Show Me the Fossils!

[Indeependent]

There's a blue pill if you're having difficulty.

If you saw my wife, you'd know I don't need a pill.

 

[Hollie]

all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,

It's all assumption and opinion that biological organisms change over time?

I hope you will advise the medical fields of this. Maybe prayer, or rattling bones will be the answer to antibiotic resistant bacterial infections.

 

[alang1216]

all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,

So you have no evidence whatsoever that evolution is a fraud? Right.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution it is only in your opinion it is laughable. Laugh at this then, why is it that there are fossil layers with dinosaurs but older rocks don't have any fossils of dinosaurs? Where did they come from? I can ask the same question about just about every animal alive today, why are they not found in older rocks?

 

[progressive hunter]

So you have no evidence whatsoever that evolution is a fraud? Right.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution it is only in your opinion it is laughable. Laugh at this then, why is it that there are fossil layers with dinosaurs but older rocks don't have any fossils of dinosaurs? Where did they come from? I can ask the same question about just about every animal alive today, why are they not found in older rocks?

prove the rocks are older,,

and please dont use a test designed to come up with a predetermined date like all the carbon tests are designed,,

that brings us back to assumptions based on opinions,,

 

[Hollie]

all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,

Evolution is defined as change in population over time.

In just 30 years, consumption of high protein diet has done what?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/01/23/japanese-standing-taller/94ba4f2d-68f9-49ed-9617-0d3287f41a1f/

The rapid westernization of this traditional Asian society has brought such major changes in diet and lifestyle that Japanese people have experienced one of the fastest collective growth spurts ever recorded, according to public health officials.

In the last 30 years, the height of the average Japanese male has gone up nearly four inches, while average female height has increased about 2.7 inches. The average 20-year-old Japanese man today is 5 feet 8 1/4 inches, according to data released this month by Japan's Health and Welfare Ministry. That is about the same height as European 20-year-olds.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You will be surprised to discover that many/most fossils displayed in museums are actually not primarily fakes. What you see, especially with the larger dinosaurs, are accurate castings of the actual fossil artifacts. If you had done your homework, you would know that some of these fossils are worth tens of millions of dollars to private collectors. Fortunately for you, those private collectors can be included in your fake fossil conspiracy theory.

Oh, of course!

Pieces of great monetary value are never - ever - kept in a museum.

I didn't think you could come up with a worse excuse than "fossils are too heavy for commoners to gaze upon!" But damned if you didn't outdo yourself.

Bottom line: Most reconstructions of fossil skeletons are bone fragments held together with modeling material. The gaps between the actual bones are filled in with imagination.

Which I have zero problem with as long as we are honest about it. Saying, "this is our current best guess about how this dinosaur we have named T-Rex would have looked," is fine. Calling such mock-ups "scientific fact," doesn't meet the honesty test.

You may believe that the T-Rex, for example, never inhabited the planet and is a ''fake'', invented by evilutionist, atheist scientists but that puts us back to creationers needing to supply some evidence for their conspiracy theories involving the worldwide academic institutions.

I believe that T-rex likely inhabited Earth. My primary concern with fill-in-the-gap whole fossils is when that method is used to classify "Early man," and "ape-like human ancestors." Because people who hate religion and religious freedom pretend that these constantly shifting models of human evolution are actually science. Then they try to force that "science" on people who understand that it is not science and don't want it forced on them.

Teach all the evolution you like, in private school and in public school. So long as you teach it as the theoretical research that it is, not as a true experimental science. Don't call any of it "settled science" because that is a flat lie.

Don't require students with religious beliefs to knowingly lie in order to pass their middle-school science class.

Regarding the Houston Museum of natural science, I would point out that your attempt at comparison is a bit silly, The thousands of individual, fossilized bones that comprise a large individual specimen aren't bolted / welded / screwed together like a mechanical device would be assembled. To destroy valuable fossil remains by trying to assemble them like a Toyota makes no sense.

Wow, so who does get to see the "real" fossils?

Do people who own land on which dinosaur fossils are found become instant multi-millionaires?

If you had ever been to an aviation museum, the aviation Museum in Galveston or otherwise, you would know that the non-airworthy museum pieces are generally replete with replica pieces, stripped interiors and engine nacelles without engines.

They don't fly.... neither do your conspiracy theories.

Ok, not a bad turn of phrase in that last sentence, I'll give you that.

Yes, aviation museums, in fact all museums, often display replica pieces. But - if they are honest - they clearly label the replicas from the real thing. Why are fossil exhibits the only type that are excused from this required integrity?

PS: I've asked several questions here, but if any of them bother you, fee free to ignore them instead of answering them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The creationist charlatan, Ken Ham, who is the perpetrator of the Ark Park is using none of the methods used by science.

Yes, that's why I said that he is using the same methods used by people who create dinosaur exhibits in museums.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you saw my wife, you'd know I don't need a pill.

I, too have that good fortune. Mrs. Flops is Viagra on legs.

