95 replies to this topic

[Jim88]

Quote

So intelligent people who understand the earth is billions of years old can also believe in God.  One of the best known paleontologists is a Christian deacon, but still believes dinos and men didn't live together becasue the fossil record proves this is impossible and the Bible doesn't say this.  It does say heavenly creatures called dragons living in the time of men, but not dinosaurs, all of which died out 65 million years ago.

How does the fossil record prove it to be impossible? The fossil record consists of just the few fossils they've found. It isn't a complete history of life on earth. The fossil record doesn't really prove anything.

[draconic chronicler]

Quote

How does the fossil record prove it to be impossible? The fossil record consists of just the few fossils they've found. It isn't a complete history of life on earth. The fossil record doesn't really prove anything.

A lot of people are terribly naive about fossils.  They occur in geologic layers, and you never find dinos in layers after ca. 65 mya.  We can also see evolution at work in the fossil record.  The most ancient horses are the size of cats, and they graduallly grow bigger over millions of years.

I agree the record is not complete.  But it is complete enough to get a pretty good picture of life on earth.  Yes, there may still be some very big surprises that are yet to be found.

[Jim88]

Quote

A lot of people are terribly naive about fossils.  They occur in geologic layers, and you never find dinos in layers after ca. 65 mya.  We can also see evolution at work in the fossil record.  The most ancient horses are the size of cats, and they graduallly grow bigger over millions of years.

Is it evolution at work or are the fossils just similar? They assume it's evolution at work. They don't know that and they never will know that.

Some of the dinosaurs could have survived beyond that point. People could have been around longer than scientists estimate. The fossil record only gives us a snap shot of life on earth, not a complete record. Scientists are just estimating based on available evidence how long people have been around and when dinosaurs become extect. They don't really know. There is a lot of guess work that goes into science.

[ninjadude]

Quote

Is it evolution at work or are the fossils just similar? They assume it's evolution at work. They don't know that and they never will know that.

Some of the dinosaurs could have survived beyond that point. People could have been around longer than scientists estimate. The fossil record only gives us a snap shot of life on earth, not a complete record. Scientists are just estimating based on available evidence how long people have been around and when dinosaurs become extect. They don't really know. There is a lot of guess work that goes into science.

No not really. There are not "just a few fossils". Where do you read this incorrect information? There are uncounted fossils. More than you could ever count in millions of lifetimes. The fossils are not "just similar". There are clear distinctions of species and changes over time through the layers of rock. A study and aging of that rock is stratigraphy. It is highly detailed. The purpose of science is not to prove anything. By disproving hypothosis we arrive at the most likely explanation. There's no assumption involved. There is no evidence that "some dinosors could have survived". Should some magically appear - the hypothosis would change to work that in and then it would be tested again. What facts do you know that "people have been around longer"? Should some facts i.e. bones appear - then the hypothosis would be changed and tested again. Scientists are not "just" estimating.  It is an hypothsis based on facts. There is not a lot of guess work that goes into science.

[Toxic Flood]

Quote

Is it evolution at work or are the fossils just similar? They assume it's evolution at work. They don't know that and they never will know that.

Some of the dinosaurs could have survived beyond that point. People could have been around longer than scientists estimate. The fossil record only gives us a snap shot of life on earth, not a complete record. Scientists are just estimating based on available evidence how long people have been around and when dinosaurs become extect. They don't really know. There is a lot of guess work that goes into science.

And this is why scientists believe the information that is currently available to them, and if something new comes along that changes this information, they change their beliefs. All evidence points to evolution at the moment. It's not like they just thought it up and then tried to find evidence or clues, they found the evidence and then thought it up.

Sounds kinda like the opposite of creationism, huh?

Religion/Creationism = The most easy way to answer the question.
Science = The never ending search for the answer to the question.

[Guardsman Bass]

Quote

Is it evolution at work or are the fossils just similar? They assume it's evolution at work. They don't know that and they never will know that.

Some of the dinosaurs could have survived beyond that point. People could have been around longer than scientists estimate. The fossil record only gives us a snap shot of life on earth, not a complete record. Scientists are just estimating based on available evidence how long people have been around and when dinosaurs become extect. They don't really know. There is a lot of guess work that goes into science.

That's incorrect; in the case of the evolution of the whale, and the horse, they've found a sequence of intermediate forms occurring in a sequential set of layers. You don't see modern horses in the same layer as their toed, arboreal ancestors, and the transition strongly implies a sequence of evolution. We also know roughly around when the Impact occurred that killed off the dinosaurs through, if I remember right, locating Iridium identifying to around 65 million years ago in a massive impact crater in the Yucatan peninsula.

You should do some actual research on this before passing judgement. Try the talkorigins.net website.

