2 edits
Originally posted by PenguinWho is ignoring anything? I said I believe in change, I disagree with
Ignoring whether evolution is right or not (you can believe it is right or not as you like) but that it is the best testable explanation we have for the facts before us is not a belief, it is a fact. Nothing else comes close to explaining the fossil record and the timescales it appears to indicate, the present genetic diversity, worldwide population distribu ...[text shortened]... you argue with people who don't accept your beliefs, keep that in mind.
--- Penguin.
how far it will go, you have all but admitted that neither you or anyone
else can show what you believed is true, we can see what I said I
accept. So how am I ignoring anything accept the assertion that I
must accept that changes can take a simple single cell and through
generations through time get and become a whale or blade of grass?
Fossils are fossils, they do not speak to us to tell us anything, what
we think about them can be wrong or right, a matter of belief and
faith to build upon what you think is true about them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut evolution is the only thing we currently have that actually provides an explanation for the fossils we find. I'm not currently arguing whether it's true or not. Evolution might be completely wrong and fossils may not be the million of years old remains of the extinct ancesters of present day life. But we have no consistant, testable theories suggesting they are anything else. All the relevant sciences (paleantology, geology, biology, archeology, Physics, chemistry, astronomy, and various other 'ies all fit together if fossils are what modern science thinks they are.
Who is ignoring anything? I said I believe in change, I disagree with
how far it will go, you have all but admitted that neither you or anyone
else can show what you believed is true, we can see what I said I
accept. So how am I ignoring anything accept the assertion that I
must accept that changes can take a simple single cell and through
generations ...[text shortened]... or right, a matter of belief and
faith to build upon what you think is true about them.
Kelly
Again, no-one has come up with a better explanation for what fossils are. So why not go with the theory that works best?
Are you saying that evolution is not the best explanation of the fossil record that we currently have? Is there another theory that matches what all the other sciences say is the meaning of all the evidence we have?
If we are to throw away evolution because we cannot prove it and must therefore take it on faith, then we must also throw away physics, chemistry, biology and every other science and go back to living in caves.
If you simply disagree with how far evolutionary change can go, then please tell us what the barrier is and I'll forward it on to the Nobel committee for you. If you can follow it up with a theory that also explains all the evidence covered by evolution (such as why we find the kinds of fossils we find in the places we find them) then you'll be famous for millenia. What, in the end, is your logical reasoning behind saying that small-scale evolutionary changes cannot build up to large-scale changes?
Apologies if I'm getting incoherant, I've opened a bottle of wine.
--- Penguin.
4 edits
Originally posted by PenguinEvolution does not explain fossils, they are fossils! The process that
But evolution is the only thing we currently have that actually provides an explanation for the fossils we find. I'm not currently arguing whether it's true or not. Evolution might be completely wrong and fossils may not be the million of years old remains of the extinct ancesters of present day life. But we have no consistant, testable theories suggesting t es?
Apologies if I'm getting incoherant, I've opened a bottle of wine.
--- Penguin.
made then living creatures fossils, explains fossils. I don't and you
don't need evolution to say what a living creature was once before it
unfortunately found itself buried in such a fashion that allowed it's
body to become a fossil instead of decaying. How that happened,
what event or events put each creature it in that position explains
fossils, not evolution. If you are talking about the fact that there are
creatures that are dead and gone from life that we don’t see today,
well that is still going on all the time, evolution isn’t required for
that either.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't be dense. Penguin is claiming that the ToE provides the best explanation for the fossil record, not for actual individual fossils.
Evolution does not explain fossils, they are fossils! The process that
made then living creatures fossils, explains fossils. I don't and you
don't need evolution to say what a living creature was once before it
unfortunately found itself buried in such a fashion that allowed it's
body to become a fossil instead of decaying. How that happened,
what even ...[text shortened]...
well that is still going on all the time, evolution isn’t required for
that either.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry for the rain delay.
This is precisely where you (and others here) can help me. Perhaps if we remain steadfast with our gaze upon the 'knowns,' that fear and contempt of which you speak will dissapate as the piercing rays of logic come shining into my darkened mind.
Knowns, and only knowns. Agreed?
Would you agree that causation of and within the universe is strictly mechanistic?
Since we seem to have consensus on this point, have I overlooked any atheistic viewpiont which can explain nature from a non-mechanistic materialism viewpoint?
Originally posted by KellyJayNice to see you too! I hope everything is going well with you and yours.
The fossil record apart from the fossils is a matter of opinion not fact.
Glad to see you by the way!
Kelly
No, the fossil record (i.e., that series of fossils that we have found) is a matter of fact. It is a matter of inference what we take the fossil record to indicate. Penguin's claim is that the ToE does better than any other theory (especially your theory) in explaining what we observe in the fossil record.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrWhich is what I said, you look at the fossils and we can have what
Nice to see you too! I hope everything is going well with you and yours.
No, the fossil record (i.e., that series of fossils that we have found) is a matter of fact. It is a matter of inference what we take the fossil record to indicate. Penguin's claim is that the ToE does better than any other theory (especially your theory) in explaining what we observe in the fossil record.
we want. We can put them in some order, this one came before that
one, because … We can claim this one is related to that one, or
claim this one is the ancestor to these modern ones here. The fossil
fragments put together this way makes creature X a discovery! If
we don’t know if some find with a pile of fossils are one or more
creatures, someone makes a decision and says, “All of these fossils
part of one, these others are part of species two.” This of course will
always be done with all the best knowledge at the time.
