Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I'm just saying (and certainly viewing it in the Christian viewpoint) that not all prayers are good prayer as stipulated by Jesus. So, if three instances I gave are correct, just because someone is praying doesn't translate into an effectual prayer.

There are many types of prayer, a prayer of consecration, a prayer of intercession, a declarative prayer, a prayer of petition, a prayer of thanksgiving etc.

We know that you have certain antibiotics for certain illnesses. A wrong medicine won't produce the same results as a correct one.

Again, if you are not pleased with these studies, you are more then welcome to repeat them with theists of your approval. And remember, I'll bet all my money that the outcome will be the same.

Could me paying a drunk in the street and saying i will pay you $20 if you pray for me right now produce the same results as going to a believer? Of course not.

I find it quite hilarious that you think that this is even remotely comparable to how it worked in the mentioned studies.

So, building a lego set is the same as being a doctor? Your analogy really isn't a good one.

Did you really lose track of your own point this fast?
The analogy had nothing to do with doctors. The analogy concerned your comment about how your bible provides instructions on how to pray - while also claiming the majority of people do it wrong.

If a handfull of people do it wrong, you can blame the people of not following the instructions properly. When the majority of people get it wrong, then it's time to question the quality and clarity of the instructions instead.

Relative survival rates for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Almost 90% of lung cancers are this type. The National Cancer Institute’s database breaks down the cancers by how far the tumors have spread. These relative survival rates are the average percentages of people who are alive 5 years after diagnosis. They don’t include people who died of something other than lung cancer.

• Localized (cancer is confined to one lung): 60%
• Regional (cancer has spread outside the lung or to lymph nodes): 33%
• Distant (cancer has moved farther, such as to the brain, the other lung, and bones): 6%
• All stages: 23%

Lung Cancer Survival Rates & Stages

My point is simply this. Just because it isn't 100% effective, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Prayer may not be 100% in its results... but we do get results.

You keep claiming this.... it's simply not true.

The fact is that cancer treatments significantly increase survival rates. Natural remissions are not the rule, they are the exception. Untreated cancers are death sentences more often then not.

In fact, in order to even be officially recognised as a treatment, the treatment needs to pass that test! It needs to be demonstrated through clinical studies that it actually works.
Cancer treatments off course passed that test.

Prayer, as has been pointed out several times now, has not. It has been tested and the results are consisted with no effect at all and in other cases no better then a placebo (which, just to remind you, doesn't cure anything... it just gives the patient the illusion of feeling better).

loL... hardly.

In our church alone.

1. Emily - Stage 4 cancer - months to live... that was years ago - they couldn't find the cancer
2. Lissette - Inoperable brain tumor - less that a year to live - tumor gone after prayer
3. Austin - degenerative bone disease - eventual life in a wheel chair - now in the the army with no bone disease - no treatment

and the list can go on.

Anecdotal stories are a dime a dozen and don't demonstrate anything at all.

So, I wouldn't agree as would millions of others.

Off course you wouldn't... this is your faith based belief.
Meanwhile, all you have are anecdotes. And whenever it is actually put to a proper test, it fails as hard as homeopathy, crystal healings, sjaman voodoo and sacrificing a bunny to the gods.

PS - Forgive me if before i came across as insensitive. Not my desire.

It's all good.

For the record, nothing in this exchange came accross as insensitive to me.

 

[Kenny]

Again, if you are not pleased with these studies, you are more then welcome to repeat them with theists of your approval. And remember, I'll bet all my money that the outcome will be the same.

And that is what some people are doing eliminating the flaws of previous studies...

globalmri.org

Side note:

A national survey of 1100 physicians, conducted by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies of The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, found that 74% of doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73% believe that they still occur today.
55% of doctors have seen medical miracles & 74% believe in miracles.

And for good reason!

I find it quite hilarious that you think that this is even remotely comparable to how it worked in the mentioned studies.

Exaggerated to put the point across. The point being that there is prayer by knowledgeable people and prayer that is from people that don't know how to pray. I know because I pastor.

Did you really lose track of your own point this fast?
The analogy had nothing to do with doctors. The analogy concerned your comment about how your bible provides instructions on how to pray - while also claiming the majority of people do it wrong.