[Jim88]

Quote

That's incorrect; in the case of the evolution of the whale, and the horse, they've found a sequence of intermediate forms occurring in a sequential set of layers. You don't see modern horses in the same layer as their toed, arboreal ancestors, and the transition strongly implies a sequence of evolution. We also know roughly around when the Impact occurred that killed off the dinosaurs through, if I remember right, locating Iridium identifying to around 65 million years ago in a massive impact crater in the Yucatan peninsula.

You should do some actual research on this before passing judgement. Try the talkorigins.net website.

What part of that is incorrect? Scientists assume one evolved from the other because they're similar. You can't use the similarity as proof of evolution. How is that not circular reasoning to do that? You're saying they're similar because one evolved from the other therefore evolution must be true because they're similar. That's using the theory to prove the theory.

I'm well aware of the crater off the coast of the Yucatan pennisula. The impact didn't kill all life on earth.

[Guardsman Bass]

Quote

What part of that is incorrect? Scientists assume one evolved from the other because they're similar. You can't use the similarity as proof of evolution. How is that not circular reasoning to do that? You're saying they're similar because one evolved from the other therefore evolution must be true because they're similar. That's using the theory to prove the theory.

It's more than that they are "similar" - they show distinct features that can be used to identify them as being members of or of a cousin species to a certain species, which is why we can put together theories based off of even small fragments of fossilized. And, as I mentioned, the examples I include possess the above, plus they occur sequentially, strongly implying that they were connected evolutionarily.

Quote

I'm well aware of the crater off the coast of the Yucatan pennisula. The impact didn't kill all life on earth.

What's your point? This was in response to your point about the dinosaurs; I pointed out that this is one way we help determine how long ago certain things happened.

[redhen]

Quote

....So, before you post about science again, maybe you should read some.  There has never been an actual scientific argument against evolution that has stood up to scrutiny and most arguments, like your own, aren't even scientfic to begin with.

I nominate Capeo for the 2007 "Candle in the Dark" award, way to go!

[Jim88]

Quote

No not really. There are not "just a few fossils". Where do you read this incorrect information? There are uncounted fossils. More than you could ever count in millions of lifetimes. The fossils are not "just similar". There are clear distinctions of species and changes over time through the layers of rock. A study and aging of that rock is stratigraphy. It is highly detailed. The purpose of science is not to prove anything. By disproving hypothosis we arrive at the most likely explanation. There's no assumption involved. There is no evidence that "some dinosors could have survived". Should some magically appear - the hypothosis would change to work that in and then it would be tested again. What facts do you know that "people have been around longer"? Should some facts i.e. bones appear - then the hypothosis would be changed and tested again. Scientists are not "just" estimating.  It is an hypothsis based on facts. There is not a lot of guess work that goes into science.

There is a lot of guess work that goes into science. Every study they do and every experiment they do is based on assumptions that could be false. Scientists make assumptions all the time.

For the fossil record to be used as proof of the theory of evolution you first have to assume the similarities they're finding are the result of evolution. You are claiming they can use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution. It isn't reasonable. It doesn't matter how many fossils there are and how similar they may be to one another. It doesn't prove anything if it is based on faulty reasoning.

Why don't you look at the website he linked to. Do those look like fossilized human footprints to you?

Edited by Jim88, 19 April 2007 - 04:03 PM.

[Harte]

Quote

How does the fossil record prove it to be impossible? The fossil record consists of just the few fossils they've found. It isn't a complete history of life on earth. The fossil record doesn't really prove anything.

Jim88,

You're absolutely correct here.  It's a matter of semantics, though.  Most scientists wouldn't use the word "proof."  They would say the fossil record "indicates."

I've tried several times here to get people to stop using the mathematical term "proof" when they actually mean "evidence."  It's not exactly a bad thing, it's just that it makes it too easy for people to rebut statements like "The fossil record proves..." this or that.

In actual fact, nothing real can be absolutely proven.  We all rely on electrical signals originating in what we think of as "eyes" being correctly interpreted in this other thing we think of as the "brain."  Yet we cannot "prove" that eyes and brains actually exist.

You cannot prove I am here.  You can't even prove you are here.  I wish we'd stop saying "prove" when that's not what we mean.

Harte

[Guardsman Bass]

Quote

There is a lot of guess work that goes into science. Every study they do and every experiment they do is based on assumptions that could be false. Scientists make assumptions all the time.

For the fossil record to be used as proof of the theory of evolution you first have to assume the similarities they're finding are the result of evolution. You are claiming they can use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution. It isn't reasonable. It doesn't matter how many fossils there are and how similar they may be to one another. It doesn't prove anything if it is based on faulty reasoning.

It's the best explained mechanism with the fewest external terms, and it makes falsifiable predictions (meaning that it can be proven wrong) - but it hasn't.

