the mountain. Got your climbing boots?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I just hear so much about evidence. Even you mentioned mountains of evidence. But I can't find it, I find a mole hill hopefully someone can point the mountain out. Here is a list of over 90 fossil collections. Many of them even have searchable databases. The UT collection itself has records for 112,422 specimens in 4,450 localities. Enjoy. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: I just hear so much about evidence. Even you mentioned mountains of evidence. But I can't find it, I find a mole hill hopefully someone can point the mountain out. You asked for evidence proving evolution beyond doubt. I can't do that, not because there's no supporting evidence for evolution, but because there's no amount of evidence that could ever prove anything in science beyond doubt. My guess is that your thinking of the claim that people like to make that it is a fact that evolution has occurred, while the mechanisms thought to lie behind evolution, what we would call evolutionary theory, are tentative. I blame the former claim, that it is a fact that evolution has occurred, on Stephen Jay Gould, and I believe it is false. For the purposes of that statement, Gould defined fact only as something that had so much supporting evidence that it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional acceptance. If you define fact in that way, then clearly it is not beyond any shadow of doubt that evolution has occurred, since that would mean 100% certainty. In science nothing is ever 100% certain, even what we consider our facts. But there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, both its occurrence and the mechanisms behind it. In other words, if you want to learn about the evidence proving evolution beyond a shadow of doubt, then there's no amount of evidence that can do that. But if you want to learn about the evidence supporting evolution, then there's a wealth of evidence available.
It would take a pretty stupid person to expect to find fossils in a forrest of squirls or birds. Also of bullion cubes in a yard. I didn't ask you to consider why you don't find bird and squirrel fossils in the forest. I asked you to consider why you don't find bird and squirrel skeletons in the forest. Before there can be a fossil there had to be an actual skeleton made of bone that would, over time, fossilize. Since there are virtually no bird or squirrel skeletons in the forest lying around waiting to become future fossils, you should not expect to find many bird or squirrel fossils buried in the geological layers. And the same is true of all other life. Fossilization is a rare event. I don't know what the actual odds of a creature becoming a fossil are, but it's got to be at least a one in a million type of event.
ICANT writes: I stated when I came on this site that I had no problem with evolution. But that's not true. For example, in your previous post you mentioned insufficient fossils as a problem with evolution. And even if it were true that you have no problem with evolution, you don't understand it, as your difficulty with the concept of the evolution of populations and with the nature of fossilization makes clear. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I blame the former claim, that it is a fact that evolution has occurred, on Stephen Jay Gould, and I believe it is false. For the purposes of that statement, Gould defined fact only as something that had so much supporting evidence that it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional acceptance. If you define fact in that way, then clearly it is not beyond any shadow of doubt that evolution has occurred, since that would mean 100% certainty. In science nothing is ever 100% certain, even what we consider our facts. The full Gould quote is
quote: Gould was simply saying that since we can't say anything is 100% certain we have to view the word 'fact' as meaning something else otherwise it is meaningless. The full article can be read here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Gould was simply saying that since we can't say anything is 100% certain we have to view the word 'fact' as meaning something else otherwise it is meaningless.
If I measure the height of my desk as 29 inches +- .5 inches, then I call that a fact. I think I can be far more certain of that than I can of what evolutionists sometimes call facts. At least my measurement is an observation made in accordance with accepted conventions. It does not depend on any kind of interpretation of observations. In other words, I think Gould was mistaken to say that the word "fact" would otherwise be meaningless. From my point of view, that humans are the product of evolution from other species is a well justified conclusion. However, unlike my assertion above on the height of my desk, it is not a demonstrated or demonstrable fact. Let's end the political smears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If I measure the height of my desk as 29 inches +- .5 inches, then I call that a fact. I think I can be far more certain of that than I can of what evolutionists sometimes call facts. At least my measurement is an observation made in accordance with accepted conventions. It does not depend on any kind of interpretation of observations. It depends on an evolutionist uniformitarian presupposition about rulers, despite the fact that creationist scientists have proved that rulers are not constant in length; and on evolutionist preconceptions about space-time which were shown to be wrong by Einstein. Ultimately the evolutionist claim to know what things measure is based on circular reasoning. They measure things with rulers, but how do they know how long rulers are? By measuring them against other rulers! The whole thing is jusst presupposition that rulers measure the right length! Evolutionists can't even decide whether things should be measured in centimeters or inches! And they call this science? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I just hear so much about evidence. Even you mentioned mountains of evidence. But I can't find it ... Where on earth have you been looking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Ultimately the evolutionist claim to know what things measure is based on circular reasoning. They measure things with rulers, but how do they know how long rulers are? By measuring them against other rulers! The whole thing is jusst presupposition that rulers measure the right length!
