|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You'll have all seen this somewhere on the internet ...
... but it doesn't have enough fossils. Or footnotes. I decided to remedy that. Comments? I can easily alter it, the original's an .odg file.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You (who is "you") "have" the fossils? You're hoarding them? They're kept in museums and suchlike places.
The fossils are creatures that died in the Flood. They show the range of life on earth before the Flood. That's all. What a strange stroke of luck that this range of life on earth fits so well with evolutionary predictions. But I guess that's nothing to the massive sequence of coincidences by which the Flood sorted them into the right order. And rigged the radiometric dates in some way which is never properly explained. Or perhaps coincidence is the wrong word. If one believes there's a divine hand behind all this, then one must conclude that the entire fossil record is a vast lie to trick scientists into being evolutionists, one huge and gratuitous act of deceit on the part of the Almighty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is no "right order." They are sorted in a rough way according to size and original location, lower levels being generally smaller and marine, upper being land creatures. There is no gradation according to complexity or any clear criterion. Creatures of a kind are found together, just as they are found in life. Different races or varieties of the same creature are found together in different layers, not because the upper evolved from the lower but just because that's where they ended up. The strange thing about you people ... OK, one of the strange things about you people ... is that you continually try to explain away, not what the fossil record looks like, but what you imagine it looks like. This is like watching someone say: "Well the reason that like poles attract is because Jesus! As you'd know if you'd read the Bible! You ignoramus! The Flood did it!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh look, marc is whining about imaginary faults of the moderators instead of addressing the topic. I remember the last time he did this there were strange signs and portents, like the sun rising in the east.
Marc, are you going to address the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Note: Not one single post here has offered evidence or reasoned argumentation for anything. Fossils, I take it, don't count as evidence, because Jesus.
I'd like to see someone actually PROVE that the order of the fossils supports evolution. Well, you know how the more basal forms are dated earlier than the more derived forms ... ? There you go. Any questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Of course not. Because once the paradigm was established and accepted there was nothing to do but build upon it and within it. It has become an entrenched assumption or presupposition. 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. Unprovable because the whole thing is an edifice of interpretation upon interpretation, none of it can be replicated, it can only be interpreted. 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. 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 whole thing is a gravity-defying reality-defying multiplication of interpretations floating some distance above planet earth. 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. You have no motive to see through it but it's pretty transparent to one who does. You're trying to describe science as though it's a bad thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And in breaking news, we have a new turtle ancestor, Pappochelys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh look, more intermediate forms ... it's been a good week for them.
These two dinosaurs, named Liaoningosaurus paradoxus and Zhongyuansaurus luoyangensis, both had interlocking tail vertebrae that formed early versions of the handle but lacked tail knobs. What’s more, Arbour and Currie note, Liaoningosaurus lived about 122 million years ago and Zhongyuansaurus was shuffling around about 92 million years ago, while the first ankylosaurs with fully-formed tail clubs evolved around 75 million years ago. The handle came first. So, more evidence for evolution, or just God lying to us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good grief, how is that evidence for evolution? Because it's what we'd expect to see if evolution had taken place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But it's nothing more than normal microevolution that occurs all the time ... From a flexible tail without a club on it, to one with rigid interlocking vertebrae with a 100 lb club on the end of it? And this, according to you, is just something that happens all the time, like the minute variations in beak shape among the Galapagos finches, and is nothing remarkable. I'd have thought the production of a totally new anatomical feature which can be seen from a mile's distance would be one of those things creationists would call "macro" and deny, but instead you call it "micro" and embrace it. (I remember once a creationist finally being persuaded that whales had evolved from land mammals, and at the same moment deciding that this was "just microevolution" and didn't prove anything.) Well, you must decide for yourself whether the evolution of ankylosaurs is "microevolution". It still happened, though. By the way, you might now like to turn your attention to the trivial anatomical differences between a human and an ape ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Of course not. Because once the paradigm was established and accepted there was nothing to do but build upon it and within it. It has become an entrenched assumption or presupposition. 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. Unprovable because the whole thing is an edifice of interpretation upon interpretation, none of it can be replicated, it can only be interpreted. 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. 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 whole thing is a gravity-defying reality-defying multiplication of interpretations floating some distance above planet earth. 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. You have no motive to see through it but it's pretty transparent to one who does. Well, there are a couple of striking things about this. The first is that if it works, it always works. That is, Faith, this would be just as good or bad an argument whether evolution was true or false, and whether it was supported or unsupported by the fossil evidence. It's an argument that whatever the evidence, it's not really evidence; that however consistent the fossil record is with evolution, it has no tendency to confirm it. This is why your argument never refers to the quality of the evidence, nor its quantity, nor a single fossil or bone. Now, Faith, don't you see that there has to be something wrong with such an argument? To help you see that, imagine this. Suppose I had an argument against there being an elephant in the room that would work just as well whether there was or wasn't an elephant. Now, an argument for no elephant that works just as well even when there's an elephant is not a good argument. There's a certain sense in which it's not an argument at all. The second thing, and I've said this before, is that your extreme skepticism is not sincere or consistent. You just do it for evolution. You are, as we've seen, quite happy to admit as a fact that real live ceratopsians once roamed the Earth. When asked whether all the evidence supports that, you cheerfully say "yes", you don't say "You can't replicate the burial of dinosaurs, all you can do is interpret what you think must have happened." So your vague epistemological arguments are neither apt nor sincere. What you need to do is formulate an argument that depends on the evidence in some way, an argument which relies on something outside your head --- a fossil, a bone, a DNA sequence, for God's sake something. But what you've presented is an argument which is indifferent to any observations whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Mike, the stuff you have made up is interesting. But because it's made up, it's not actually evidence one way or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Imagine how confused he'll get if someone tells him about the phrase "travel stop".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
With added pretentious gibberish, and some stuff he made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Mike has a strong tendency to hit-and-run. I don't suppose we'll get him back.
--- So, to summarize. On the C side: Faith: You fools! You're looking at evidence to find out what happened. I've told you about that.marc9000: I'm not going to discuss the topic. But I'm upset for some reason. mike the wiz: Here's some stuff creationists made up. Bye. On the E side, I was hoping one of you could find something I've done wrong, or at least something that could be done better. Can you make some suggestions? I can resize and relabel anything, add pictures, whatever. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024