 

[alang1216]

prove the rocks are older,,

and please dont use a test designed to come up with a predetermined date like all the carbon tests are designed,,

that brings us back to assumptions based on opinions,,

If sedimentary layer 1 is deposited on sedimentary layer 2, layer 2 must already have been deposited and is therefore older. See any opinions there or do you have an alternate scenario?

 

[Hollie]

Oh, of course!

Pieces of great monetary value are never - ever - kept in a museum.

I didn't think you could come up with a worse excuse than "fossils are too heavy for commoners to gaze upon!" But damned if you didn't outdo yourself.

Bottom line: Most reconstructions of fossil skeletons are bone fragments held together with modeling material. The gaps between the actual bones are filled in with imagination.

Which I have zero problem with as long as we are honest about it. Saying, "this is our current best guess about how this dinosaur we have named T-Rex would have looked," is fine. Calling such mock-ups "scientific fact," doesn't meet the honesty test.

I believe that T-rex likely inhabited Earth. My primary concern with fill-in-the-gap whole fossils is when that method is used to classify "Early man," and "ape-like human ancestors." Because people who hate religion and religious freedom pretend that these constantly shifting models of human evolution are actually science. Then they try to force that "science" on people who understand that it is not science and don't want it forced on them.

Teach all the evolution you like, in private school and in public school. So long as you teach it as the theoretical research that it is, not as a true experimental science. Don't call any of it "settled science" because that is a flat lie.

Don't require students with religious beliefs to knowingly lie in order to pass their middle-school science class.

Wow, so who does get to see the "real" fossils?

Do people who own land on which dinosaur fossils are found become instant multi-millionaires?

Ok, not a bad turn of phrase in that last sentence, I'll give you that.

Yes, aviation museums, in fact all museums, often display replica pieces. But - if they are honest - they clearly label the replicas from the real thing. Why are fossil exhibits the only type that are excused from this required integrity?

PS: I've asked several questions here, but if any of them bother you, fee free to ignore them instead of answering them.

Yeah. Strange thing. T-Rex probably did roam the planet, probably more than 6,000 years ago. What an audacious concept.

That's quite a dilemma for the Ark'ists because the Theory of Evolution has undergone scrutiny, peer review and testing of the evidence within the scientific community, It remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The religious types are befuddled by the term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions. Theory means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (termed by Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time is denied passionately by the religious because science is a direct threat to their beliefs.

Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid a theory than the theory of gravity, atomic theory or the germ theory of disease. On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the demonstrated facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from the fundamentalist Christian

 

[progressive hunter]

If sedimentary layer 1 is deposited on sedimentary layer 2, layer 2 must already have been deposited and is therefore older. See any opinions there or do you have an alternate scenario?

but how much older is the assumption,,

 

[Dadoalex]

I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.

So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).

Here's an example from Scientific American, no less:

View attachment 594783
OK, that is pretty convincing, right? The face is relatively flat, rather than elongated as are the faces of most animals who rely more heavily on sense of smell than do humans. But the brain case is relatively small, a more ape-like trait. Viola! The long sought Missing Link!

But . . . look at the fine print:

View attachment 594786

It's a composite reconstruction. It's a drawing of how the artist imagines a collection of bone fragments might look IF it were one complete skull. Now this seems a pretty skilled drawing. Not a Da Vinci, but the work of a competent commercial artist. But that artist was not given a collection of bones and told, "draw us what these bones would look like." Or if they were, of course they would have asked, "what are you going for here?" The quick answer: "You know, an ape-man. The missing link."

I picture the artist saying, "So, Luca Brasi meets Mighty Joe Young. Gotcha."

Anyway, 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.

Thank you.

It is called a "THEORY" because 100% of the evidence is not present to call it a proof.

BUUUUUT

if you have photos and proofs of any competing "theory," please provide them.

Love to see that photo of Jeebus!

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is called a "THEORY" because 100% of the evidence is not present to call it a proof.

BUUUUUT

if you have photos and proofs of any competing "theory," please provide them.

Love to see that photo of Jeebus!

I don't have a competing theory, and I don't have a huge problem with the Darwinian theory.

So long as it is not falsely called a "fact," and so long as government schools do not require students to falsely claim that it is fact.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yeah. Strange thing. T-Rex probably did roam the planet, probably more than 6,000 years ago. What an audacious concept.

That's quite a dilemma for the Ark'ists

See, that's where you lose me. I'm not an "Ark'ist" (why the apostrophe?). I don't have any religious reason to doubt Darwinian evolution. My reasons are logic and common sense, and an unwillingness to suspend disbelief.

So whatever you wrote after "Ark'ist" does not pertain to me.

I hope it was cut and paste, so you did not type all that for nothing.

BTW, just to make the conversation more interesting, you might consider responding to my statements, instead of pretending that I'm a creationist and debating that.

Can't you find any actual creationists to debate?

 

[Hollie]

Yes, that's why I said that he is using the same methods used by people who create dinosaur exhibits in museums.

