What does the fossil record say?

[outhouse]

Mr House,
With such adequate defenders, who would dare?

you have two choices

a myth

or

A scientific proccess that is as fact as gravity


You have strayed away from fossils on some kind of witch hunt

Human evolutionary fossils paint a very clear picture. What reasonable explanation is there for fossils showing the farther we go back in time the more primate like we become.

How do you explain that ???

 

[wilsoncole]

Heh... Whoever told you that didn't know the first thing about Abiogenesis.
No credible biologist or chemist claims that the first single-celled organism sprang into life out of nowhere. I strongly suggest you read up on the subject from some more reliable sources because that description is utterly wrong.

You want to argue with Richard Dawkins?
You should check out page 16 of his book "The Selfish Gene." Even you wouldn't believe what he says there!
I suppose you know more about it than he does - huh?

 

[wilsoncole]

you have two choices

a myth

or

A scientific proccess that is as fact as gravity

You have strayed away from fossils on some kind of witch hunt

Human evolutionary fossils paint a very clear picture. What reasonable explanation is there for fossils showing the farther we go back in time the more primate like we become.

How do you explain that ???

I have seen the exhibits and the very empty words attached to them.
You can swallow that - not me!
Anyway:
What makes you think you can draw me into a discussion of fossils or evolution?
I will do that when I am good and ready.

 

[wilsoncole]

show us something, theres no proof for the creation myth as you cant prove a myth is real in my opinion
you can attack science all you want its not going anywhere

What gives you the impression that I am attacking science?

 

[Amill]

I am told that a single unicellular organism suddenly came to life and that all other forms of life on earth sprang from that single source. I refuse to believe that and, while I am not accusing anyone, I am questioning the concept directly.
I am asking: How can any form evolution take place if there is no first cell? Where and how did that unicellular organism get its start?

We could always just invoke magic as the reason the first cell existed. Evolution would still make much more sense than creationism from my perspective.

 

[wilsoncole]

Which would make the Vedas spectacularly different as they have survived much, much longer than the Torah.

Not true!
Let's see what you know about the Vedas:
1. How old is it?
2. How widely is it read in comparison to the Bible?

“It was only in the fourteenth century A.D. that the Veda was written down...” (A History of India, 1978, page 24 P. K. Saratkumar)

"It is very hard to digest that the land of the Vedas is one of the countries with the highest illiteracy levels and shows the inability of our government to utilize programs like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and National Literacy Mission." (theviewpaper.net/illiteracy-in-india/)

3. This means that for most of the time the Vedas were in existence the people could not read it. The same cannot be said of the Torah.

4. The Vedas was never under attack by any nation the way the Bible was.

 

[wilsoncole]

We could always just invoke magic as the reason the first cell existed. Evolution would still make much more sense than creationism from my perspective.

From your perspective, what kind of science would you call that?

 

[Autodidact]

Please give me a reason why I should accept this informatrion as fact.
How do you know that any of this is true? Have you found a way to verify any of it?

Yes, it's called science. And it works.

Note these words:
"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms."—(Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 52)

Could you perhaps supply the full quote? I'm sure you have Professor Dunbar's antique textbook in your personal collection? Or are you just stealing some other lying creationist's quote mine?

(Now - please do not attack the writer for his thoughts. Just tell me if what he wrote is true.)

If the fossil record is the ONLY historical documentary evidence for physical evolution of living things, gaps in the record would distort that evidence - would it not? Circumstantial evidence has often been proven wrong.

It's the only kind of evidence science has. Or don't you accept science?

 

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
Please give me a reason why I should accept this information as fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
How do you know that any of this is true?


You are a person of great faith!
Yes - FAITH!
Why do you trust the peer-review system?
It has been shown to be as fraudulent as any other competitive endeavor.

So basically, you reject the scientific method? All a bunch of bunk? Flat earth? Sun revolves around it? Cuz you wouldn't want to buy all the baloney you read in the scientific literature about a round earth revolving around the sun, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

I read somewhere that we have uncovered probably 90% of the type of fossils that we will every find, not the amount of fossils, but the type of creatures.