If a handfull of people do it wrong, you can blame the people of not following the instructions properly. When the majority of people get it wrong, then it's time to question the quality and clarity of the instructions instead.

Statistically, I think I have support.

Today, about one-third of all American adults report reading the Bible once a week or more -
The Bible in America: 6-Year Trends - Barna Group

If only 1/3 read the Bible once a week or more that means 2/3 read the Bible less than once a week. And that is just reading. How much do they study?

You tell me, how many people have grabbed a book on prayer to learn? Obviously less than 50% of the people and I'm being generous.

So, how do you learn to pray effectively if you never studies?

So. I stand by my statement. If but because I've been pastoring for 30 years and know.

You keep claiming this.... it's simply not true.

The fact is that cancer treatments significantly increase survival rates. Natural remissions are not the rule, they are the exception. Untreated cancers are death sentences more often then not.

In fact, in order to even be officially recognised as a treatment, the treatment needs to pass that test! It needs to be demonstrated through clinical studies that it actually works.I
Cancer treatments off course passed that test.

Prayer, as has been pointed out several times now, has not. It has been tested and the results are consisted with no effect at all and in other cases no better then a placebo (which, just to remind you, doesn't cure anything... it just gives the patient the illusion of feeling better).

My point isn't that it doesn't increase survival rates. My point is simply it isn't 100% effective - but we still use it.

You may not get 100% effective rates in prayer but it does increase survival rates (as my case points noted)

let me ask you two questions. What is the difference between a declaratory prayer and a prayer of petition...

And if someone is sick... which of the two do you use?

Off course you wouldn't... this is your faith based belief.
Meanwhile, all you have are anecdotes. And whenever it is actually put to a proper test, it fails as hard as homeopathy, crystal healings, sjaman voodoo and sacrificing a bunny to the gods.

LOL... OK... as I mentioned, doctors are looking into it. And certainly those people who were sentenced to die are appreciative it works.

We have an Eileen in our congregation. They found a brain tumor when she was delivering a baby. Diagnosis, you will be in a wheel chair the rest of your life and your memory will forever be impaired. She is now working on her third year of Bible University, married, walking etc.

Lee Shaw. A golf cart rammed him into a wall. Leg artery severed (fortunately the ends curled and stopped the blood loss until they found it during the leg operation). Diagnosis - you will never walk again normally. Foot turned black - doctors we have to amputate from the knee. The wife said "NO" and she and the church prayed. Next diagnosis, "We have to amputate the foot. The wife said "NO" and she and the church prayed. Next diagnosis, "The toes MUST come off". The wife said "NO" and she and the church prayed. Last diagnosis... "Well, this is miraculous but he will never be able to ride a horse again". He was a cowboy.

Today, with roping medals in competition, he has a Cowboy church in Arizona.

So, you don't have to believe prayer works and just trust doctors. I believe that doctors do work and prayer makes all the difference in the world.

It's all good.

For the record, nothing in this exchange came accross as insensitive to me.

Good... thanks!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that is what some people are doing eliminating the flaws of previous studies...

globalmri.org

Side note:

A national survey of 1100 physicians, conducted by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies of The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, found that 74% of doctors believe that miracles have occurred in the past and 73% believe that they still occur today.
55% of doctors have seen medical miracles & 74% believe in miracles.

And for good reason!

That's not a clinical study. That is a survey asking about beliefs and opinions.
Try a double blind clinical study that has been published in a proper journal.

Exaggerated to put the point across. The point being that there is prayer by knowledgeable people and prayer that is from people that don't know how to pray. I know because I pastor.

And as I said, you, or the biased religious organization you keep linking, are most welcome to do a repeat of the double blind clinical studies using only theists of your approval.

It needs to be a proper study off course. Survey's asking about beliefs aren't particularly impressive as those only tell us about what people believe. We already know what people believe. The point here is to find out if their beliefs are actually justified. And double blind studies are the way to find that out when it comes to this subject.

Statistically, I think I have support.

