Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Let's be clear.
I believe in science.
Science is based on evidence. Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.
But it is not science...it is conjecture and consensus.
....there are now two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
My point: if Darwin is science that you will accept, then all the other philosophical discussions of how organisms arose must also be accepted.
All of them are based on faith....as is Darwin's theory of evolution.
The argument is not about how life arose on Earth, that's a totally different area open for investigation. As you labeled it yourself, it's "Darwin's theory of evolution", not bio-genesis. And the scientific method varies according to the field of inquiry. Lab experiments are not always necessary. It is impossible to measure all hydrogen atoms to show they all have only one proton with the same atomic weight, and other measurable characteristics of hydrogen (including isotopes).
That's what you would have us do, dismiss the chain of evidence of evolution because it doesn't show every step for all species past and present. Experiments don't all occur in a lab. Geology, paleontology and archaeology all depend on repeatably testable evidence from the stratigraphic record compiled from examinations around the world, and sometimes off of it.
"And the scientific method varies according to the field of inquiry."
No it doesn't.
There is science...based on the scientific method.
Then there is some variety of philosophy attempting to piggy-back on the reputation of real science. The alternative is based on conjecture and consensus.
It survives because of the huge amount of funding provided by the Leftist ideology that requires it to.
The real irony is that the 'alternative form' is, fundamentally, based on faith.....and yet it attacks religion because it is based on faith rather than the scientific method.
Funny, in a pathetic kind of way.
Every one of those quotes have been shown time and time again to be taken out of context, and every one of the authors you are misquoting would tell you that they subscribe to the theory of evolution and that you are a dishonest fool.
Liar.
Simply making a claim doesn't make it true. I could claim that you are an Islamic terrorist but without providing any evidence, my claim would have as much basis as yours. In other words, none at all. So, I challenge you to find a single instance where I have lied AND provide evidence to support your claim that I lied. While you are at it, let us know if you ever found that Cambrian bunny rabbit.
The argument is not about how life arose on Earth, that's a totally different area open for investigation. As you labeled it yourself, it's "Darwin's theory of evolution", not bio-genesis. And the scientific method varies according to the field of inquiry. Lab experiments are not always necessary. It is impossible to measure all hydrogen atoms to show they all have only one proton with the same atomic weight, and other measurable characteristics of hydrogen (including isotopes).
That's what you would have us do, dismiss the chain of evidence of evolution because it doesn't show every step for all species past and present. Experiments don't all occur in a lab. Geology, paleontology and archaeology all depend on repeatably testable evidence from the stratigraphic record compiled from examinations around the world, and sometimes off of it.
"And the scientific method varies according to the field of inquiry."
No it doesn't.
There is science...based on the scientific method.
Then there is some variety of philosophy attempting to piggy-back on the reputation of real science. The alternative is based on conjecture and consensus.
It survives because of the huge amount of funding provided by the Leftist ideology that requires it to.
The real irony is that the 'alternative form' is, fundamentally, based on faith.....and yet it attacks religion because it is based on faith rather than the scientific method.
Funny, in a pathetic kind of way.
I'm beginning to find you rather sad PC. There's something very touching in seeing someone doggedly denying reality. When every piece of evidence from many different scientific disciplines supports what you choose to call 'Darwin's Theory of Evolution' you continue to peddle your pathetic make believe.
That your belief that evolution only survives because of a well-funded leftist conspiracy scales heights of absurdity seldom reached by even the most determined.
I watched a special on darwin, one of the things he found was a flower whose nectar was 10" inside a narrow flower. so he surmised that there must be a life form with a 10" tongue/beak that could reach it. Low and behold, decades later they found a moth with a 10" tongue.
This proved darwin to them.
To me, it proved darwin wrong.
A flower cannot survive unless it gets pollinated, nothing will come if it can't eat, therefore they moth was there with it's 10" tongue at the same time as the flower.
and of course, the moth w/o the flower, wouldn't need a 10" tongue.
"And the scientific method varies according to the field of inquiry."
No it doesn't.
The real irony is that the 'alternative form' is, fundamentally, based on faith.....and yet it attacks religion because it is based on faith rather than the scientific method.
Liar.
