|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It doesn't refute that the earth is very old.
Does this mean you are finally going to get to your point? 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) 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The universe exists. Earth exists. Animals, including man, exist.
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. This is the obvious starting point for discussing fossils. How those things came to exist is another topic. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
,,, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024