Today, about one-third of all American adults report reading the Bible once a week or more -
The Bible in America: 6-Year Trends - Barna Group

If only 1/3 read the Bible once a week or more that means 2/3 read the Bible less than once a week. And that is just reading. How much do they study?

You tell me, how many people have grabbed a book on prayer to learn? Obviously less than 50% of the people and I'm being generous.

So, how do you learn to pray effectively if you never studies?

So. I stand by my statement. If but because I've been pastoring for 30 years and know.

Whatever. I'll grant you the point as it doesn't change the outcome either way. Again: you are most welcome to organize new double blind clinical studies using only theists of your approval or after you "instruct them" on how to pray "properly". Why don't you do that? Or why doesn't that organization you keep linking do that? Why are anecdotes and surveys about people's mere beliefs all you have?

If they'ld spend all the energy they are using on gathing that meaningless data on actually organizing a proper double blind study instead, wouldn't that be more usefull to get their point accross?

Or could it perhaps be that the reason they don't do this, is because they know that the outcome won't be in their favor?

My point isn't that it doesn't increase survival rates. My point is simply it isn't 100% effective - but we still use it.

No treatment of anything is 100% effective. If you are going to use that to pretend that therefor all "treatments" you can come up with are of equal worth, then I'm just gonna laugh at you tbh.........

Once again: clinical studies done on this, show significant increase in survival rates compared to the control group.

While clinical studies done with prayer show NO such increase at all compared to the control group. Not even just a few percentages. It's like no effect at all.

You may not get 100% effective rates in prayer but it does increase survival rates (as my case points noted)

Your case points are anecdotes which don't demonstrate anything at all. They are just claims.
The actual proper clinical studies that have been done, show no effect at all whatsoever.

let me ask you two questions. What is the difference between a declaratory prayer and a prayer of petition...

And if someone is sick... which of the two do you use?

Don't know, don't care. I'm not religious so it doesn't matter to me.
I'll start caring once proper clinical studies demonstrate to me that I should care.

I don't care about homeopathy technicalities for the same reason.

LOL... OK... as I mentioned, doctors are looking into it. And certainly those people who were sentenced to die are appreciative it works.

We have an Eileen in our congregation. They found a brain tumor when she was delivering a baby. Diagnosis, you will be in a wheel chair the rest of your life and your memory will forever be impaired. She is now working on her third year of Bible University, married, walking etc.

Lee Shaw. A golf cart rammed him into a wall. Leg artery severed (fortunately the ends curled and stopped the blood loss until they found it during the leg operation). Diagnosis - you will never walk again normally. Foot turned black - doctors we have to amputate from the knee. The wife said "NO" and she and the church prayed. Next diagnosis, "We have to amputate the foot. The wife said "NO" and she and the church prayed. Next diagnosis, "The toes MUST come off". The wife said "NO" and she and the church prayed. Last diagnosis... "Well, this is miraculous but he will never be able to ride a horse again". He was a cowboy.

Today, with roping medals in competition, he has a Cowboy church in Arizona.

More anecdotes. Just claims.

So, you don't have to believe prayer works and just trust doctors.

Doctors tell me that praying doesn't work. Treatment does.
And they have the clinical studies to back that up, which aren't mere anecdotes.

I believe that doctors do work and prayer makes all the difference in the world.

Only according to undemonstrable and unverifiable anecdotes.
Not according to every proper clinical study that has ever been conducted.

Good... thanks!!

I have thick skin anyway.

 

[Heyo]

@KenS, @TagliatelliMonster:

I have created an OP where your debate would fit better than here:
Does Prayer "Work"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@KenS, @TagliatelliMonster:

I have created an OP where your debate would fit better than here:
Does Prayer "Work"?

sorry bout the derail

 

[Kenny]

That's not a clinical study. That is a survey asking about beliefs and opinions.
Try a double blind clinical study that has been published in a proper journal.

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

And as I said, you, or the biased religious organization you keep linking, are most welcome to do a repeat of the double blind clinical studies using only theists of your approval.

It needs to be a proper study off course. Survey's asking about beliefs aren't particularly impressive as those only tell us about what people believe. We already know what people believe. The point here is to find out if their beliefs are actually justified. And double blind studies are the way to find that out when it comes to this subject.