Simply making a claim doesn't make it true. I could claim that you are an Islamic terrorist but without providing any evidence, my claim would have as much basis as yours. In other words, none at all. So, I challenge you to find a single instance where I have lied AND provide evidence to support your claim that I lied. While you are at it, let us know if you ever found that Cambrian bunny rabbit.
Me: You've already admitted that I am correct, and there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
You:" I have admitted no such thing. Lying for Jesus is still lying." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-17.html
You, earlier: " PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.... As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-2.html
Pretty much evidence that you are a liar....and that engaging you in discussion is pointless.
Beat it.
I watched a special on darwin, one of the things he found was a flower whose nectar was 10" inside a narrow flower. so he surmised that there must be a life form with a 10" tongue/beak that could reach it. Low and behold, decades later they found a moth with a 10" tongue.
This proved darwin to them.
To me, it proved darwin wrong.
A flower cannot survive unless it gets pollinated, nothing will come if it can't eat, therefore they moth was there with it's 10" tongue at the same time as the flower.
and of course, the moth w/o the flower, wouldn't need a 10" tongue.
Well a plant could mutate and have a 10" flower and live for decades or centuries. An insect or bird could develop a tongue/bill that reach harder and harder to get at flowers as well as ones with deeper throats. The real question is if the plant reached a dead end after becoming completely dependent on one source of pollination, if that's indeed the case. If something happens to the moth, it's toast. There's all kinds of examples of such symbiosis in nature. The question is not "how" so much as if it's a good survival strategy.
"And the scientific method varies according to the field of inquiry."
No it doesn't.
Yes they do. Botany uses completely different methods for gathering evidence and conducting experiments than astronomy, and that's different from physics etc.
The real irony is that the 'alternative form' is, fundamentally, based on faith.....and yet it attacks religion because it is based on faith rather than the scientific method.
What hard science if based on faith. Now if you're calling sociology or psychology alternative science, you could well have a point.
Of course Darwin's theory was weak and full of holes. What do you expect for a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation.
"...a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation."
What do you mean by 'short termed observation'?
Darwin published in 1859.
Let's take a trip down memory lane"
1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210
2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
So....what do you mean to say?
Simply that you're willing to accept no evidence for the theory?
Or that you are questioning it's veracity.
Of course Darwin's theory was weak and full of holes. What do you expect for a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation.
"...a hypothesis to be stated with faulty facts on nature by short termed observation."
What do you mean by 'short termed observation'?
Darwin published in 1859.
Let's take a trip down memory lane"
1. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210
2. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
So....what do you mean to say?
Simply that you're willing to accept no evidence for the theory?
Or that you are questioning it's veracity.
The fact that using hypothesizes of others on their research to deduct his reasoning on his theory in a period when all they had was just observation in the science field made their final theory weak.
please give me another example.
And why would any animal develop anything to eat from one thing when it's surrounded by food it can get at?
Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?
This should be in the religion section.
No, it shouldn't.
The OP is about the scientific proof provided by geology.
It simply proves that numerous organism appear in the fossil record fully formed and far different than anything found before.
For some reason, many of those who are enamored of Darwinian evolution have no way to account for these facts......and they are facts.....and so attempt to claim that simply providing the fossil evidence is somehow "religion," as in
"This should be in the religion section."
Fossils are actual science, as opposed to Darwin's musings.
Don't be afraid to confront the truth.
If I remember my college geology classes correctly, there is a massive world wide unconformity at the base of the Cambrian section. It represents missing rock of anywhere from 200 my to 1 by. Seems pretty reasonable that removing that much rock by erosion would leave a pretty big gap in the rock record of critters that could make things look more sudden than they actually were.
If I remember my college geology classes correctly, there is a massive world wide unconformity at the base of the Cambrian section. It represents missing rock of anywhere from 200 my to 1 by. Seems pretty reasonable that removing that much rock by erosion would leave a pretty big gap in the rock record of critters that could make things look more sudden than they actually were.
Let's not lose sight of the premise, here.
The 'evolutionary novelties,' i.e., the new anatomical structures and methods of organization that are suddenly prevalent in the Cambrian animals are the undeniable facts of the fossil record.
Facts.
If one is set on Darwin's theory of evolution....then, said facts require explanation.
