Darwin's Illusion

[ratiocinator]

Fossil record does NOT confirm the theory of evolution re: "survival of the fittest," and/or "natural selection."

It's highly indicative you've actually said something that's almost right!!!!! We need other evidence too, and we have it in abundance.

-- no more than presumptions. If people such as yourself cannot admit that

Now back to total nonsense.

People don't admit it because it's simply untrue. You are bearing false witness.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I've tried many times to explain the simple fact is all evidence is open to interpretation. If the fossil record is the best thing you have...

Looks like you didn't even bother to read what I said,

All true theory is based on experiment...

This is simply untrue - think cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics. However:

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fossil record does NOT confirm the theory of evolution re: "survival of the fittest," and/or "natural selection." Believe as you will...so be it...it almost sounds like prejudicial opinion based on belief in the veracity of the theory. Without justification in the details because -- there is no proof of any details of any group of fish, for example, morphing (I mean evolving) to landlubbers. Pictures, yes, of presumed organisms coming from water dwellers, but -- no more than presumptions. If people such as yourself cannot admit that -- all I have to say is -- oh, well, have a good one!

Why doesn't it? You keep making terribly foolish claims that you never support. That is because you probably feel that you have to say something. I can explain how it does support the theory of evolution.

And you are still prattling about "proof". You are stuck at a fifth grade level of scientific literacy and it appears to be all your own doing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's highly indicative you've actually said something that's almost right!!!!! We need other evidence too, and we have it in abundance.


Now back to total nonsense.

People don't admit it because it's simply untrue. You are bearing false witness.

There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. Sometimes it is hard to tell exactly what their flaws are. One can be informed and dishonest. Ironically @YoursTrue is claiming to be dishonest when she claims that she understands evolution. But she clearly has no understanding of it, nor does she have to be lying when she claims to understand the theory. She can and is terribly wrong, but that does not mean that she is lying when she makes her claims. Most victims of the Dunning Kruger Effect have not clue that they are clueless. But though she is not being dishonest some of the workers at Answers in Genesis and other such sites clearly are being dishonest. The vast majority are just ignorant pawns.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I've tried many times to explain the simple fact is all evidence is open to interpretation. If the fossil record is the best thing you have then you have no theory at all but rather just conjecture based on Darwin's beliefs.

All true theory is based on experiment and no experiment shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. All observation shows a sudden change that typically occurs at bottlenecks and results from behavior rather than fitness.

Well, interestingly I'm learning a little more (maybe if they're right) about fossils. So, getting started on my education and questioning, I read from National Geographic the following: "The word fossil comes from the Latin word fossus, meaning "having been dug up." Fossils are often found in rock formations deep in the earth." So -- the word fossil can mean having been dug up. Intewesting.

 

[cladking]

Well, interestingly I'm learning a little more (maybe if they're right) about fossils. So, getting started on my education and questioning, I read from National Geographic the following: "The word fossil comes from the Latin word fossus, meaning "having been dug up." Fossils are often found in rock formations deep in the earth." So -- the word fossil can mean having been dug up. Intewesting.

That is interesting. I don't think I ever knew that. I've always looked up words but "fossil" is a word I learned very young because I was always being shown them. If you think you know what something is you are disinclined to research it at all.

Somehow or other it seems appropriate that Darwin would just dig up every answer rather than experiment. Jumping to conclusions never really gets anyone anywhere other than the wrong answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is interesting. I don't think I ever knew that. I've always looked up words but "fossil" is a word I learned very young because I was always being shown them. If you think you know what something is you are disinclined to research it at all.

Somehow or other it seems appropriate that Darwin would just dig up every answer rather than experiment. Jumping to conclusions never really gets anyone anywhere other than the wrong answers.

This sounds like projection on your part again and it also explain a lot of your errors. For those that do science thinking that you know something a bout a topic leads to more research on it by those people. Not less. The person most likely to look up what a fossil is, where the word came form, etc. is the one that is doing research into fossils The people that do not look up things are like you. Those with claims but never any evidence.

 

[cladking]

is the one that is doing research into fossils

I looked up fossils. I might never have looked up the word "fossil".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I looked up fossils. I might never have looked up the word "fossil".

My point exactly

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point exactly

If people would stop believing they know everything a priori and take the time to actually learn the subjects they present as if they are experts, perhaps they would know that beavers don't eat fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

If people would stop believing they know everything a priori and take the time to actually learn the subjects they present as if they are experts, perhaps they would know that beavers don't eat fish.

I'll check that out, too. But betcha some think they learned from their genes or elders how to build dams, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

I looked up fossils. I might never have looked up the word "fossil".

Frankly, for me, the descriptions get confusing but maybe the onboard experts can help. ? Maybe?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If people would stop believing they know everything a priori and take the time to actually learn the subjects they present as if they are experts, perhaps they would know that beavers don't eat fish.

Or upside down landing flies.

Who knew that flies do that already?

Well, I did.

I didn't always know it. I learned about it and then I observed it for myself. I didn't pretend I invented it or created a new species by killing the ones that were landing on my tabletop. I took the time to learn what is already known. But I guess that is too complex for some to carry off.

 

[YoursTrue]

This sounds like projection on your part again and it also explain a lot of your errors. For those that do science thinking that you know something a bout a topic leads to more research on it by those people. Not less. The person most likely to look up what a fossil is, where the word came form, etc. is the one that is doing research into fossils The people that do not look up things are like you. Those with claims but never any evidence.

Yeah leads to more research. So in other words, you couldn't explain what a fossil is. Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Or upside down landing flies.

Who knew that flies do that already?

Well, I did.

I didn't always know it. I learned about it and then I observed it for myself. I didn't pretend I invented it or created a new species by killing the ones that were landing on my tabletop. I took the time to learn what is already known. But I guess that is too complex for some to carry off.

Yeah so fossils aren't what many might think they are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or upside down landing flies.

Who knew that flies do that already?

Well, I did.

I didn't always know it. I learned about it and then I observed it for myself. I didn't pretend I invented it or created a new species by killing the ones that were landing on my tabletop. I took the time to learn what is already known. But I guess that is too complex for some to carry off.

I think you are onto something. I think that those that believe they know everything and can deny experience in favor of man's baseless ideologies don't believe they have any reason to learn. There minds are effectively closed and they don't appear to know enough to even ask good questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Or upside down landing flies.

Who knew that flies do that already?

Well, I did.

I didn't always know it. I learned about it and then I observed it for myself. I didn't pretend I invented it or created a new species by killing the ones that were landing on my tabletop. I took the time to learn what is already known. But I guess that is too complex for some to carry off.

Oh oh more knowledge. Now turns out flies can land upside down...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you are onto something. I think that those that believe they know everything and can deny experience in favor of man's baseless ideologies don't believe they have any reason to learn. There minds are effectively closed and they don't appear to know enough to even ask good questions.

Certainly, and because they do not know and, I think they realize this, they sprinkle factual and scientific accounts with doubt of the most ridiculous and nonsensical kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah leads to more research. So in other words, you couldn't explain what a fossil is. Right?

Wrong. Why make such an assumption?

 

[YoursTrue]

Or upside down landing flies.

Who knew that flies do that already?

Well, I did.

I didn't always know it. I learned about it and then I observed it for myself. I didn't pretend I invented it or created a new species by killing the ones that were landing on my tabletop. I took the time to learn what is already known. But I guess that is too complex for some to carry off.

So what do you or did you think a fossil is? Or was?