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

Whatever. I'll grant you the point as it doesn't change the outcome either way. Again: you are most welcome to organize new double blind clinical studies using only theists of your approval or after you "instruct them" on how to pray "properly". Why don't you do that? Or why doesn't that organization you keep linking do that? Why are anecdotes and surveys about people's mere beliefs all you have?

If they'ld spend all the energy they are using on gathing that meaningless data on actually organizing a proper double blind study instead, wouldn't that be more usefull to get their point accross?

Or could it perhaps be that the reason they don't do this, is because they know that the outcome won't be in their favor?

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

No treatment of anything is 100% effective. If you are going to use that to pretend that therefor all "treatments" you can come up with are of equal worth, then I'm just gonna laugh at you tbh.........

Once again: clinical studies done on this, show significant increase in survival rates compared to the control group.

While clinical studies done with prayer show NO such increase at all compared to the control group. Not even just a few percentages. It's like no effect at all.

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

Your case points are anecdotes which don't demonstrate anything at all. They are just claims.
The actual proper clinical studies that have been done, show no effect at all whatsoever.

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

Don't know, don't care. I'm not religious so it doesn't matter to me.
I'll start caring once proper clinical studies demonstrate to me that I should care.

I don't care about homeopathy technicalities for the same reason.

So HERE is the crux of it all. It isn't the clinical studies because they are there but dismissed. Why? Because you don't care.

I gave you a great example of which you didn't know how to pray - but you make irrelevant what is very relevant because it debunks the study that you proposed. Why? Because you don't care

As I gave other reasons prayers are used that don't work and you threw them out. Why? Because you don't care.

Yet you want to debate it.

More anecdotes. Just claims.

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

Only according to undemonstrable and unverifiable anecdotes.
Not according to every proper clinical study that has ever been conducted.

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.




And God continues to confirm what you call anecdotal

 

[Kenny]

@KenS, @TagliatelliMonster:

I have created an OP where your debate would fit better than here:
Does Prayer "Work"?

I noticed it.... thanks, although I think we ran gamete on that one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I gave a clinical study that was peer review and published in a medical journal and you basically dismissed it
And they have more.

I haven't seen one. All I saw from you where links to surveys and data collection of individual cases where people "believed" a miracle occured.

So HERE is the crux of it all. It isn't the clinical studies because they are there but dismissed. Why? Because you don't care.

That's not what I said and that's not what you linked.

I gave you a great example of which you didn't know how to pray - but you make irrelevant what is very relevant because it debunks the study that you proposed. Why? Because you don't care

That's not what I said either. I said I don't care about the technicalities, just like I don't care about such concerning homeopathy. Why? Because nobody has ever given me a reason to care. I also don't care about the technicalities of sacrificing bunnies to the gods, sjaman voodoo, crystal healings or "alternative" cancer treatements for the exact same reasons. A proper clinical study (not a survey) would provide such reasons. Got any?


You may link that clinical study that you claimed to have linked in that thread that @Heyo was kind enough to create for this off topic discussion.

In this thread, I'm done with this. But I'll be happy to continue in that other thread.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is planned to be a series of posts that is trying to explain the Theory of Evolution (ToE) in a way that it is understandable by creationists, old earth (OEC) and young earth (YEC) alike.

It is inspired by multiple exchanges with @Deeje. I will focus on her understanding but I didn't want to make this a one-on-one debate. Questions from all creationists are welcome (though I may not answer them if I don't think them to be necessary for understanding, already answered or off topic). Corrections by more science savvy people than me are especially encouraged as I don't want this to rest on fallacies.

In my time as a tutor for maths I've recognized that the apparent failure to understand a specific concept often is not with the topic itself but a past misunderstanding of a more basic concept. The same goes for creationists who think that Evolution doesn't make sense. Most of the time they don't have a problem understanding evolution but they have problems with taxonomy or science in general or sometimes even rational thinking. (And then there are those who's paycheck depends on them not understanding, but I'll leave them out for brevity.)

