How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Sgt. Pepper]

Sure. Let's just stick with that story out of consideration of friendship. But if you had, I'm sure you would agree we are delicious.

I'm a vegetarian, so I wouldn't know about either one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not denying that, though I thought that it would make you uncomfortable. If I was to say that I did not like rabbit meat that would be a lie since I have not eaten then, just as it would be a lie if I said that I did like them.

I do know how birds got the name fowl. I used to hunt a little. Mostly squirrel and I would have to skin and gut those myself, no problem. One fall some neighbors can and asked if the could go duck hunting on your property down by the lake that we lived on. And we said "Sure". When the left they gave me a few ducks that they had shot. I only had to pluck and clean them (gut them). Plucking was no problem but when it came to gutting them I quickly found out why they were called "water foul". Oops, was that a misspelling? No, it looks quite accurate to me. They were still delicious.

Once you gone through the mill of pigeon chess, the idea of being hunted and eaten doesn't seem all that unpleasant.

I rather like duck, though I don't get to eat it so often. Saying this having had it about three times over the last year. It was a good year for cuisine if not for other reasons.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm a vegetarian, so I wouldn't know about either one.

Rabbits are supposed to be too, but I'm not the typical rabbit.

 

[McBell]

Ohhh1 Upper case G. Of course:

I was thinking more along the lines of:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

I found this funny while realizing that a number of judgits would be equally fitting, including "Like", "Winner" and "Useful".

 

[John53]

You seemed to realize that I was right. You made no response to my post where I demonstrated your error.

Rabbit Season!

What am I saying? I have never eaten rabbit.

Never eaten rabbit! Surely that's a crime?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Never eaten rabbit! Surely that's a crime?

I'm not sure how to proceed on this, given that I eat and enjoy rabbit myself.

It saves a lot of money on college. That may be TMI.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Evolution has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[sayak83]

A long answer that completely misunderstands the dilemma...

Where did the human code come from? Obviously primitive life...therefore given our dna is different, and yet slowly loosing purity because mutations in us are degenerative and not an improvement, that goes against the claim it came from primitive life in the first place...it is currently demonstrating the opposite. It's de-evolving clearly and this supports the model that we were created with all the dna code and are gradually loosing it...which is more consistent and harmonious with the biblical model

Human DNA is not de-evolving. Indeed the idea of "purity" or de-evolution is nonsense. Where do you get such nonsensical ideas from?

 

[dwb001]

I have indeed gotten it straight.

I don't really care anymore. I don't consider what you have to say has any value to me and can easily reject it all as unsupported claims without merit.

Then feal free to ignore me from now on.

 

[dwb001]

My apologies.
I thought you meant Genesis from the Bible.
In which case, "GodDidIt" would be most accurate.

Your made up words are not accurate.

So which genesis were you referring to?
Please follow your own advice and be specific.

You had the reference correct. Your interpretation is faulty.

 

[dwb001]

You seemed to realize that I was right. You made no response to my post where I demonstrated your error.

Rabbit Season!

What am I saying? I have never eaten rabbit.

I didnt see any reason to respond. I was asleep.

Or I missed it. So you use an argument from silence on this thread. Fascinating.

Rabbit is like eating a silk chicken.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didnt see any reason to respond. I was asleep.

Or I missed it. So you use an argument from silence on this thread. Fascinating.

Rabbit is like eating a silk chicken.

Then that was your fault. Once again, not responding to a correction is the same as acknowledging it to be true.

 

[dwb001]

Then that was your fault. Once again, not responding to a correction is the same as acknowledging it to be true.

Not if I didn't see it. Or think it was serious.

An argument from silence is worthless.

This conversation is like talking to a woman. "You know what you did"... not helpful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Human DNA is not de-evolving. Indeed the idea of "purity" or de-evolution is nonsense. Where do you get such nonsensical ideas from?

Sanford and his "Genetic entropy". Sanford based his work on " Haldane's dilemma ". A problem in genetics from 1957. But like a!l good creationists he ignored that it had been resolved jn 1968.

Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if I didn't see it. Or think it was serious.

An argument from silence is worthless.

This conversation is like talking to a woman. "You know what you did"... not helpful.

No, laziness on your part is not an excuse. The posts are still there. This is not an argument from silence. You need to quit acting like a child. And sexism is not a good look for you either.

 

[dwb001]

No, laziness on your part is not an excuse. The posts are still there. This is not an argument from silence. You need to quit acting like a child. And sexism is not a good look for you either.

Still true though. Here I had high hopes for a thoughtful discussion. Now all I get is a blank look from you.

Move on.

Or bring your question back up and I will answer. If you do not wantnto bring up your question that is telling me you don't want my answer.