What a piece of ignorant speculation? That's ridiculous.

I don't remember where I saw that, probably some creationist propaganda, however I believe it to be true.

Why, because it suits you?

We have been searching for 150 years to validate evolution in the fossil record and failed.

This is completely, totally and utterly false. My guess would be that you know almost nothing about the fossil record--am I right?

That’s why punctuated equilibrium came on the scene and why intellectually honest evolutionary biologists have to admit that the fossil record is lacking.

Of course it's lacking. It will always be lacking. We have a few tiny scraps to work with--well, a few million, but still only a tiny percentage of all the creatures who ever lived.

The fossil evidence just isn’t there.

The point is not how much there is. The point is that what is there is completely, totally and utterly consistent with ToE, and fulfills specific predictions of ToE. And that's what matters.

What we see in the fossil record is just what we see in living organisms, a mosaic of features between creatures, which does by the way validate homology. Does homology validate evolution,

Absolutely.

or can it validate creation?

Anything can validate creationism, because it's not a scientific theory. Homology is consistent with it, as would be the total absence of homology.

It depends on your world view. If you accept that evolution is true then homology validates that,

No, you don't have to accept evolution first. If you look at the evidence, including homology, you see that it supports evolution, which is why it is the basis of scientific biology.

if you accept that creation is true then animals could have been created similarly to live in a similar world.

Sure, they could have been created similarly. Or differently. Or some of each. Or anything else you can think of. Creationism is not falsifiable, and therefore is not science.

There are no fossils in the whole world that can be shown to be direct lineages to any other fossil or have any ancestor / descendant relationship to any other fossil or type of creature.

False.

The fossil record validates creation where whole creatures appear without any ancestors.

No, it doesn't. You're simply wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no reason to believe that except under the presuppositon that evolution is true and we should find more intermediaries.

No, there is very good reason to believe that and it has nothing to do with evolution. We've only dug up a tiny part of the earth. Obviously, the more we dig up, the more we find. We just found a huge stash of mastodons and other prehistoric creatures right here in Colorado, and the next time they start digging a foundation for some condos in Aspen, they're likely to find another huge chunk. And every one they find will be consistent with the predictions of ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

My position is the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallable word of God. What does the Bible say? It says that everything, the universe, the earth and all life forms were created in six ordinary days, approximately 10,000 years ago.

I accept that man was made a whole being similar to as he is today. Did we evolve any? Well there are now many races of peoples with different sizes and shapes so yes we did. Humans and animals evolved in the context of a mediated design within a 4,000 year time frame after the global flood.

Just call me a YEC and that will make it simplier. Anymore questions?

Yes, I have questions.

You reject Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Archeology, Paleontology, Biology, Anthropology, Linguistics, and most of physics, correct?

 

[Autodidact]

You have not answered the question, so I'll ask it again:
Why do you trust the peer-review system?

Because it works.

It has often been proven to be fraudulent.

On the contrary. The scientific method, including peer-review, has often uncovered fraud, demonstrating that the system itself is the best method for discovering the truth ever invented.

So you reject the scientific method?

 

[Autodidact]

Weird double post problem.

 

[Amill]

From your perspective, what kind of science would you call that?

It wouldn't be science, like creationism.

 

[Autodidact]

How do I do things?

Those are just empty words. Look - before something can evolve, it has to have a beginning - right? When it comes to evolution and the origin of life, the "scientific method" has never been followed!
This is how I understand it:
“Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. (Do I have that right?)

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?” (Creation chap. 4 p. 50)

Why do creationists always display their ignorance by confusing these two completely different things, evolution and abiogenesis? I guess it's because they can't disprove evolution, so they have to attack the problem that hasn't been solved yet.

So much for your “scientific method!”

Yeah, that dumb scientific method. It's useless.