The didactic of this approach is meant for adults who are familiar with structured reasoning. That's why I start with the basics of science and built up to the ToE. A plan for future parts include the scientific method, taxonomy (Linné), The Origin of Species (Darwin), Palaeontology (maybe with an excursion into geology), Genetics and up to the modern synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis.

Long intro, short lecture:

What is Science?

1. Science is the systematic enterprise to gain knowledge about the natural world (universe). 2. This is done by creating models with explanatory and predictive power which can be and are tested by their predictions.

To do what science is out to do, it has to make some assumptions that can't be derived (though they can be falsified through testing or logic). The three axioms of science are:
3. The universe is real.
4. The universe is orderly.
5. The universe is knowable.

There are different formulations of these axioms which are equivalent.
It is here where the first disputes can arise. Many religious creationists can't agree on these axioms. For some Hindu and Buddhist the world is but an illusion so they disagree with the first axiom. For some Christian and Muslim traditions knowledge must be revealed and can't be gained by science. They don't agree with the third axiom.
The most controversial of all is the second. It can be reformulated as "There is no magic."

When you don't agree with these axioms or don't understand their implications, you have a problem with science, not a problem with the ToE.

@Deeje: Do we agree on this definition of science?
Do you have questions?

I have a question, I hope it is "on-topic," because I just read something about fossils, and wonder if you might know the answer. It has been said that fossils are generally not found beyond a mile deep. Would you agree with that, because I did not see any scientific data about this yet.

 

[Heyo]

I have a question, I hope it is "on-topic," because I just read something about fossils, and wonder if you might know the answer. It has been said that fossils are generally not found beyond a mile deep. Would you agree with that, because I did not see any scientific data about this yet.

It is off-topic as it is a specific question not about science in general but I'll answer anyway. This OP is dead already.
The depth of geological formations (in which fossils are found) varies widely due to differences in sedimentation and erosion. The one mile boundary is a statistical expectation, not a hard number. A landslide could bury something more than a mile deep tomorrow, so finding a fossil deeper than a mile isn't impossible, just greatly improbable.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is off-topic as it is a specific question not about science in general but I'll answer anyway. This OP is dead already.
The depth of geological formations (in which fossils are found) varies widely due to differences in sedimentation and erosion. The one mile boundary is a statistical expectation, not a hard number. A landslide could bury something more than a mile deep tomorrow, so finding a fossil deeper than a mile isn't impossible, just greatly improbable.

OK, I can only imagine what you say is true. Because -- <g> it makes sense. Thanks for answering, and whatever the OP is I only looked for a discussion of evolution here to see what might be thought about that one-mile deep idea of fossil discovery. Me not being an expert on these things, I guess a large landslide into a lake or ocean could be a mile deep.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, I can only imagine what you say is true. Because -- <g> it makes sense. Thanks for answering, and whatever the OP is I only looked for a discussion of evolution here to see what might be thought about that one-mile deep idea of fossil discovery. Me not being an expert on these things, I guess a large landslide into a lake or ocean could be a mile deep.

There are many geological formations and groups that are more than a mile (1600 metres) thick, and fossils are as likely to be found at the bottom of the formation as at the top.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are many geological formations and groups that are more than a mile (1600 metres) thick, and fossils are as likely to be found at the bottom of the formation as at the top.

Ok, sands shift.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, sands shift.

Yes sands shift as beach and dune deposits as they do today.

Over the billions of cyclic strata sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone (some cycles coal) are up to thousands of feet thick. The fossils found in each strata are indicative of the diversity of the life forms found in the environment and climate of that strata. A limestone can be hundreds to over a thousand feet thick, and the marine life found throughout the formation will species like coral and shellfish indicative of that environment just like the corals and shell fish found in shallow seas forming limestone today. In takes hundreds to thousands of years to form limestone inches thick as a biochemical participate. Annual sediment deposits with seasonal lamellae are of 1.8–2.2 μm for dense lamellae and 3.3–4.2 μm for loose lamellae with annual record thousands of feet thick.

Yes, sand deposits can form quickly as beach and wind blown sand dune deposits, and the fossil life may the same throughout because the environment is uniform, just as beaches and sandstone deposits form today, The sandstone deposits are in the cyclic with siltstone, shale. limestone and coal.