If I have not answered in the past it is not to be taken as an answer. You saying a non answer is an answer is the very definition of an argument from silence.

 

[wellwisher]

I see, not a creationist, but still a science denier.

Nothing in the sciences is proven. And in the sciences a theory is as good as it gets. A scientific theory is if anything above a law in the science. You are conflating the lay use of the word theory with the scientific one. In the sciences theories explain facts. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains those facts.

Ancient astronomers could plot the stars and could develop tools to make predictions like eclipses, all while their theory of the heavens was based on mythology. The practical or applied side of science; observation, data collection, plotting and tool making, can have nothing to do with a theory. Helios riding his chariot across the sky was independent of the practical side of the data collection of the sun's path. The solar data could be collected and plotted and even used to predict the change of the seasons. But since the story of Helios struck a cord at that time, it was accepted as a sound theory to help justify the solar data collection.

The Bureaucracy of Science, run by politicians, can set the foundation, to justify the expenses of science. Evolution, as is, is in the same boat. This is why this theory is being defended like a religion. You don't see chemistry waging a religious war since its theories are reproducible and not based on the gods of dice and cards.

Evolution, as is, was/is more like a rally cry for Atheism, than it is a sound rational theory that fits the data. This is why it is used like political weapon. It does not fully detach from a strange mythology that uses the gods of dice and cards to bring luck where the theory falls short. The first replicators in this theory, have no fossils for proof, but this is ignored since, as the story goes, the gods of dice and cards will be able to provide. Show me those replicator fossils, and I will concede.

Modern replicators; DNA or RNA use enzyme complexes and need a constant self providing supply of monomers to be useful. The idea of naked replicators without any support logistics, paints a picture of too many errors and too much down time to be useful. How do you go from replicators, to cells, when there is low reliability at the top? The gods of dice and cards will intercede?

The current theory starts on a very soggy foundation, all without fossils. In a test tube, we can play god and provide what is needed to make it appear to work. That is where magic and science begin to overlap. Applied science can do what nature cannot do, such as plot the stars and make tools or even make simple replicators work in the lab. Just because we can build bridges of steel does not mean that at one time nature was building bridges of steel. One needs to be involved in applied science to know the difference between pure and contrived theory with a deity twist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still true though. Here I had high hopes for a thoughtful discussion. Now all I get is a blank look from you.

Move on.

Or bring your question back up and I will answer. If you do not wantnto bring up your question that is telling me you don't want my answer.

If I have not answered in the past it is not to be taken as an answer. You saying a non answer is an answer is the very definition of an argument from silence.

Don't blame others for problems that you caused. When you ignored the corrections that is your problem.


But yes, let's move on. Refer back to the version of the scientific method that I posted.Do you have any questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ancient astronomers could plot the stars and could develop tools to make predictions like eclipses, all while their theory of the heavens was based on mythology. The practical or applied side of science; observation, data collection, plotting and tool making, can have nothing to do with a theory. Helios riding his chariot across the sky was independent of the practical side of the data collection of the sun's path. The solar data could be collected and plotted and even used to predict the change of the seasons. But since the story of Helios struck a cord at that time, it was accepted as a sound theory to help justify the solar data collection.

The Bureaucracy of Science, run by politicians, can set the foundation, to justify the expenses of science. Evolution, as is, is in the same boat. This is why this theory is being defended like a religion. You don't see chemistry waging a religious war since its theories are reproducible and not based on the gods of dice and cards.

Evolution, as is, was/is more like a rally cry for Atheism, than it is a sound rational theory that fits the data. This is why it is used like political weapon. It does not fully detach from a strange mythology that uses the gods of dice and cards to bring luck where the theory falls short. The first replicators in this theory, have no fossils for proof, but this is ignored since, as the story goes, the gods of dice and cards will be able to provide. Show me those replicator fossils, and I will concede.

Modern replicators; DNA or RNA use enzyme complexes and need a constant self providing supply of monomers to be useful. The idea of naked replicators without any support logistics, paints a picture of too many errors and too much down time to be useful. How do you go from replicators, to cells, when there is low reliability at the top? The gods of dice and cards will intercede?

The current theory starts on a very soggy foundation, all without fossils. In a test tube, we can play god and provide what is needed to make it appear to work. That is where magic and science begin to overlap. Applied science can do what nature cannot do, such as plot the stars and make tools or even make simple replicators work in the lab. Just because we can build bridges of steel does not mean that at one time nature was building bridges of steel. One needs to be involved in applied science to know the difference between pure and contrived theory with a deity twist.

Do you have questions or did you only want to post inane nonsense?