Show Me the Fossils!

[westwall]

and it also cant be observed beyond written records,,,

Not true. I can review 1.7 billion years of history in the Grand Canyon.

Clear as a book.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not true. I can review 1.7 billion years of history in the Grand Canyon.

Clear as a book.

first you have to do is prove its 1.7 billion yrs old,, and theres a lot of evidence its not that old,,,

 

[Hollie]

exactly,, and you cant observe beyond written records,, if those cant even be trusted,,

Does anyone understand what that meant?

 

[westwall]

first you have to do is prove its 1.7 billion yrs old,, and theres a lot of evidence its not that old,,,

There is not one iota of evidence that it is not. The Vishnu schist, and Zoroaster granite are well documented as to age.

 

[Hollie]

first you have to do is prove its 1.7 billion yrs old,, and theres a lot of evidence its not that old,,,

What evidence?

 

[progressive hunter]

There is not one iota of evidence that it is not. The Vishnu schist, and Zoroaster granite are well documented as to age.

when you can explain how water runs uphill we can get into the other problems with it,,,

 

[westwall]

when you can explain how water runs uphill we can get into the other problems with it,,,

The Colorado Plateau was up lifted, and as it rose, the river cut down and carved out the Grand Canyon.

Like I said, we can read it like a book.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Colorado Plateau was up lifted, and as it rose, the river cut down and carved out the Grand Canyon.

Like I said, we can read it like a book.

and who is it that observed that??

 

[westwall]

and who is it that observed that??

Me, for one. I have spent many years researching the plateau.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Science relies on observation. There is no way to observe Earth's history, because it already happened.

We can look at parts of the Earth and make conjecture and assumptions. We can say, "look at this canyon with layers of rock on its walls and a river at its bottom. The layers of rock must have piled on over billions of years, and then the river carved down into the layers in more billions."

We can guess that, but we can't be sure, because it was not observed and science is about observation. Maybe we can all vote on it and the majority say that is what happened. We can write textbooks and claim that it is a fact. But it still will not be a scientific fact.

I have no problem with teaching such conjecture, as long as it is honestly stated that it is conjecture. I don't understand why there would be such fear of dissent that people would want to lie and say it is fact, and even mandate such lies.

Anyway, this thread is meandering badly, like an ancient river, so to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

 

[Hollie]

Science relies on observation. There is no way to observe Earth's history, because it already happened.

We can look at parts of the Earth and make conjecture and assumptions. We can say, "look at this canyon with layers of rock on its walls and a river at its bottom. The layers of rock must have piled on over billions of years, and then the river carved down into the layers in more billions."

We can guess that, but we can't be sure, because it was not observed and science is about observation. Maybe we can all vote on it and the majority say that is what happened. We can write textbooks and claim that it is a fact. But it still will not be a scientific fact.

I have no problem with teaching such conjecture, as long as it is honestly stated that it is conjecture. I don't understand why there would be such fear of dissent that people would want to lie and say it is fact, and even mandate such lies.

Anyway, this thread is meandering badly, like an ancient river, so to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

Science relies on a great deal more than just observation.

Your conspiracy theory that the fossil evidence is fake is typical among those of the creationer ministries.

 

[TNHarley]

There isnt proof for evolution. Its silly to ask for it.
Im of the impression that is is the most plausible of all the theories of our beginning. So much evidence... Much more evidence than from outdated stories made by a bunch of ignorant savages thousands of years ago.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There isnt proof for evolution. Its silly to ask for it.
Im of the impression that is is the most plausible of all the theories of our beginning. So much evidence... Much more evidence than from outdated stories made by a bunch of ignorant savages thousands of years ago.

If there isn't proof, it isn't a fact.

If we can be honest about that, I'm happy.

Why do you think so many people make evolution into a religion that is to be believed in the absence of proof?

 

[TNHarley]

If there isn't proof, it isn't a fact.

If we can be honest about that, I'm happy.

Why do you think so many people make evolution into a religion that is to be believed in the absence of proof?

Im honest about it. Its just a theory.
Because some people want a reason not to believe in god.

 

[Hollie]

If there isn't proof, it isn't a fact.

If we can be honest about that, I'm happy.

Why do you think so many people make evolution into a religion that is to be believed in the absence of proof?

It's important to point out the context you don't understand. Proof that populations of biological organisms evolve over time has been proven. Your revulsion for evolution derives from the well established theory, supported by fossil evidence that mankind was not magically created 6,000 years ago.


"If we can be honest"

I would never expect a religious extremist to be honest.

 

[progressive hunter]

Me, for one. I have spent many years researching the plateau.

so youre millions of yrs old,,

I doubt that,

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's important to point out the context you don't understand. Proof that populations of biological organisms evolve over time has been proven. Your revulsion for evolution derives from the well established theory, supported by fossil evidence that mankind was not magically created 6,000 years ago.


"If we can be honest"

I would never expect a religious extremist to be honest.

"Proof . . . has been proven?"

Here's what you sound like to me:

"Proof has been proven with strong proof! There is irrefutable evidence of the proof that proves it! The proof proves the proven proof! Science proves it! Jimmy Swaggart!"

At least you haven't used the old catchphrase "a mountain of evidence."

So what is this evidence you speak of? You've punted two challenges so far: To show me real fossils and explain how they prove Darwinism and to make a prediction based on Darwinism. Since I know that humans are not perfectly designed, I'll give you one - only one - more chance.

 

[Hollie]

"Proof . . . has been proven?"

Here's what you sound like to me:

"Proof has been proven with strong proof! There is irrefutable evidence of the proof that proves it! The proof proves the proven proof! Science proves it! Jimmy Swaggart!"

At least you haven't used the old catchphrase "a mountain of evidence."

So what is this evidence you speak of? You've punted two challenges so far: To show me real fossils and explain how they prove Darwinism and to make a prediction based on Darwinism. Since I know that humans are not perfectly designed, I'll give you one - only one - more chance.

That's all very melodramatic but if you knew anything of germ theory, for example, that viruses mutate, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, that species adapt and change to environmental changes, you might be able to hold a grown up discussion.

Religionism tends to be a boat anchor around the neck of those who cant evolve as knowledge and learning advances.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's all very melodramatic but if you knew anything of germ theory, for example, that viruses mutate, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, that species adapt and change to environmental changes, you might be able to hold a grown up discussion.

Religionism tends to be a boat anchor around the neck of those who cant evolve as knowledge and learning advances.

So, no evidence, then?

Alright . . .

 

[Hollie]

"Proof . . . has been proven?"

Here's what you sound like to me:

"Proof has been proven with strong proof! There is irrefutable evidence of the proof that proves it! The proof proves the proven proof! Science proves it! Jimmy Swaggart!"

At least you haven't used the old catchphrase "a mountain of evidence."

So what is this evidence you speak of? You've punted two challenges so far: To show me real fossils and explain how they prove Darwinism and to make a prediction based on Darwinism. Since I know that humans are not perfectly designed, I'll give you one - only one - more chance.

If humans are not perfectly designed, doesn't that suggest your designer gods are incompetent designers? Your gods are not going to be happy about your claim that they are incompetent.

I'll give you one last chance....