Let me put it this way. Suppose that you see me get into a Red Toyota Truck with a certain license plate at 12 Noon in Salt Lake City. Suppose then, 45 minutes later, you see me in a truck that looks exactly the same as the one I left in, with the same license plates, and about 50 miles added onto my odometer, in Provo (which is about 40-odd miles away). What this strongly  suggests, is that I drove there, but because you didn't actually see me drive there, you don't completely know for sure. For all you know, maybe I ditched my car after you stopped looking, flew a private plane down to Provo, and took the rest of the time renting a truck that just happened to have the same miles and color, which I equipped with my old license plate.

The point, though, is that the simpler theory, that I drove there, fits the evidence, fits the timing, and is falsifiable (if, for example, you could prove a rental receipt proving I rented a plane, then the drive theory would be wrong). It's the exact same  case with the fossils.

As for the link, I looked at it. Regardless of whether the paintings are actually real or fraudulent, the link makes a massive claim - that there were dinosaurs for people (in this case, Native Americans) to see. But it runs into the same problem as the Loch Ness monster did. Where's the ecological footprints of these things? Where are the fossils of the dinosaurs dating within 65 million years? Where are the equivalent of the preserved possum turds that we use to examine the now-extinct Anasazi settlements?

[Jim88]

Quote

The point, though, is that the simpler theory, that I drove there, fits the evidence, fits the timing, and is falsifiable (if, for example, you could prove a rental receipt proving I rented a plane, then the drive theory would be wrong). It's the exact same  case with the fossils.

I wasn't even arguing about absolute proof. It is true that you can't prove anything in an absolute sense.

Why are you trying to convince me that evolution is a valid theory? I never said it wasn't.

All I'm saying about evolution is it is an error in reasoning to claim the fossil record proves evolution. It isn't reasonable to claim it does. For the science to be valid the reasoing it is based on has to be valid. The reasoning the claim that the fossil record proves evolution isn't valid. It is based on circular reasoning. I could use the same kind of reasoning to claim the fossil record proves creation. You can use that kind of reasoning to claim proof for anything.

You asked me if I had any evidence that human's have been around longer than scientists estimate. If the photographs on that website really show fossils of human footprints then that would be evidence that people have been around longer than scientists estimate.

Edited by Jim88, 19 April 2007 - 09:21 PM.

[Guardsman Bass]

Quote

I wasn't even arguing about absolute proof. It is true that you can't prove anything in an absolute sense.

Why are you trying to convince me that evolution is a valid theory? I never said it wasn't.

All I'm saying about evolution is it is an error in reasoning to claim the fossil record proves evolution. It isn't reasonable to claim it does. For the science to be valid the reasoing it is based on has to be valid. The reasoning the claim that the fossil record proves evolution isn't valid. It is based on circular reasoning. I could use the same kind of reasoning to claim the fossil record proves creation. You can use that kind of reasoning to claim proof for anything.

You asked me if I had any evidence that human's have been around longer than scientists estimate. If the photographs on that website really show fossils of human footprints then that would be evidence that people have been around longer than scientists estimate.

We've been talking past each other-

The point I was trying to make is that evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record, for the reasons I listed above. It matches the evidence. It's not a case of
I.We believe evolution to be true
II. The fossil record can be construed in that manner
III. Therefore, evolution is true;

rather, it's a case of
I. These fossils are arranged in certain ways, certain structures, etc,
II. Evolution is the best theory that explains these patterns in the facts, and is falsifiable
III. Therefore, it is very strongly likely that evolution is true with regards.

Hopefully, that explains the point I'm trying to put across a little better.

[Jim88]

Quote

We've been talking past each other-

The point I was trying to make is that evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record, for the reasons I listed above. It matches the evidence. It's not a case of
I.We believe evolution to be true
II. The fossil record can be construed in that manner
III. Therefore, evolution is true;

rather, it's a case of
I. These fossils are arranged in certain ways, certain structures, etc,
II. Evolution is the best theory that explains these patterns in the facts, and is falsifiable
III. Therefore, it is very strongly likely that evolution is true with regards.

Hopefully, that explains the point I'm trying to put across a little better.

I think you totatly missed the point I tried to make to you. The fossil record doesn't prove evolution. It can't. It is a fallacy to think it can. You can use that kind of reasoning to claim proof for anything.

Certainly evolution can be used to explain what's in the fossil record, but that isn't proof of evolution. People could come up with all sorts of theories to explain what is in the fossil record. Proof of evolution would be if they could prove one species evolves into another species. They can't prove that because it occurs to gradually to be observed. I don't think scientists can actually prove evolution. As far as I can tell it is an unprovable theory. Nobody has told me a way it can be proven yet. I can't think of a way to prove it.