I’m quite sure I’m insulting some ones science, that isn’t my intent,
I’m simply pointing out if we got it right or not, no one will be able
to prove it right or wrong, but it is in our record now. Once it is
accepted right or wrong, it is what we think, so it is true according to
us. Some artist will produce a rendition of what some creature
looked like from some fossils as they were put together, if it
makes it to a museum, and all the little 4th graders will pass the
exhibit and think they know what creature X looked liked, even if
creature X never existed at all. Even better yet some movie can be
made and even more people will be convinced they know what
the creatures really looked like, and how they acted and so on. It
is after all our record, we make and live with the results right or wrong
it will be believed.
Kelly
edit,
By the way thanks for hoping everyone is doing fine, we are.
Originally posted by KellyJayAll of which is a very nice description Kelly and perfectly correct, but it misses the fundamental difference between scientific and religious attempts to explain the world around us.
Which is what I said, you look at the fossils and we can have what
we want. We can put them in some order, this one came before that
one, because … We can claim this one is related to that one, or
claim this one is the ancestor to these modern ones here. The fossil
fragments put together this way makes creature X a discovery! If
we don’t know if some f ...[text shortened]... will be believed.
Kelly
edit,
By the way thanks for hoping everyone is doing fine, we are.
The scientific attempt is always contingent - that is, there is always the possibility of a better theory/model/description somewhere around the corner. And if one is found, sooner or later (scientists are people after all and can find it as hard to change their minds as anyone else) the better model will take the place of the older one. This is the nature of science.
It's not the nature of relgious thought (although there are occasional exceptions.)
So, good on you for your description, but don't forget the key and pretty significant differences between different accounts of the same things. Scientific accounts change. (Dare I say, they evolve!)
Originally posted by amannionI think because it changes that is science's strength, and the need
All of which is a very nice description Kelly and perfectly correct, but it misses the fundamental difference between scientific and religious attempts to explain the world around us.
The scientific attempt is always contingent - that is, there is always the possibility of a better theory/model/description somewhere around the corner. And if one is found, ...[text shortened]... different accounts of the same things. Scientific accounts change. (Dare I say, they evolve!)
to change is simply its weakness on display. That is why I don't call
creation, science and do not jump on the ID band wagon completely
too, since what I believe is strictly faith based, it is either true or not.
Kelly
Evolution does not explain fossils, they are fossils! The process that
made then living creatures fossils, explains fossils. I don't and you
don't need evolution to say what a living creature was once before it
unfortunately found itself buried in such a fashion that allowed it's
body to become a fossil instead of decaying. How that happened,
what event or events put each creature it in that position explains
fossils, not evolution.
That's interesting. You appear to be saying that it is a fact that fossils are the remains of once living things. Can you show me the proof? Have you (has anyone) seen the process from start to end? Has fossilisation ever been observed other than in lab conditions? We are only inferring that they were once living beings, we do not know this for a fact.
You frequently attack Evolution with precisely the above argument and yet you are quite happy to state as a fact that fossils are the remains of living things when all we have is evidence from which we [i]infer[/b].
Your duplicity is astounding.
And evolution is still the best explanation we have for the development of life post abiogenesis. The 'Alternatives to Evolution' thread has had no alternatives suggested whatsoever because no viable, testable, consistant alternatives currently exist.
--- Penguin.
2 edits
Originally posted by Penguin[/b]You are quite correct I have never seen it, and you are quite correct
[b]Evolution does not explain fossils, they are fossils! The process that
made then living creatures fossils, explains fossils. I don't and you
don't need evolution to say what a living creature was once before it
unfortunately found itself buried in such a fashion that allowed it's
body to become a fossil instead of decaying. How that happened,
what ev ever because no viable, testable, consistant alternatives currently exist.
--- Penguin.
we have not seen it. Which is not an attack on my beliefs, it is simply
stating the truth as it is, which is all I have ever done with evolution.
It isn't an attack to state reality as we know and as we think it is, it
is simply good to keep in mind what we think and what is before us
can be two different things.
Evolution is a process, nothing more, creation or however it all began
is strictly a matter of faith and belief no matter what you think of
the process of evolution. Evolution does not address the beginning
it only addresses change.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut since it is, as you have agreed, the best fit we currently have to all the biological, historical, geographical, paleantological and genetic evidence we have seen to date, what reason is there not to afford it the same status as Relativity (possibly even more so since I believe relativity is known to be a bad model at the subatomic scale whereas evolution has not so far been shown to be wrong in any area that it covers).
Evolution is a process, nothing more, creation or however it all began
is strictly a matter of faith and belief no matter what you think of
the process of evolution. Evolution does not address the beginning
it only addresses change.
Kelly
I agree that evolution is simply a process and it doesn't cover creation. What it does cover it covers better than anything else we have, as you have agreed. In the areas that it covers (life since abiogenesis), nothing has been found that is 'wrong with evolution'.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinDepending on how evolution is described I don't find anything wrong
But since it is, as you have agreed, the best fit we currently have to all the biological, historical, geographical, paleantological and genetic evidence we have seen to date, what reason is there not to afford it the same status as Relativity (possibly even more so since I believe relativity is known to be a bad model at the subatomic scale whereas evolutio ...[text shortened]... fe since abiogenesis), nothing has been found that is 'wrong with evolution'.
--- Penguin.
with it. Now how much credit it is given as far as from what starting
point did it start working out that was required to get all the life forms
we see today, is a question only answered by people's faith in my
opinion. Evidence is simply the universe as it is, how we describe what
we see may be right, it may be wrong, bases covered more than once.
Kelly