Originally posted by sonhouseI make one statement and you respond with something completely
And your assumption as to the age is that pathetic 10,000 years. You really have your head buried in the sand of the 2000 year old scam.
off subject just as a dig. You should get a life, you are wasting the
one you have here.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadEven if you are completely right on the dates of the fossils you
But I have pointed out that the idea that fossils came from creatures is just as much assumption as the ideas required to date them. Yet you take one of those ideas as 'fact' and the other as 'faith'.
I think that we have more reasons to trust the dating method than we do to trust the conclusion that the fossils originated as creatures.
are not proving they are ancestors of modern life in simplier forms,
that you are still taking on faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you saying you think there is no way to compare say, dino bones, with modern birds or chickens? Because they have been compared and have shown changes pointing to increased complexity in the modern version. Dino's decendents are chickens, you can see it in micro analysis of the bones and structure of the bones.
Even if you are completely right on the dates of the fossils you
are not proving they are ancestors of modern life in simplier forms,
that you are still taking on faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm saying that we have bones of modern creatures with more
Are you saying you think there is no way to compare say, dino bones, with modern birds or chickens? Because they have been compared and have shown changes pointing to increased complexity in the modern version. Dino's decendents are chickens, you can see it in micro analysis of the bones and structure of the bones.
complex bones than other modern creatures, so that only proves
there are bones of creatures that are more complex than others,
this does not automatically translate in to evolution it only
translates into just what it is ...some are more complex than
others anything else you are assuming something that may not
be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course I and all evolutionists would be wrong in your eyes since that interferes with your own predetermined and totally faith based view of 'creation'. Why don't you do a little bit of research on the subject of bone analysis before you make sweeping statements about the issue? You know nothing about it and you intend to keep it that way, not wanting to dirty your mind with mere human knowledge that will cause strife in your inner world of the requirement for your own slave god, the god who slaved away for uh, 10,000 years, to end up making humans, the pinnacle of creation. What utter arrogance you display thinking a god would devote so much effort to such a pathetic creation as mankind.
I'm saying that we have bones of modern creatures with more
complex bones than other modern creatures, so that only proves
there are bones of creatures that are more complex than others,
this does not automatically translate in to evolution it only
translates into just what it is ...some are more complex than
others anything else you are assuming something that may not
be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd you would still say the same even if we had birth certificates for each dinosoar signed by a reputable doctor.
Even if you are completely right on the dates of the fossils you
are not proving they are ancestors of modern life in simplier forms,
that you are still taking on faith.
Kelly
The truth is that you believe that you have the personal ability to determine what things are 'facts' and what things are 'faith' and that all 'faith' is equivalent.
That is simply nonsense. Everything we know we know to different levels of certainty based on the information we have about them. There is no dividing line between 'facts' and 'faith'. I am as sure that fossils represent life forms that later evolved into current ones as you are that fossils are the result of the fossilization process of bones. My evidence and reasoning behind my surety is as solid as yours is, yet you call your belief 'fact' and my belief 'faith' solely on your own discretion. And not because there is really any difference between the two, but because you think that by applying the label 'faith' you have relegated my claim to the realm of 'blind faith' and can thus poo poo it as mere opinion.
Originally posted by KellyJayJust a second, KellyJay. Presumably you embrace certain claims because you think they are
I see no reason to accept or ignore either claim, since we don't know
how it occured beyond any doubt. If you want to argue why one is
better than the other go ahead.
Kelly
the most plausible claims available to you, right? You don't embrace claims that are improbable
if other things are more probable, do you?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadStop being insulting,
And you would still say the same even if we had birth certificates for each dinosoar signed by a reputable doctor.
The truth is that you believe that you have the personal ability to determine what things are 'facts' and what things are 'faith' and that all 'faith' is equivalent.
That is simply nonsense. Everything we know we know to different levels of y claim to the realm of 'blind faith' and can thus poo poo it as mere opinion.
"And you would still say the same even if we had birth certificates for each dinosoar signed by a reputable doctor."
It is you adding information to fossils that may or may not be true,
not I, I'm pointing out to you, you have no reason to do that, that is
sound beyond you want it to be true. Which sort of puts you into the
same boat I'm supposed to be in on how we look at the past.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you identify any assertion that doesn't fall under the category of "may or may not be true"?
Stop being insulting,
"And you would still say the same even if we had birth certificates for each dinosoar signed by a reputable doctor."
It is you adding information to fossils that may or may not be true,
not I, I'm pointing out to you, you have no reason to do that, that is
sound beyond you want it to be true. Which sort of puts you into the
same boat I'm supposed to be in on how we look at the past.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadFacts and faith, good line, but you don't have facts with respect to
And you would still say the same even if we had birth certificates for each dinosoar signed by a reputable doctor.
The truth is that you believe that you have the personal ability to determine what things are 'facts' and what things are 'faith' and that all 'faith' is equivalent.
That is simply nonsense. Everything we know we know to different levels of ...[text shortened]... y claim to the realm of 'blind faith' and can thus poo poo it as mere opinion.
what 'evolved' into what do you? You have assumptions, more than
that you need your birth certificate from a reputable dino-doctor. A
varying level of certainty only means you can be more certain, not sure
beyond being wrong. The only facts you have about the fossilization
of bones is that something found itself in the perfect place to become
a fossil and did. I can give up all my objections on the age of the
universe and give you the dates; it is still not proving one creature
came from another for the reasons I have already stated, we have
simpler life forms living today and more complex ones today as well,
this variety does not mean one came from the other.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIf I'm not mistaken, you are the one taking the skeptic's stance. Your previous response to sonhouse, and this entire thread in general, is about skepticism with regards to the science of evolution (as identified in your very first post). I just want to see where you place your immovable fulcrum, around which you leverage your arguments.
The closer to the here and now the more of those there are, and if
that is your defence about anything; are you suggesting nothing is
certain or real so why bother?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe lineage of many species has been studies through the inspection of mitochondrial DNA:
Facts and faith, good line, but you don't have facts with respect to
what 'evolved' into what do you? You have assumptions, more than
that you need your birth certificate from a reputable dino-doctor. A
varying level of certainty only means you can be more certain, not sure
beyond being wrong. The only facts you have about the fossilization
of bones is ...[text shortened]... more complex ones today as well,
this variety does not mean one came from the other.
Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Use_in_identification
Just for background, it's a technique used in the broader science of phylogenetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
(One interesting thing to note is that one of our closest cousins is the slime mold! Check the chart 😉)