 

[gnostic]

OK, I can only imagine what you say is true. Because -- <g> it makes sense. Thanks for answering, and whatever the OP is I only looked for a discussion of evolution here to see what might be thought about that one-mile deep idea of fossil discovery. Me not being an expert on these things, I guess a large landslide into a lake or ocean could be a mile deep.

A landslide won’t guarantee that fossilization of any remain will occur, no matter how deep bodies are buried, YoursTrue.

Fossilization don’t always occur. And there are many factors involved in fossilization.

Bones are made of types of bone cells, that can store minerals as well cause mineralization. But after animals died, they no longer produce new cells, and more often than fossilization, bones tends to break down; in that case, fossilization will never occur on these remains.

For examples, excess water, or excess acids in the soils, can break down bones before it even start fossilization.

Fossilization depends on the types of sediments around the remains, especially the types of minerals in the deposit. And it also depends on the conditions of the remains.

For fossilization to even start, certain minerals need to reach the bones before the bones start to decay.

These minerals would fill the gaps, niches and hollows in the skeletal remains, thereby by creating molds. Then it depends on if the remains would form minerals on the cells (crystallization of bone cells), which could take time.

If it does, this process of turning skeletal remains into minerals, is the first step in the process of fossilization, called permineralization.

Most deposits of sediments are silicate-based minerals, which have broken down rocks into minerals, due to weathering.

Most fossilization start to occur around water, because water can carry these minerals and seep into those holes, gaps and niches in the bones, filling them up, which I have already talked about earlier.

If permineralization do occur, then there are probabilities that fossilization may occur, but it could take a very long time.

You won’t find fossils that are less than 10,000 years old, not unless there are unusual conditions.

When I took up geology for one semester in my (1st year) civil engineering course, they didn’t teach us about fossils and fossilization, because they were never relevant to my course. So if I want to learn about fossils and how they were formed, then I need to ask questions or read up on them.

@shunyadragon is experienced geologist, so he would know lot more than me. And @metis is a retired anthropologist with field experience in archaeology and taught lectures, and he would also know more than me. Do ask them questions, learn and understand.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, I can only imagine what you say is true. Because -- <g> it makes sense. Thanks for answering, and whatever the OP is I only looked for a discussion of evolution here to see what might be thought about that one-mile deep idea of fossil discovery. Me not being an expert on these things, I guess a large landslide into a lake or ocean could be a mile deep.

Such landslides you describe have never been known to occur on a large scale. The only sediments known to be that deep and deeper are fine texture shale, slate, volcanic deposits, and limestone can be up to thousand + feet. None of these are the product of landslides, and only volcanic deposits are the only ones that can be deposited rapidly. The rest take millions of years to achieve this depth. Fossils occur within formations in thinner cyclic layers deposited over millions of years.

 

[Heyo]

Such landslides you describe have never been known to occur on a large scale. The only sediments known to be that deep and deeper are fine texture shale, slate, volcanic deposits, and limestone can be up to thousand + feet. None of these are the product of landslides, and only volcanic deposits are the only ones that can be deposited rapidly. The rest take millions of years to achieve this depth. Fossils occur within formations in thinner cyclic layers deposited over millions of years.

I don't know about fossils but landslides do happen. The north sea was formed in part by an underwater land slide causing a tsunami. But nobody has cared enough to look for fossils.
Storegga Slide - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know about fossils but landslides do happen. The north sea was formed in part by an underwater land slide causing a tsunami. But nobody has cared enough to look for fossils.
Storegga Slide - Wikipedia

Yes massive landslides do occur and the volume is huge, a vast debris flow, but the final deposit is not a mile deep. Geologically this is a very rare event. Reread the reference. The North Sea was impacted and the lowlands of Europe and the British Isles by the related tsunami, but other than coastal erosion not expanded due to tsunamis. The rise in the sea level was due to end of the Ice Age.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know about fossils but landslides do happen. The north sea was formed in part by an underwater land slide causing a tsunami. But nobody has cared enough to look for fossils.
Storegga Slide - Wikipedia

I wanted to add that in the geologic record these events are local events, and in the over all geologic record these are absent. This is true of many local events that occur along the coastal regions. After they occur they are most often reworked into uniform formations by currents and later deposition. There are other rather temporal deposits that do not survive well like volcanoes. In the geologic record volcanoes are rarely if ever found. We find vast ash, and huge regional basalt deposits, and the volcanic basalt dykes and pipes, but not the volcanoes.