I have to disagree with that. There is no doubt that the rulers measure the correct length, if used properly. That there is no doubt is established by the adoption of conventions. If you like, it is established by executive fiat. But it is established nonetheless. The meaning of our length words derives from those same conventions.
Evolutionists can't even decide whether things should be measured in centimeters or inches! And they call this science?
Not really a big deal, since one inch = 2.54 centimeters, also established by accepted conventions. Let's end the political smears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
But that's not true. For example, in your previous post you mentioned insufficient fossils as a problem with evolution. Would you please point out inMessage 272 where I say insufficient fossils is a problem with evolution. But yes I do have a problem with insufficient fossils but not to whether evolution occurs or not. Just to the extent it occurs. Percy would you like to know without a doubt that evolution has occured as many here believe it has and you could prove it with a fossil record that could not be questioned as to the facts? Until this happens the debate will continue You can say but we are so much like each other the different species all the way from the beginning of life. I will say since God made everything out of the same material we would be very similiar. Now we are back to square 1. You should be more concerened about the lack of fossils than I am because without them you will never be able to convince creo's. If I understood you in Message 270 you said:Percy writes: The evolutionary explanation of how change over time has produced the diversity of species we see today through a process of descent with modification through natural selection is tentative. It is not a fact, it is a tentative theory. It can and will change in light of new evidence or improved insight. I did say inMessage 272quote: I said I hear so much about evidence but I can't find it.I was pointed to a lot of written material and a few pictures. If I pointed to that kind of material to prove to you God exists I would be laughed out of town. (so to speak) But shucks I get laughed at when I quote Dr. Hawking. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I said I hear so much about evidence but I can't find it. I pointed you to a small list of journals, as a representative of many hundreds of journals available through good libraries. Another poster submitted a list of 90 major fossil collections. Why are you still complaining that you can't find the mountain of evidence? Have you bothered to look? Being new here I am not familiar with your approach, but it seems you are just going to ignore the evidence people direct you to, all the while complaining about "molehills rather than mountains"? Edited by Admin, : Fix HTML.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I said I hear so much about evidence but I can't find it. I was pointed to a lot of written material and a few pictures. Well, then let me point you in another direction. Enough with this written material. As though anything written down could have any bearing on the question! Let me direct you instead to the entire natural world. There, my friend, you will find the evidence in non-written form. If you study hard. You may have some difficulty getting permission to quarry some fossil sites, and I believe that molecular phylogeny is still quite expensive, but surely a fearless seeker after truth such as yourself won't let these petty obstacles stand in your way. Alternatively, you could consider reading this despised "written material", since it was written by hundreds of thousands of people who have spent their lifetimes studying nature, and in an entire lifetime you could only succeed in gathering up a few crumbs of the knowledge they've discovered. I recommend the latter course. And frankly, I don't see what more help we can give you over the Internet besides referring you to ... y'know, information. What are we meant to do, kidnap you, drive you to the Grand Canyon and rub your nose in it? What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
ICANT
I will say since God made everything out of the same material we would be very similiar. Now we are back to square 1. Well that we are made out of the material is not in dispute. What is the difficulty is in the mechanism by which this is performed. The theory of evolution says that the mechanism is random mutation directed by non-random natural selection. Natural selection is just the pressure applied by the environment that an animal must deal with at the time that they are alive. Now if we are to say that God did this then it is simply equitable that we provide the mechanism by which God accomplishes this and the evidence of that mechanism. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
nwr writes: If I measure the height of my desk as 29 inches +- .5 inches, then I call that a fact. I think I can be far more certain of that than I can of what evolutionists sometimes call facts. Yeah, this pretty much nails what I was trying to say. Too much time and effort is wasted on the evolutionist claim that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. If evolutionists are involved in any bait-and-switch tactics, this is it. While it wouldn't quite be correct to say that calling evolution a fact is wrong, it certainly is misleading to attempt to give the impression that evolution is the same type of fact as the height of your desk. Something that took Darwin years of investigation during a round the world voyage followed by many more years of thought and analysis to discover and understand is by no means the same type of obvious fact as the height of your desk or the color of a flower, and I wish Gould had never made the claim as it's a cause of endless and unnecessary trouble. Aside to Modulous: I own a 25 year-old copy of Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024