Faith is deeply involved! You really don’t know what’s going on!
Check this out:
"There has been a rash of revelations about hyped and falsified scientific research. A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers."

A case has also come to light of a researcher who fabricated data in 109 medical publications, and another researcher who, to simulate a skin graft, darkened skin on a white mouse with a pen. How crude!

In academia, academic prestige and the length of one's publication list appears to play the same role as money on Wall Street. Perfectly well respected, tenured members of renowned faculties cross the moral line because they want more respect, bigger grants, more citations, and greater acclaim.”
Be sure to check out the rest of this paper:
(sec.gov/news/speech/1987/050787grundfest.pdf)
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review.

We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
(Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet)

Is it? You trust men - that’s a serious mistake! And what would be the goat-herders’ motives? How could, or did, they ensure that their writings would endure down to these days, thousands of years later?
“Sure, other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values. For example, the Akkadian legend of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia and the Ras Shamra epics, written in Ugaritic (a language spoken in what is now northern Syria), were doubtless very popular. The vast literature of that era also included works such as The Admonitions of Ipu-wer and The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu in the Egyptian language, hymns to different divinities in Sumerian, and prophetic works in Akkadian.
All these Middle Eastern works, however, met a common fate. They were forgotten, and even the languages they were written in became extinct. It was only in recent years that archaeologists and philologists learned of their existence and discovered how to read them. On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read. Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.“ (God’s Word pp. 13-14)

The benefits of science are many and varied, bringing convenience, healing and comfort to many. It has also brought many woes which no one can deny.

According to Richard Horton (quoted above) this is not true.
“For high-octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”(AW g90 1/22 p. 7)

Got you. You reject Science. I encourage you to reject all of its benefits as well, starting with your computer. Just chisel your thoughts onto a rock and deliver them via mule.

 

[Autodidact]

So, any evidence for creationism?

There's no such thing!

Ding! Exactly.

 

[Autodidact]

What gives you the impression that I am attacking science?

I think it's your posts.

 

[wilsoncole]

Yes, it's called science. And it works.
Could you perhaps supply the full quote? I'm sure you have Professor Dunbar's antique textbook in your personal collection? Or are you just stealing some other lying creationist's quote mine? It's the only kind of evidence science has. Or don't you accept science?

Stealing? Look - I give book, page and paragraph. I will do no more. You can Google the quote for yourself - OK?
Being new here, I am not permitted to direct anyone to a URL - yet.
BTW - You don't seem to know the difference between a quote and a quote-mine.

 

[wilsoncole]

Because it works.
On the contrary. The scientific method, including peer-review, has often uncovered fraud, demonstrating that the system itself is the best method for discovering the truth ever invented.

So you reject the scientific method?

Mr Auto,
Peer-review and the scientific method are two entirely different things.
Do you want more proof that the scientific community and its peer-review system is rife with fraud?
BTW - Why try so hard to prove creation is not science?
It is not science, so you can quit now - is that fine with you?
If we are going to talk, I want you to know some things ahead of time:
1. I do not believe in teaching religion in schools. That should save you some time.
2. I do not believe that the earth was ever flat. More time saved.
3. I do not believe that the earth was created in six 24-hour days.
4. I do not believe that I should try to get laws changed to accomodate religion nor creation.
5. I do not believe that the Ten commandments should be displayed anywhere.
6. I believe that Freedom of speech should act as a deterrent to prohibiting such displays, but I would not agitate for it.
Please do not waste your time trying to convince me of the futility of these activities.
7. I believe that man and the earth were created.
8. I do not believe that the earth ever was the center of the universe.
9. There is no such thing as creationism. Creation is not a philosophy nor a scientific theory.
10. I believe that the 10th commandment is proof of God's existence. You will never be able to figure out how.
11. I do not believe the Bible says that bats are birds and I can prove it.
12. I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself.
13. I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
14. I believe that evolution is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world.

There are many others.

Have I made myself clear?