noah's ark

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The mechanics that are used to describe Evolution can not be shown doing the necessary work. We can see very small changes which as pointed out I acknowledge. The only time you see one creature turning into another is when someone connects the dots on MAY have occurred. Show me why you think it is acceptable, that should be much easier than proving a negative. Real evidence not someone saying this could have happened!

It's the total pattern that shows evolution to be true, not the study of any one set of fossils.
Haven't you seen the museums and universities collections of fossils? Row after row after row of boxes with careful labels and when you see bones that date say 1 million years old and a bunch of them from that era and then bones from 900,000 years ago with lots of examples and then study the difference in those bones and they can see what changes were made and not just the opinion of a single scientist but a whole team starting with the original archaeologist to the dating sciences to the analysis teams and chemical analysis and x rays and cat scans and such, it is the work of all those then put in order of time to show the slow transition of one species to another. This is tedious long term work from dozens of scientists in a number of different field that allow a concensus and conclusion based on all that work. It is certainly NOT the work of a lone arcaeologist with a camera making opinions.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You don't think evolution started with a single simple lifeform and throughout time evolved into what we see today.

Of course, but one creature doesn't turn into another one.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You don't think evolution started with a single simple lifeform and throughout time evolved into what we see today.

It is possible that life got started several times in several places independently. Sea-bottom geysers or hot plumes are the most likely spots, and there are many of those. This would account for the diversity we see today, given deep time.

Again, this has been said over and over, one creature never mutates into any other sort of creature. This is not what evolution says happens, and it surely does not happen.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
... a system is only good until the next piece of data shows up and what we thought was a fact no longer is. Scientific facts are not reality they are simply what people think today with what they have.

It is important to distinguish two different cases.

A) A detail is wrong and later corrected, or one piece of the puzzle is misplaced and later moved, or one fact is misinterpreted and later re-interpreted, as for example when a newly discovered fossil, such as the so-called Frankenstein dinosaur, leads to a reshuffling of several other classifications within the evolutionary tree.

B) The refutation of a whole theory, such as the debunking of the four-humours in medicine, or the theory of phlogiston, or the Ptolemaic solar system.

Type A's show up pretty often; this does not show that science is broadly speaking simply someone's opinion or that one is at liberty to deny science as a whole or dismiss scientific method as a whole without incurring any embarrassing consequences. The consequences of doing so are very embarrassing.

Of course, science is not infallible, but that is no reason to suppose that any scientific conclusion or result can be safely dismissed as a 'maybe.' The preponderance of evidence is absolutely compelling that evolution really happened, and that deep time is involved--that is case B above--, whatever the disposition of any one set of fossils--case A above. Or, at any rate, it is compelling for anyone who is not captive to an ideology.

Originally posted by @moonbus
It is important to distinguish two different cases.

A) A detail is wrong and later corrected, or one piece of the puzzle is misplaced and later moved, or one fact is misinterpreted and later re-interpreted, as for example when a newly discovered fossil, such as the so-called Frankenstein dinosaur, leads to a reshuffling of several other classifications w ...[text shortened]... s--case A above. Or, at any rate, it is compelling for anyone who is not captive to an ideology.

I agree some errors are worse than others.

Originally posted by @moonbus
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40890714

This is one of those discoveries which has the potential to re-write big blocks of previously accepted theory. That is science in action: the method is what matters more than any specific result or conclusion, and it is self-correcting.

All the putative evidence which biblical literalists cite to tr ...[text shortened]... ight suggest), and it is bad religion because it makes spiritual ends beholden to factual means.

I don't deny evolution as a matter of fact I actually require it with respect to my faith. Where I disagree is a common ancestor for all living creatures. I don't have any issues with fully formed life having small tweaks within already established systems, forming new systems like a circulatory over time I think is far fetched.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
...Where I disagree is a common ancestor for all living creatures. ...

If, for example, life started in tidepools, well there are tide pools all over. And it's not like once life got started, it led to us. Such incubators withered and died routinely, don't you think?

Originally posted by @apathist
If, for example, life started in tidepools, well there are tide pools all over. And it's not like once life got started, it led to us. Such incubators withered and died routinely, don't you think?

If life started...
You see that is the thing, no one knows, cannot punch a hole in maybe this way, or that.
As long as there is a chance it could have....however it could have....that is much easier
to defend then say, in the beginning God.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Are you frigging kidding? You actually think a guy jumping up and falling back down disproves gravity? You better check your meds. You figure because a dude can temporarily use the force of his legs to jump that somehow disproves gravity? Exactly how would anyone think that disproves gravity? Doesn't the part where he comes back down show anything? A bee c ...[text shortened]... idiot I have ever come across and I have seen a lot of idiots in my long tenure on this planet.

lol, I could just not resist giving this a thumbs up. 🙂

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I agree some errors are worse than others.

Yeah, there's slightly off, and there's totally wrong.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Yeah, there's slightly off, and there's totally wrong.

So what if totally wrong has occurred when thinking about the distant past, what than?
It isn't like it could be proven.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So what if totally wrong has occurred when thinking about the distant past, what than?
It isn't like it could be proven.

Surely a revealed god figure would have equipped you with stronger ways to assert your faith than this?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
So what if totally wrong has occurred when thinking about the distant past, what than?
It isn't like it could be proven.

Are you doubting that deep time itself exists, or events which apparently happened in deep time?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Are you doubting that deep time itself exists, or events which apparently happened in deep time?

Please define deep time, I am not sure I understand.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Please define deep time, I am not sure I understand.

Durations orders of magnitude longer than thousands of years. Like hundreds of millions of years, billions of years, etc.