Originally posted by KellyJayIndeed, I agree that in terms of hypotheses, they can be right or wrong. By the time an idea has graduated to the status of theory it has been tested multiple times, by multiple investigators. A good theory will bring together multiple convergent lines of evidence together. Whilst you are right, evolution as a theory might be wrong, the chances of that are probably somewhere in the region of trillions to one. You've got worse chances as an innocent man in court.
Depending on how evolution is described I don't find anything wrong
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
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think if you go down the track of estimating its chances of success or failure you're skating on thin ice. Better to recognise that science never creates certainty, and in doing so, separate it from religious thought entirely.
Indeed, I agree that in terms of hypotheses, they can be right or wrong. By the time an idea has graduated to the status of theory it has been tested multiple times, by multiple investigators. A good theory will bring together multiple convergent lines of evidence together. Whilst you are right, evolution as a theory might be wro ...[text shortened]... here in the region of trillions to one. You've got worse chances as an innocent man in court.
Originally posted by amannionIndeed, however, I'm merely pointing out that evolutionary theory is so well supported by multiple convergent lines of enquiry, that the chances we are wrong, at least about the broad picture (less broad than the biblical account though!), if not the detail, are very small.
I think if you go down the track of estimating its chances of success or failure you're skating on thin ice. Better to recognise that science never creates certainty, and in doing so, separate it from religious thought entirely.
Originally posted by KellyJayYour 'problem with evolution' seems to be simply that it can't make large scale changes. But your soul logic for this seems to be that 'no-one has seen the full process'. Well the same goes for fossilisation but you were accepting that fossils are the remains of long dead animals a few posts back.
Depending on how evolution is described I don't find anything wrong
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
I just fail to see any logic in your assertion that there is a barrier to 'significant' change. Can you tell us anything about this barrier? Why do you think it exists? What do you think are the special attributes of the minute genetic chages that hit this barrier as opposed to those that don't?
Or is it just that 'there must be a barrier because the Bible says that humans are special so we can't be intrinsically the same as all the other animals?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayIs there a paleontologist in the house?
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.
Please don't confuse movies with reality.
There is a lot more to this than arbitarily splitting a mix of 2 sets of bones into creatures X and Y. If your 4th graders visit a reputable museum, what they see will be pretty close to what an animal looked like.
Do you consider it a coincidence that numerous individual animals have been found in dated strata which appear to show a clear line of evolution for a living creature?
You remind me of someone I knew years ago who, when confronted with the fossil record, finally conceded that it does, indeed, confirm evolution and deny creationalism. However, he refused to change his position, remaining a staunch creationalist. His logoc here was unassailable: god put the fossils there as a test of faith.
At that point, I gave up.
Originally posted by PenguinI see the moon, I've seen people jump, I have never seen anyone
Your 'problem with evolution' seems to be simply that it can't make large scale changes. But your soul logic for this seems to be that 'no-one has seen the full process'. Well the same goes for fossilisation but you were accepting that fossils are the remains of long dead animals a few posts back.
I just fail to see any logic in your assertion that there ...[text shortened]... ecial so we can't be intrinsically the same as all the other animals?
--- Penguin.
jump to the moon. You have a process, no one denies that, what
is being suggested is something no one has seen, and you want
me to prove a negative, you need to show it has done what you claim.
Kelly
Originally posted by sugiezdI believe they were creatures that lived, beyond that is a lot of guess
Is there a paleontologist in the house?
Please don't confuse movies with reality.
There is a lot more to this than arbitarily splitting a mix of 2 sets of bones into creatures X and Y. If your 4th graders visit a reputable museum, what they see will be pretty close to what an animal looked like.
Do you consider it a coincidence that numerous individ ...[text shortened]... re was unassailable: god put the fossils there as a test of faith.
At that point, I gave up.
work. Saying this one is related to that one and have that prove
evolution is hogwash, you may as well say lions and tigers prove
evolution for the same reason, or lions and frogs.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou see people jump and you se them come back down. There is evidence of a barrier. However, if we had a big enough gun or maybe something with enough continuous thrust, then maybe we could overcome this barrier and get to the moon. Oh hang on...
I see the moon, I've seen people jump, I have never seen anyone
jump to the moon. You have a process, no one denies that, what
is being suggested is something no one has seen, and you want
me to prove a negative, you need to show it has done what you claim.
Kelly
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you for evidence of the existance of a barrier to 'macro-evolution'. Either theoretical, logical or experimental. There is plenty of evidence that macro-evolution happens and no-one has proposed any mechanism that would stop it.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayOnce the height of each of those jumps can be conserved (and oxygen is provided), people will be able to jump to the moon!
I see the moon, I've seen people jump, I have never seen anyone
jump to the moon. You have a process, no one denies that, what
is being suggested is something no one has seen, and you want
me to prove a negative, you need to show it has done what you claim.
Kelly
Although, of course, a few people have jumped to the moon. Neil Armstrong for one. The fact that his leg muscles are constrained by the cost - benefit part of evolution is immaterial.
Originally posted by PenguinGood post.
Your 'problem with evolution' seems to be simply that it can't make large scale changes. But your soul logic for this seems to be that 'no-one has seen the full process'. Well the same goes for fossilisation but you were accepting that fossils are the remains of long dead animals a few posts back.
I just fail to see any logic in your assertion that there ...[text shortened]... ecial so we can't be intrinsically the same as all the other animals?
--- Penguin.