What are found are deep sea shale, beach sands, delta sands, sand dune deposits, riverine, swamp, tidal and lake deposits of reworked sediments in cyclic sequences thousands of feet thick such as: Sandstone, shale, coal, sandstone shale and coal with river channels running through these formations. This sequence repeats over and over for millions of years with riverine deposits in each sequence.

 

[gnostic]

In before someone inevitably demands that @Heyo define what he means by 'real' in his first axiom of science...

One can restate his first axiom as "The universe exists independent of our minds."

How can that be known?

*puts on the idiot skeptic hat* Prove it!

BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE TELESCOPE (1608), all the way back to the early Bronze Age, when people started writing about what they see of the night sky, they were ALL limited by what their own eyes could see.

They thought what they saw (with the naked eye) was the whole universe. They thought what they saw were countless stars, but it is now known that given the locality of the observer, that observer will see anywhere between under 2000 and no more than 3000 stars, only with the “naked eye” (meaning no binoculars and telescopes).

The total number of stars that can be seen (again naked eye), as seen by all part of world (eg observer at Northern Hemisphere, like Scotland or Germany), at or near the Equator, at the Southern Hemisphere, like Australia), is just little over 9000 stars. So really not countless at all.

No one really knew that what these stars are, before the telescopes. And they didn’t know our own Sun was another star.

They could a very small portion of the Milky Way, described by the ancient people as milky band, and certainly couldn’t see the centre, since the Sagittarius spiral arm was blocking the view of the central bulge of the galaxy.

Since ancient times, they could only see 5 planets, known since the Iron Age as wandering stars, with Saturn being the most distant planet they could observed.

That was limitation of just using their eyesight to see. That was the limitation of using eyesight only, unaided by devices.

THEN ALONG CAME THE TELESCOPE in 1608. There is dispute between which Dutchmen invented the very first telescope, because at least 2 of them tried to put patent on this rudimentary device.

But anyway, Galileo constructed his own telescope the following year (1609), and was the first person to verify Copernicus’ hypothesis of heliocentric model, which is the sun is stationary, and all other planets, including Earth, orbited around the sun.

Previously the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians thought the sun and planets orbited Earth, like the moon do. This was known as geocentric model, popularized by 2nd century CE Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy from Egypt.

Geocentric model was wrong, but it was then science to everyone else before Galileo’s time.

It wasn’t until Copernicus and then Galileo to prove everyone else that they were wrong. Kepler and Newton would go on to improve Copernicus’ theory, such as the orbits were elliptical, not circular.

Before the telescopes, ancient and medieval astronomers have catalog the known stars and constellations without the telescope, but in the 18th century a new catalogue would be recorded by French astronomer, Charles Messier.

Even though the telescopes have improved in this century, and astronomers could see more objects in the sky, it was still limited in observational power and resolution. Anyway Messier identified over 100 objects that were identified as nebulas. And all these objects were thought to be located within the Milky Way.

And until the 20th century, the catalogue was thought to be accurate, but we now know some were misidentified as nebulas, when they were really separate galaxies, independent and more distant than the Milky Way. Andromeda and Triangulum were listed by Messier, as Andromeda Nebula and Triangulum Nebula.

Everyone thought the Milky Way was the entire galaxy, and no one corrected this until Edwin Hubble in 1919.

THEN IN 1919, the science of astronomy would be changed forever. The newly built Mount Wilson Observatory, with the largest optical telescope built at that time, the Hooker Telescope was used by Hubble.

And he saw what no one else knew about, that the Milky Way wasn’t the entire universe, nor the only galaxy. And with newer and larger telescopes than Hooker in the decades to come, billions of galaxies would be discovered.

My point in this history lesson is that the universe is real, and have always being real, but it took a very long time to discover this. And it existed long before man.

And there are always more to learn and more to discover.