Yes, and that presents a real indication that your critical thinking skills don't allow for a logical progression of ideas to form a coherent thought.

Why don't you task Ken Ham and similar charlatans with presenting their Flat Earth, YEiC'ist notions to the same standards of evidence you demand of science.

In this thread and many others like it, the hyper-religious demand ''proof'' and evidence that they insist does not exist. Yet, when the evidence is presented, they typically respond with nonsensical, scripted dogma from one of several fundamentalist creation ministries.

As opposed to the vast bodies of evidence for biological evolution, let's see evidence for your gods. Before you can retreat to 'the gods did it'', you first need to make a defendable case for those gods. Next, I've not seen any evidence presented by the hyper-religious to refute biological evolution. Let's see the evidence presented by AIG for peer review. What body of work has AIG published in the journal Nature, for example? You know the answer. The creation ministries do no research and publish in peer reviewed journals.

Show us the magic, Make your case for your particular gods as using supernatural, magical powers of instant creation to explain the diversity of life on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

See, that's where you lose me. I'm not an "Ark'ist" (why the apostrophe?). I don't have any religious reason to doubt Darwinian evolution. My reasons are logic and common sense, and an unwillingness to suspend disbelief.

So whatever you wrote after "Ark'ist" does not pertain to me.

I hope it was cut and paste, so you did not type all that for nothing.

I typically see the religious extremists run for cover when they're tasked with offering something more than ''science is a conspiracy theory''.

Now would be the perfect time to present your ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''. I ask for this all the time from creationers, but nothing yet. Come on, Laddie, show us the magic.



Let's remember that ''the gods did it'' is only a theory. But as we know, a theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).

''The gods did it'', ''evolution is not true'' is far from ''a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

You must have more than an AIG slogan, right?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, and that presents a real indication that your critical thinking skills don't allow for a logical progression of ideas to form a coherent thought.

Why don't you task Ken Ham and similar charlatans with presenting their Flat Earth, YEiC'ist notions to the same standards of evidence you demand of science.

They're not worth debating. They have a tiny and harmless following, and I have no need to disabuse them of their understanding of the shape of the Earth. I assume that you are being honest in that Ken Ham, whoever that is, is a flat Earth proponent?

Regardless, I've never heard of him. If I were trapped in an elevator and he started in with his flat Earth theory (or his creationist theory, if that's what you actually mean), I might amuse myself by picking him apart. But if he didn't try to convince me, I have no reason to try to convince him.

Truth be told, people who claim that Darwinian evolution is "settled science" would not be worth debating either, were it not for the stranglehold they have on public schools.

In this thread and many others like it, the hyper-religious demand ''proof'' and evidence that they insist does not exist. Yet, when the evidence is presented, they typically respond with nonsensical, scripted dogma from one of several fundamentalist creation ministries.

That's horrible! You have my sympathy for having to put up with that.

Please address your comments about that to them.

As opposed to the vast bodies of evidence for biological evolution, let's see evidence for your gods. Before you can retreat to 'the gods did it'', you first need to make a defendable case for those gods. Next, I've not seen any evidence presented by the hyper-religious to refute biological evolution. Let's see the evidence presented by AIG for peer review. What body of work has AIG published in the journal Nature, for example? You know the answer. The creation ministries do no research and publish in peer reviewed journals.

Show us the magic, Make your case for your particular gods as using supernatural, magical powers of instant creation to explain the diversity of life on the planet.

Make your case that I have claimed that my "particular gods are using supernatural, etc . . . "

 

[Seymour Flops]

I typically see the religious extremists

Whoops!

Lost me again . . .

 

[Hollie]

They're not worth debating. They have a tiny and harmless following, and I have no need to disabuse them of their understanding of the shape of the Earth. I assume that you are being honest in that Ken Ham, whoever that is, is a flat Earth proponent?

Regardless, I've never heard of him. If I were trapped in an elevator and he started in with his flat Earth theory (or his creationist theory, if that's what you actually mean), I might amuse myself by picking him apart. But if he didn't try to convince me, I have no reason to try to convince him.

Truth be told, people who claim that Darwinian evolution is "settled science" would not be worth debating either, were it not for the stranglehold they have on public schools.

That's horrible! You have my sympathy for having to put up with that.

Please address your comments about that to them.

Make your case that I have claimed that my "particular gods are using supernatural, etc . . . "

So nothing to offer as a refutation for biological evolution? Other than ''nuh uh, it ain't so'' there's nothing you can offer?

I'm not yet convinced of the creationer conspiracy that asserts evolution is a fraud so I was hoping you could offer something that refutes biological evolution as a demonstrated theory.

Is the development of antibiotics to treat infection a global conspiracy? Let's start there and we can move on to dinosaurs taking that pleasure cruise on the Ark a bit later.

 

[Hollie]

Whoops!

Lost me again . . .

I know.

Still waiting for your competing model to evolution... something more than ''it aint true because I say so''