Let's not lose sight of the premise, here.
The 'evolutionary novelties,' i.e., the new anatomical structures and methods of organization that are suddenly prevalent in the Cambrian animals are the undeniable facts of the fossil record.
Facts.
If one is set on Darwin's theory of evolution....then, said facts require explanation.
When you say "suddenly" aren't you assuming a complete fossil record for the millions (billions?) of years before the Cambrian era?
The fossil record is woefully incomplete because conditions for lasting fossil formation are more often than not absent.
Our best guess of the oldest life form on the planet are the 3.5 billion year old sedimentary fossil of what appear to be stromatolites.
If we use that as our start point would you say the current fossil record is complete enough to support your claims?
I for one do not believe we have enough fossils to accurately chronicle 3.5 billion years of life on the planet.
Let's not lose sight of the premise, here.
The 'evolutionary novelties,' i.e., the new anatomical structures and methods of organization that are suddenly prevalent in the Cambrian animals are the undeniable facts of the fossil record.
Facts.
If one is set on Darwin's theory of evolution....then, said facts require explanation.
When you say "suddenly" aren't you assuming a complete fossil record for the millions (billions?) of years before the Cambrian era?
The fossil record is woefully incomplete because conditions for lasting fossil formation are more often than not absent.
Our best guess of the oldest life form on the planet are the 3.5 billion year old sedimentary fossil of what appear to be stromatolites.
If we use that as our start point would you say the current fossil record is complete enough to support your claims?
I for one do not believe we have enough fossils to accurately chronicle 3.5 billion years of life on the planet.
The U.S. National Museum alone at least a dozen of warehouses full of fossils and other specimens. How many more do you believe we need?
This should be in the religion section.
No, it shouldn't.
The OP is about the scientific proof provided by geology.
It simply proves that numerous organism appear in the fossil record fully formed and far different than anything found before.
For some reason, many of those who are enamored of Darwinian evolution have no way to account for these facts......and they are facts.....and so attempt to claim that simply providing the fossil evidence is somehow "religion," as in
"This should be in the religion section."
Fossils are actual science, as opposed to Darwin's musings.
Don't be afraid to confront the truth.
Lordy, lordy, what a dumb thing to say. But that is par for the course for our poor dear deluded PC. Yes, fossils are actual science, and one of the cornerstones of the present Theory of Evolution. And here in Oregon, in the John Day Formation, we have the history of the evolution of the horses. From 45 million years ago the five million years ago. There are many other formations in the world that have many million years of continuous evolution in their fossils. Such as the Karoo of South Africa.
Fossils, until the mapping of genetics and DNA, were the cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution. Now they are a sturdy supporting pillar. Imagining that the fossils we find refute evolution demonstrates your ignorance of the whole subject of geology. As Orogenicman stated, show us the Cambrian bunny rabbit.
When you say "suddenly" aren't you assuming a complete fossil record for the millions (billions?) of years before the Cambrian era?
The fossil record is woefully incomplete because conditions for lasting fossil formation are more often than not absent.
Our best guess of the oldest life form on the planet are the 3.5 billion year old sedimentary fossil of what appear to be stromatolites.
If we use that as our start point would you say the current fossil record is complete enough to support your claims?
I for one do not believe we have enough fossils to accurately chronicle 3.5 billion years of life on the planet.
The U.S. National Museum alone at least a dozen of warehouses full of fossils and other specimens. How many more do you believe we need?
What are the dates of those fossils? And do we have a fossil of every organism that ever lived?
Do you really believe we have an accurate record of more than 3.5 billion years?
Would you say a sampling of a couple thousand gallons of sea water is enough to chronicle all the life in the oceans?
Ah, PC. Funny you should try that tactic. Note that I pointed out that this was just one of many formations that contained a fossil record continous for many tens of millions of years. And in these formations, we find the evidence for life evolving in differant ways to adapt to conditions of those times.
And life doesn't evolve as a nice tree, leading up to a end product at the top. Far more like a large and confusing bush, with many, many branchs.
Today, in the Order to which we belong, Primates, there are still many species of Lemurs, similiar to the earliest primates in much of their physical characteristics. So, why should we not expect to see the same in the equids in which there were so many lineages in earlier times.
